Wednesday, 16 March 2011
No.20
American Hi-Fi's self-titled debut album was a fairly early one in terms of those I went out and bought myself. I did so on the strength of this lead single. It's a great tune.
The singer Stacy Jones is now part of Miley Cyrus's touring band.
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Rant.
Increasingly I have noticed that I don't learn anything new about people.
The same things happen with monotonous regularity. It's always the same people doing things that annoy me. And the same people being nice.
And if you're reading this as one of my close friends and worrying that I am talking directly about you, I'm almost certainly not. Fundamentally most of my friends are good people, despite their little annoyances. There are people out there more selfish than Roger the Alien.
It's the same people who are always willing to help.
And it's the same people who will sit back as if they are entitled to things that are done for them.
It's always the same who take without asking, or thanking. Or thinking.
Just like it's always the same people who give without wondering if it will ever be repaid.
It's the same people who empathise. And it's always the same people who believe no-one can empathise with their complex existence. As if they are the only people in the world who has these problems, or much worse versions of those problems.
It's the same people who make sure everyone else is ok before they think about themselves. And it's the one time that those people do think about themselves that everyone has a go at them for.
It's the nice people who are taken advantage of.
It's the wankers that people look up to becuase they're cool.
Seriously, it's like capitalism of personality.
We aren't equal. We aren't given a fair chance.
The world rewards you for being a dick.
No wonder the economical system of capitalism works. It's bound to. It's the only way we function as a society.
I have just absolutely proved that communism will fail in the end.
The same things happen with monotonous regularity. It's always the same people doing things that annoy me. And the same people being nice.
And if you're reading this as one of my close friends and worrying that I am talking directly about you, I'm almost certainly not. Fundamentally most of my friends are good people, despite their little annoyances. There are people out there more selfish than Roger the Alien.
It's the same people who are always willing to help.
And it's the same people who will sit back as if they are entitled to things that are done for them.
It's always the same who take without asking, or thanking. Or thinking.
Just like it's always the same people who give without wondering if it will ever be repaid.
It's the same people who empathise. And it's always the same people who believe no-one can empathise with their complex existence. As if they are the only people in the world who has these problems, or much worse versions of those problems.
It's the same people who make sure everyone else is ok before they think about themselves. And it's the one time that those people do think about themselves that everyone has a go at them for.
It's the nice people who are taken advantage of.
It's the wankers that people look up to becuase they're cool.
Seriously, it's like capitalism of personality.
We aren't equal. We aren't given a fair chance.
The world rewards you for being a dick.
No wonder the economical system of capitalism works. It's bound to. It's the only way we function as a society.
I have just absolutely proved that communism will fail in the end.
Monday, 14 March 2011
A-Z of Things That Annoy Me: E
A-Z of Things That Annoy Me
E
Entitlement
I should point out now that what I am about to say seems to demonise a certain group of people. It's not my intention to do so, but I am having to make crass generalisations in order to make a point.
When I say I am annoyed by "entitlement", I'm not talking about in terms of people actually being owed something. I am referring to when people believe they are entitled to something. I am not having a go at the upper classes for being born into their privilaged lifestyles (although I am certainly no monarchy fan, I see the benefits in keeping them around), I am actually having a go at many of the "normal" people I see in England today.
Let's take for example the BNP and UKIP (neither of which I would count as "normal", although I see an increasing trend of "I'm not racist, but I blame the bloody foreigners").
Without any research (as is the usual stipulation of this blog) I'm sure I remember Nick Griffin, or some other BNP diet-Nazi referring to immigrants coming over here and taking jobs away from "good, hard-working British people".
Now, I work at a place with a fairly high turnover of manual labour-type staff. Part of the reason for the high turnover is the rate of pay, which admitedly should be better. But another reason is that some of the time, it is quite hard work.
My job with the nice, old books is fun. But it's not very much fun, I can tell you, lifting boxes of books around all day. So we get a lot of people complaining about the hard work, and then eventually leaving.
But (and this is purely from my experience) you never see the immigrants complaining. They are happy to have the work. My experience tells me that (some, and certainly not all) of the British employees seem to feel that they are entitled to not have to work very hard in order to earn money.
But it's no fucking wonder, then, that the immigrants are taking their jobs. If I was an employer and had the oppurtunity to employ:
A) an obnoxious, mouthy twat who rather complain about work than do it
B) a hard-working person who just gets on with the job and doesn't complain.
I'll give you a hint.
It's not A.
And it is B.
B.
British scumbags,
You are not entitled to anything. You just have to work hard and get on with it.
