Angelo's Blog

Major Persuasive Project

2009-03-10T11:13:00.000-07:00

Click here to download my major persuasive project as a PDF

Click here to download the works cited for the document as a MS Word .doc file

PETA

2009-03-05T14:07:00.000-08:00

Overall, I'm not very happy with PETA's choice of imagery, and generally think that it takes things a step too far. I'm fully aware that animals are treated badly, but I don't think the way to get people to your cause is to scare and shock them.

It seems like most of their website juxtaposes amazingly cute animals with terrible, sick, destroyed animals and attempts to make the case that you're the one doing this to these cute little creatures with your meet-eating pet-store-shopping ways. If nobody ate meat or shopped at pet stores, this wouldn't happen!

PETA wants animals to be treated exactly like humans, and we all know that. But the truth is, these animals are not humans. Saying that rats and fish have complex feelings and get "bored" in cages is ridiculous. Yes, they still should be treated nicely, but I get the impression that most of their website is an exaggeration, and they take the worst cases and try to make those out to seem like the norm.

MJ Editorial

2009-03-03T15:07:00.001-08:00

Over the years, the city of Seattle has slowly knocked down most of the penalties surrounding the use of marijuana, and for good reasons. We now live in a city where the penalty for posession of the green stuff warrants only a small fine and no jail time, and where even that penalty is rarely handed out by itself. Police doing crowd control at HempFest walk through endless clouds of marijuana smoke, yet no arrests are made. Officially, personal marijuana use is a lower police priority than jaywalking. It seems that the police here have realized they have more important things to worry about than non-violent marijuana smokers.

It's estimated that 50% of Americans have tried pot in their lives, and over 10% are regular users. In a city like Seattle, those numbers will definitely be higher. With such relaxed police enforcement a huge amount of marijuana is being smoked every day, but the money that the marijuana is purchased with is obviously tax free. Some goes to small-time growers trying to make their living, but some also goes to organized crime and gangs which control large amounts of the marijuana supply. With the current billion-dollar state budge shortfall, it's time that the government start tapping into those "green" funds.

The state government makes millions off of alcohol and tobacco taxation. It can be argued that marijuana is a safer solution to both of those intoxicants, but it remains illegal. Both of those substances have strict rules governing their sale and use, and those same rules could easily apply to marijuana. Studies have proven that it's not the "devil weed" like old propaganda would have you believe, and it is entirely possible to be a responsible marijuana user just as easily as it's possible to be a responsible alcohol user.

Legalizing marijuana would remove most of the dangers commonly associated with the drug, as well as taking away a major source of income from organized crime and giving it to the government. It's time we wake up and smell the, uh, herbs.

Responsible Parenting

2009-03-03T14:14:00.001-08:00

In light of both of these editorials, several things come to mind. Being a responsible mother (or father) requires more than just time, and more than just effort. It requires a tremendous amount of money and the ability to dedicate a large portion of your life to the child. Being a responsible parent involves making the decision to have a child at the right time in your life, and to not have too many kids than you can take care of at any given time.

If a woman is planning on joining the military, or is currently in the military where she can be deployed at any time and the idea of dying for her country is considered a part of the job, having a child is not a responsible choice at that time. A child needs his or her mother, and a military deployment will obviously hinder that. In addition, a person who can't support themselves financially can obviously not support a child as well, let alone 14 of them. In that case as well, having a child is an irresponsible choice.

I'm not saying there is something wrong with having a large amount of children, what I am saying is that it is irresponsible to have more children that you can support. My mother is one of nine children, but the age difference between the first and last is 20 years. There was not one time when they were all living together, and my grandpa made enough money so my grandma could be dedicated to staying at home and raising these children. This may not be how I want to live my adult life, but it was their choice, and they made it responsibly. Nadya Suleman, on the other hand, did not make her decision responsibly. She has no financial support, and now cannot have a job for all of her time is required to be spent with these 14 kids of hers, who are mostly going to be living in her 2-bedroom house at the same time.

How is this even allowed? How have these kids not been taken away to child protective services? These are humans, not objects to be collected like she seems to consider them. Bringing another person into this already crowded world is a decision that needs to be taken extremely seriously, and if your life at the time doesn't allow for it, it simply shouldn't happen.

Marijuana public service project

2009-02-26T13:51:00.000-08:00

Dear Ms. Stephanie Vogel -

I am writing this letter to you as a humble request for assistance in advancing the public opinion of marijuana in the United States. I am part of the NORML organization, the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, and we believe that marijuana laws and policy in this country could be changed by an advance of the public opinion on the substance.

lmost 50% of Americans have tried marijuana sometime in their lifetime, and 10% are current users (people who have used in the last month). The drug remains illegal, however, and a whole lot of misinformation is spread about it. Unlike alcohol, which anyone can find information about real-life effects, risks, concerns, and support systems, none of that exists for marijuana users. Because the substance is illegal, teens using it don't have access to reliable, unbiased information, and adults who may be having problems with the drug don't know where they can go for support for their use aside from narcotics anonymous, which might be a bit scary for someone who is only using marijuana.

I'm purposing that that all change. I'm looking for money to create a program to spread accurate, unbiased information about marijuana through the internet and television ads, as well as flyers and brochures like the ones you will find in student health centers. As opposed to scaring people and hyperbolizing the negative side effects of the drug, this campaign of information will tell its audience the effects, both positive and negative, and attempt to show both sides of the argument. It will also provide information to people who may think they are smoking too much such as advice on how to cut back and places to go for help. I estimate this will cost around $50,000, and I am coming to you for help.

Thanks for your consideration.

-Angelo Carosio

MPP #1

2009-02-26T12:37:00.003-08:00

Part 1:

The issue of medical marijuana is complex. The debate that is going on surrounding it currently is mostly fueled by the federal government, as more as more states are passing laws allowing it, and more and more doctors are prescribing it for a variety of ailments. There’s little an average person can say to further this debate or enter into it, mostly because the question of whether it’s good medicine or not should be left up to doctors and people who know about the human body better than I. However, the issue of marijuana legalization for personal use has been thrust into the forefront recently, with the state of California having a bill being purposed that will do just that. This issue I believe I can speak from with a little bit more authority.

This issue has clouded a lot of people’s judgment. On one hand you have marijuana fanatics, who are creating websites and groups and clubs in an attempt to make the substance legal, and distorting the facts in their favor. These people usually also smoke too much of the substance themselves. The other side is anti-drug fanatics who will use any tactic including fear and manipulation to stop people from doing any kind of drug at all. I believe that I can show good sense through my position in the middle of this issue. I’m familiar with the effects of marijuana, understand how it affects the body and mind, but also know of the dangers of using any substance too much. It’s clearly not a miracle drug, but getting high some isn’t going to turn a person into a worthless couch potato. I can also show good character through this as well. I might be for legalization, but I haven’t let my emotions cloud my judgment. I can see where both sides are coming from, and I’m not going to bash on my opposition or belittle them just to demonstrate my point.

I can show good will through appeals to the safety of people and to the health of the economy. Nonviolent pot offenders are thrown in prisons where they coexist with people who have multiple assaults on their record, and can easily get in way over their head. Legalization or at least decriminalization would put a stop to this and protect mostly peaceful, docile people from a very scary place. In addition, taxation of marijuana could bring in millions of dollars to the government. We pretty much need all we can get right now in the budget department, so these both would be good ways to show that I’m looking out for the good of everyone.

Part 2:

Taking a look at the NORML website (National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws), there are multiple persuasive pieces on the legalization of marijuana, both for personal use and for medical use. I looked at one post in particular, called “Marijuana Legalization Talking Points.” It is an effective piece of persuasion, giving four concrete reasons why marijuana legalization should become a reality.

Each point has a large amount of information backing it up. They are very logos heavy, citing lots of hard facts. The point that “Decriminalizing marijuana frees up police resources to deal with more serious crimes” cites facts like “Taxpayers annually spend between $7.5 billion and $10 billion arresting and prosecuting individuals for marijuana violations. Almost 90 percent of these arrests are for marijuana possession only,” and “The state of California saved nearly $1 billion dollars from 1976 to 1985 by decriminalizing the personal possession of one ounce of marijuana, according to a study of the state justice department budget.” All of these facts have sources cited that you can easily click and check out for yourself.

There’s also some pathos mixed in. They back up the point that “Far more harm is caused by the criminal prohibition of marijuana than by the use of marijuana itself.” This is backed up by an appeal to pathos and logos: “Convicted marijuana offenders are denied federal financial student aid, welfare and food stamps, and may be removed from public housing. Other non-drug violations do not carry such penalties,” this is effective because it is raw facts mixed in with an appeal to emotion. Why should these people be denied things like food stamps? How is marijuana use related to those things at all?

Overall, this page is very effective in defending its positions on marijuana legalization. They cite surveys, research, and laws to prove their point that keeping marijuana illegal is unproductive for our country and its progress. I have seen multiple references to this page on various internet discussion boards such as reddit.com and dig.com, where people refer to it to back up points about marijuana legalization. People know that facts work, and this page is full of hard, concrete facts that don’t leave much room for interpretation.

College Humor

2009-02-19T15:09:00.000-08:00

With short-form web comedy, the sky is really the limit.

Unconstrained by broadcast guidelines, television networks, and dated ideas of what's appropriate for "general audiences," Collegehumor.com has managed to provide us with exactly what we want with humor: consistent laughs with no filler.

Sketch shows like SNL are extremely dated. Because of the internet, the 18-24 demographic has lost their attention span, and the thought of sitting through an hour and a half show to get some laughs just isn't viable anymore--not to mention the amount of filler and commercials put in an average episode to reach the length that's required.

Videos on collegehumor can cuss, be provocative, sexy, and offensive, and not have to worry. Videos like "Girl's costume warehouse" have main characters cussing like sailors for comedic effect, and a mock "ER" spot says the episode advertised will make you "shit your pants." While fake TV commercials have been a staple of SNL and MADtv for a long time, they're never quite as funny as the ones on college humor.

The videos are mostly short (under 5 minutes) and pack in the laughs almost nonstop. Most television sketch comedy might have a few laughs, but most of the time I find myself wondering why the canned laughter is so loud, since nobody I'm watching the show with seemed to make any noise at all.

Medical Marijuana

2009-02-12T15:11:00.000-08:00

Laws exist to protect the people. If laws aren't protecting us, what point do they have? If, however, everyone who has smoked pot in their life (an illegal act) was put in jail, it would do far more harm than good. Admitted marijuana users include almost all musicians, several supreme court justices, and at least the last 3 presidents of the United States.

