10 Books You Must Read (In no particular order)

Blood Meridian - Cormac McCarthy
Animal Farm - George Orwell
UBIK - Philip K. Dick
Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance - Robert M. Pirsig
The Road - Cormac McCarthy
The Brothers Karamazov - Fyodor Dostoevsky
Oryx and Crake - Margaret Atwood
The Gunslinger - Stephen King
Nausea - Jean-Paul Sartre
The Myth of Sysyphus - Albert Camus


Declan (The picture is my ideal reading spot)

Best prank ever!!!

Grand theft music

Disclaimer: Any mention of “stealing”, “pirating”, or “illegally copping” within this article was included for affect only and should not be regarded as truth. To those reading, I always pay for my music because I understand the legal sanctions against breaking copyright laws.

My birthday just passed and I used some of my birthday money to go out and purchase new books. Gone are the days of using birthday money to buy as many music CDs possible. Now, while I read a new book, my bittorrent program is active, downloading all the Metallica and Dr. Dre albums available (Napster reference; come on, it was my 25th birthday). Some might look down on me for my Captain Hook'esque actions; however, I do not care. They might say, “You are ripping off hard working artists. They are going to stop creating music if you don’t continue buying the albums”. To that I say what I always say when faced with questioning (or when inciting the drunk), “prove it!”

I know people might claim that by illegally coppin' the latest gangsta rap album I am taking money from the artist (because most people consider gangsta rap true art). In reality, it is taking money from the music label (ie: the man). It is these music labels and production companies that are exploiting musicians to begin with. I remember hearing somewhere that on twenty dollar CD, the artist makes something like one dollar. The rest of the money gets dropped into the lap of a greedy corporation who uses the money to exploit other helpless artists. Musicians know that the key to their fortune lies in a successful tour. Hell, you see 80 year old men who haven’t had a hit song in 20 years touring and making money (I saw Lynyrd Skynyrd and the Styx this summer. Note: Lynyrd Skynyrd died in a plane crash and I still paid money to see them!). Live performances are what I pay to see. The CD is the preview; it is a way for me to learn the songs so when I go to the concert I can sing along. Artists this summer alone have probably made more money off me then in my total years previous, even when I was buying albums at an alarming rate. Since April I have seen 15 major artists live, with 2 more shows planned for next month (that’s what I thought critics).

I do not see my blatant theft and total disregard for any copyright laws as a method of ripping off of an artist. I see it as their opportunity to gain a fan in me (I am helping the artist by listening to their music without their consent). That is the beauty of the Internet; it allows artists to get their art to a wider audience. People may doubt that power, however just look at the recent trend of YouTube sensations receiving record deals. The exposure works on another level as well. Radio stations can no longer dictate the trends in music. The chains are off and we as listeners are now free to search and download all different types of music that we, 1) may not hear on the radio, and 2) may not have known we enjoyed. An example of this takes me to my new found love for the UK singer/song writer Kate Nash. Although I had heard of her a few years ago and heard some of her music, I can say I probably would never have purchased one of her albums. It honestly just did not seem like something I would be interested in. After downloading the album and listening to it from start to finish, I absolutely love it! Although I will probably still would never purchase one of her albums (for different reasons), she has a new fan, one that doesn’t mind spending a good chunk of change on her live show if she comes to Eastern Ontario (again?).

Radiohead released their album In Rainbows last summer with the premise “pay what you want”. As usual Radiohead is a head of their time and most other bands are yet to follow; however, the idea is still there. The “man” killed Napster and made its corpse into a capitalistic venture. The “man” has been steadily fighting to keep down P2P (peer-to-peer) file sharing like it’s some kind of woman in the workplace (read that in the context of the show Mad Men to avoid any offence). Luckily we have some powerful weapons left. Through the capacity to stream music and the world of torrents, active listeners can fight back against the malice that is paying for music. However, like any social movement we still have our challenges a head of us. Streams can be slow and unreliable, and with torrents there is always that risk of contracting a life threatening virus (computer virus). In conclusion, it is up to us to keep up our pirating, at least until other artists can follow Radiohead's innovative ways (i.e. Giving us free shit).

By: Aaron Bawn

Violent old men

Over the weekend I had my fill of Cormac McCarthy, watching the Coen brother’s adaptation of his novel No Country for Old Men and reading his 1985 book Blood Meridian. Some of the themes and imagery have stuck with me and left me thinking over the past few days. As I woke this morning my stomach was uneasy thinking back to the imagery McCarthy’s stories have so clearly illustrated; in particular, I have been troubled and disheartened when thinking about his representation of the violence and savagery of mankind.

