candid hammer

Emails To Companies: Part 2

2010-05-17T22:47:00.002-04:00

I am writing to ask you a question about your latest commercial, featuring the same hip black guy we have seen in a previous ad, who wears his hat(s) cocked to the side and seems to be trying to belittle people into getting an education from Everest. Indeed, we have seen this guy express what can fairly be called genuine frustration with the people he is addressing, as we listen to him throw jabs at watching too much television, talking on a cell phone too often, and people who make easy things difficult.

In the latest ad, we see a series of ten or so head shots of this guy, with each shot showing him wearing a different baseball cap. As in the last ad, he wears the hat(s) cocked to the side. However, in every shot throughout the ad his hat is cocked to his right, except for one. Just wondering, was this a conscious editing decision or just a coincidence? Perhaps he just normally wears the hat cocked to the right, and decided to switch his hat over to the left for 1 shot to change things up a bit? I appreciate you taking the time to answer my question.

Sincerely,

dr. holmes

Change We Never Should Have Believed In

2010-05-08T22:47:00.001-04:00

More news about the Obama Administration for "liberals" and "conservatives" alike to ignore completely. After all, the Neo-Con right wingers are too busy attacking Obama for ridiculous, racist and made up reasons, while "liberals" must spend all of their time defending Obama from said ridiculous attacks. Where is the reporting on Obama's policies? To watch the news on any mainstream outlet in America these days, any viewer could easily walk away with the impression that the USA was not at war with anyone, and that the only problem if you are a democrat is the republicans, and the only problem if you're a republican is the democrats, and let's make sure we all keep hating each other forever. Yes, let's continue twisting in this deepening whirlpool of us vs. them, and also make sure to never actually discuss any relevant issues or look at anything from a non-emotional and factual perspective. No, pick your network and defend it. Pick your political group and defend that, too.

My Senator is a Neo-Conservative Republican

2010-01-20T21:27:00.014-05:00

Fantastic! In the meantime, stock in Martha Coakley's political career has taken a "Black Friday" level downslide. No politician should ever assume that they don't have to campaign, particularly in areas where people can be convinced that you are not as good as the alternative. What role did hatred for Obama (race-based or otherwise) play in causing this to happen? And did the fact that Obama is proving himself to be little more than a more extreme version of Bush/Cheney actually help the Republican candidate? I know I've given up on both parties; does that make me an "Independent" by default? Independents are the ones who made this election happen. Whether you are happy about this election or not, at the very least it proves that people can still wage a successful grassroots campaign. People who are unhappy with Obama (for racial reasons, or for the continuation of Bush policy, and you probably won't find many people who hate him for both) wanted to vote for someone who didn't seem like as much of a shrill, unlikable, and overly-cocksure candidate as the one the Democrats (the party of Obama) were offering.

Where does this go? Our new Senator is pro-choice; am I wrong to assume he could never be the Republican candidate for President? It sounds like a joke, but right now this guy it the best thing the G.O.P. has. This doesn't say anywhere near as much about him as it does about the horrible state of the Republican party. I don't want to mention her name, but a certain *u** *u** who isn't intellectually qualified to be a crossing guard is still the #1 choice in the minds of Neo-Cons everywhere, and a runner-up choice doesn't seem to even be on the map. I think work has most likely already begun on handling questions during the potential post-Senatorial period, where the former Senator explains, in true Mormon fashion, how he used to be for it and now he's against it, and how he also reserves the right to return back to the previously held opinion should circumstances call for it.

Paul Joseph Watson writes that the victory was due to "51% of Independents who are now the majority in the state." And, why are "Independents" the majority here? Because, like me, they have COMPLETELY GIVEN UP ON BOTH POLITICAL PARTIES, and with good reason. Because both political parties are made up of (for the most part) completely useless do-nothing F****** A******* who only care about themselves and whatever particular agenda they happen to be advancing. When you don't have any faith whatsoever in either politicial party, you have 2 choices, 1 is to completely ignore politics (reccomended for short-term sanity, and the cause of low voter turnout in many areas of the state) or 2) be an "Independent" by default. The next step? Hope for a real Independent candidate, one who really represents the Independent majority, rather than one who many voted for out of spite and loathing of all things typical politician.