There is no reason that marijuana should remain illegal, and even less of a reason that medical marijuana should still exist in the legal limbo that it exists in now. There have been 0 deaths caused directly by marijuana, and study after study proves that it is a safer drug than both alcohol and nicotine, which both have yearly deaths in the thousands.

A magazine ad featured a job advertisement for a "burrito taster" with the caption "there aren't a lot of jobs out there for pot smokers." You know, except the presidency.

Viaduct

2009-02-12T14:23:00.000-08:00

The debate from class today very accurately represented both sides. The viaduct replacement is an extremley controversial issue and I'm not quite sure what I want to think either. On one hand, I see congestion as a huge issue in Seattle, and even though I'm not a regular driver myself on the occasion that I do the amount of traffic can be very annoying. On the other hand, however, I don't think that building more roads and tunnels and places for cars to drive will really get at the root of the problem. Seattle needs a mass transportation system akin to New York's subway or D.C's metro. It needs a way to move around thousands of people easily. That is not going to happen with a tunnel, and it will only happen by promoting more light rail, and fast.

Ditch the tunnel, and work on as much light rail as possible. That's a plan I can get behind.

Major Analysis Paper Final Draft

2009-02-12T10:18:00.000-08:00

A legitimate business with all the proper state permits was raided in broad daylight by DEA agents. Pamphlets at student health centers say marijuana can cause schizophrenia, but the common image of a marijuana user is a docile, giggly person—not an insane one. Marijuana use, and its possible medical applications, has been a constant debate in the political world for years. As more and more states pass medical marijuana laws the federal government also increases their efforts to shut the dispensaries down and spread information discouraging people to vote for future bills. The problem, however, is that the messages being sent to the general public about marijuana are extremely conflicting. The pro and anti-marijuana sides of the debate both exaggerate facts, over generalize, and use questionable tactics to draw supporters. The question that becomes important then, is: who do you believe? It’s important for people who are voting on bills to have accurate information about what they are voting for, and with marijuana, that is not usually the case.

Disinformation has been spread around about marijuana ever since the drive to get it banned in the 1930’s. “Reefer Madness,” the famous 30’s exploitation film scared parents into thinking their children would enter a “drug-crazed abandon” if they ever got high. On the other hand, the list of ailments you can get a marijuana prescription for in California far outnumbers almost any other drug, making it out to be some miracle plant. Clearly the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

The way marijuana is portrayed in the media is one of the primary reasons for this confusion. TV ads and other media from organizations like “Above the Influence,” and the National Institute on Drug Abuse attempt to characterize weed-smokers as boring, anti-social, and prone to being nothing but couch potatoes, but popular movies like “The 40 Year Old Virgin,” and “Super High Me” show their main characters getting high and doing the exact opposite: being social and having interesting conversations. It’s also rare that characters in movies or television will encounter negative consequences relating to marijuana, whereas when harder drugs are involved that’s almost always the case.

“Stoners in the Mist” is a series of short Internet videos created by Above The Influence, aimed at capturing YouTube era adolescents and other people who might not be influenced easily by TV commercials. Its goal is obvious: convincing people that marijuana shouldn’t be used. Its claim is that “stoners” are lazy, forgetful, and anti-social. The warrants for the claim they present are many, but are mostly fairly shallow. The video pieces that provide the support are shorts shot in the style of a nature documentary, featuring a host that’s reminiscent of the Crocodile Hunter. They claim that marijuana makes you “sedentary, uninspired, remarkably unmotivated,” and show through their clips marijuana users having difficulty with simple social interactions, being oblivious to their psychical appearance, and spending days sitting in the same place watching television.

Their support and warrants, however, come across as extremely inaccurate. The majority of the way they warrant their claims is through visual evidence, which in this case is obviously staged. These aren’t real “stoners,” but actors paid to pretend to conform to the lazy stoner stereotype. The website also makes the claim that stoners have “extreme difficulty fitting in to social groups,” but again only provides an over-the-top sketch to support that claim, where a “normal person” tries to make conversation with a stoner, who is too out of it to even remember his name. The only real warrants offered on the website is a small section called “marijuana: the facts” which attempts to support the video evidence with sources. The majority of the sources, however, are pamphlets from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, an organization with an anti-marijuana bias. They hardly cite any objective content. If someone went to the “Stoners in the Mist” website to attempt to find valuable information about marijuana, they could be easily confused.

Arguments for marijuana and medical marijuana in the popular media are similarly exaggerated. Movies that portray marijuana users rarely do it in a negative light, and there are documentaries like Doug Benson’s “Super High Me” that attempt to claim that nothing is wrong with marijuana at all, and it’s completely fine to smoke it all of the time. He spent 30 days not getting high, and then 30 days getting high all the time as his support, and his warrants consisted of various tests and doctor evaluations during that time. During his 30 days not smoking, he scored a 980 on the S.A.T, and during his smoking month, he scored 1030. In addition, he had a higher sperm count during the marijuana month, and at the end his physician concluded that constant marijuana smoking for a month didn’t have any adverse effects on his health. While some of these claims have validity (mostly the doctor’s opinion), it still falls short as a great argument that marijuana isn’t harmful. However, it does give off a very strong impression of validity, and given most people’s ability to take anything they see in a “documentary” as truth, this could turn into a very misleading piece of information. A truly good argument would have had to involve different types of marijuana users (not just none and all the time) and also different situations (people with actual jobs and responsibilities, not just working on a movie about smoking marijuana).

With propaganda in the multimedia world coming from both sides unable to be trusted entirely, let’s now look at print, hopefully a place where better arguments will reside.
The Independent, a national daily in Britain, launched a campaign in 1997 to decriminalize marijuana. A couple years ago they took that campaign back with an “apology,” where they reveal the research findings that changed their mind on the issue. Their claim is that marijuana has changed over the years—that new strains of the drug are being created that are more powerful than ever, and, they argue, more dangerous.

They support this with hard facts and quotes from doctors: “The number of young people in treatment [for cannabis] almost doubled from about 5,000 in 2005 to 9,600 in 2006.” “Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis.” They also talk about some research that will be published later and show that “cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy.”

While this is clearly a stronger argument against marijuana use and legalization than “Stoners in the Mist,” it lacks a good amount of context, and leaves a ton of unanswered questions. Were the people in treatment for cannabis using other drugs as well, or just marijuana? What about the schizophrenics—was marijuana the sole cause for their disease, or did it merely exaggerate an existing condition? Their warrants for their claim are strong, but in the end the piece comes off as sounding sensationalistic and fear-mongering, lacking any real world context for all of their statistics and “expert opinions.”

The New York Times, on the other hand, argues for marijuana’s benefits in an editorial claiming that medical marijuana laws are just. They argue at the start through an appeal to pathos, presenting the character of Ed Rosenthal—a man who is being prosecuted for growing marijuana for use by the seriously ill. They cite that “Doctors have long recognized marijuana's value in reducing pain and aiding in the treatment of cancer and AIDS, among other diseases,” and that “the reasons the government gives for objecting to it do not outweigh the good it does.”
Unlike The Independent’s article, they support their claim about medical marijuana well with real life-examples, but this one falls short when it comes to statistics and expert opinions: there aren’t any. “Doctors,” is an extremely vague term, and “the good it does” is very vague. The article makes some good appeals, but others just don’t make the cut.

Looking at all this information, it is clear that someone trying to make an informed decision on a medical marijuana or marijuana legalization bill would be very confused. How can a drug that causes schizophrenia according to one article do so much good in another? If a medicine has the side effect of making its taker go insane, would it really be allowed to function as a medicine? If marijuana does cause users to do nothing all day every day like “Stoners in the Mist” attempts to convince its audience of, why are there people who smoke weed and do creative things like make movies and write songs about it, and why is it such a popular drug? Clearly there has to be more to it than the anti-marijuana propaganda will make you believe, and clearly it’s not the miracle drug like some medical-marijuana advocates and doctors would have you believe—with the ability to solve a laundry list of psychical and mental problems.

The only thing that will further the discussion on cannabis to the point where real conclusions can be drawn is more unbiased research. Unfortunately, that won’t be able to happen until the federal government changes its mind on the drug. As of right now, the only way to get legal marijuana to research is from them, and the process is long, complicated, and yields a very week, single strain of the drug—nothing like what is available on the street or in cannabis clubs in medical marijuana states. To create a better research environment politicians need to work to get the federal standpoint changed, and for that to happen the general public needs to receive accurate information so they can lobby their politicians effectively.

Works Cited
The 40-Year-Old Virgin. Dir. Judd Apatow. Perf. Steve Carell, Seth Rogen, Catherine Keener. DVD. Universal Pictures, 2005.
Advertisement. Above the Influence. 29 Jan. 2009 .
The New York Times editorial board. "Misguided Marijuana War." The New York Times 4 Feb. 2003. 29 Jan. 2009 .
Owen, Jonathan. "Cannabis: An apology." The Independent 18 Mar. 2007. 29 Jan. 2009 .
Reefer Madness. Dir. Louis Gasnier. Prod. Dwain Esper. Perf. Thelma White and Carleton Young. DVD. Motion Picture Ventures, 1936.
"Stoners in the Mist." Above the Influence. National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign. 29 Jan. 2009 .
Super High Me. Dir. Michael Blieden. Prod. Alex Campbell. Perf. Doug Benson. DVD. Bside entertainment, 2008.

D-I

2009-02-10T14:00:00.000-08:00

“The root of education is bitter, but sweet are its fruits,” said Isocrates. While the process of learning can be dull, sometimes boring, and sometimes difficult. What you get out of it, however, is what matters. The knowledge you gain, the experiences you have, that is what’s important.

As Seattle U transitions into Division I, it would be wise of all of our athletes and the general student population to keep this saying in mind. We’re still essentially learning to be a D-I school. Just because our basketball games aren’t broadcast nationally and our locker rooms and sports facilities aren’t world-class doesn’t mean that they won’t be in the future, and just because our students don’t get revved up about the games and come out in large numbers to support the sports teams doesn’t mean that nobody cares.

Our sports teams are the ones doing the bulk of the learning: learning how to be on the road for most of their games, learning how to play under the pressure of a television broadcast, and, most importantly, learning how to play basketball with the big boys. While most of the student body may see the matchup with University of Washington coming up as a joke, the players in the game need to see it as a chance to prove themselves. Even if they lose, the team can still prove that Seattle U can put up a decent fight against a Pac-10 powerhouse. Our records are close to the same, but the teams we’ve been playing pale in comparison to them

Along the road to success there’s bound to be some hard times. While SU sports may struggle in the coming years to find their place in NCAA division 1, they deserve time to learn. And just like the quote says, while the learning period may be bitter, the fruits will be very sweet. Who knows, maybe we’ll see Seattle U in NCAA March Madness in the next 10 years. Those would be fruits worth eating.

