i missed this in august...attention drawn to it by tour dates....just wasn't paying attention...
i've only listened to the record all the way through once, and will have to give it a few more tries. you don't really "get" a defeater record on the first listen. but, i'm comfortable in stating that if i'm going to connect to this at all then it's going to be on a purely lyrical level. that's not impossible.
i wouldn't be surprised to find out that this disc was well received by people that are closer to the mainstream core of the modern "(scr)e(a)mo" sound. hey, there's a relatively big audience there. and, it's not a complete 180 - there's plenty of things that jumped out that seemed very characteristic of the band's previous work. but, the blunt and honest immediacy - the starkly nihilistic juxtapositions and just blatant punk rock, however much adapted - that made them refreshing seems to have been replaced by what are kind of contrived melodramaticisms. i mean, i don't want to sound ridiculous. it was always contrived. but, it was a different kind of contrived - a more thematic and less calculated one. if you're a fan of the centre of the genre that they're moving closer to, you probably won't understand this criticism because it's the perfect description of every band that you're used to listening to. but, if you lean more towards older school punk rock or perhaps even straight up art rock, don't really have any affinity with "emo" and were kind of being pulled into this by bands that hover closer to the core of what punk was, you'll understand what i'm getting at. if you're that person, as i am, you probably really didn't want to hear them walk down this path. but, you probably knew it was coming, too.
i could probably handle some standardization in the aesthetic if the writing compensated for it. musically, i didn't pick up on that the first time through - i got the opposite impression. i'll have to see if i pick up on it, thematically, as i listen to it a few more times.
i'll say this though: i was initially put off by the stronger testosterone level on letters home. but, as i got to understand the story line, i began to realize that it couldn't have been any other way. it had to be badass. i'll have to see if this connects in the same way.
i know this is an extremely tentative review. maybe i'll post another comment in a few weeks or months. but, that's how this band operates. you just don't understand it the first time you listen to it; if you think you do, you definitely don't. that's why elitist critics like me are drawn to them, even if they're consistently cycling around a genre we would generally consider to exist purely in the realm of bad taste.
Wednesday, December 2, 2015
i'm really disappointed that i haven't yet heard the term "nanny state".
i didn't initially draw the connection between this and the uccb, because there isn't one. it just struck me as typical kneejerk fiscal conservatism, the type we see everywhere that can't place anything in context. and, once it was pointed out to me, it took me a while to work through it, because it's so convoluted.
but, here's the right way to think about it...
so, the uccb is a tax cut. the nannies are a perk employed by his employer. the correct way to look at the situation is consequently not that he's using tax dollars, it's that his employer is covering his child care.
now, it's true that his employer pays him in tax dollars. but, that's not the same thing as using tax dollars. i think it's important to stop at this point, because i think it's difficult to grapple with from both perspectives. and, i'd actually like to thank whomever brought this up, because it was a good mental exercise.
see, i understand that this is a conceptual jump that a lot of people won't be able to make. tax dollars are tax dollars are tax dollars. right? but, these people need to understand that, on the other hand, conflating the two things is the part that people like me needed explained to them - because we would never think to do so, otherwise. the difference between getting a tax cut and having tax dollars pay for employment related costs are such different things, that it would never cross our minds to link them. see?
whether your approach is that it's hard to see how to put the pieces together into a contradiction, or conceptually hard to separate these two things from each other, the right analysis has to be that these are two different things - because they are.
he's not getting a tax break. it just happens to be that his employer pays him in tax funds. and, once you realize that, the contradiction resolves and we can get back to talking about the climate conference in paris.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-rich-trudeau-nannies-1.3347148
Billy McGruff
Whoaaaaaaaaaaa lmao
jessica murray
it's actually a really interesting question in perception, and logical pathways.
i mean, i wouldn't expect this from every seemingly ridiculous right-wing criticism.
but, this so convoluted that they really fluked out on something really interesting with this.