My Brain: Unable To Add Another Massive Conspiracy to The Group

2009-11-23T21:04:00.004-05:00

At this point, I am not willing to delve into trying to figure out whether there is any sort of conspiracy going on with regard to global warming, and what we are told is the "truth" about it, and what isn't. My brain cannot take it; I have read so much, and watched so many hours of video, in an attempt to find answers to questions I want to know the answers to about other conspiracies, that I do not have any more time and space to devote to this subject in addition.

My "liberal" friends tend to get very irritated when the IDEA of asking questions about the conclusions made about global warming, and the information we have been given about it by Al Gore and others, is even brought up. I find it hard to believe that all of the pollution that humans have produced on earth is not damaging the environment. However, I also believe that to reach an important conclusion, a person should, if possible, find out for themselves what the truth is, rather than accepting someone else's opinion (expert or not) and smearing anyone else who questions it.

The problem is, I am not willing to try and figure out what the truth is about global warming at this point. I am too busy trying to figure out the truth about so many other issues that I have already devoted a lot of time to. I can't give up on those right now, and because there are only so many you can work on at once, the global warming debate has to be put on hold.

Check out the leaked CRU emails which, if genuine, undoubtedly show that anything which did not conform completely to the 1 version of the warming question was immediately dismissed and smeared. This is almost the exact opposite of what science is supposed to be about. Every scientist should be heard from, not just the ones who support a pre-determined conclusion. If science is on your side, and you have the right answer, debate should be encouraged as it will strengthen your case and make the other side look weaker. Smear tactics and immidiate dismissal of anyone who questions anything was a staple technique of the Bush Administration, who equated debate and criticism to terrorism or worse. The exact same type of fearful, strike-first and smear later attitude is seen in these emails. Not good.

Man Discovers His Long-Lost Father, Charles Manson

2009-11-23T20:57:00.003-05:00

Imagine if this happened on "The Locator"? Not that I've ever seen that show.

Fomer Cleveland Indians Third Baseman Brook Jacoby: Related to Jeff?

2009-11-18T22:50:00.005-05:00

Any relation between the player Japanese fans nicknamed "The Wide Brook" and the Boston Globe's resident neo-conservative and (former?) member of the ever-dwindling Sarah Palin Fan Club & Circle Jerk?

Text Messaging about the Bathroom Bill

2009-11-18T22:41:00.001-05:00

Most probably did not bother to notice the recent short-lived headlines regarding the Bathroom Bill in Boston, a bill which sought to determine how public bathrooms are to be used by transvestites. This bill was nicknamed the "Tranny In The Canny" bill for this reason. Needless to say, this bill has many hilarious aspects to it, including transvestites and public bathrooms, both of which are subjects well-known to comedy writers.

During the Bathroom Bill's short-lived moment in the Boston newspaper headlines, my friend Mike and I saw an opportunity for jokes at the expense of the Bathroom Bill via text-message, which resulted in the following exchange:

5:57 PM drh
flush the bathroom bill.
7:26 PM mikeL
bathroom bill stuck on house floor.
7:31 PM drh
bathroom bill polished to a shining winter white.
8:30 PM drh
bathroom bill cuts urinal cake budget by 23%.
8:36 PM drh
bathroom bill detailed with old toothbrush and rubber gloves.
9:10 PM drh
Dame Edna supports bathroom bill.
9:40 PM mikeL
sponsored by american standard brand urinals.
9:43 PM drh
bathroom bill de-lodged with coat hanger.
11:45 drh
bathroom bill stalled.
11:47 mikeL
bathroom bill backed up in committee.
11:52 PM drh
support for bathroom bill plunging.
11:57 PM mikeL
bathroom bill doesn't pass the smell test.
12:02 AM drh
bathroom bill uses up too much paper.
12:05 AM mikeL
line forms outside hearing room as bathroom bill clogs debate on senate budget.
12:14 AM drh
urinal company lobbyist stands in support of bathroom bill.

Dennis Farina is the Poor Man's Frank Vincent

2009-11-11T14:14:00.003-05:00

Vincent has The Sopranos, GoodFellas, and Raging Bull; Farina has Midnight Run and Get Shorty.