Major Analysis Paper Rough Draft

2009-02-03T11:17:00.000-08:00

A legitimate business with all the proper state permits was raided in broad daylight by DEA agents. Pamphlets at student health centers say marijuana can cause schizophrenia, but the common image of a marijuana user is a docile, giggly person—not an insane one. Marijuana use, and its possible medical applications, has been a constant debate in the political world for years. As more and more states pass medical marijuana laws the federal government also increases their efforts to shut the dispensaries down and spread information discouraging people to vote for future bills. The problem, however, is that the messages being sent to the general public about marijuana are extremely conflicting. The pro and anti-marijuana sides of the debate both exaggerate facts, over generalize, and use questionable tactics to draw supporters. The question that becomes important then, is: who do you believe? It’s important for people who are voting on bills to have accurate information about what they are voting for, and with marijuana, that is not usually the case.

Disinformation has been spread around about marijuana ever since the drive to get it banned in the 1930’s. “Reefer Madness,” the famous 30’s exploitation film scared parents into thinking their children would enter a “drug-crazed abandon” if they ever got high. On the other hand, the list of ailments you can get a marijuana prescription for in California far outnumbers almost any other drug, making it out to be some miracle plant. Clearly the answer lies somewhere in the middle.

The way marijuana is portrayed in the media is one of the primary reasons for this confusion. TV ads and other media from organizations like “Above the Influence,” and the National Institute on Drug Abuse attempt to characterize weed-smokers as boring, anti-social, and prone to being nothing but couch potatoes, but popular movies like “The 40 Year Old Virgin,” and “Super High Me” show their main characters getting high and doing the exact opposite: being social and having interesting conversations. It’s also rare that characters in movies or television will encounter negative consequences relating to marijuana, whereas when harder drugs are involved that’s almost always the case.

“Stoners in the Mist” is a series of short Internet videos created by Above The Influence, aimed at capturing YouTube era adolescents and other people who might not be influenced easily by TV commercials. Its goal is obvious: convincing people that marijuana shouldn’t be used. Its claim is that “stoners” are lazy, forgetful, and anti-social. The warrants for the claim they present are many, but are mostly fairly shallow. The video pieces that provide the support are shorts shot in the style of a nature documentary, featuring a host that’s reminiscent of the Crocodile Hunter. They claim that marijuana makes you “sedentary, uninspired, remarkably unmotivated,” and show through their clips marijuana users having difficulty with simple social interactions, being oblivious to their psychical appearance, and spending days sitting in the same place watching television.

Their support and warrants, however, come across as extremely inaccurate. The majority of the way they warrant their claims is through visual evidence, which in this case is obviously staged. These aren’t real “stoners,” but actors paid to pretend to conform to the lazy stoner stereotype. The website also makes the claim that stoners have “extreme difficulty fitting in to social groups,” but again only provides an over-the-top sketch to support that claim, where a “normal person” tries to make conversation with a stoner, who is too out of it to even remember his name. The only real warrants offered on the website is a small section called “marijuana: the facts” which attempts to support the video evidence with sources. The majority of the sources, however, are pamphlets from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, an organization with an anti-marijuana bias. They hardly cite any objective content. If someone went to the “Stoners in the Mist” website to attempt to find valuable information about marijuana, they could be easily confused.

Arguments for marijuana and medical marijuana in the popular media are similarly exaggerated. Movies that portray marijuana users rarely do it in a negative light, and there are documentaries like Doug Benson’s “Super High Me” that attempt to claim that nothing is wrong with marijuana at all, and it’s completely fine to smoke it all of the time. He spent 30 days not getting high, and then 30 days getting high all the time as his support, and his warrants consisted of various tests and doctor evaluations during that time. During his 30 days not smoking, he scored a 980 on the S.A.T, and during his smoking month, he scored 1030. In addition, he had a higher sperm count during the marijuana month, and at the end his physician concluded that constant marijuana smoking for a month didn’t have any adverse effects on his health. While some of these claims have validity (mostly the doctor’s opinion), it still falls short as a great argument that marijuana isn’t harmful. However, it does give off a very strong impression of validity, and given most people’s ability to take anything they see in a “documentary” as truth, this could turn into a very misleading piece of information. A truly good argument would have had to involve different types of marijuana users (not just none and all the time) and also different situations (people with actual jobs and responsibilities, not just working on a movie about smoking marijuana).

With propaganda in the multimedia world coming from both sides unable to be trusted entirely, let’s now look at print, hopefully a place where better arguments will reside.

The Independent, a national daily in Britain, launched a campaign in 1997 to decriminalize marijuana. A couple years ago they took that campaign back with an “apology,” where they reveal the research findings that changed their mind on the issue. Their claim is that marijuana has changed over the years—that new strains of the drug are being created that are more powerful than ever, and, they argue, more dangerous.

They support this with hard facts and quotes from doctors: “The number of young people in treatment [for cannabis] almost doubled from about 5,000 in 2005 to 9,600 in 2006.” “Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis.” They also talk about some research that will be published later and show that “cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy.”

While this is clearly a stronger argument against marijuana use and legalization than “Stoners in the Mist,” it lacks a good amount of context, and leaves a ton of unanswered questions. Were the people in treatment for cannabis using other drugs as well, or just marijuana? What about the schizophrenics—was marijuana the sole cause for their disease, or did it merely exaggerate an existing condition? Their warrants for their claim are strong, but in the end the piece comes off as sounding sensationalistic and fear-mongering, lacking any real world context for all of their statistics and “expert opinions.”

The New York Times, on the other hand, argues for marijuana’s benefits in an editorial claiming that medical marijuana laws are just. They argue at the start through an appeal to pathos, presenting the character of Ed Rosenthal—a man who is being prosecuted for growing marijuana for use by the seriously ill. They cite that “Doctors have long recognized marijuana's value in reducing pain and aiding in the treatment of cancer and AIDS, among other diseases,” and that “the reasons the government gives for objecting to it do not outweigh the good it does.”
Unlike The Independent’s article, they support their claim about medical marijuana well with real life-examples, but this one falls short when it comes to statistics and expert opinions: there aren’t any. “Doctors,” is an extremely vague term, and “the good it does” is very vague. The article makes some good appeals, but others just don’t make the cut.

Looking at all this information, it is clear that someone trying to make an informed decision on a medical marijuana or marijuana legalization bill would be very confused. How can a drug that causes schizophrenia according to one article do so much good in another? If a medicine has the side effect of making its taker go insane, would it really be allowed to function as a medicine? If marijuana does cause users to do nothing all day every day like “Stoners in the Mist” attempts to convince its audience of, why are there people who smoke weed and do creative things like make movies and write songs about it, and why is it such a popular drug? Clearly there has to be more to it than the anti-marijuana propaganda will make you believe, and clearly it’s not the miracle drug like some medical-marijuana advocates and doctors would have you believe—with the ability to solve a laundry list of psychical and mental problems.

The only thing that will further the discussion on cannabis to the point where real conclusions can be drawn is more unbiased research. Unfortunately, that won’t be able to happen until the federal government changes its mind on the drug. As of right now, the only way to get legal marijuana to research is from them, and the process is long, complicated, and yields a very week, single strain of the drug—nothing like what is available on the street or in cannabis clubs in medical marijuana states. To create a better research environment politicians need to work to get the federal standpoint changed, and for that to happen the general public needs to receive accurate information so they can lobby their politicians effectively.

Hookup Culture

2009-01-27T14:09:00.000-08:00

This is an extremely well written opinion piece on the culture of "hooking up" in college. In it, the author makes very valid points about the way that hooking up makes us feel, and why it makes us feel that way. He argues that most of the pleasure people derive from hooking up still comes from the intimacy we feel in the situation, and that sex and emotional attachment are permanently tied.

The relevance of this article is spot-on. His examples and anecdotes fit the situation precisely. His audience is college students, so his examples detail things that do go on in college hook-up culture. He puts the reader in situations many college students have found themselves in and simply asks them: where is the pleasure coming from? People who have been in the situation can recall their previous experiences, and people who haven't still get a good idea of what he's talking about.

His claims are also very sufficient. Like I said, he gives numerous examples, all touching on a slightly different part of the culture and drawing pretty much the same conclusions from all of them. He argues that the emotional attachment is there because the pleasure comes from the exclusivity of the moment, the fact that the other person is giving themselves to only you, and he also argues that based on that, the more that commitment gets detached from sex the less it means anything. One by one throughout his piece, he attempts to destroy all credible reasons why hooking-up is a good thing. It attempts to detach sex from commitment and fails, it demeans women (who throws away her sexual power--the ability to refuse sex until a man proves himself to her), and it's claims of "no-strings-attached" attempts to convince us that love is divorced from sex.

The argument is also very open. He's not trying to demean others who choose to hook-up, but instead convince them that maybe they should rethink why hooking up makes them feel so good. If it really is the exclusivity and emotional connection that gives them pleasure, why not pursue a serious relationship? Based on the article, I'm sure someone who disagreed with any of his points would have room for a discussion with Jack Grimes, as it seems he is genuinely interested in the issue of the hook-up, and not just his opinion on it.

Letter to the Editor

2009-01-22T14:36:00.001-08:00

Dear Editor,

As I was watching the inaugural address on Tuesday, I was mostly very pleased with our new president. One thing that I couldn’t fully wrap my head around, however, was the large amount of disrespect and near spite that Obama showed to the Bush administration in his speech.
It’s obvious that we had a unpopular president in Bush. He left office with the lowest poll ratings in modern history. But that doesn’t mean that Obama has to essentially rub that in his face when he is sitting only a few feet away. His speech should have been a time to look forward, not back.

Obama only mentioned Bush’s name once, in the required thank you at the beginning, but it was pretty obvious that some of the things he said were direct shots at the former president. Saying that “we are ready to lead once more,” and criticizing “our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.” These aren’t criticisms of average Americans; these are shots at Bush, who Obama took shots at relentlessly during his entire campaign. There isn’t an inaugural address in recent memory where the incumbent has criticized the lame duck in such an obvious manner.

Bush has been helpful, courteous, and respectful throughout the entire transition process, can’t we show him a little respect on his first day
as a former?

Aesthetics

2009-01-20T15:05:00.001-08:00

Postrel makes several claims in her article about “The Aesthetic Imperative.” The first, most obvious one is that now, more than ever, aesthetics matter. She is arguing that 21^st century humans are not about conformity and utilitarianism, but instead about customization and the appeal of how things look to us. She also argues that just because this is happening, it doesn’t mean that there is a universal opinion on what has good aesthetics, or that everything is beautiful, but simply that we are expecting good design to be used across the board—even in things that traditionally serve as pure function.

