The Annekenstein Monster

Show’s over.

Last night was the first Thursday night in the past 9 weeks where a roomful of people wasn’t laughing at me. Instead of singing “I’m Glad She’s Dead” as Moe Gorman, at 9:40 last night, I was watching Canadian Idol whomever-singing-whatever. Of course, I should have been at rehearsals for “Enemies”, but I was too sick to go.
I much prefer Moe’s rendition of “Phillip Arsenault’s A Real Arsehole” to Josh (or was it Jason?) Greeley’s rendition of whatever-it-was-that-song-that-he-sang-was.

So, perhaps I’ll do this in some sort of chronological manner.

Important Musical Moment #2

London Calling, The Clash
I was deep and happy into my John Lennon and The Beatles obsession. He and they were all that. I was content playing my growing Beatles and John Lennon collection over and over again. Then one day I was over at a friend’s house, Colin Kennefic, and he put on a new album he just got. It was London Calling. From the very first strum of the very first note, I was hooked. It was a moment so profound for me that I can still remember the feel of the Lazy-Boy Recliner in which I was sitting. The Beatles were great, but it was the music of my older brothers. This music, though, was speaking to me. London Calling, album and song, broke my punk cherry, and from there I dove head first into the back-catalog of 1976-1980’s punk. I swam naked in the fury and anger of that music, and I gobbled up all the musical gobs that those artists spit at me.

A couple of days ago, I came across a blog with a post about personal important musical milestones. I thought I’d begin a series of posts highlighting some of my important musical milestones.

So, here is Important Musical Moment #1

(Just Like) Starting Over, John Lennon
Before December 1980, I was not very ‘into’ music. At that time, I was 14, and listened to the radio a bit, but music didn’t really affect me. When John Lennon was killed, I knew who he was and had a vague understanding of his importance. A few weeks later, when my mother (inexplicably) gave me his Double Fantasy album as an unsolicited present, I graciously accepted it, thinking I’d not play it very much. While there are some great songs on it, and I did play the album quite a bit, I consider this album, and this song as important, not for itself, but because it led me to my (still strong) infatuation with The Beatles. Almost immediately upon hearing Double Fantasy, (and despite the Yoko Ono songs) I knew that John Lennon was going to be an influential artist in my life. I quickly bought The Beatles 1960-1966, and The Beatles 1967-1970 and my life, in terms of ‘musical appreciation’ has not been the same since. Even though this song is not close to my favourite Lennon song (it may not even be top ten?), it is the one that I owe a debt of gratitude to, for introducing me properly to John Lennon, The Beatles and to Music.

I really get bugged when I hear/see conclusions that are taken out of context, or that are useless to begin with.

For instance, the report that came out today or yesterday that links soft drinks to diabetes. Now, the easy headline is/will be “SODA KILLS” or some such thing. What has been failed to be noted, however, is the rather crazy basis on which these results are based:

The study shows that women who drank one or more sugary drinks a day had an 83 percent greater chance of developing type 2 diabetes than women who drank less than one a month. The study shows that over a four-year period, weight gain was highest among women who increased their soda consumption from one or fewer drinks a week to one or more a day.

So, here is the comparison: those who drink one or more sugary drinks a day, compared to those who drink less than one a month. Is this a fair comparison? Doesn’t that seem like a foregone-conclusion-waste-of-time comparison? Doesn’t that sound like parameters that would pretty much guarantee a result like the one found?

It’s like saying: Those who travel to New York City 36 times a year have a greater likelihood of being murdered in New York City than those who only travel to New York City once a year. Also, being victim to New York City muggings was highest amongst those who dramatically increased the number of New York City trips per year that they took.

Yet all we get is the pronouncement: Travelling to New York City linked to being murdered.

Conclusions are so easy.

Blair was on GMA, advocating ‘hot saucing’ as an effective means of disciplining children. I had never heard of the term, or the practice. It is the practice of putting a small amount of hot sauce on a child’s tongue as a form of punishment or discipline.
Truth be told, when I read “hot saucing” in the headline, I clicked on the link because I thought it was a type of sexual activity, like tea bagging. I assumed that Lisa Welchel was caught hot saucing children. I was simultaneously glad and upset that it wasn’t the case.

I am not a fan of corporal punishment as a means to control children. I assume I am lucky to be of that mind because we have a child who never needed anything stronger than verbal communication and the understanding of who was in charge in the household. If he was a hellian, perhaps my opinion would now be different.

In any event, the biggest detriment (besides all that psychological and physical torture stuff) is that it will cause hot-sauced children to dislike spicy foods.

I never liked Blair.