Sheriff Ed Tom Bell, a main character in the film No Country for Old Men, follows the destruction brought about by various parties in the pursuit of a case filled with money. It is clear from Bell’s first introduction that he is the wise, chiefly character. After viewing multiple homicides Bell participates in a discussion with a fellow law enforcement officer. During this conversation it can be determined why the title No Country for Old Men has been used. Bell tells a horrific story involving a serial killer who abducts and tortures the elderly. Upon conclusion of the story, Bell asks, “what is the world coming to?” The atrocities committed against the elderly and the indication of a changing world, one that is becoming more immoral, makes the viewer think, “things ain't like they used to be”. McCarthy and the Coen brothers’ use of the abduction of the aging citizens is no accident. It is symbolism, suggesting that Bell, at this point in the movie, believes that the elderly are not only aliens to this modern society but are victims of the immorality in which the society features.

The horrible and sadistic acts of the story’s villain (Anton Chigurh) throughout the course of the story seem at first to back up the notion of the deteriorating world. However, as we follow the sheriff throughout the course of the movie we see that his beliefs regarding the world may in fact be more closely linked to his own maturation than to civilization’s decomposition. Near the end of the film, and upon his retirement, Bell seems as though he has had time to evaluate his position on the state of society. In a story, told to him during a conversation with his elderly and ailing grandfather, immorality is displayed once again. The difference however is that the story Bell’s grandfather tells takes place in 1908. The story points out to the audience that things may not be changing as much as they were originally portrayed. At this point, it seems to me that the sheriff realizes that immorality is not a recent phenomenon and that the good ol’ days may have not been as good as he once thought.

No Country for Old Men unwinds in the 1980s, a setting that supports the theme previously discussed. The time frame is one that most viewers are still able to remember (those that pass the 18A discretion) and the imagery of things such as the vehicles and clothing effectively date the movie while at the same time induce a sense of familiarity and recollection in the audience. Many viewers may actually refer to this period of time (over a quarter-century ago) as the good ol’ days, a time where violence was less prominent and conservative values flourished. After watching the film however, one is less likely to remember the 80s in such a manner. The extreme violence, unwarranted murders, and sadist mentalities shown throughout the film, mixed with this good ol’ setting show the viewer that violence and psychopathic behaviour is not a 21st century invention. Sheriff Ed Tom Bell’s grandfather’s story is to Bell what the movie is to the viewer.

McCarthy’s novel, Blood Meridian, shows what Stephen Hawking might refer to as, “a brief history of violence”. The novel takes place in the popular media’s Wild West, the mid-19th century in the southern United States and Mexico, and describes the activities of a gang of outlaws. The main character, the kid, follows and is followed by, extreme violence constantly throughout the course of the story. As scalp hunters, the kid and his group commit brutal and savage acts upon anyone who crosses their path of destruction, murdering animals, men, women, and children alike. Their gruesome acts are committed with a lack of moral contemplation, and the imagery of these acts leaves the reader gut wrenched. It is through Cormac McCarthy’s elegant writing style and his proficient descriptions of the atrocities committed by the gang, that he is able to both mentality and morally exhaust the reader. Upon completion of the novel the reader feels almost violated by the extreme brutality that has been displayed. The content in the Blood Meridian and the novel’s historical setting both draw me towards this reoccurring theme of violence and its predominance in civilization.

Within Blood Meridian, the character Judge Holden fills a role similar to that of Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men. Both characters are sadist psychopaths who show a great deal of cunningness. Both characters also seem as though they may be indestructible forces. Similarly, as Llewelyn Moss is pursued by Anton Chigurh, “the judge” pursues the kid with intentions of violence and murder. Perhaps these pursuits reflect society’s pursuit to distance itself from violence in attempts to become more civilized, drawing attention to the notion that this violence often seems unyielding. I would argue that these stories of McCarthy’s are microcosms of the history of mankind.

I believe that both stories, although heavy throughout, successfully capture the essence of man. As McCarthy illustrates, man is cruel and unusual and he has been this way for a very long time. In the story of the world the human race is the villain; it is that destructive and violent force that we see in the characters Chigurh and Holden. Mankind’s violent manner is truly God’s unmovable rock; its existence is permanent and fixed as long as our species walk the earth. Through McCarthy’s work one is shown that society is not deteriorating but rather persisting. Perhaps Sheriff Ed Tom Bell’s views were right. Maybe this is no country for old men; however, what’s to say it has ever been?