The data presented to back up these claims is fairly extensive. She quotes experts like the former president of the Art Center College of Design saying “we are by nature—by deep, biological nature—visual, tactile creatures.” She also provides a personal example of a shopper buying a stylish (and highly priced) iMac computer saying “Aesthetics, whether people admit it or not, is why you buy something.” This is particularly true in the computer buyers’ case because a Dell computer with similar features often costs hundreds less, but lacks any sort of pleasuring aesthetics. In addition, she makes

The bridges she uses are mainly associative. She is saying that these aesthetics are important to us because they bring up deep personal, emotional, and sometimes universal feelings. Most people are universally drawn to the big-eyed Disney animals because they remind us of babies, which we have an innate attraction to. Some of us might like pop music because it reminds us of our youth, but others may appreciate instead the catchy melodies on purely musical terms. She is saying that since we’re such visual and aural people, these things matter to us a great deal.

I think that the visual world is extremely important. I’m one of those people who will pay thousands of dollars for a computer simply because it looks cool, and also someone who values form as almost equal to function. When buying a car how it looks is equally as important as how it drives, and I am happy to have hundreds of different models to choose from to fit my individual style. Style is important to me—and I’m willing to show that with my wallet.

The Westboro Baptist Church

2009-01-15T14:30:00.000-08:00

The Westboro Baprist church has no right to call itself a Baptist or Christian church. Regardless of the fact that most of its members are highly religious, it practices none of the kindness and compassion called for by Jesus or the bible. They operate under the assumption that God exists, and the possibility that God, if he does exist, feels human-like hatred towards homosexuals.

They also possess such hatred toward any people who are different from themselves that it almost makes me sick: Jews, Muslims, foreigners, etc.

The arguments they make on their website are terrible at best. Statements like “Any god-fearing person should realize that God hates fags” and that the Roman Catholic Church is a “fag” church doesn’t even begin to sway me in their direction, all their arguments are are name-calling and speculation.

I feel extremely mad about this church and its standpoints for multiple reasons. First, I carry the cultural premise from my Buddhist parents that God isn’t a tangible thing, he isn’t a specific being, and doesn’t have the ability to feel, let alone hate. He is just present in everything, flowing through all life as a supreme connecting force. I have also been raised in a community and family that is open and friendly to people in all walks of life, including homosexuals. I have an aunt who is a homosexual, and I have a strong relationship with both her and her partner. So for me, when I see people using God as an excuse or a mouthpiece for their intolerance to other groups of people, it makes me sick. The people who compose the Westboro Baptist “Church” are the ones who hate fags, and while they are allowed to feel whatever way they please about others, claiming that they are doing this in God’s name is just plain wrong.

It seems clear to me from their website and promotional material that these people aren’t in to having a conversation. Any arguments that I would make to them about the fact that homosexuals can’t control their sexual orientation or that they are pretty much the same as heterosexuals will just label me as a “fag-enabler.” These people aren’t out to have a conversation or a debate about their beliefs, they are just there to make as much noise as possible and to make the family and friends of deceased homosexuals feel as badly as possible.
If we follow the Christian belief, God created every single one of us. My one question that I would ask to this “church” given the chance, is if he did indeed create us all, why would he create something he hates? People are largely born homosexuals; they don’t choose to become gay. So if God created us, God also created some of us to be gay and he obviously doesn’t hate them.

I doubt the argument would go over very well with them.

Minor Analysis Paper #1

2009-01-15T11:55:00.000-08:00

Medical marijuana has been a hotly debated issue for many years now. As more and more states have made the decision to legalize the drug for medical use, the federal government has maintained its status as a schedule 1 substance, having no recognized medical uses. States like California, Washington, Colorado, and 11 others have passed bills allowing for doctors to prescribe marijuana to their patients, but they are going directly against federal law. This means that the DEA and other federal agencies are fully allowed to treat people who grow and sell medical marijuana as ordinary drug dealers, and can prosecute them as such.

In an editorial in the New York Times, the board argues that the federal war on medical marijuana has “escalated out of control.” They give Ed Rosenthal’s case as an example, a man who was convicted of charges that carry a five-year minimum sentence despite the fact that he was acting within state and local laws. His marijuana farm was for sick people, they argue, and he should not be prosecuted as a big time drug dealer. Another editorial, in the Boston Globe, argues the same basic point: these people are sick and need medicine, and some of the time marijuana fits the bill perfectly.

The federal government, on the other hand, obviously doesn’t approve of these state laws. This whole debate is created around the fact that the DEA claims that federal law trumps state drug laws under the commerce clause of the constitution. They also argue that medical marijuana can contribute to recreational marijuana activity and gangs. Since the average marijuana dispensary sells over a pound of it a day, they sometimes might have to go the “back-alley” route to get enough of it to fulfill their demand.

What the Federal Government doesn’t seem to realize is that a full embrace of medical marijuana would solve most of the problems that they have with it. I support the full legalization of medical marijuana, and think that if the federal government embraced it we could see distribution become safer and less tied to the black market. In addition, taxes on the drug could be a gold mine for Washington considering marijuana is sometimes referred to as the U.S.’ number one cash crop, ahead of even corn.

In the Boston Globe editorial, the article makes several fairly simple arguments. The editorial board takes the problems that the federal government has with marijuana and one by one knocks them down. The argument that medical marijuana helps swell the illegal drug market is countered by the fact that morphine has been “prescribed by doctors for years with no corresponding surge in its availability on the street.” The board also argues in defense of state’s rights, saying that the commerce clause doesn’t apply because the drugs aren’t usually transported across state lines, and some of the time no money even changes hands. There is also an emotional appeal with the example of Angel Raich, who suffers from an inoperable brain tumor and may die without access to marijuana, but her home was raided anyway.

Reading as a doubter, there are definitely some holes in the argument. Comparing marijuana to morphine is silly, as morphine just isn’t a street drug. You never hear of people using it to get high. If medical marijuana were allowed at the federal level, there would almost definitely be an increase of illegal marijuana for recreational use. In addition, the drug is transported over state lines frequently, and money almost always changes hands in a transaction of it. There are also researched medicines for the various medical conditions that people use marijuana for, and most of the time they’re healthier than inhaling raw combustion material.

As a believer, there are also some very strong arguments. They cite an example of research that shows marijuana has been shown to relieve symptoms caused by “cancer, AIDS, and glaucoma,” by “reducing nausea and vomiting and improving appetite.” They also make the case that decreasing states’ rights, which may be necessary for things like the new deal and expanding civil rights, has to be stopped when it’s used to deny citizens medically necessary care. These are all very strong arguments that appeal who care about other people and want the practice of medicine to be as complete and effective as possible.

Most newspapers have come out in support of medical marijuana, and for good reasons. Most newspapers are also left leaning, which could describe their collective agreement on this topic. But as more and more states have a majority of people supporting this medicine, the conversation seems to be between most of the country and the federal government. Newspaper editorials can’t do much to change the opinion of the President, and even representatives and senators who support it are scared to make it known out of fear that they’ll be labeled “soft on drugs.” These articles are aimed at convincing enough people that marijuana is a valid form of medicine, and hoping that such collective knowledge will help change something in Washington.

What the Inauguration Means to Me

2009-01-13T13:49:00.000-08:00

As we rapidly approach Jan. 20, the anticipation for this event grows greater in me each day. Not only is this the first president whom I had a personal say in electing, it is the first time in as long as I can remember that I am proud of my country. Being 21 years old, my entire adolescence was spent with Bush at the helm. I spent my teenage years in a liberal town learning to hate the man. From the election scandal to the Iraq war to the utter ignorance of almost any culture besides the western one, I was surrounded by people who didn't approve of the country we lived in and its actions.

The inauguration will change all of that. To me, it means the hope that we will be able to change our image in the world, to change our anti-science policies and backwards thinking sexual education programs. It means a fresh slate to prove once again that we are the greatest nation on earth. It means that if I'm traveling I won't be embarrassed anymore to say that I'm an American, but instead be proud of it.

Michelle Obama

2009-01-06T15:04:00.001-08:00

Michele Obama's speech was a carefully planned piece of rhetoric. It is clear to me that she knew exactly who she was targeting and how she wanted to pull them in and and characterize her husband in a positive, almost heroic light.

The target of this speech was, obviously, the average American. The undecided people that late in an election cycle are largely lower-income people who are seeking to pick the candidate who they can relate to the most. Most politicans in this country, however, are seen as a higher class, with additional privleges and entitlement to high positions of office. In her speech, Michelle Obama puts forward stories and anecdotes that aim at lowering the two of them down to a more average level. She talks about how both of them are very family-orinted people who worked hard for where they are in society at this point, but mostly came from low or middle income households. This provides her audience with something to connect with the two of them over, and gives them hope that just because your last name isn't Bush, Kennedy, or Clinton, you can still achieve whatever you want. She is also putting forward the view that her values are the same as the average American, and those are the values that matter: hard work, dedication, and respect.

My Album is Better Than Your Album

2008-09-08T15:51:00.000-07:00

It's a pretty common belief that pop music died after the 90s. This decade has had its popular music not defined by bubblegum teen princesses and hunky "funky but not threatening" boy bands, but instead by black guys, materialism, sex, and "getting tipsy." With the mainstream largely done with this brand of irresistible sugar coated tunes, good pop albums are few and far between. Annie, however, seems to be out to change that.

Hailing from Norway, Annie emerged on the international scene after the release of her first album Anniemal gained an appropriate amount of blogger buzz. Songs like "Chewing Gum" and "Heartbeat," the latter produced by fellow Norwegians Röyksopp, proved that pop music was definitely not dead. Catchy, danceable, and sugar-sweet, it was a total revival, easily overshadowing recent efforts from the former gods such as Britney or Jessica.

Annie's second album, Don't Stop, slated for release on October 6th (but available now if you know where to look), takes the style of the first album and cranks it up to 11. Annie has called it "pop with strange edges," but upon listening it is immediately noticeable that this album is more than pop. It's pop, it's dance, and it's electro all at once. It's catchy, it's funny, and it's also deep enough that it demands more than one listen to catch all the crazy eccentricities. The tracks are varied in style, some sounding straight out of the 90's such as the first single "I Know Ur Girlfriend Hates Me," some faster 4 to the floor anthems such as "Song Reminds Me of You" and, of course, the obligatory slow tracks like "When The Night," which Annie was pleased to call her "first power ballad." Hip-hop is even represented, with the subdued drones on top of fat beats in "Take You Home." Annie and producers Timo and Richard X have succeeded in doing what Madonna and Britney's producers have been trying to do over and over again: make an album which takes the pop style we all love so much and modernizes it. Don't Stop does just that, utilizing dirty synths, trance-like melodies, and some of the best, most danceable beats I've heard in a good while, all while mixing it up enough so that it never gets boring. Clubs, be prepared for some serious bangers.