The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder

2009-11-03T00:57:00.002-05:00

I'll believe it when I see it, but this does give me some hope. Imagine, a prosecutor who believes in good old-fashioned romantic values, like punishing people who commit horrible crimes.

Raw Story has a report on this. Can't wait to see it.

Does the "New World Order" exist?

2009-10-28T23:17:00.005-04:00

Kind of hard to believe it doesn't when powerful, super-rich people keep making reference to it. Funny how people are mocked for suggesting it even exists, all while the people who are behind it are promoting it and talking about it right out in the open. How can it be a delusional fantasy in the mind of some crackpot conspiracy theorist and a known and admitted fact at the same time? When Bush Sr. mentioned the New World Order, was he not actually referring to the New World Order? Or do the elites have a soft and fuzzy New World Order in mind, and their image is being tainted by conspiracy theorists who falsely believe the New World Order to be a bad thing? I know one thing for a fact: denying that it exists while the people who have the money and power to put it into place discuss their plans to do so in an open and public way is beyond denial; it is much closer to Orwellian doublethink.

Emails To Companies: Part 1

2009-10-27T17:57:00.009-04:00

Dear Expedia,

I am writing to you about your AM radio ad which is currently running on WEEI in Boston. I just wanted to know specifically why you changed the ad from the 1st version to the 2nd version. As you know, in the 1st version, the "husband" character (whose voice resembles Ashton Kutcher's) says to the "wife" character (not verbatim) "I've booked a trip to the City of Lights...Paris, Texas!" The joke here seems to be on the husband, who is presumably so dumb that he doesn't know the difference between Paris, Texas, a city in the country he lives in, and Paris, France, perhaps the most popular city in all of Europe. Was there an emergency re-write when the realization was made that this was a level of stupidity that bordered on surreal? In the 2nd version, the "husband" and "wife" are back, but this time the Kutcher sound-alike only makes the stupid mistake of booking the trip to Paris, Texas, when he had actually intended to book a trip to Paris, France. Just wondering if you could shed some light on what prompted you to make these changes. Thanks!

Sincerely,

dr. holmes

(UPDATE)

"Dear Dr. Holmes,

Thank you for contacting Expedia about our advertisement.

For all advertising inquiries, please visit www.advertising.expedia.com.

If this does not answer your question or solve your problem, feel free to reply to this message or call us at 1-800-EXPEDIA.

Thank you for choosing Expedia.

Tess
Expedia Customer Service Team"

Apparently Tess determined from my email that I was trying to buy some advertising time on Expedia. Unsatisfying.

Obama in Massive Cover-Up of Bush Administration Cover-Up

2009-10-26T20:37:00.006-04:00

Excellent article about how Obama is morphing into a newer, more extreme version of George Bush. Just to get this straight, Obama has not merely made efforts to cover up the crimes of the Bush administration, in an effort to hold them completely unaccountable; he has completely embraced their policies as his own, and expanded them. The public's response? Well, the "right" continues to attack Obama for reasons that get more and more ridiculous and difficult to understand by the day. And, as usual, the "left" occupies all of their time pointing out and analyzing these ridiculous attacks. All while the majority of both of these groups continues to ignore what Obama is actually doing. Discussing what Obama is actually doing, and criticizing it objectively, may get a person branded a "conspiracy theorist", if for no other reason than the fact that finding an objective discussion of what Obama is actually doing with regard to Bush Administration policy is as rare in the news media as a segment on UFO's or the JFK assassination.

How long can I complain about this 1 issue? My problem with it is that is seems so obvious that we should not treat politics like sports and should focus on each issue, one at a time, objectively. Am I some sort of glowing, wide-eyed, pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps eternally unrealistic optimist for thinking that people should be able to understand this concept, and look at politics without emotional attachment, and without a "you vs. me" mentality that does nothing but distort and hide the truth?? Emotional attachment only distorts a person's outlook on things, and we all do this. But, it is also possible to DETACH emotions from politics! Politics do not deserve your emotional attachment!!! Save it for people you love or your favorite sports team.