I'm sure British employers would much rather employ people who are British, if just because British people tend to have a better understanding of English (debatable in some cases) and that can only be beneficial.
British people seem to think it is their right to be as lazy as they possbily can whilst keeping their job.
E
Entitlement
I should point out now that what I am about to say seems to demonise a certain group of people. It's not my intention to do so, but I am having to make crass generalisations in order to make a point.
When I say I am annoyed by "entitlement", I'm not talking about in terms of people actually being owed something. I am referring to when people believe they are entitled to something. I am not having a go at the upper classes for being born into their privilaged lifestyles (although I am certainly no monarchy fan, I see the benefits in keeping them around), I am actually having a go at many of the "normal" people I see in England today.
Let's take for example the BNP and UKIP (neither of which I would count as "normal", although I see an increasing trend of "I'm not racist, but I blame the bloody foreigners").
Without any research (as is the usual stipulation of this blog) I'm sure I remember Nick Griffin, or some other BNP diet-Nazi referring to immigrants coming over here and taking jobs away from "good, hard-working British people".
Now, I work at a place with a fairly high turnover of manual labour-type staff. Part of the reason for the high turnover is the rate of pay, which admitedly should be better. But another reason is that some of the time, it is quite hard work.
My job with the nice, old books is fun. But it's not very much fun, I can tell you, lifting boxes of books around all day. So we get a lot of people complaining about the hard work, and then eventually leaving.
But (and this is purely from my experience) you never see the immigrants complaining. They are happy to have the work. My experience tells me that (some, and certainly not all) of the British employees seem to feel that they are entitled to not have to work very hard in order to earn money.
But it's no fucking wonder, then, that the immigrants are taking their jobs. If I was an employer and had the oppurtunity to employ:
A) an obnoxious, mouthy twat who rather complain about work than do it
B) a hard-working person who just gets on with the job and doesn't complain.
I'll give you a hint.
It's not A.
And it is B.
B.
British scumbags,
You are not entitled to anything. You just have to work hard and get on with it.
I'm sure British employers would much rather employ people who are British, if just because British people tend to have a better understanding of English (debatable in some cases) and that can only be beneficial.
British people seem to think it is their right to be as lazy as they possbily can whilst keeping their job.
Friday, 11 March 2011
No.19.
This is a song called "Effigy" by The Smashup.
An interesting fact is that the bassist in this video is actually the original bassist in Wheatus, of "Teenage Dirtbag" fame, which is also one of my favourite songs.
I had a lot of trouble when I first heard it trying to work out what most of the lyrics were.
I challenge you to try to work out what he sings throughout most of the first verse.
Old advert.
My favourite thing of the day so far at work has been this advert from a copy of Lorna Doone by R.D Blackmore from 1891 (which I have valued at: nothing).
The advert reads as follows (the grammar and syntax are correct, and probably the best part):
BEETHAM'S FRAGRANT HAIR GROWER
Is a delightfully Refreshing and Strengthening application for the Hair, quite free from grease or dye, and, being rather more stimulating than the "Capillary Fluid," is recommended where the Hair is Falling Off very much. For Baldness, or where the Hair has Fallen in Patches, it has been found marvelously effectual in producing a fresh growth of Long Glossy Hair. It also entirely Removes all Dandruff, and keeps the Skin of the Head Clean and Healthy. Bottles 2s, 6d., 4s, 6d.
I much prefer this advert to the Regaine, hair regrowth product you see on the TV.
If I start losing my hair, I am going to use BEETHAM'S FRAGRANT HAIR GROWER.
It also has a better name.
The advert reads as follows (the grammar and syntax are correct, and probably the best part):
BEETHAM'S FRAGRANT HAIR GROWER
Is a delightfully Refreshing and Strengthening application for the Hair, quite free from grease or dye, and, being rather more stimulating than the "Capillary Fluid," is recommended where the Hair is Falling Off very much. For Baldness, or where the Hair has Fallen in Patches, it has been found marvelously effectual in producing a fresh growth of Long Glossy Hair. It also entirely Removes all Dandruff, and keeps the Skin of the Head Clean and Healthy. Bottles 2s, 6d., 4s, 6d.
I much prefer this advert to the Regaine, hair regrowth product you see on the TV.
If I start losing my hair, I am going to use BEETHAM'S FRAGRANT HAIR GROWER.
It also has a better name.
Thursday, 10 March 2011
No.18
A return of the songs I like.
No.18 is a band called Easyworld with their song 2nd Amendment.
Easyworld are one of a long line of early of early 2000's British rockbands who didn't make enough money for their record labels and got dropped.