It's clear that her voice has had some training since Anniemal as well, coming across more dynamic and powerful throughout - it's especially clear in songs like "Sweet," and "Bad Times," which really show her range and vocal ability extremely well. While in Anniemal the vocals are largely more of a rap-sing hybrid, on most of the tracks here she belts it out, showcasing her sugar sweet voice in all of its glory. Combine this with clever lyrics largely written by Annie herself, and you end up with a complete winner, a pop album that's also not a pop album, since it probably won't be heard on too many radio stations.

Save a couple so-so tracks like "What Do You Want (The Breakfast Song)," Don't Stop is a masterpiece, an album that should bring Annie droves of fans beyond her already established indie blogger base. There's little to dislike about Annie or this album regardless of your music taste, and anyone who has a soft spot for pop music should definitely check this one out.

Some tracks for sampling:
My Love Is Better
I Know UR Girlfriend Hates Me
Song Reminds Me Of You

Metro/ Natural

2008-09-03T12:03:00.001-07:00

Recently, I've been really enjoying using my camera again. I took a basic digital photography class spring quarter this year, and I learned a ton. Before I basically just had an eye for cool pictures, and now I really know what goes into making a picture great. I've been a ton more active in the process, as opposed to just throwing it on auto and hoping for the best. Over the course of the spring and summer I've been shooting around Seattle with a general theme in mind: the combination and contrast of the urban setting with nature. This happens all over the place here, and I went out across the city to try to find it. These pictures are all high dynamic range, which means that they are composed of more than one photo of the same subject combined in Photoshop and edited so that everything in the picture is evenly exposed regardless of differences in light levels. Under the cut you will find these pictures as well as a little blurb about the picture and how I accomplished it.

Gasworks Park at Sunset - 3 exposures looking south across Lake Union at Gasworks Park. Taken right at sunset so that the red light from that combined nicely with the blue in the rest of the sky and the water. I love the colors in this one.

Capitol Hill Sky - 4 exposures taken out of a 12th story window in Campion Hall. The clouds are what I was trying to focus on the most here and they ended up coming out better than expected. I love how you can see the slight outline of the mountains in the background.

Green and Red - Trees and the Garrand Building on campus. I didn't have a specific aim in this picture, but I really like the way that the colors turned out, especially the greens. This is a HDR composed of two exposures.

Gray Skyline - Another skyline shot, 3 exposures taken from my friend's roof. This is another picture where I was aiming at capturing the full glory of the clouds, but they didn't come out quite as good as the other cloud shot. It's striking how different the skyline looks based on where you are looking at it from.

Green - Taken out my dorm room window. 2 exposures.

Amazon.com - This is the Amazon.com corporate headquarters. It sits by itself on top of a huge hill, so my aim was to capture it's majestic loneliness. The contrast of the blue and orange in this picture is really striking.

Through the Trees - 4 exposures taken from a park at the top of Beacon Hill. This is the picture that really got this project going, I absolutley love the skyline framed with those trees and bushes.

Blues and Greens - 3 exposures taken out of the 7th floor of Bellarmine hall. I love the perspective in this, so many different buildings and crazy angles are going on here it can be hard to figure out what's actually going on and where this was taken. My photography teacher couldn't believe that I didn't heavily alter this one.

The whole set plus bigger sizes can be found at my flickr.

Vice Presidents

2008-09-03T10:13:00.001-07:00

As all the media hype dies down and focuses more on weather than politics, I think it'd be good to stop for a second and reflect on both of the candidates' VP picks - Joe Biden and Sarah Palin. The VP pick is one of the first important decisions a candidate makes, and it reflects greatly on their judgment whom they pick and why they pick them. While both of them seemingly had legitimate reasons for picking their running mates, there are definitely some issues with both of them that could end up hurting their candidacy, especially with the younger population.

Joe Biden is largely a good choice for Obama. His political resume is exactly what the ticket needs to reassure democrats and swing independents. He has had experience in Washington for over 30 years, had dealt with countless foreign leaders, and is a very white, middle-class man. This balances Obama's weaknesses almost exactly, adding the experience that he is constantly accused of lacking by the McCain campaign. Joe is a family man, down-to-earth, and doesn't even live in Washington. He takes the same Amtrak to and from work every day, a trip totaling almost 4 hours. Obama has spun this to fit his campaign's message, saying that the fact that he doesn't live in Washington means that he hasn't been shaped by the "same old politics," and instead has shaped those politics himself. Looking a little deeper into his policies, however, reveals some issues that some of Obama's strongest supporters might have with him.

These issues have to do with copyright, DRM, net neutrality, and the big content producers. A recent CNET article detailed his voting record on these important issues, and it could be seen as a very bad thing by most web-age young adults - one of Obama's largest and most dedicated demographics. Biden is "a staunch ally of Hollywood and their efforts to expand copyright law." Among others, he voted to make it a felony to trick devices into playing unauthorized music, and has also sponsored an RIAA backed bill aimed at making it harder to record songs from online radio stations. In addition, he hasn't been nearly as vocal about the need for enforced net neutrality as Barack Obama has. It is one of Obama's official policies, but Biden has mostly said that no preemptive laws were necessary. It seems to me that although Biden is a good choice in the foreign policy and experience departments, he might need to rethink his policies on these other important issues if he wants to keep the votes of countless young people.

Sarah Palin, on the other hand, seems to be nothing but a terrible choice for John McCain. It was completely obvious from the start that he only picked her due to her gender, and the barrage of negative coverage she has been receiving has been unrelenting. She has little to no experience on the national stage, is currently under investigation for her practices as Alaska's governor, and has a daughter who is walking proof that her abstinence only sex-education policies don't work. If John McCain's aim in picking a woman was to appeal to disenfranchised Clinton supporters, that aim has failed. These women will not vote for someone who thinks abortions shouldn't even be legal in the case of rape or incest, and they definitely won't vote for a ticket with a frontman who thinks that he'll get votes just because he picked a woman as his running mate.

I anxiously await the VP debate. The difference in experience is mind-boggling.

I'll leave you with this:

ohax revamp

2008-06-26T14:30:00.001-07:00

Hello!

For those of you who haven't visited my website recently, I thought I'd just let you know that I've done a good bit of work on it over the last month or so. Moved it over to a new faster server, added new content such as some articles that I've written, and I've also spent some time organizing everyone who hosts content with me into a more unified structure. They're mostly music, so I created a landing / splash page with links to everyone's sites, so ohax is kinda like a record label or something now. It's pretty sweet.

ohax.com - main page of my portfolio.
ohax records - ohax "records" landing page
DJ Toaster - DJ toaster page. You can download almost every mix I've made (at least the good ones)

SO yeah, check them out! If you make music and want a simple website and a place to distribute it online quickly, hit me up and join the fabulous celebrities who already are signed to ohax records. ;)

Death Cab For Cutie - Narrow Stairs Review

2008-05-13T11:40:00.000-07:00

Death Cab for Cutie used to be a band that I never really gave a chance to. Years ago I was listening exclusively to electronic music, and aside from lead vocalist Ben Gibbard's side project with synthesizers "The Postal Service," I didn't really listen to much in the way of indie rock. Death Cab flew into my radar with 2005's major label debut "Plans," an album that many dismissed for being "too poppy." What it really was was flawless production, amazing lyrics ("I Will Follow You Into The Dark" comes to mind), and these things were exactly what the band needed to be successful on a major and break through to the mainstream.

"Narrow Stairs" takes the poppy production of "Plans" and mixes it with a darker, bleaker sound both lyrically and musically. The album starts out with the fantastic "Bixby Canyon Bridge," which is quite possibly the hardest Death Cab has rocked on a studio album. Distorted guitars and huge drums take the place of Gibbard's relaxing vocals for most of this track, and it's largely a sound that Death Cab haven't experimented with until this point, and it really works. In "I Will Possess Your Heart," the second track and first single, the band jams out to a midtempo bassey groove for a whole 4 minutes before the lyrics even start, and then the track transforms into a catchy stalker-esque song that borders on creepy at points. "You gotta spend some time, love // You gotta spend some time, with me // I know that you'll find, love // I will possess you heart."

Overall, the first 15-20 minutes of the album really shine as new and different for Death Cab. I was genuinely spurised at this different sound, and thought that it would last for the whole album, but that wasn't the case. "No Sunlight" and "Cath" feel like they could have been taken straight from "Plans," both very upbeat and infused with sugar-sweet guitar riffs and catchy lyrics that you'll be singing for hours after finishing them ("When I was young // Lying in the grass // I felt so safe // The warming bath // of sunlight, of sunlight"). "Grapevine Fires" mixes melodic piano with the spastic drumming that we've all come to love from Jason Mcgerr. Throughout the album they mix their old style of soft rock with a newer, harder sound that's evident on tracks such as "Bixby Canyon Bridge" and "Long Division." The mix works, and the harder sound is definitely a musical territory that Death Cab can succeed in.

Despite the album overall having a darker theme and some different styles, it's still easy to listen to and keeps a fairly consistent sound and production style. There are notable influences from older music in some of the tracks, as well: "You Can Do Better Than Me" sounds like the music was sampled straight from the Beach Boys, and "Pity and Fear" echoes the Indian theme that The Beatles toyed with in some of their later material (but it's no "Within You or Without You"). What Death Cab have succeeded in doing with "Narrow Stairs" is creating an album that, while not exactly groundbreaking or genre-defying, is worthy of praise simply because they manage to take the same basic formula that they've used for the last few albums and give it a fresh sound. I'll be listening to this one for a while.

2008-05-05T10:31:00.000-07:00

Wow.

Just two months ago, Nine Inch Nails released "Ghosts I-IV," a collection of amazing instrumental material. For those of you who didn't catch the release, it was released by surprise on their website in various different formats. You could download the first of the 4 volumes for free, download the whole thing for $5, or pay from $10 to $300 for various physical formats. The entire album was licensed with a Creative Commons Non-Commercial Share Alike License - meaning you're free to share and remix the music for your own projects, use it in films, etc, as long as you don't charge for the end result and you credit them.

I saw this distribution system as a shining light for the future - a method that I actually approve of. If more albums were released in this way artists would make more money and people buying music would be a whole lot happier.

Today Trent released yet another full album - this time a more classic NIN outing with lyrics and the screaming guitars that we've come to love. The catch this time is that there is no catch - the album is completely free to download in a variety of digital formats including mp3, FLAC, and even high-definition, better than CD WAV audio.

