Posted (Van Santos) in Entertainment on February-28-2009
As promised, though a day late, a track-by-track review of The Prodigy’s Invaders Must Die
Invaders Must Die
Rating: 5/10
When this track was selected for promotional use, I was highly disappointed. The track reminded me of a cross between something off of “Always Outnumber…” and “Fat of the Land” mainly due to the thin sounds produced by the synths on the track, as well as The Prodigy sampling their own work. While up-beat and aggressive, the track has an empty feeling that I cannot shake.
Omen
Rating: 7/10
In your face and somewhat haunting at times (like at 2:00 mins into the song) . I didn’t think I would say this, but I actually enjoy the early rave-like synth used to start off the song. This brings back memories of “Experience” material. This is the second track to use a more acoustic sound to the kicks and snares – not the typical 909. The lyrics are also catchy too… in an aggressive way.
Thunder Rating: 6.5/10
Starts off with a simple break beat that kicks into an gritty and almost over the top beat that seems to lend itself to the vocals. I could easily see this song being a huge hit – especially live.
Colours Rating: 3/10
Again, I feel the production values of “Always Outnumbered…” coming though, and the lyrics do not work well for me. This track feels like it was intended for another album or an individual release as the vocal work is all over the song… actually, one could look at this as The Prodigy trying to do a “conventional” song in their style. While I like the grit and distortion, the majority of the song is unimpressive.
Take Me to The Hospital
Rating: 3/10
Hello Charley or Everybody In the Place… for the initial lead. It sounds like Liam decided to sample his back catalog, change things up a bit, and use it for a new song. The lyrics seem very, very pointless but there is a the good old take a sample and change the pitch into something new, much like they’ve done before (Out of Space). Again, I feel like this song was trying to be a commercial release instead or proper song. Unimpressive.
Warrior’s Dance
Rating: 8/10
Starts by easing you into the song with the seemingly off pitch lead, add in some vocals, but once the beat kicks in you have quite an experience. There are shades of Meat Beat Manifesto’s Radio Babylon as the song takes off. Almost a mixture of big beat and typical mid-90’s “rave”. I’m actually very impressed by this song.
Run with the Wolves
Rating: 2/10
Not typical Prodigy – actually sounds very Punk with heavy beats over it. Keith Flint is all over this track and really doesn’t come off all the impressive. I mean, I really don’t have much to say except that it’s a forgettable track. No hook, nothing impressive.
World’s On Fire
Rating: 6/10
Another song that I can see as a HUGE live track. Impressive break beat and use of distortion on the backing synth. Keith Flint actually fits very well on this track. The lead synth sounds very thin, and the return of mid-90’s rave synth is all over this as well.
Piranha
Rating: 4/10
Another song trying to have a punk sound with heavy beats and off key synths. At least with this song there is a hook someone can sing to. Not as bad as Run with the Wolves, but nothing impressive either. By this point in the album the use of samples and re-samples rave stabs and synths is getting old an tiresome. Frankly, there was a reason producers moves away from using that sound. Tho, the is a nice use of filtering some beats.
Stand Up
Rating: 10/10
At first I thought I was listening to Fatboy Slim, but no…. This song heavily samples Manfred Mann’s “One Way Glass” and in doing so produces one of the most laid back, uncharacteristically Prodigy songs ever. Add in the brief use of the 303 and you have my favorite song of the album. Hands down the best track.
Overall thoughts: Overall Rating: 5.5/10
It’s good to see the group back together but Liam’s need to experiment with new technology and past styles, while creative, doesn’t provide for an exciting Prodigy experience. This is not a “run out and buy” album, but tracking down “Stand Up” is a must.
Driving in today I heard that the latest GDP numbers for the 4th quarter and it turns out that the U.S. economy contracted 6.2% in the last three months of 2008. This ends up being significantly weaker than the 3.8% originally predicted at the beginning of the month.