They broke up after the release of this album, but left behind this great song and a couple of others.
This is my favourite, and is embedding disabled on YouTube.
Cats and Dogs Theory
When I was young I always assumed that all dogs were male, and all cats were female.
I didn't assume they interbred or anything, but I just didn't really have the concept of dogs and cats being male and female. Dogs were just male, or at least masculine, and cats were feminine.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we never had any dogs or cats in my house, or at my grandparents, and so as such I never got used to the concept of describing dogs or cats in terms of their gender. So for a while I did just assume it was that way.
But I grew up, and learned.
But now, I look back and I wonder whether there wasn't something in my assumption. I mean, I don't think that dogs are all male and cats are all female, but the more I think about it, cats and dogs seems to apply themselves to the fundamental characteristics of the human gender.
In a sense they perhaps conform to 1950's gender stereotypes:
Cats tend to be smaller than dogs, and often less overtly aggressive. They are more interested in personal hygene than dogs. Cats like attention but they make you work much harder for it like they're playing hard-to-get. Dogs just blunder into any affection they can get.
Dogs have a bit of energy that they like to use up running around, but leave them at home and they are quite happy to lounge around. Cats are generally more active, they even like to get their own food occasionally, you'd never see a dog doing that unless he was starving.
Dogs are louder, like to be the centre of attention. Cats are more reserved, more austere perhaps. Dogs always chase cats, cats never chase dogs...
Now, I don't think my Cats and Dogs theory is anything new. After all, we already have the term "cat fight" for any time women have a fight, and I am often referred to as "The Big Dog" by my close friends.
I didn't assume they interbred or anything, but I just didn't really have the concept of dogs and cats being male and female. Dogs were just male, or at least masculine, and cats were feminine.
Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that we never had any dogs or cats in my house, or at my grandparents, and so as such I never got used to the concept of describing dogs or cats in terms of their gender. So for a while I did just assume it was that way.
But I grew up, and learned.
But now, I look back and I wonder whether there wasn't something in my assumption. I mean, I don't think that dogs are all male and cats are all female, but the more I think about it, cats and dogs seems to apply themselves to the fundamental characteristics of the human gender.
In a sense they perhaps conform to 1950's gender stereotypes:
Cats tend to be smaller than dogs, and often less overtly aggressive. They are more interested in personal hygene than dogs. Cats like attention but they make you work much harder for it like they're playing hard-to-get. Dogs just blunder into any affection they can get.
Dogs have a bit of energy that they like to use up running around, but leave them at home and they are quite happy to lounge around. Cats are generally more active, they even like to get their own food occasionally, you'd never see a dog doing that unless he was starving.
Dogs are louder, like to be the centre of attention. Cats are more reserved, more austere perhaps. Dogs always chase cats, cats never chase dogs...
Now, I don't think my Cats and Dogs theory is anything new. After all, we already have the term "cat fight" for any time women have a fight, and I am often referred to as "The Big Dog" by my close friends.
Tuesday, 8 March 2011
A-Z of Things That Annoy Me: D
A-Z of Things That Annoy Me
D
Dan Brown
Tempting as it is to use "David Honey" as my D on Things That Annoy Me, I'm not convinced that a sustained personal attack on one of the few people I actually like is not a sound way to construct friendships. Instead I have elected Dan Brown, the author of The Da Vinci Code and other equally suck-cessful* books.
Now, firstly, and seemingly as usual, I have a confession. You see, I've never read a Dan Brown book all the way through. (I have sat through the Angels and Demons movie adaptation but only on a plane). I have read the beginning of The Da Vinci Code a couple of times. The first time it was recommended to me, and I started reading it, but was distracted by (probably) a much better book, because I then gave it up until the start of uni, when my deconstructive reading abilities were far superior.
The Da Vinci Code is just not a good book. It is just poorly written. Yet, it is enormously popular because the majority of people are stupid enough to fall for hype.
But it is true, I haven't read any of them all the way through. So perhaps instead of this being a full criticism of Dan Brown (who in truth doesn't really annoy me to badly) I am actually merely using his name as a famous example that can be applied to many other rubbish authors.
Because what really annoys me is that: quite a few people don't read very often these days, so it dismays me when the only thing they do read is rubbish like that found in Dan Brown or Stephanie Meyer (Twilight) or Christopher Paolini (Eragon).
It's not really a surprise that people can't get into reading if the books they read have no quality writing, depth or point.
No wonder you don't like reading if the one book you pick up in a year is Digital Fortress by Dan Brown.