Check it out, you have so little to lose!: http://nin.com

I guess they're planning to release hard copies on CD and vinyl in June too, which is amazing because I also love to actually have my music.

I'm so happy with everything this band is doing. Kudos Trent, for attempting to singlehandedly change the entire music industry. This will catch on, I'm sure of it.

New Music!!

2008-04-30T19:36:00.000-07:00

So 2008 has been a great year for music so far. I thought I'd just pop in on here to give you guys a couple of amazing albums to get you through this last stretch before the wonderful summer.

Santogold - Self Titled

I was told about this artist from circusdelight before her actual album came out. It's not out yet, but it's leaked, so I'm sure if you look hard enough (waffles) you'll be able to find it. Definitely check her our if you like M.I.A. as they are very similar, but Santogold definitely has a bit more of a rock aspect going for her. Her album switches it up between hipster indie rock jams and MIA style club bangers, and it's a pretty solid listen all the way through. For a good example of her style, check out L.E.S Artistes.

M83 - Saturdays = Youth

M83 is an interesting man. Saturdays = Youth is his fourth album, and each one, while different from the others, mostly shares the same spacey, synthy, abstract sound. This album goes a bit beyond that, and we're given a record that feels more like a pop rock album than his previous hugely electronic outings, but still has plenty of synths and heavy beats to keep any electronic music fan happy. Mixing about half instrumental droney tracks with the other half epic pop, there really isn't a dull moment on this disc. The fusion of rock and electronic music works perfectally. Vocals definitely take the front of the stage in this disc a bit more than in his past albums, but the lyrics, reeking of 1980s teenage angst like the album cover, definitely add to the whole experience. I would highly reccomend this album to anyone who likes new wave, electronic, or rock music. Also check out "Before the Dawn Heals Us," his previous album. Graveyard Girl is the first single off this one.

Filesharing at Seattle University

2008-03-13T19:32:00.000-07:00

So I just finished my digital journalism final, and I really like how it turned out.

It's 5 minutes. Click here to watch it in HD. Or watch a lower quality encode below:

Filesharing at Seattle University from Angelo Carosio on Vimeo.

Hilary, You're Splitting the Democratic Party. Stop

2008-03-05T19:31:00.000-08:00

At the beginning of this primary season, we assumed that the Democratic candidate would be Sen. Hilary Clinton. The media referred to her as the “presumptive democratic candidate,” and her campaign nailed the point into our head that the race would be decided when she won “Super Tuesday.”

“I will win the nomination.” she said months ago.

Now, after splitting the Super Tuesday delegates with Sen. Barack Obama and losing 11 straight contests afterwards, she has come to the realization that she no longer is the frontrunner in this election. A man with the power to inspire and bring people together has put together a stunning grassroots campaign aimed at getting votes from the ground up, and it’s working. Contests are slipping out of Hillary’s fingers, and her once large delegate lead has disappeared.

Her response, however, is doing nothing more than hurting the democratic party. Instead of realizing that it's possible she isn’t what the American people want, instead she is attempting to attack and belittle Obama’s credibility in moves that could be potentially fatal for the party’s hopes to win the general election. In Ohio, Pictures have been circulated from campaign officials that attempt to make Obama look Muslim, and she has even called his patriotism into question in a picture showing Obama singing the national anthem without his hand on his heart. Playing race and religion cards are nothing more than fear tactics, easily targeting middle American states like Ohio.

Bill Clinton said it best in 2004: "If one candidate is trying to scare you, and the other one's trying to get you to think, if one candidate's appealing to your fears and the other one's appealing to your hopes, you better be voting for the one that wants you to think and hope. That's the best."

These tactics may be more tolerated in a general election, but Hillary needs to be reminded that whoever wins this contest still has a long way to go to defeat John McCain, and whoever it is going to be needs all the support they can get. Primary elections are supposed to be about issues and electability, not attempting to alienate your opponent from people who might be seeing him on a general election ballot. Hillary has even said that she and John McCain have the experience necessary to run the white house, but Obama lacks it. Should he win the nomination, its statements like that that will hurt his chances of being elected, as the people who used to support her vote for McCain instead of Obama.

If Obama had lost 11 straight contests and then come back with several squaky wins putting a very small dent in the lead, the media and the party would most likely be pushing him to get out of the race so the Democratic Party could unite under Hillary. Due to her once front-runner status she is still in the race, and insisting that "this is the beginning of her comeback" and rumors are abound that she's planning on using sneaky tactics like seating Michigan and Florida delgates to reclaim the lead. Most states coming up have been the kind of states that favored Obama. His lead will only increase as time goes on.

Here’s my message to you, Ms. Clinton. The odds for you to legitamately become the democratic candidate are very very slim. Every minute you stay in this race, every negative ad you put out against Obama harms the man who will probably be representing your party in the general election. The position of both of your candidacies is that Americans are ready for someone who isn't George Bush. Shouldn't you do everything you can to make sure we can elect someone who isn't endorsed by the man? Republicans are starting their run for November with McCain in front, and the Democrats need to do the same. Obama has had win after win in almost twice the states that you have. Texas and Ohio were so close that the delgates given to both candidates bordered on even. Obama has a significant ammount of support, and airing negative adds to swing a couple hundred thousand people to your side isn't going to change that. The best thing you could do for the Democratic party right now is to drop out and support Barack Obama. If you stay in, you will only disenfranchise all of the young voters who turned out in record numbers this election to support him.

After 8 years of Bush, we need a change. We need as many votes for the Democratic candidate as possible, and the longer that this is drawn out, the harder those votes will be to obtain. Swallow your pride, and let the democratic process that has done this country well for hundreds of years work the way that it’s supposed to.

Develoment, Development, Developement!

2008-03-05T15:27:00.000-08:00

Everyone living in Queen Anne knows that new buildings and development is pretty much a constant. Just driving down the street it's obvious that new buildings are being put up all the time. Here at the Queen Anne Neighborhood Blog, we're ahead of the cranes, bringing you news about new development before there are any signs of it going on. Currently, there are some big projects underway that we hope to give you a first glimpse of.

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation

Currently on the corner of 5th and Mercer St. in Queen Anne sits a Seattle Center Parking lot, one which is probably worth more than most people make in several years. Since such a large parking lot can't occupy prime real estate for too long, the Bill & Melinda Gates foundation has decided to build a new, permanent campus on the site. Based on community input from the Design Review Board, the concept is "intended to reflect both the foundation’s Seattle roots and its focus on reducing inequities and improving lives around the world." according to the foundation's website.

In addition to the huge campus, the foundation will add nearly 2000 jobs to Queen Anne, and bring with it an increase in traffic, hotels, and foreign diplomats visiting the area. The ground is being broken for the building in July, and it will compleley change the face of Queen Anne as it is known today. Look out for this beautiful building to be completed in a couple of years.

Seattle Center

The Queen Anne staple Seattle center is also recieving a large rennovation in the coming years, something this park has not seen since it was built in the '60s. The Seattle Center has been working closely with various Queen Anne groups like the Land Use Review comitee to develop a plan for this campus that moves it in to the 21st century. According to the Seattle Center website, large changes will me made to the overall camus, including the removal of the "fun forest" amusement park area in favor of more open space, more transportation options, and additional programs for young and old people alike. They are also trying to emphasize sustainable design in all of the aspects of the Center's redevelopment.

There are some interesting things in store for this area, and the more jobs that are created here, the more people want to move here, fueling the need for even more development. It's a continuing process, and one that any Queen Anne resident should stay on top of.

Queen Anne St.: The Backbone of a Community

2008-02-13T13:05:00.000-08:00

The sun was shining in Queen Anne on Tuesday, a rare sight this time of year anywhere in Seattle. People were out everywhere, encouraged to leave their homes and offices to enjoy this sunny exception in an unusually cold winter. I'm out too, walking down Queen Anne St, a bit south of the Seattle Center. This street is the main throughfare for the Queen Anne neighborhood, and contains enough hotels, restraunts, coffee shops, and businesses to spend an entire day shopping without ever leaving the street.

The first place that I come to is a park that it's impossible to come to this area without noticing: The Seattle Center. Built in the '60s as the site for the World's Fair, it's known as a place for tourists by most Seattle locals. Walking into the center, the huge fountain glistening in the sun, a woman and her child play in the water jets, while a man wails on his saxophone in the background. There is lots to do here that isn't necessarily the expensive tourist traps that the Space Needle elevator and the EMP are - The Pacific Science Center has laser shows to classic rock music on the weekends, as well as huge-screen IMAX movies all week. There are several theatres scattered around too, and currently the Seattle Repretory Theater is doing a production of "The Diary of Anne Frank."

This huge park always has something going on, and it's definitely a place that Seattle residents should visit more often.

As I continued my walk down Queen Anne St, I made it to a more commercial area with shops lining both sides of the street. I found myself inside Twice Sold Tales, a bookstore which only deals in used fare. The store was tucked away on a corner, and once inside it's clear that this isn't an ordinary bookstore. The sterile, expansive, corporate America feeling you get from stores like Borders and Barnes and Noble is gone.

At Twice Told Tales, it's been replaced with a dark cavelike feeling, with books packed in everywhere you look, and several cats roaming around at their pleasure. It's hard to get cash for your old books here, but easy to trade them in and find something else in the store instead. A friendly staff, huge selection, and the good feeling you get supporting local businesses will bring me back to this store the next time I'm looking for a good read.

My next stop would be Uptown Espresso. In a city with coffee shops across the street and next door to other coffee shops, to be successful is to be different. The first thing I noticed about Uptown is the lamps that were on the tales - every one was different from the others.
Mine happened to be a windmill, and I sat down and enjoyed the best cup of hot chocolate I've had in a while. The textured walls, festive lamps, and general atmosphere made this coffee shop feel more like I was enjoying a cup at my own home. The woman at the counter looked over to me and asked "If you were a superhero, which one would you be?"

I quickly responded: "Batman, duh."

Queen Anne St, (and Queen Anne in general) is an exciting place full of good businesses and good people. I only spent an hour walking down the street and visiting stores and parks, but I'm sure one could spend much more time here if he had it. As I came out of Uptown, the sun had been hidden away behind growing cloud cover. I knew it wouldn't last long.

Easy Street Records: A Queen Anne Staple

2008-02-03T20:17:00.000-08:00

As I walked in to Easy Street Records last Tuesday, I was greeted with a familiar smell that I can only describe as "music store." The musty smell of old records in their cardboard cases mixed with plastic CDs makes me feel at home in any store, and Easy Street Records in Queen Anne isn't an exception.