Not only this is the worst GDP drop in 25 years, but the magnitude of the revision is truly astounding. When one looks at the unemployment numbers and the large waves of layoffs in the last two months, Q1/2009 could easily be on par – if not worse than – Q4/2008.
Economic Musings – International
Two days ago I commented that people need to look beyond our boarders for additional indicators of the economic climate. I specifically singled out Japan and Germany. Both countries saw significant contraction in recent months, but what about other countries?
By now it should be clear that this is a world wide recession and no country is safe.
Don’t understand the credit crisis? Watch this.
I know a number of people who do not fully understand the credit crisis and how the economies of the world ended up where they are today. Here is an outstanding cartoon that manages to explain a rather complicated situation in a very simple, yet effective method.
This is a must watch!
Civil unrest and government falter in other areas of the world…
It’s the weekend and I need a break – time to get away from the stresses of work, the world, and life in general.
I’ll be having dinner with my Parents on Sunday, which will be enjoyable, and I expect to watch The Curious Case of Benjamin Button as well.
There will be no cooking, exotic or otherwise… though I do have a few new things I want to try. One specifically is the Paprika Chicken Roast over @ ReTorte! Wandering Coyote really has some good food selections.
Finally, my review of The Prodigy’s Invaders Must Die will come this evening…
Posted (Van Santos) in Philosophical on February-26-2009
The concept of objectivity, and the execution of objectivity, in theory, should be easy to grasp. Reality, it seems, tends to get in the way of theory. Over the last two weeks I’ve had the chance to engage in a number of highly abstract, intellectually alluring discussions about “skeptics” and the ability to remain objective while defending/debating a belief.
As this stream of conscious continues to evolve a number of terms will be used and I want to establish the definitions upfront in order to avoid any confusion or misunderstanding:
Skeptic – disbelieving: doubting the truth of something
Faith – a belief in something for which there is no proof, or something desired, and is expected to occur
Religion – system of beliefs, including belief in the existence of at least one of the following: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being
Objectivity – judgment based on observable phenomena and uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices
Skeptics and Faith/Religion
Skeptics consistently make one major cases against god and religion:
No empirical data exists that actually proves the existence of god; therefore the actions based in religious practices are moot.
People strong with religious views tend to counter:
Religions world wide make claims, and support the claims by saying the Bible/ Koran/ Torah is the word/teachings of god and, therefore must be right.
One can see the problem with this discussion right away. Essentially, two people are comparing apples to BMWs – the underlying justification by each party is based off of diametrically different standards and, in no way, can be compared. A skeptic is looking for scientific data, a person of religion is arguing from personal perspective, from a belief that may not/cannot be documented in zeros and ones.
Not having the ability to convince the other person that his or her worldview is “true” frustration and emotions have the ability to play into the argument thereby removing ones ability to truly be objective – that is to say without the influence of emotions or personal prejudice – and the argument becomes a zero-sum situation. Both parties win, both parties lose.
Skeptics and Science
One wouldn’t expect a skeptic to have an issue with science, but there are fields within the scientific community that a skeptic would question, specifically parapsychology. The basic claim is that parapsychology should not be even considered a science due to the lack of empirical data and the inability to replicate experiments/situations.
A major foundation for science is the Scientific Method… I know that sounds obvious but I’m amazed at how many people do not understand this point. The Scientific Method uses systematic methods for the investigation of the natural world, which include designing controlled experiments, gathering data, and developing and testing hypotheses.
To boil it down, if an experiment can be replicated and the results continually match (reliability), a hypothesis can be verified. Skeptics have significant issues with the parapsychology field due to the lack of replication in experiments, as well as measureable data. This, in the mind of a skeptic, is ground enough to eliminate Parapsychology as a science.
A Parapsychologist would argue a number of points, the major being that a lack of statistically significant data and evidence does not indicate the lack of existence. Possible reasons for holding such a view include skeptics being unwilling to entertain competing views or one cannot statistically record/predict singular events (like one person claiming to have an out of body experience).