By: Aaron Bawn

Punk on the Mend

Can anyone put their finger on the exact moment that punk died? I can certainly tell you that I hope to hell it died a long time ago only to save it from the ridiculous suffering that has been the last decade of “punk” music. The commercial success of the Simple Plan’s of the world is the equivalent to shitting on true punk music and the idea that the music was about just that, not a means to a commercially viable end. While I have no hard feelings towards the guys in Simple Plan, or any other pop-punk band in the world, I do have hard feelings toward their labelling. This is true of most genres of music, unfortunately. Punk is just one example that sticks out in my mind as it is closest to my heart. I wish Refused had been right when they released their epic album “The Shape of Punk to come”. Instead of more anthemic songs with powerful lyrics, as well as riffs and breakdowns, we ended up with the same three chord shit over and over again. But the genre, as the title explains is “on the mend”. There are people in the music world that are gaining recognition and doing so in a manner that makes them “punk”. Much more so than the thirty year olds singing about heartache and breakups. I will be focussing on three acts in particular to show the wide range of this new wave of punk mentality.

The first band that came to mind when I began thinking about the resurrection of punk was a pretty obvious selection. This Los Angeles band is a high-energy act that has gone on record by saying that they have to be seen live in order to be fully appreciated. How punk rock is that? This claim may also have something to do with the sound of their releases, which are mainly low-budget independent releases that sound as if they were recorded in the basement of an old insane asylum with home-made instruments. I challenge anyone to find a group of rockers that is holding true to traditional punk rock roots and doing it better than Mika Miko. Note: The Sonics do not count!

When “Be Your Own Pet” broke up, my heart followed suit. Right when I was beginning to see a step forward for punk music, caused mainly by a band that was breaking through and getting some critical acclaim, my hopes were dashed to bits. But aren’t bands made to break up? This break up may have spawned something even more important however, with lead singer Jemina Pearl moving to New York City to pursue a solo career. Let me tell you, it may have been the best decision she’s ever made. While it may seem incredibly cliché to pack up a bag, hop on a bus and move to NYC in search of a career in music there is nothing cliché about Ms. Pearl. Her solo work, while it may not sound as raw and typically punk rock as BYOP, is different than anything out there right now. She has lost the screaming, impatient tones of her musical past and come into her own as a musician. With collaborations with punk legends like Iggy Pop, there is no wonder that I am looking to Jemina to slam people upside their un-expecting heads with her new breed of punk.

My third choice for a band which I consider to be a saving grace for punk is most likely the most controversial, and one that both people who read this will feel is where I lost the plot, if I haven’t already. This group of gents hails from Toronto Ontario (no I didn’t add them to fill my Canadian content). Their name says it all ... Holy Fuck. What makes them punk, you may be wondering? Well, aside from the name, which has cost them several grants from the government who feels that the name hinders commercial success, they are truly unique and remain that way by choice. A band that remains this reluctant to success, while at the same time achieving it deserves quite a bit of praise. They have been praised at every festival which they have attended, whether it is the Wolfe Island music festival, or Glastonbury, they have won crowds over. If a band which is considered by many to be ‘electronica’ can receive comparisons to punk legends The Fall, they must be doing something right.

While these three are in no way the only acts which I feel are bringing punk back from the dead, they illustrate my point, that punk isn’t coming back in the same form, but it has mutated into something totally new. While there are bands like Mika Miko who have a traditional punk rock sound, and people like Jemina Pearl who are looking to the origins of punk rock to slap some life back into the genre, there are also bands like Holy Fuck who sound like nothing else, but maintain that sound rather than compromise for financial compensation.

Declan

"I'm tired of these motha f-ing snakes on this motha f-ing plane!" - Samuel Leroy Jackson

The recent craze in Hollywood is to re-make classic films with slight alterations for effect. Movies like director Christopher Nolan’s Batmans and the new James Bond films are delighting fans while tearing it up at the box office, and with good reason I would argue. These are some of the best movies created in the last decade. The argument that I will be making however is not that there is a need for more of these realistic movies, but that directors need to be more selective when determining if they are going to make these movies. As much as I love a good movie, there are limited scripts, actors and directors available, and not every film can be improved upon.