I would really like to see someone (me?) address the issue of why we haven't heard from a single Neo-Conservative about how happy they are that Obama is extending all of the illegal, un-American policies put into place by the Bush Administration. After all, this group gushed, sobbed and pleasured themselves collectively over how well these policies "protected" us during the Bush II administration. Those who criticized these illegal policies (mainly members of the "left" group) were labeled terrorists and traitors. If the Neo-Conservative assholes had any conviction whatsoever, they would be kissing Obama's multi-cultural fanny for "protecting" them with the Patriot Act, illegal wiretapping, and torture, all of which they believe to be as American as apple pie. FUCK!!!

And where are you, "liberals"? Turning a blind eye to Obama's continuation and expansion of the Bush Administration policies?? That's called DENIAL. It won't get you anywhere. The people from the "conservative" media that the "liberals" are attacking are not even worth talking about! They are cue-card reading actors who do not write any of the words they recite through the television. They are told what to say to keep the two groups fighting with each other, and all eyes off of the actual important issues. Just imagine, what would Fox News be without the people who spend their lives mocking and de-bunking it? What if everyone just acknowledged that is it nothing but Neo-Conservative propaganda, and moved on to discussing issues instead? Most of the shows on FOX are promoted mainly by it's so-called detractors and critics. Pointing out that FOX is Neo-Conservative propaganda is like pointing out that water is wet. Why focus on this? Aren't the actual issues more important?

I do admit that the "left" side of the media is starting to show signs of the honeymoon being over for Obama, and beginning to actually criticize his continuation of Bush Administration policies, as Glenn Greenwald points out here. Greenwald is a great writer, but sadly I fear that his incredible efforts go mostly unnoticed by the masses; I would guess the majority of his readers agree with him already, and just get more and more concerned with each article.

More later...

Dispirit Of Radio

2009-10-20T14:59:00.005-04:00

Part Three: The Future of Radio
(Parts 1 and 2)

By 2004, Clear Channel’s stock price had dropped nearly two thirds in four years and FM radio was jammed with commercials and shrinking playlists. Listeners were turning en masse to other media for their entertainment and their options were quickly expanding.

The advent of mp3 downloads in the late 1990s coupled with file sharing programs and Apple’s invention of the Ipod in 2001 now allowed disaffected radio listeners to program their own extensive playlists. For those seeking to broaden their musical palette, internet radio services like Pandora were not only commercial free, but constructed playlists and suggested new artists based on a listener’s musical preferences.

Satellite radio is also becoming a viable alternative, particularly for listeners who spend a considerable amount of time in their cars. Commercials are limited and playlists are almost entirely under the control of DJs and listeners, much like FM radio had been in its early years. Best of all, satellite radio can be picked up worldwide with minimal signal problems.

With these new innovations, however, come limitations. The sense of community felt on local FM rock stations is missing on satellite radio, since it broadcasts to a worldwide audience. Furthermore, satellite does not offer the all encompassing programming that made local radio shows so successful. Music, weather, news, traffic and comedy are all found on different stations for the most part. Programs and entire stations change frequently, giving the impression that the medium is still young and programmers are still experimenting. But the big obstacle for satellite radio has been and continues to be its subscription costs. Putting a price tag on something that has always been free will inevitably keep many listeners away, regardless of how nominal the fees are.

Podcasts are an exciting alternative. Listeners can download programs in mp3 format and play them back at their leisure on a music player. Legalities in terms of fair use of music and payment of royalties for material used is up in the air as podcasts are not regulated. There is also no real time aspect of podcasting. There is no one telling the listener what is going on “now” in their community.

If developers can work together with the music industry to address issues royalties, copyright infringement and perhaps incorporate some type of real time feature for podcasting, radio could once again be exciting, thought provoking and – most importantly - done by and for the listeners.

Just Like Politicians, The Networks Pretend to be Enemies

2009-10-13T00:10:00.007-04:00

Anyone who takes a careful look at the majority of US politicians can clearly see that there are virtually no differences between the Democrat and Republican parties. How often has the average American heard someone say, or said themselves, things like "they're all crooks" and "they're all looking out for themselves" whenever the subject of politics comes up? Expressions like these are almost as common as "have a nice day" or "take care". It is natural for Americans to look at all politicians with, at the very least, a slight degree of mistrust.