Much like in the case of religion, time and time again each party becomes emotionally involved in the defense of their position, leaving objectivity to become clouded and reason victim of emotion.
Skeptics and Personal Experience
How can you combat a personal experience?
No, I don’t ask this question to be difficult… I’m quite serious.
How can a skeptic say that and individual 100% did not experience a situation or event. Using the example above, if a person claims to have had an out of body experience, how can a skeptic say that were wrong? There is very little room to say a person was wrong… or is there?
A skeptic will almost immediately point to a scientific cause for the experience, in this case, say… a chemical interaction in the brain that triggered the individual to believe he or she was outside of the body.
Interestingly, while scientific evidence does exist showing OoBEs to be a product of the brain, to the best of my knowledge it is not conclusive. So, again, how can a skeptic combat personal experience?
The only reasonable way to do so would prove that such an experience could not happen. Otherwise, much like ever other case above, emotion will cloud the mix and objectivity will be lost on both sides.
So… What about objectivity?
It seems to me, when faced with two choices, people tend to pick the choice that equates to the least change in their belief system. If only one choice exists, the second choice is by default “no change”. That said, the introduction of evidence challenging ones belief vs. a belief one has held the majority of ones life will, most likely, lead to a person picking the belief that does not change their view of the world.
Why?
Change = Fear = Emotion -> Loss of Objectivity
It doesn’t matter who you are or what you believe in, if you do not view information with objectivity you have no way to successfully – based on all available evidence – come to a conclusion on a subject. The loss of objectivity means options are immediately limited. This is why I have a problem with Skeptics AND Faith/Religion.
While not perfect in my ability to have objectivity, I do a fair job at removing the emotion from situations during the debate of facts. It seems to be that people who claim to be dedicated skeptics or dedicated religious believers automatically dismiss other possible realities in the face of persuasive evidence based of their beliefs.
Call it “faith” or call it “evidence”, it still, ultimately, comes down to a personal world view and either camp automatically dismissing evidence due to their inability to understand a situation. I’ve seen both camps of thought state “Show me, and then I will believe it”. As a result, I’ve seen both camps continue to deny information even after proof was obtained.
It is truly rare to find believer of anything who is willing to question their worldview. After all we are just psychotic primates who over time developed the ability to reason, but the reality life comes down our ability to moderate. Be religious but be skeptical. Have a core set of beliefs but be willing to change. Be willing to believe something obscure but honestly question the subject before altering your world view.
Just because it is in a book doesn’t make it true, and just because it hasn’t been proven doesn’t mean it is false.
Posted (Van Santos) in Bullshit! on February-25-2009
The whole “artificially inseminated woman who gave birth to 8 children but already has 6 kids because of artificial insemination” situation continues to get more and more… and more… bizarre.
Take three minutes and four seconds out of your life, three minutes and four seconds that you will never get back – just giving you advanced warning, and watch this interview between Nadya and her mother.
Ok, what things do you notice from this interview? Assuming this is the entire situation, here is what I pick up…
She is a liar OR she knew her actions were wrong and felt the need to hide them from her own family
There is obvious some conflict between her and her mother – at times it comes off as friendly and other times it appears true feelings come out
Nadya had always intended on profiting off of her disabled children (notice the comment about writing a book), and if that is the case, is it that hard to jump to the conclusion that she expected to profit from having more children
She believes a masters in counseling (LPC) will allow her to provide a life for all of her children. I’d like to know how she will provide for 14 children on a profession that only pays $34K to $44K
Faith, and her god, will allow her to manage to care for the children
Is it me or does it appear that Nadya has false beliefs that continue to persist even when provide proof to the contrary – also known as delusional. Apparently, I am not the only one who questions her mental status as her father told Oprah ““Now I’m no psychiatrist, but I question her mental situation.”
The Southern California mother of octuplets has been offered $1 million to star in hardcore porn. Vivid Entertainment spokeswoman Jackie Martin said the offer also promises a year of health insurance for Nadya Suleman and her 14 children….Vivid said the offer was sent Tuesday via overnight mail and there has been no immediate response.