Alma_Fudd
Maybe cut back on the herb a bit?
jessica murray
well, you have to wander a little when the issue is this half-baked.
it's been almost two weeks, actually. frankly, i'm too old to be baked all the time.
i didn't initially draw the connection between this and the uccb, because there isn't one. it just struck me as typical kneejerk fiscal conservatism, the type we see everywhere that can't place anything in context. and, once it was pointed out to me, it took me a while to work through it, because it's so convoluted.
but, here's the right way to think about it...
so, the uccb is a tax cut. the nannies are a perk employed by his employer. the correct way to look at the situation is consequently not that he's using tax dollars, it's that his employer is covering his child care.
now, it's true that his employer pays him in tax dollars. but, that's not the same thing as using tax dollars. i think it's important to stop at this point, because i think it's difficult to grapple with from both perspectives. and, i'd actually like to thank whomever brought this up, because it was a good mental exercise.
see, i understand that this is a conceptual jump that a lot of people won't be able to make. tax dollars are tax dollars are tax dollars. right? but, these people need to understand that, on the other hand, conflating the two things is the part that people like me needed explained to them - because we would never think to do so, otherwise. the difference between getting a tax cut and having tax dollars pay for employment related costs are such different things, that it would never cross our minds to link them. see?
whether your approach is that it's hard to see how to put the pieces together into a contradiction, or conceptually hard to separate these two things from each other, the right analysis has to be that these are two different things - because they are.
he's not getting a tax break. it just happens to be that his employer pays him in tax funds. and, once you realize that, the contradiction resolves and we can get back to talking about the climate conference in paris.
www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rona-ambrose-rich-trudeau-nannies-1.3347148
Billy McGruff
Whoaaaaaaaaaaa lmao
jessica murray
it's actually a really interesting question in perception, and logical pathways.
i mean, i wouldn't expect this from every seemingly ridiculous right-wing criticism.
but, this so convoluted that they really fluked out on something really interesting with this.
Alma_Fudd
Maybe cut back on the herb a bit?
jessica murray
well, you have to wander a little when the issue is this half-baked.
it's been almost two weeks, actually. frankly, i'm too old to be baked all the time.
at
09:32
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
i'd just buy it. it's a lot easier. and, i don't need to be baked all of the time.
there are very heavy marijuana users out there. they really do need some help. most people, though, use it similarly to the way they use alcohol - a couple of times a month, and mostly socially.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/recreational-pot-business-regulation-in-canada-1.3345230
there are very heavy marijuana users out there. they really do need some help. most people, though, use it similarly to the way they use alcohol - a couple of times a month, and mostly socially.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/recreational-pot-business-regulation-in-canada-1.3345230
at
08:23
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
the infrastructure already exists. it's really just a question of passing a few simple laws and stepping back. really.
but, from the business perspective - and i've pointed this out before - the biggest opportunity is less in the plan itself and more in the offshoot industries.
plastics, for example. we already grow billions of dollars of pot. we throw away 90% of the plant as a waste product. this could be used to make a far more environmentally friendly from of plastic. and, that is but one of a huge amount of examples.
the reality is that, if this is done intelligently, marijuana could very well become not just *an* important industry but the country's *most important* industry, pushing oil out of the way in terms of revenue, gdp and jobs.
i really hope that the government sees the biggest possible picture, here.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/recreational-pot-business-regulation-in-canada-1.3345230
but, from the business perspective - and i've pointed this out before - the biggest opportunity is less in the plan itself and more in the offshoot industries.
plastics, for example. we already grow billions of dollars of pot. we throw away 90% of the plant as a waste product. this could be used to make a far more environmentally friendly from of plastic. and, that is but one of a huge amount of examples.
the reality is that, if this is done intelligently, marijuana could very well become not just *an* important industry but the country's *most important* industry, pushing oil out of the way in terms of revenue, gdp and jobs.
i really hope that the government sees the biggest possible picture, here.
www.cbc.ca/news/business/recreational-pot-business-regulation-in-canada-1.3345230
at
08:15
Location:
Windsor, ON, Canada
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)