It is more enjoyable to watch a movie that sucks because the director made it that way than to watch a movie that sucks but is advertised as the next classic. Let me put this point into context to help you better understand. The movies Righteous Kill (2008) with Robert DeNiro and Al Pacino and Snakes on a Plane (2007) with Samuel L. Jackson were both unrealistic and pretty stupid; the difference was that Snakes on a Plane (2007) was extremely entertaining, while Righteous Kill (2008) was predictable and annoying.

The way I see it is today's director is like a car salesman. The first car has a BMW logo on the hood, it is clean and shiny, and the salesman tells you it is one of the best cars a man can drive. The second car is new, but it doesn't look like anything special. The car salesman tells you that this car will get you through your hour and a half (sometimes two hour) commute and it is very reliable; in other words, what you see is what you get. The BMW looking car is the vehicular equivalent to the movie The Spirit (2008) and for some reason you decide to purchase that car. So your journey begins in your new automobile. Things seem to be going fine for about the first 20 minutes but then next thing you know, boom! The wheels fall off this P.O.S. and you are spinning out of control; you just miss a woman pushing a stroller and are almost levelled by a dump truck. The smoke clears and you're parked sideway in a ditch. Shaken up but not injured you exit the car; however, now you are left on the side of the road. You don't have any money for a taxi so you start walking your sorry ass down the road. The whole walk home all you think about how badly you were taken.

Now think, if you had purchased the second car that was shown to you, the movie Shoot Em’ Up (2007), you would have left for your commute at the same time; however, on this trip you would not only make it to your destination, but maybe you would find out this little car had some hidden features. Maybe there is a little gum ball machine in the dash that lets you enjoy delicious gum the whole trip. Maybe this gum is gourmet gum and is the best gum you have ever tasted. Maybe it’s that splash gum with the stuff in the middle that bursts and fills your mouth with delicious flavour... I feel like a piece of gum now. Sorry, I am off track. My point was: disappointments can be daunting, but surprises, they are superb. Put that on the bumper of your new car in sticker form! On second thought, don't. Bumper stickers are ridiculous.

My good friend Bruce Landry once said to a pimp, “Don't sell me the hooker with the heart of gold.” The saying, although in completely different and less creepy context, holds true for movies. Let me know what I am buying! Directors, make the preview accurate of what you are going to show in the movie (note: please do not show the entire movie in the preview because that is as equally annoying).

As much as I love the police academy series, when I show up and pay to see what I think is going to be the Departed (2006), I am a bit frustrated when the criminals are tricked and then detained by a police officer who is using his mouth to make sound effects (regardless of how cool and hilarious that actually is). However, if I show up at a movie that looks really stupid and then all of a sudden this guy is making these hilarious sound effects, my day has been made! So what I am saying is that I will pay to see a bad movie regardless; however if it is marketed as a bad movie I will enjoy it. With that being said, I am signing off and I will be busy for the next hour and a half watching Tommy Wiseau’s The Room (2005).


Aaron Bawn

God hates atheists

Anyone who knows me well would immediately realize that this article is probably not going to be about how God hates atheists, or for that matter it’s probably not going to be about God's hatred for any group of individuals. I don’t feel as though God hates anyone. He doesn't hate terrorists; he doesn't hate Nazis, and he doesn’t hate sexual predators. The reason I don't believe in this hatred is because I am what you might call an atheist. What exactly is an atheist you ask? Well despite what you may have already assumed, it is not a term for people who love terrorists, Nazis and sex offenders. The name actually gives it away; an atheist is someone who does not believe in theism. In other words, it is someone who denies there to be a higher deity or deities. Although nearly all atheists would tell you that they do not know for 100 percent certainty that there is not a God, they do not call themselves agnostics. Someone who is an agnostic says that they are unsure of God's presence or lack thereof. However, an atheist’s doubt is much more than the typical uncertainty. If atheists, such as me, were to refer to themselves as agnostic they would need to do so in all other aspects of life. For example, I do not believe that what happens in the Harry Potter series is real life; regardless of how statistically unlikely it might be, I will probably never be able to be 100 percent sure that there is not a parallel universe in which this does in fact hold true. Therefore, the atheist title is more defining of me because of how I base my beliefs (ie: probability). That is to say, I believe as much in a higher deity as I do in the notion that Hogwarts is an actual academic facility. I also refrain from exclaiming that I am a Harry Potter agnostic. Ok, before you stop reading here my (insert your religion here) brother/sister, this will not be an article convincing you why you need to “come to the dark side”. And with that I will return once again to the title. God hates atheists.