All joking aside for a moment, this is where I call bullshit! on the entire situation.
I think all of this was planned out. Frankly, I think the only true bit of information that came from the interview was that she intended to profit off of her children, and it seems like the media are more than happy to help her do so.
Think about this…
She has a publicist
She admitted the intent profit from her disabled child
She and her mother have appeared in a number of high profile interviews, mainly after it came out she already had 6 children
Her father is on Oprah
Dr. Phil will be interviewing the family shortly
Offers, regardless of their origin, are starting to come in
Aside from the “fame” or attention, why would Nadya or her family, want to be involved in such a situation? Maybe the driver is the fact that Nadya has no money and the Suleman family has already declared bankruptcy?
And last week, some eager reporter discovered that Nadya’s mother, Angela Suleman, is 10 months behind in mortgage payments on a home she purchased in 2006 for $450,000. Her mother has also filed for bankruptcy, listing $1 million in debts.
Financial hardship can happen to anyone, bankruptcy shouldn’t lead to an individual becoming a pariah, but events surrounding the entire Suleman situation looks mighty suspect to me. If you can’t sell organs for profit, nor can you sell children into adoption, why would it be legal to plan to have an obscene number of children for a profit? If this whole situation does turn out to be a scam by the entire family, I would be the first to push for an investigation into whether any laws were broken.
Posted (Van Santos) in Business on February-25-2009
One short term benefit to being a consumer based economy is not being on the supply side when the sudden changes in economic conditions take place. To get a clearer picture of the economic reality, a picture that is not only focused on the pain the U.S. economy is facing, look beyond our borders to the countries that count on exporting goods in order to sustain economic growth.
The second largest economy in the world contracted at an annual pace of 12.7% last quarter. By the very loose definition of an economic depression (10% or greater of negative growth), the Japanese are facing what the world fears most. The contraction was accompanied by a decrease in exports by 45.7% from a year earlier, and a 31.7% decrease of imports.
This suggests three very obvious things – The Japanese consumer is not spending, the countries Japan exports to are not purchasing goods, and result further contraction is highly likely.
While still low, it would be reasonable for unemployment to start rising in Japan as companies, mainly manufacturing, begin slowing output or laying off staff in order to “right size” to the challenging environment. Toyota, a company known from not laying off staff during rough economic periods, will begin offering buyouts to employees. It’s just a matter of time before Honda and Nissan follow suit.
Germany, Europe’s largest economy, also fell victim to a decline in exports. As a result, the country was the largest economic contraction in about twenty-two years.
While not as drastic as the numbers out of Japan, Germany’s decrease in exports by 7.6% is quite significant considering most look at the German economy as the beating heart of the Euro-zone. Companies are halting production, laying off workers, and preparing for a significant decline in growth as economists expect the German economy to contract by 2.25% this year.
Seems to be a common theme, no?
Looking at this information makes me wonder…
So, have I stopped purchasing?
Hell yes!
I cannot even begin to remember when I spent a significant amount on an item that would be considered “discretionary”. If I really put my mind to it, I would say last December I spend $150 on 3 pairs of Wool pants. Everything else I purchase would fall into the category of household goods (weekly groceries) or entertainment costs (weekend brunch or a movie). Any excess that I have goes immediately to paying off debts as I fear about my future, and I fear about my ability to provide for myself as I look at the events unfold around me.
While the U.S. economy is consumer based, we can see that the consumer – namely you and I – have stopped spending on goods. As a result, we are no longer importing goods from our trade partners. Once the economic data coming from Japan and German begin to stabilize, and only once the data stabilizes, will the world truly know economic conditions are beginning to improve.
Back in 2003 it came out that there was going to be a limited edition remix for The Orb’s classic “Blue Room.” One thing leads to another, the press (and fans) seem to forget the remix and it gets stuck on a compilation album… As a result, time passes and the remix is forgotten by history.