And actually the worst of it, is the crisis that book publishers now face is all their own fault.
See, what they are driven by (and indeed, it seems, virtually every company is driven by) is profit in the short term. So if hypothetically HarperCollins releases something like Jedward's autobiography, sure, a few delusional Jedward fans might buy it and attempt to read the mindless drivel no doubt contained within the waste of trees.
But probably what will really happen, is that their young minds will become bored, and that is foremost because Jedward are boring and unskilled in the writing of compelling prose. These poor Jedward fans (soon to be Justin Bieber fans, and then soon to be heavy-drinking and mass-drug-consumption fans) will assume that they didn't enjoy reading Jedward's autobiography because reading is shit.
But reading isn't shit. Jedward are shit.
They will have missed the point that it isn't reading that has bored them, but the rubbish in the pages that they happened to have chosen.
So in the future they don't read. They stop buying books. They stop buying HarperCollins books. For the sake of £11.99 (and a giant Mars bar for only £1 extra) HarperCollins has disinterested a reader for a lifetime. They have fucked themselves over.
Now that annoys me.
*I think you'll agree this is a stunning example of low-brow word play.
D
Dan Brown
Tempting as it is to use "David Honey" as my D on Things That Annoy Me, I'm not convinced that a sustained personal attack on one of the few people I actually like is not a sound way to construct friendships. Instead I have elected Dan Brown, the author of The Da Vinci Code and other equally suck-cessful* books.
Now, firstly, and seemingly as usual, I have a confession. You see, I've never read a Dan Brown book all the way through. (I have sat through the Angels and Demons movie adaptation but only on a plane). I have read the beginning of The Da Vinci Code a couple of times. The first time it was recommended to me, and I started reading it, but was distracted by (probably) a much better book, because I then gave it up until the start of uni, when my deconstructive reading abilities were far superior.
The Da Vinci Code is just not a good book. It is just poorly written. Yet, it is enormously popular because the majority of people are stupid enough to fall for hype.
But it is true, I haven't read any of them all the way through. So perhaps instead of this being a full criticism of Dan Brown (who in truth doesn't really annoy me to badly) I am actually merely using his name as a famous example that can be applied to many other rubbish authors.
Because what really annoys me is that: quite a few people don't read very often these days, so it dismays me when the only thing they do read is rubbish like that found in Dan Brown or Stephanie Meyer (Twilight) or Christopher Paolini (Eragon).
It's not really a surprise that people can't get into reading if the books they read have no quality writing, depth or point.
No wonder you don't like reading if the one book you pick up in a year is Digital Fortress by Dan Brown.
And actually the worst of it, is the crisis that book publishers now face is all their own fault.
See, what they are driven by (and indeed, it seems, virtually every company is driven by) is profit in the short term. So if hypothetically HarperCollins releases something like Jedward's autobiography, sure, a few delusional Jedward fans might buy it and attempt to read the mindless drivel no doubt contained within the waste of trees.
But probably what will really happen, is that their young minds will become bored, and that is foremost because Jedward are boring and unskilled in the writing of compelling prose. These poor Jedward fans (soon to be Justin Bieber fans, and then soon to be heavy-drinking and mass-drug-consumption fans) will assume that they didn't enjoy reading Jedward's autobiography because reading is shit.
But reading isn't shit. Jedward are shit.
They will have missed the point that it isn't reading that has bored them, but the rubbish in the pages that they happened to have chosen.
So in the future they don't read. They stop buying books. They stop buying HarperCollins books. For the sake of £11.99 (and a giant Mars bar for only £1 extra) HarperCollins has disinterested a reader for a lifetime. They have fucked themselves over.
Now that annoys me.
*I think you'll agree this is a stunning example of low-brow word play.
Monday, 7 March 2011
I'm in love with a different Lacey.
Seriously now.
And to tell the truth I'm not even a fan of this song particularly on the recorded version.
But something about her singing it here.
If she is attempting to battle Hayley Williams for my potential affection she is doing a seriously, seriously good job.
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
My commodity dependence.
I want this.
I want this.
I want this but I would settle for this.
I want to do this but will probably end up like this.
I want this but will more likely go for this.
I want lots of these, including this and this.
Most of the rest of the things I want are less simple, tangible, or less easy to define in a single picture.
They do exist though, and there are lots of them.
I want this.
I want this but I would settle for this.
I want to do this but will probably end up like this.
I want this but will more likely go for this.
I want lots of these, including this and this.
Most of the rest of the things I want are less simple, tangible, or less easy to define in a single picture.
They do exist though, and there are lots of them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)