I still don't believe that God hates anyone (I don’t have multiple personalities); however, I do believe there are a large percentage of North Americans that feel as though God does have hate towards atheists. The problem with this belief is that it can affect how my fellow universal agnostics are treated. I have noticed an odd trend in modern society; there is a large amount of tolerance towards different religious belief systems, unless that belief system happens to be one without the presence of a God. A public agenda poll surveyed Americans and found that 74 percent of people believe that raising children without religion is a bad idea (Farkas et al. 2001). These opinions are often reflected in day-to-day life. A conversation between a Muslim and a Jew in North America (this isn't the Gaza Strip) can be a tolerant and respectful one; however, when the third guy enters the bar (or conversation) the joke gets awkward (see '3 guys in a bar' jokes). In fact, the joke (or conversation) can many times turn more awkward than a dead baby joke at an abortion clinic (see the sound of a drum roll). From my standpoint, it seems as though the religious are almost afraid of direct discussion about their beliefs with anyone other than a fellow fundamentalist. I guess it is an easy argument when it's one ancient text’s word against another's; the argument always gets harder when you add in the word of thousands of scientists with visible proof of something (see evolution versus creationism). Once again, it is not awkwardness that I am worried about. It is discrimination.

Discrimination is discrimination regardless of who you think sanctions it. That's how discrimination is bred. The Nazi's felt sanctioned during the holocaust (see Rwanda, see the Spanish inquisition, see the Catholic witch hunts). I was recently reading a story where two university students were assaulted while hanging up posters for a guest lecture on atheism. This is a cut-and-dry hate crime. Imagine if two Christian students were putting up posters about a sermon that was discussed the ins and outs of converting everyday objects to food (see Acts of Jesus Christ). Then imagine these two students where assaulted during this distribution. There would be public outcry. I can see the news headline already, “Devil worshipers attack two of Jesus' disciples, leaving them for dead”. The picture above the article would be of a bony bearded man standing in front of a cross and waving with both hands. Although large scale atrocities have yet to be committed against atheists, I am still scared about the perception of my people.

According to the American Mosaic Project Survey by the University of Minnesota (this is where the rest of my stats will be drawn), although there was a rise in the rejection of Muslims post-9/11, Americans still rejected atheists at a higher rate. The lesson here children is it doesn’t matter what God is telling you to do, just as long as you do believe he is telling you to do something! Another startling statistic is how potential in-laws feel. The study asked the following question: I would disapprove if my child wanted to marry a member of this group…: The results were as follows: Atheist: 47.6%, Muslim: 33.5%, African-American 27.2%, Asian-Americans: 18.5%, Hispanics: 18.5%, Jews: 11.8%, Conservative Christians: 6.9%, Whites: 2.3%. Almost half of society says they would not want an atheist in their family! Do not be fooled. Disapproval in this context is discrimination. Well, I refuse to sit at the back of the bus (unless the cool kids are all back there).

Hopefully as atheism continues to spread and individuals are able to stray from fear, the fear used by religion for centuries to control their followers, some of this discrimination will subside. Another way to help end this discrimination is by bringing attention to it. I have a hard time believing that half of the population willingly discriminates. This means that they are more than likely just ignorant to their behaviour. Along with the illogical fear and ignorance there is still the small few who are just looking for a scapegoat (see Pharmakos and then Leviticus).

As time moves on, more individuals will be stepping out of the shadows of religion and identifying themselves as atheists. I suspect that with this unveiling, some of the people who now are rejecting atheists into their families (the 47.6%) will discover that they may be too late. Surprise! Mix this divulgence with the continual advancements and discoveries of science and it should also help alleviate some this fear and ignorance. To the remaining few, those looking to blame their problems on others, well although my name is Aaron, I refuse to be the scapegoat for anyone; however, I will make you a beautiful yellowish coloured statue of a baby cow that you can all worship (see the Golden Calf in the New Testament).

Side note: Help me determine if this site is real or a joke? Comments?
http://www.truechristian.com/atheists.html


Aaron Bawn


Source:
Farkas, Steve, Jean Johnson, and Tony Foleno, with
Ann Duffett and Patrick Foley. 2001. For
Goodness’ Sake: Why So Many Want Religion to
Play a Greater Role in American Society. New
York: Public Agenda.