Early this morning I received an email with a link to the remix in question. It turns out that a limited release white label promo 12” was also distributed to DJs in hopes of gaining attention for the compilation release. After listening to the remix I can understand why the track was lost in the mp3 files of music history.
It appears the remix producers, Chris Coco and Rob Da Bank, simply took parts of the original mix and decided to overlay a new percussion and a few extra lead synth sounds. I find the remix to be very unimpressive. If I wanted the original version I would just pull out the original release.
So, for individuals who must have every remix of the Orb (such as myself) I give you the promo only remix of The Orb’s Blue Room (CocoDaBank Remix).
UPDATE: 02/26/09
This was originally posted at Chemical Beat and has a password of chemicalbeats.blogspot.com – thanks to Lazy@TheChillOut for passing this information along.
In their economic projections for the January FOMC meeting, monetary policy makers substantially marked down their forecasts for real GDP this year relative to the forecasts they had prepared in October. The central tendency of their most recent projections for real GDP implies a decline of 1/2 percent to 1-1/4 percent over the four quarters of 2009. These projections reflect an expected significant contraction in the first half of this year combined with an anticipated gradual resumption of growth in the second half.
Federal Reserve policymakers continued to expect moderate expansion next year, with a central tendency of 2-1/2 percent to 3-1/4 percent growth in real GDP and a decline in the unemployment rate by the end of 2010 to a central tendency of 8 percent to 8-1/4 percent.
If actions taken by the Administration, the Congress, and the Federal Reserve are successful in restoring some measure of financial stability–and only if that is the case, in my view–there is a reasonable prospect that the current recession will end in 2009 and that 2010 will be a year of recovery.
With the inconsistent message coming out of the last two administrations regarding the economic climate, I’m unsure how to take Bernanke’s comments. Is he implying that, in the best of all possible worlds, if everything good that can happen does, the economy will start to grown once again at the end of this year?
The world we live in today has very, very pessimistic economic data in every category – none of which points to a near term recovery – so what information is Bernanke (and the Fed) looking at to draw this conclusion? Bernanke does not appear to be a person who would make a statement in order to calm the stock markets, so this just makes me wonder what else is going on that we are unaware of.
One thing I fear about the current economy, and the attempts to move a recovery forward is President Obama’s pledge to cut the federal deficit by roughly half over the next four years.
No detailed approach has yet to be presented to the public, but what little information that is known points to a significant cut in defense spending (ending/scaling back the war in Iraq) and raising taxes on the nations richest.
What bothers me about the heavier taxation is the potential effect on the recovering economy. During the Great Depression, Hoover raised taxes as an attempt to balance the budget. This decision only lengthened, if not strengthened, the economic downturn. While one would not expect the top marginal rate to rise to great depression levels, it still is a dangerous line to walk – less disposable income leads to less economic activity.
“We don’t need majority ownership to work with the banks,” Bernanke said today. “We have very strong supervisory oversight. We can work with them now to do whatever is necessary.”
Translation: There is no need to nationalize banks.
That is what the administration is saying right now, but as this entire situation has taught economists everywhere this is an ever-changing situation. What is workable today my not be so tomorrow.
With the President speaking this evening, and Treasure Secretary Tim Geithner presenting more information on the banking plan tomorrow, the next few days will be very interesting to watch.
2/24 – 8:17PM UPDATE
Calculated Risk has an interesting question/point on this very subject.
If the banks are seriously insolvent, this sounds like the zombie bank approach and rewards existing shareholders at the expense of taxpayers. If the banks are not seriously insolvent, this is a reasonable approach. But how does Bernanke know the solution before the data is available from the stress tests?
So how can Bernanke say that no nationalization will take place if the data to determine so has not yet been established? Makes one wonder just a bit more, doesn’t it? I want to know what Bernanke knows that he is not saying…and if he is not syaing it, why is he withholding the information? It’s clearly positive if he can determine that no nationalization is needed.