Since opening up shop 5 years ago in 2003, Easy Street records has been offering free in-store concerts for bands who want to be able to promote their music without much hassle, and they are always well attended by Queen Anne residents and music lovers all over the city of Seattle.

Tuesday's show was an album release party for an indie rock band out of Portland, "The Helio Sequence." As the band set up at the end of the store behind a garage door, the crowd found spots to watch among the shelves of records and CDs. There was hardly any lighting and a bare bones stage, but what matters most to the people attending was the music. The Helio Sequence rocked out hard playing songs from their new album, and the several-hundred strong crowd was definitely enjoying it.

The staff at Easy Street records said that they enjoy doing the in-stores, and that it's always interesting to see what bands decide to make a stop there -- usually accompanying another show in a bigger venue around the same time. The in-stores are usually lower key performances - sorter and with less glam, and that's an element that can draw some people to them that might not want to be part of a 500 person mosh pit at the Paramount. There are more than 20 shows at Easy Street every year, and in the past such famous artists as M.I.A and Pearl Jam have performed, all for absolutely no money.

"Pearl Jam was definitely my favorite of the in-shows because we didn't announce it," employee Tanya Jessen said. "They just showed up and started playing, and before we knew it the entire store was packed."

Most shows are announced however, and if you're ever broke in Queen Anne looking for something to pass the time, check out the big rotating sign outside of the store to see if there are any good bands scheduled to perform. They also post upcoming store events on their website.

Mobile Video

2008-01-03T19:29:00.000-08:00

Recently in a conversation with my mom, she was telling me about the recent cell phone boom in India.More people are getting cell phones, and that's great. Businesses and the whole economy of that country can benefit by more people being connected. The interesting aside to the growth, however, is that because of it more and more people in India are using their new cell phones to consume media. While here in the US we may have a TV and an iPod too, that definitely isn't the case for most people living there, and televisions are much more rare. So what do Indians do instead? Gather round the ol' cell phone and watch a translation of Friends!

Mobile video is popular here too, whether it be on an iPod or on a cell phone. People are consuming more and more media on the go, and more and more media on small screens and stock earbud headphones. Mendel had brought up the point in an earlier entry that he disliked this because it results in people never having any time to just "be" since they can watchSouth Park during all their free time on the bus, and although i agree with him, I also dislike this new trend for a different reason , and David Lynch seems to agree with me :P

It seems to me that as more people start watching their television and movies on smaller screens, the people producing that media might start having to compensate for that with a different style of production. The music industry has compensated for the fact that 50% of iPod owners use stock earbuds with the "loudness wars," which are virtually eliminating dynamic range in new music and can ruin it in extreme cases. Are we going to start seeing new TV shows doing something similar? Are we going to see cinematography with more close-ups and detail shots so people watching on an iPod nano screen can actually see what's going on? Are directors even going to bother with small details and good sets if most people aren't going to see them anyway?

I myself have never watched a TV show on my iPod, and maybe used the stock earbuds for about 1 day (mostly to advertise my new iPod owner status). Are these things sufficient for anyone reading this? I guess I maybe don't understand since I like to consume media in the best environment possible, or else I don't think it is worth it. The director intended movies to be viewed on a screen the size of a room, and while watching them on a television is acceptable, I just will not have the same experience on a cell or iPod, period. Same with music, if I can't hear everything that's in the song, why even bother?

Maybe I'm just a media perfectionist, but I'm sure that there are others like me, and we're getting the short end of the stick.

Late Night Ramblings

2007-12-09T19:28:00.000-08:00

I've been thinking recently, as always, about file sharing.

What I've been pondering is what the next step should be for the record industry. What, in my opinion, should happen so that they will make money and keep the consumers happy at the same time, neither of which seems to be happening recently.

Obviously one of the main factors in this debate is the money. Recording artists require inflated coke addict inducing salaries, and bands are wondering why their albums aren't selling. Some of them are even choosing to independently distribute their albums. Record sales are going down, and they can't support themselves, so they blame it on the pirates and start a crusade. This is the largest mistake they could have made.

The people who used OiNK were the people who had such an extreme addiction to music that they could never get enough of it. We're the people who hear songs we like and spin them on a dance floor for hundreds of people to hear, and possibly go home and buy from iTunes. More importantly, quite a few of us are the people who also buy music in addition to pirating it. Every month I spend large amounts of money on used CDs. I love collecting them, having the linear notes and the pretty artwork. To me that is worth the money - I may have pirated the album before, but having that CD makes it feel more real to me. Having lots of them on a shelf just looks GREAT.

Since this is the case for many other music addicts that I know, they are doing the wrong thing by pissing us off. We're the people with the 200+ CD collections, not the ones who listen to the same 100 $.99 iTunes songs over and over (Grace Carosio). Because we're angry at our peers and fellow file-sharers being sued and tired of DRM, we're all off buying only used CDs and directly supporting the artist, and then pirating the new releases so they see none of our money.

Here's what I think a solution could be that logically follows from all these things. I know I'm living in a dream world, but this could really work.

Firstly, they need to accept that piracy is never going to stop. They need to compete with the pirates by doing one thing: meeting their price, creating a free online database containing large quantities of music. A place where all of the music you'd ever want is available in a bare bones form: as a V2 VBR mp3 download. Ads would be fine, p2p would be fine. They could still make money on this. A monthly fee could be charged for a subscription which removed the ads and allowed you to download in better qualities. The site would be highly used, and advertising could provide large amounts of money.

In addition to that, they need to boost album sales in the physical realm by emphasizing what makes it different from the digital version."Alive 2007" was packaged as a book, and contained a 50 pages of photos from the concert it was recorded at, as well as a bonus disc with music videos. This kind of stuff can easily happen more with some effort. Innovative packaging, and sweet incentives to buy physical copies. Vinyl is coming back in a big way, another thing that can be capitalized on because vinyl offers a completely different experience. Mass producing it means that prices could go down and audiophiles like myself would squeal with joy. People pirate because there isn't much of a unique experience when an album contains 3 pages of linear notes and 40% filler songs. Ringtone rappers record a whole album based off of one 30 second ringtone. Why do they expect it to sell?

“The main problem is that the artists are not getting as much help developing as before file-sharing. They are now learning to peddle ringtones, not records. They don’t understand the value of a perfect piece of art.” - 50 Cent.

When the internet came and people could get their news for free, traditional newspapers didn't attack the new technology, they embraced it. They understood that people would still buy their product even if it was available for free online. Today, up to 20% of the profit of a paper usually comes from its website, and they still have just as many, if not more subscribers than before the internet. The digital age is here, and it's not going away. The only solution is to embrace it.

The 10 Best Albums of 2007

2007-11-30T18:25:00.000-08:00

As 2007 is winding to a quick close, I figured it was time to round up the best music that I’ve heard this year. Lists like these are fairly hard to make when they get long (I still don’t understand how Rolling Stone can pick the best 200 albums of all time), but I think I can fairly accurately pick my 10 favorite albums of 2007. These are the albums that changed the way I think about music, that tried to do something out of the cookie-cutter mold that is becoming so easy to follow when making music. The albums that made me want to get up and dance, or just sit down, listen, and think. The albums that are so good that I will be listening to them long past the time that ball drops and brings us in to 2008.

10. Wincing the Night Away - The Shins

I technically had this album in 2006 because it leaked on to the internet very early (R.I.P OiNK). Since the street release date was January, it belongs in the tenth spot on this 2007 list. The Shins have consistently released good music, but something about this album made me like it much more than their other efforts. Obviously produced and perfected much more than the others due to them being signed to a major label during the album’s production, the sound they are going for here is significantly more poppy than their other releases. This is definitely not a problem for me, though, and reminds me of the golden age of pop-rock that happened in the late 90’s. Catchy pop melodies, infectious drumming, and fairly silly lyrics put this album in my best of the year. Best tracks: “Australia”, “Sealegs.”

9. American Gangster - Jay-Z

Jay-Z has been around the block a few times. This is his tenth studio album, and minus a few missteps like 2006’s “Kingdom Come,” they’ve all been very good. This time, he decided to do an album based off of the crime epic movie of the same name. This makes for a great marketing scheme, and I’m sure it has resulted in Jay making even more money. Throughout the album’s first 13 tracks Jay details the criminal rise-and-fall that we’ve seen in so many movies. Bangin’ beats and his trademark smooth flow are abundant, and I always really like it when an album tries to tell a unified story. Jay knows what he’s doing, and this album has made me realize that he definitely isn't starting to fade away. Jay is here to stay. Best tracks: “Blue Magic,” “No Hook.”

8. Common - Finding Forever (Produced by Kanye West)

While some people have problems with Kanye West as a rapper, I don’t think many people have a problem with his amazing skill as a producer. This album is a great example of how great of a producer Kanye is, and also an example of how great of an M.C. Common is. A perfect album to chill out to, or to put in the background at a house party. Common’s lyrics are powerful, and the beats are a great mix of chill smoke-up-to-this grooves and more exciting “I want to hit the dance floor” thumps. Kanye West and Common make an amazing team. Best tracks: “I Want You”, “Driving Me Wild.”

7. Gorillaz - D-Sides

I was debating whether this album really counts on this list, as it isn’t technically a Gorillaz “studio album,” but actually a compilation of B-sides and outtakes left over from the production of 2005’s “Demon Days.” I realized then that it was much better than most other albums released this year despite it being a compilation, so I put it on the list. All over the place stylistically, it’s a fun listen and contains some great tracks. While I can’t talk about it like a whole piece since there’s not much of a unified theme, “People” is a great look at how songs can change (it is an early, very different, version of “Dare”), and “We Are Happy Ladfill” is a catchjy dance track with hilarious lyrics. “Hong Kong” doesn’t even sound like traditional Gorillaz, but still makes for a great listen. Fans of “Demon Days” should definitely check out this album. Best tracks: “We Are Happy Landfill,” “Rockit.”

6. M.I.A - Kala

What can I even say about M.I.A? Her music sometimes doesn’t even warrant accurate description without actually being able to listen to it. “Kala” is her sophomore album, and it is every bit as good as her previous effort "Arular". In “Kala,” this Sri Lankan woman embraces world-music sounds such as tribal chanting and hand drums and mixes them with loud electronic bass and hip-hop beats. The combination of those two very different sounds serve to create a sound that I’ve never heard before, and one that makes me want to listen to this disc over and over again. Dance club material for sure, the majority of the tracks are produced by electronic artist Switch, with a pair of them produced by the everywhere-right-now Timbaland. Definitely an album for anyone to pick up and give a listen to. Best tracks: “Paper Planes,” “Bird Flu.”

