Not long ago there was a card shown on PostSecret that said “I wish energy prices would keep rising. People will never use less just because it’s right.”. I often feel the same way, from an environmental point of view it makes perfect sense. Make using resources more costly and people will tend to use less, no doubt about it.
Of course that means the wealthy might use slightly less but in fact the poor will be hit hardest because they’ll be able to afford even less when they already barely manage, but looking at that very objectively reveals advantages yet again for the environment. Some will revolt and others will try to adapt. Part of both groups will end up dead one way or the other (and those who’ll revolt will likely take some of the wealthier ones down with them), therefore reducing the population and the amount of resources required by it.
Yes, it’s brutal, but it certainly seems quite effective. I’m not seeing any gentler methods working well enough these days… Besides, from that same very objective point of view, we’re talking about a certain number of individuals from a single species, one that is in desperate need of a culling actually, who would be sacrificed in order to give a chance to all other species that make this world their home. Looking at it like that, it’d be very fair to eliminate humans as a whole if that’d truly help, but unfortunately I think we’ve made things so bad that we’re the only ones who might have a chance to fix them before sending the world too many hundreds of millions of years back down its evolutionary path.
But to go back to the issue at hand, when even US Republicans start including a few ideas that might actually help the environment among their plans simply because the costs of destroying it are becoming too high, you know you’re getting somewhere. Of course those ideas are only in addition to their dreadful plans aimed at increasing production instead of lowering consumption, not instead of them, but you have to start somewhere…
We could do this fairly, but that would probably be too much to ask. By that I mean there should be taxes on the things that harm the environment and those money should be used to subsidize “green” technologies and products in order to make them more attractive to the customers and also speed up the research and development process. Also, any increase in price should be justified by real costs (including the environmental ones) and any additional profits should mean higher income for the workers (and perhaps, to a lesser extent, middle managers), not for the ones at the top who earn way too much as it is. But, as I said, let’s take it one step at a time…
Some time ago I started to notice that my playlists were getting shorter and more restrictive, an obvious sign of getting bored of most of the music I had. So I decided to start looking for something new instead of trying to see if the bands I already have released something new or try to fill in some blanks as I’ve been doing in the past. And by “new” I really mean new for me, thought it was a good time to look only for bands I had never heard of before.
Now that I think about it, I guess stumbling upon the lead singer of a new band on OkCupid had something to do with this desire to descover new things. (In case you’re wondering, the band is Crimfall and the growling sent me scampering away, but I think her voice is great.)
Either way, YouTube was the starting point, getting a few band names that showed up as related, then I searched for those on DC, looked through what else those who had those bands had and got some more names. Of course I got overloaded, ending up with a list and even some downloads that I’m unlikely to go through too soon, but I found a few interesting ones before that happened. I’d say this just proves how this so-called piracy should be seen as free advertising instead of as a problem.
The first find was Demether (I’d link to their official site but it says the domain name has expired, which makes me wonder if they still exist). Never listened to a Serbian band before… It seems you need to dig quite a bit to find something by them, but I did manage to get their first album, Within the Mirror, and it’s an interesting symphonic-power-gothic mix. They have a video for Silence and that’s what got my attention initially, like that “deep” sound, but Diving is the one that got stuck in my mind the most after listening to the whole album. Her voice seems really good and they often make decent use of their growler, coming in alongside her to emphasize certain lines and often keeping his voice soft enough not to bother me even when he has parts just for himself. Their other vocalist (also keyboardist and songwriter) seems to need some more work because I like the tone a lot but he seems to falter at times. As for the instrumental part, they have a thing for guitar solos towards the end of songs and I frown at those, but overall that’s also quite good in my opinion.
The other band I stopped at so far is Atargatis. They’re not easy to find either, though not as hard as Demether from what I’ve seen. Managed to find both their full-length albums eventually and the first, Wasteland, is quite impressive. Her voice is memorable, to me at least, a tone I haven’t often heard so far, and any male vocals stop short of growling, though sometimes they seem to break up the song. But excepting those moments the songs are very well put together (I’m not the only one impressed by it). The title song burned itself into my mind after the first listening, though the lyrics have something to do with that as well. The second album, Nova, didn’t have much of an impact on me, however. Might need to listen to it again and see if that changes, but it lacks the “strength” of the first one and her voice is also softer, which isn’t a good thing in their case because what makes the first one memorable is the way her voice sounds.