I recently had two conversations that spawned, what I felt to be, a rather interesting question – with the economies of the world facing a rapidly severe decline in stability, what unseen or unexpected events will be triggered as a result?
From the few moments I spend pondering the issue, the following questions started to roll around in my head:
Will there be more children put up for adoption, and will the birthrate rise or decline?
Is crime going to see a statistically significant rise?
How many people will turn to religion for solace and comfort, if so what world religion will see the growth in their congregation?
Will drug and alcohol abuse rise?
How will mental illness be impacted, if at all?
Will eating habits change due mirror the economic climate?
Are suicide rates going to rise?
I have a strong feeling research already exists on this very topic. As the economic conditions are considerably more severe than anyone had expected, it would be very interesting to see the information plays out. But what about the political/economical intervention that has taken place in hopes of softening the economic downturn, what unintended consequences will be experienced as a result?
Will…
the population of lower class society grow in rank?
global governments be able to pay off their deficits?
inflation grab hold of the world because of the massive amounts of money being thrown into the system?
regulation tighten so much that business becomes difficult to conduct?
scientific and technological advances slow due to a potential lack of government funding?
People of the world are frightened by the events that continues to unfold. The governments of Iceland and Latvia already faced their fate due to their actions (or lack of actions), they disintegrated into the pages of history. Others may face the same face as unintended consequences ripple throughout the collective consciousness.
While there is no way to predict the future, it doesn’t hurt to prepare for possible realities by simply spending a few moments developing a strategy for what may come. If there ever was a time to start asking “what will this impact?”, with regards to your actions and the actions of your government, now is it. If you do so, remember this question and answer
Posted (Van Santos) in Movie Thoughts on February-22-2009
Movie: Body of Lies Director: Ridley Scott
Stars: Leonardo DiCaprio, Russell Crowe
Rating: 7.5/10
Let’s me begin by saying that I am a huge fan of the Scott Brothers (Ridley and Tony), so my expectations for this film were set rather high. The slick editing, filtered colors and, yes, explosions that Ridley employs in his action movies were all included in Body of Lies; however, the movie much more than a simple action movie or political drama – this is a mystery movie wrapped up waiting to make the viewer ask a number of questions about what ultimately happened.
The movie shows Farris (DiCaprio) and Hoffman (Crowe) as two people involved in covert operations in the mid-east. Farris is the man on the front lines, Hoffman acts as the “case manager” or handler. Another way to look at it, Hoffman is really moving the pieces around on the chess board and Farris is one of the pieces. But who is Hoffman playing chess against?
Is Hoffman’s main goal to focus on the capturing of terrorists, is he attempting to outsmart other intelligence agencies that operate within the Mid-east, is he trying to act without regard for those who are potentially at risk, and better still, is Hoffman in any type of control at all at all?
Not being in the world of espionage, I have no point of reference as to how that world operates but I would venture a guess and say one important aspect is how well one can make others guess at what is really going on… and that is what the movie does. It makes you wonder what is going on with the characters – who is trustworthy.
A number of the reviews I found all said that the movie was disjointed or difficult to follow, and I would understand how one could arrive at that conclusion, yet I do not believe that was because it due to it being a poorly written film as some have suggested. No, it’s because it is written so well… the movie is staged in such a manner in order to make the viewer question what he or she is seeing.
Remember, who is trustworthy?
As for the acting, DiCaprio is quite believable in his part and Crowe fills the aging veteran with ease. I would almost suggest that his skillful ability as an actor made him the incorrect choice for this role. This may be due to viewing him more as a leading man than a supporting player. The fact that his character didn’t stand out, didn’t draw attention, may also play into how I came to this conclusion as well.
There are a number of good one liners in the movie as well, but the line spoken by Crowe toward the end taps into a view that, I think, is reflective of a number people in the world with no real justification – “Ain’t nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There’s nothing here to like.”
If you decide to check out the movie, just remember to keep asking yourself who is really in control.