5. The Flaming Lips - UFO’s at the Zoo

This album is full of memories for me, rocketing it to the #5 spot on this list. “UFO’s at the Zoo” is a live album recorded by the Flaming Lips during their fall tour in Oklahoma City. I saw them later on here in Seattle. As most tours go, the set list is very similar throughout the dates, so listening to this disc reminds me of one of the greatest shows I’ve ever been to, complete with aliens, santa claus, and giant bubbles (you had to have been there). A great overview of the Flaming Lips’ very large catalog, I’d recommend this album in a second to any Lips’ fan, or anybody who wants to try to get into their music and doesn't know where to start giving their intimidating catalog. Best tracks: “Race for the Prize,” “The Yeah Yeah Yeah Song.”

4. Graduation - Kanye West

I don’t think I’ve ever seen an album as hyped everywhere as this one was. Between his media frenzy record-sales battle with 50 Cent and the fact that nobody could stop talking about it, when it finally dropped my excitement was immense. The hype was justified though, as this is definitely the best hip-hop album of the year. Kanye West shows in this album that his production skills have only gotten better with time, utilizing sick synths in almost every song and picking only the best guest stars (Lil’ Wayne, Daft Punk, T-Pain) to accompany him with a verse. A great listen all the way from beginning to end, this album (and the fact that he won said album sales battle) will only give Kanye more reason to be full of himself. Best tracks: “Good Life (Feat. T-Pain), “I Wonder.”

3. Radiohead - In Rainbows

Originally scheduled for a 2008 release, Radiohead pulled a quick one on their fans and randomly posted on their website in October that the album would be released in 10 days. The “catch,” if you will, was that it would be only available online, and you could pay however much money you wanted for it, including $0.00. Already a great album, the fact that with it Radiohead is trying to change the way music is distributed is what makes the album and the whole idea surrounding it awesome, and what puts it so high on this list. Record companies, listen up: this is the future. You can’t stop it. Best tracks: “Weird Fishes / Arpeggi,” “Bodysnatchers.”

2. Daft Punk - Alive 2007

Another live album, the only difference being that this one would still occupy this spot even if I hadn’t gone to the show. Daft Punk, the electronic music gods, have put together what’s essentially a greatest hits album with a twist - all of their back catalog has been mashed up with itself, distorted, scratched, and combined with a good bit of new material into a show (and an album) that won’t be forgotten. Tracks from 2005’s disappointment “Human After All” gain new life in the mix with other tracks of theirs, and even Thomas Bangalter’s solo work gets the spotlight in the 10 minute long encore. Going to the show would be the best way to experience this set, complete with a mind-melting light show, but since that tour is now over, this album is the best way to experience the magic that was the “Alive 2007” tour. Best tracks: The whole thing.

1. Justice - †

If OiNK hadn’t have existed, I never would have found this album. After seeing it in the top 10 most downloaded albums, I checked it out, loved it, and immediately went out and purchased it. I would have never bought it if it wasn’t for me “stealing” it first. This is, hands down, the best electronic music album that I’ve heard since Daft Punk’s “Discovery.” From beginning to end, Justice employ distorted synths, the same drum beat in almost every song (but boy is it a good one), and stadium-rock style production that crams the frequency spectrum into a mid-range band so loud that it feels like it’s slapping you in the face. The bass thumps, the highs hiss, and the whole album changed the way I thought about electronic music. I dare anyone to listen to this album and not want to immediately get up and dance. Amazing. Best tracks: “Genesis,” “DVNO.”

2007-11-06T18:27:00.000-08:00

I really had no idea what to expecct. All I knew is that this concert was one that I couldn't miss.

$85 later ($35 concert and $50 bus), I was on my way to Portland early Sunday morning. I listened to the entirety of Gunther's first album, "Pleasureman," on the bus ride, complete with such mega-hits as The Ding Dong Song, and Tutti Fruitti Summer Love. It still hadn't sunk in that later that night I was going to meet this man. What was I going to say? Does this man take himself seriously or is this just some brilliant stage persona that he fools all of us dumbass Americans with all the way to the bank?

The show was at the Hawthorne Theater, a small club venue in east Portland. After waiting in line for more than an hour, we filled the small room along with about 200 other people. Everyone was just as excited as we were about this show, and it was very evident. The DJ spinning hip hop wasn't going to cut it: few were dancing, most were standing around talking about Gunther and when he was going to come out. "GUNTHER. GUNTHER. GUNTHER!" The crowd chanted with no avail. An hour plus later, at 10:45, he finally came out.

The entirety of the show would have been underwhelming if it was any other man besides Gunther. He had no set, a bare club stage with some cords and things running around, and a table at the back where his dj "spun" backing tracks for all of the songs. As he weaved through the hits from his album, his behavior on stage didn't change much. He would go from singing to dancing with his "sunshine girls" pretty sexually, to sticking his hands out on the crowd so people could touch him.

He hardly talked, aside from saying what song was next and such memorable lines as "I LOVE AMERICA!," and "Where are my pleasure men in the crowd?" "What about my party ladies?" which caused some intense audience screaming. His "Sunshine Girls" were obviously lipsynching, and one was a whole lot hotter than the other one.

The ugly one

The hotter one

Regardless of how underwhelming the entire stage performance was, the audience made up for it. Everyone was just as into the rediculousness as I was, and was dancing, jumping, and singing their hearts out for the man on stage. Everyone knew the words to every song (not a hard feat), and Gunther would regularly stick his mic out into the crowd and let us sing over the fake Sunshine Girls vocals. Everyone (including myself) was loving every second. I didn't understand how this was possible.

He seriously must have had us all under some kind of spell. I don't think anyone else could have gotten away with putting on such a show and charging $35. I mean, come on, Daft Punk was $40.

After his set was over, since we had backstage passes, we got to meet him. That basicially entailed about a minute on stage for a photo and a couple words.

A: "Great show man. When's the new album coming out?"
G: "Thank you. The new album should be out next summer. It's a summer album."

$85 well spent? Hell yes.

The RIAA

2007-10-04T19:38:00.000-07:00

So recently, one of the first RIAA Filesharing Lawsuits actually made it to court. Since the majority of people just pay the $3000 and settle, I really thought that if someone actually took them to court, they would have a fighting chance. Unfortunatley, the woman had a terrible defense, and The RIAA won $9,250 per song, for a total of $222,000.

This crusade of theirs is growing to the point of insanity. $9,250 per song for 24 songs she was sharing on Kazaa? Once again the RIAA fails to realize where the industry is heading, and succeeds in nothing more than digging themselves deeper and deeper into their own grave. All this and all of their other bullshit does is make people want to support them less, and make piracy look like more and more of a better option.

DRM isn't working to solve the piracy problem? This is obviously because it isn't good enough, and needs to be made MORE restrictive. Album sales are down? This must be just because of piracy and lack of restrictive DRM, and not because our customers are growing tired of the way they're being treated, or the fact that we're willing to make an album for any black person willing to sign their life away, and expect it to sell. (1, 2).

So here's my message to you, RIAA. Sign artists who actually have potential for artistic development, not artists who can make one single last the length of an entire album. Let me do what I want with my music (including make it into a ring tone). Stop using your settlements to pad your pockets, and actually give the money you make from lawsuits to the artists who MADE the music these people are "stealing" (for the record, not one penny of the countless $3000 settlements has made it back to the musicians).

Until then, I'm only buying used music, and more and more of your precious remaining real artists will show you that they don't need you.

Kanye West - Graduation

2007-09-30T19:38:00.000-07:00

It must be hard to be someone like Kanye West. With the amount of fantastic material he's released in the last 5 years, following up his first two albums seems like a pretty daunting task, in addition to the fact that his previous albums aren't "Graduation"'s only competition. 50 Cent's trash talking has put West in a space where he probably wants to be, in direct competition with someone he (and most of the general public) knows he is better than.

Beating 50 in an album quality battle should be no problem for West, comparing his last 2 offerings with 50's last two. My question when I started listening to this album was not if it was better than "Curtis," because I had no doubt that it would be, but if it was better than "The College Dropout," and "Late Registration." In my mind, being better than those albums is no easy feat.

One of the first things I noticed was a lack of skits. The music starts with track 1, and doesn't stop. This is excellent. Small things between songs to make the album flow are one thing, but a good number of rappers take it overboard. With "Graduation," however, West has managed to make an album that flows very well throughout the whole disc, and also one that doesn't seem to drag at any point like parts of "Late Registration" do. Another common problem with hip-hop albums is that they are too long. "2001" by Dr. Dre, for example, is an hour and 15 minute long album, too long to be able to get through in one sitting for most people. Graduation's 13 tracks and 56 minute playtime make it a much more listenable whole album compared to his other two much longer discs, and most other rap.

Obviously, however, length isn't the only factor. A 56 minute album can still be awful if most of it is crap. Like the iPhone release a couple months ago, this album has suffered from over hype. There has been more talk about this release than almost any other that I can remember, and the "battle" with 50 doesn't help that. Many people, including myself, had such high expectations for this album that it was quite possible that even a perfect release wouldn't fulfill them. It also doesn't help that West has two excellent albums already under his belt. To tell you the truth, I was surprised when I didn't hear the trademark old guy talking to West at the beginning of the album, but "Good Morning" provides a fantastic introduction. It is, essentially, an intro track made into a full song, with West saying lines such as "welcome to graduation," and the obvious introductory aspect to the title. "Champion" is one of my favorite songs, riding off of a great Steely Dan sample. The one two punch of "Champion" followed by the lead single is a great way to start off the album. I have my gripes about "Stronger," like any good Daft Punk fan, but the song is a great single, successfully re-imagining Daft Punk's original from 5 years ago, and migrating it to a hip hop environment very well. If Daft Punk likes the track, it's definitely fine with me.

Several other high points of the album include "Good Life," the next single off the album, where T-Pain provides his trademark vocoder-infused singing voice to the chorus (and does a wonderful job of it), and "Flashing Lights," a definite club-banger that makes wonderful use of synths. The album does have a few weak spots ("Drunk and Hot Girls" comes to mind), but overall they are few and far between, and the highs definitely outweigh the lows. All of the tracks come together to create a great whole piece.

Because this album doesn't contain any hard hitting pleasure center overload songs like "Jesus Walks" or "Gold Digger," it seems like West is trying to change his sound a bit, which is definitely a good thing. Synthesizers are used much more frequently in this disc, as well as a lot of other sounds that seem to grab their influence from electronic music. I really appreciate him trying different things, because "Late Registration" felt more like a pathetic attempt at making another "College Dropout," without much success. This album is not trying to be a follow-up, it has it's own identity completely.

So how does it compare to the others? "College Dropout" is hard to beat, and I don't think this album did. In my opinion however, it is a worthy, and better, follow-up to "Late Registration."

8.8/10