Blair was on GMA, advocating ‘hot saucing’ as an effective means of disciplining children. I had never heard of the term, or the practice. It is the practice of putting a small amount of hot sauce on a child’s tongue as a form of punishment or discipline.
Truth be told, when I read “hot saucing” in the headline, I clicked on the link because I thought it was a type of sexual activity, like tea bagging. I assumed that Lisa Welchel was caught hot saucing children. I was simultaneously glad and upset that it wasn’t the case.

I am not a fan of corporal punishment as a means to control children. I assume I am lucky to be of that mind because we have a child who never needed anything stronger than verbal communication and the understanding of who was in charge in the household. If he was a hellian, perhaps my opinion would now be different.

In any event, the biggest detriment (besides all that psychological and physical torture stuff) is that it will cause hot-sauced children to dislike spicy foods.

I never liked Blair.

I really get bugged when I hear/see conclusions that are taken out of context, or that are useless to begin with.

For instance, the report that came out today or yesterday that links soft drinks to diabetes. Now, the easy headline is/will be “SODA KILLS” or some such thing. What has been failed to be noted, however, is the rather crazy basis on which these results are based:

The study shows that women who drank one or more sugary drinks a day had an 83 percent greater chance of developing type 2 diabetes than women who drank less than one a month. The study shows that over a four-year period, weight gain was highest among women who increased their soda consumption from one or fewer drinks a week to one or more a day.

So, here is the comparison: those who drink one or more sugary drinks a day, compared to those who drink less than one a month. Is this a fair comparison? Doesn’t that seem like a foregone-conclusion-waste-of-time comparison? Doesn’t that sound like parameters that would pretty much guarantee a result like the one found?

It’s like saying: Those who travel to New York City 36 times a year have a greater likelihood of being murdered in New York City than those who only travel to New York City once a year. Also, being victim to New York City muggings was highest amongst those who dramatically increased the number of New York City trips per year that they took.

Yet all we get is the pronouncement: Travelling to New York City linked to being murdered.

Conclusions are so easy.

I was just informed, by email, that I won a million Euros in some draw that I wasn’t even aware I had entered. How lucky are my stars!? It’s called the Microsoft Lottery. Since it’s from Microsoft, it’s gotta be legit, so I’m pretty stoked right now.

According to the email, they’ve deposited my lump sum one million Euros in the lottery’s paying out bank in the Netherlands. All I need to do is email a Mr. Harvey Kurt with information as to which of my bank accounts I’d like the money transferred to. His email address is: microsoftclaim04@netscape.net

Wait a second. @netscape.net? Why would an employee of a Microsoft Lottery have a netscape.net email address? Something’s fishy here, but what it is, I’m not —

Oh man, is this spam? Have I been duped?

One good thing about Canada not winning many of the competitions in Athens is that we are not subjected to what I think is perhaps the worst rendition of O Canada I’ve ever heard. I heard it twice on Sunday, and both times I was sure it was being played live by a junior-high school band that had a couple of jack-ass students whose goal was to sabotage the song. It seems like it changes keys a couple of times, there are a couple of times when sounds and noises show up that just don’t sound like they should be there.

Still, I hope we hear it a few more times this week.

I enjoy a good ad. And one that I’ve seen a few times now, and that I’m liking more and more each time, is for Stella Artois beer.

Starts with some WW1 troops arriving home to a small French village. A bruised, battered, injured young soldier is gregariously greeted by the community, especially his loving father, who owns a tavern. Along with the young man is another soldier, who appears to be a stranger to the town. Both look like they’ve been through a World War One hell.

All the dialogue is in French, so (unless one speaks French) one kind of pieces together what’s going on. As they all triumphantly gather in the tavern, the young man tells the adventure of how this other soldier singlehandedly saved the young man. The other soldier appears to be a humble sort.

The father, overcome with emotion, demands a toast to the two soldiers, and pours them wine.

“No, papa,” says (in French) the young man. “This deserves Stella Artois”. (or to that affect) The father is ever-so-subtly, slightly taken aback, and with a barely-reluctant nod, agrees. It is apparent that the other soldier is greatly anticipating this drink.

The father pulls a draught of Stella Artois into a big glass and joyously hands it to his son. Everyone cheers. The father gives the other soldier a look and puts another glass under the tap. Pulls the handle and nothing but foam spurts out.

Apologizing, the father says they’re all out of Stella Artois, and the other soldier looks lost.

Cut to under the bar, and we see the father take his foot off the hose that leads to the beer tap. He had deliberately stopped the flow of beer for the second glass.

As everyone, except the other soldier, excitedly continues on, the Stella Artois end-tag picture comes up.

—————–
I love this ad for a few reasons. First that it expects its audience to be able to understand what is going on, even though it’s in French. They don’t resort to subtitles.
Also, I appreciate the subversiveness, with the father purposefully denying the soldier a drink.
It trusts that the audience will pay attention enough to make the (slight) effort it takes to understand the concept.

Good ad.