HoboFactory

I haven't heard that much of his stuff, other than that This House is Not For Sale song. That's a good song.

I finally got around to see this movie. It was nothing short of excellent. There are relatively few movies about which I can say "I am glad I saw that" but this is definitely one of them. Of course I do suspect that the guy's life has been overly romanticized and that he was likely a worse person than he is portrayed to be. But that would have made him more difficult to sympathize and identify with and probably would have taken away from the movie somewhat.

Day Watch It was actually pretty good, it's rare that I see a movie these days, that feels like it's worth the time, but this one was.

They were alright; "amazing" may be a bit of a stretch.

That's entirely subjective. However, shortly after I made the post, I did realize I should have rephrased, that is, I should have been more specific. What I meant was, that within the last 10 years, there hasn't been any good space movies.

Tool does suck. I do like Star Wars though. It sort of goes to show how rare really good science films are (referring to Ep 4-6). I don't think there has been any real good sci-fi in probably the last 10 years.

How does one isolate essential characteristics for something like punk? Like I said, many people attribute a large variety of attributes to what punk is, which often either contradict one another, or fail to establish why punk is unique or different. That's why I think the term itself can't really ever mean any one thing, and why nothing can ever truly be "objectively" punk. Since so many people have so many different definitions, who is to say that one's definition is more authoritative than another's? Remember that debate as to whether or not Pluto is a planet? How did they conclude that it was not? By a consensus of various experts. Many ordinary people, for one reason or another, objected to that consensus, but at the end of the day, it was all about who really was the most authoritative source. With something like punk however, who can claim to be the authority qualified to determine what punk is?

How much does that really say though?

To me, it's exactly what one should expect from that kind of title. My guess is, as crappy as the movie would be objectively speaking, its entertainment value would be through the roof.

The Moon and Antarctica for upbeat? That's probably the gloomiest album I have ever heard. It's also one of the best.

There really is no such thing as punk. It is a designation that is completely meaningless. The word seems to be applied arbitrarily, and often in ways that contradict one another. It's apparently got countless definitions, and no way to ever objectively decide as to which the "correct" one is.

I somehow doubt, that riding skateboards is not allowed "anywhere." Of course, the cop may not even know whether or not skating is allowed there or anywhere, but would just as soon assume not. I don't skate, but I am a photographer, which also carries legal questions with it. Most of the times a cop, or some sort of security guard, or even regular citizen confronts a photographer, because they don't like that a person is photographing, they will say that it's illegal, when it usually isn't. I often wonder, if they are just lying, and hope the bluff will chase away the photographer, or they really just don't know.

I wish I could rent it through iTunes, like I can with some other films. Unfortunately, the selection offered by iTunes is poor beyond words.

The trailer actually doesn't look great. But what I've read about the film and the book, do make it seem like it would be great. I've been wanting to see it for quite a bit, but haven't been able to find the time.

I don't think it's that, because I've had this car for 6 years, and the majority of the CD's I've played in it have been burned, this particular problem has only come up with the CD's I've burned since getting a Mac.

I honestly don't get it. I burn CD's so that I have my music to listen to in my car, but it seems like 60-70% of the time, the CD's don't work quite right. Sometimes, when the CD is burned, the first song skips real bad, the next few are even worse, and only the last half of the CD is good. Sometimes, the CD comes out just fine from start to finish, and nothing is wrong with any of the tracks. This all happens with Sony brand CD-R's. I thought maybe this is an issue with the type of CD's, as this is sometimes the case. I tried TDK CD-R's, which yield different, but even more peculiar results. Sometimes, the CD player tends to freeze at certain part of a track and not allow me to skip track or pause or anything, sometimes the CD player would go to pause all on it's own, or when skipping track 4, it will actually somehow skip to the middle, or end of track 11, or something like that. But again, it is primarily the second half of the CD's that's playable. Is there something wrong with the way Mac comps burn CD's, or is it the iTunes that works like crap for CD burning? I don't think it's the CD player, because that seems to play regular (real) CD's just fine, and does play some of the burned ones as well, from the same manufacturer and spindle as the ones that don't play right.

Josh Ritter is fictional.

Nader is a joke, he should know his place and stay out.

They're no good.

Well, sure, but I was hoping it wouldn't be someone merely better than Bush, but actually someone good. I guess between Clinton and Obama, I'd have to choose Obama, but I certainly don't consider myself a big supporter of his.

I'm not at all optimistic about these elections.

Saw it earlier today. Definitely an interesting movie, and worth seeing.

But just because it gets a reaction doesn't make it good art. When anyone steps in dog crap, they generally react, and strongly, does that mean dogs crapping on the ground is art? I didn't say sheer time spent on a piece of work guaranteed it was good, but that also the effort, planning, and creativity made for better art. To me, a stack of TV sets demonstrates none of these things.

Now I was afraid that someone would perceive my statement to be somewhat "elitist" in that it implies most people can't make art. That's not quite what I meant. On the whole, just about anyone can be an artist and make art, because anyone can develop a skill or talent, whether it's music, or painting, or photography, and then use those abilities to express whatever it is they want to express. And when such people do use such abilities to express what they express, it shows that their end result took effort, planning, that it's something they really put themselves into, something that really utilized their creativity. So when I see a stack of TV sets or a pile of burlap sacks or three fluorescent lamps attached end to end, I don't see that same effort or creativity. I see something that anyone can do in like 45 seconds without putting any real thought or effort into anything. The people who make such "art" are the true elitists, because such people, having been declared artists, think that all they do, regardless of how hollow and basic is art. They think, if they tear holes in a white canvas, it's art because they had six years of art school, if someone off the street were to do the same, they'd not call it art.

See, I really find it hard to think of something as art if absolutely anyone can do it. When I look for art, I look for something created that makes me think about what is being expressed, and at the same time, marvel at the artist having mastered an ability, that allows said artist to express the thought or the feeling or what not in a way that most people can't. I think it should be a lot more than simply getting a reaction, because just about anything that isn't "ordinary" gets a reaction from people it certainly doesn't mean it's automatically art.