There are a few others I have already listened to that caught my interest and quite a lot I might be looking into, but so far I know I’m going to keep those two. Of course, any opinion is my own and even other fans of the genre might hate what I like… This feels strange anyway, since it’s the first time I write such a post (there was the one about Nightwish, but that’s different)…
We all pay for our mistakes, sooner or later, whether those mistakes are truly real or only real in our perception or that of others. Lucky are those who can pay with deeds, because when that’s impossible, or you just don’t know how to do it, you have to pay with wasted time and ruined dreams, hoping against hope that a part of this lifetime will be enough so you’ll be free of your debt while you still know what it is you’ve been paying for. For some crimes it’s enough to imprison the body and ruin worldly dreams, but for others, especially when you never meant anything bad but could do nothing else, the soul is chained and the dreams that make up the very core of your being are cut to pieces, leaving an empty carcass free to roam the world only to add to the punishment. Maybe, if there’s any fairness in the universe, there is a difference between those who accept to pay even when there was nothing else they could do and those who did what they did simply because it was better for them that way, regardless of what happened to anyone and anything else. But that’s a big if, and until then the difference is that those who feel and care are hit the hardest…
I only hope part of this life will be enough and that someday I’ll once again be worth seeing a dream become reality, having my strongest wish fulfilled… Hopefully while there’s enough of me left to appreciate it…
With Euro 2008 under way, the issue of modern technological aids for referees comes once again into focus. I for one can’t possibly understand why are they so determined to stick to old rules that were written with a different purpose in mind, saying that such things would make the referee no longer have the last say when it comes to judging match events…
One moment from the matches played so far comes clearly to mind, namely when Netherlands scored the first goal against Italy from a clear offside position and an Italian player went to the referee pointing to one of the screens the replays were on and telling him to take a look for himself, but he refused because he’s not allowed to make a decision based on such images.
Another such moment would be a replay that apparently showed that a penalty kick should have been awarded to a team when it wasn’t. I didn’t notice the moment so I don’t even remember what match it was from, one of the first ones anyway, but the news I read was that UEFA was trying to determine how come that replay was shown on the stadium’s screens, because a committee of referees decides what is shown on those screens and their duty is not to allow any images that could enrage the fans. Which reminds me of how replays were no longer shown at all on the screens at World Cup 2002 (which had the worst refereeing out of all final tournaments I ever watched, be they World Cups or European Championships) for the same reason.
Does anybody else think that’s absolutely idiotic? Instead of allowing the referee to make the correct decision after watching the replay when something questionable has taken place, they try to wipe it under the carpet for the duration of the match, and possibly even saying that it’s human to make mistakes afterwards when everybody is attacking that referee for the mistake he (probably) wouldn’t have made if he was allowed to see what actually happened.
I’m thinking that when it comes to final tournaments and other such high-level matches played on arenas that have screens where replays can be shown, the issue is very simple: Let the referee watch anything he has any doubts about and make his decision accordingly. As for all other matches that are televised, or played on arenas where filming is possible, there could be a TV somewhere next to the field where the referee could go and watch relevant replays. It certainly wouldn’t change the fact that the referee has the last say about match events, it would only mean that such a call would be made while being fully aware of what happened, without letting theatricals, placement or speed influence the decision. And there also would be no more debates about whether a wrong call was a genuine mistake or not, since you can no longer make such mistakes after seeing exactly what happened… Which might actually be the real issue…
(If memory serves, World Cup 2006 actually featured a fifth official whose duty was to watch replays on a small TV placed next to the field and correct any mistakes. When I heard that I thought they had finally wisened up, but it was proven to be just a waste because apparently all the fifth official could do was correct the call when there was a question of whether or not a goal was scored, as in whether or not the ball crossed the line. I don’t think there was any such situation during the entire tournament, so this fifth official was completely useless, being forced to allow all other mistakes without intervening.)
This would also solve the problem of players protesting. Besides giving the referee the right to watch any replays he deems necessary to make a correct decision when in doubt, they could make it like it’s in tennis now. Each team should have the right to two or three challenges per half during regular playing time and one per half during extra-time where applicable. The number of challenges left would only decrease if the replay would prove the players wrong. Only the team captain should normally be able to challenge, though the coach (or highest ranking official left on the bench, in case the coach has been sent off or is suspended) could challenge instead, by approaching the fourth official, if the captain is unable to do so at the time, for example due to being treated for an injury. Perhaps challenges should still be able to be made after a team has none left, in case a very important decision is questionable at such a time, but if the replay proves the call to have been correct then the team captain would automatically get yellow carded. And I said this would solve the problem of protests because if players would be given this right then any form of protest except a challenge should result in an automatic yellow card for any participating player, no questions asked.
The one complaint I usually hear when I suggest this is that it’d make the matches too fragmented and decrease playing time, or at least increase the total time since there would be more added time to compensate. Yes, it would make them somewhat more fragmented and increase the total time, but isn’t that a small price to pay for fairness? Besides, it would give the players a chance to rest for a little longer during a match, making them able to play well for a longer amount of time and therefore making it more interesting for the fans.
I usually don’t mind messing things up with people (with two notable exceptions), much less when we’re not talking about somebody I’m already close to and especially when it’s because I’m too open and blunt. But this time it seems different, to some extent I feel I shouldn’t have done that and that’s what worries me. After all, I’m completely convinced that being fully open and blunt is the right thing to do, so thinking I should have eased down this time is a problem…
I think it’s all because of me fucking things up with Andra again and now being too edgy, or even more so than usual, around everyone else as well. Wasting a chance you’ve been waiting two years for, knowing you might never get a similar one again and that you wasted it because you just couldn’t do any better and that will likely never change… That’s bound to add to your scars, right?
Don’t mind me, just having a brief chat with myself in writing. What’s funny is that I only meant to write a brief comment… But that’s how my mind works, always making connections and especially connecting everything to Andra in one way or another…