Given this, how does a person determine where they stand politically? Since there are only two major political parties in the US, the majority of people determine their own political affiliation by deciding which of these two best represents their own views on issues that are important to them. Once one of the two is decided on, politics is treated by many exactly as if it were competitive team sports; if my team does something wrong, I downplay it. If the opposing team does something wrong, I make as big a deal out of it as possible. Some people stick with their side and form political opinions based on headlines and the news station of their choice. Others do not even bother to try and inform themselves, and just stick with the side they have chosen because that's the side they have chosen, and they have a lot of better things to do than pay attention to politics, which is completely understandable.

The problem is that the two political groups are not two sports teams battling against each other; they are much more like two mafia familes. They may shoot at each other occaisionally, but they are all in the business of keeping the card game running no matter what; they are all criminals. There is no "good" Republican side or "bad" Democrat side, or vice-versa.

When it comes to TV news, the average viewer will determine which network they watch based on their political affiliation, Fox for the "conservative" viewer (although it should be pointed out that Fox is not "conservative" in any way, and is actually just a platform for advancing Neo-Conservative opinions and agendas, often through the use of propoganda) and NBC for the "liberal" viewer. I try to watch as little of any of this useless garbage as possible, but I also believe that NBC provides more actual news than FOX does, whatever that's worth. However, anyone can see that NBC's programming is clearly meant for "liberal" viewers, and that their reporting promotes a left-wing agenda.

These two networks keep the political "my team vs. your team" mentality fluctuating among Americans, all while (intentionally) taking everyone's eyes off the real problem, which is that almost the entire group is made up of criminals. The politicians are criminals, and so are the networks that report on them, who give nothing but useless cement-mixer liberal vs. conservative dog shit and practically no actual news. Are the politicians and the networks in bed with each other? How could they not be? They have the exact same agenda; DISTRACT from the real problems with BULLSHIT! The sports team from my area is superior to the sports team from your area!!!

Recently, I read a brief article about News Corp., the company that owns Fox News, expressing interest in buying a stake in NBC Universal. To make another sports analogy, isn't this similar to Hank Steinbrenner attempting to purchase a piece of the Boston Red Sox? A sentence from the article says "Any potential purchase involving News Corp. would likely draw scrutiny from federal regulators, as the company is the owner of the Fox television network." That's right, it will "likely" draw scrutiny from regulators, by what if it didn't? Isn't Rupert Murdoch the type of guy who has the money, power and influence to cause scrutiny to be directed away from his business dealings? I would say yes!

Let's say hypothetically that News Corp. purchases a portion of NBC Universal. Would that change how NBC viewers see the network? Maybe for a few, but the majority would ignore the story or just brush it off, and continue supporting their "team" and the news station they believe shows their perspective, in spite of direct evidence that they are in business together. This type of thing could never happen in professional sports! But it is happening with something that should be much more important, the sources where many Americans get their news and information. Unfortunately, there is very little news or information to be found on FOX or NBC.

More on this later, thanks for reading.

Obama Fatigue Worsening

2009-10-07T21:28:00.005-04:00

President Obama continues his streak of supporting and in some cases expanding the illegal policies of the bush administration. Now they are either 1) in complete cahoots with them or 2) being forced by them to say they "can't find" emails that could directly implicate members of the bush administration. That's what all of our technology has gotten us: the most powerful man in the world cannot find 8 years worth of White House e-mails. Sorry, it can't be done.

Unfortunately, Obama Fatigue will not allow me to dwell on this reality for very long. I and we, the people who voted for Obama, want a noble President who will keep his promises. Obama is intentionally mesmerizing. He has the same power a great actor has over the amazed and emotionally-comitted movie viewer; and people are prone to embrace what they see as physically appealing as also morally good.

The problem with this is it allows the people who are controlling Obama's decisions while reversing many of his campaign promises with a bush administration worthy level of I-don't-give-a-F*** what anyone says attitude to do whatever they want practically unchecked. Despite this, the Fatigue sets in and I see Obama as the smiling bartender from the "Old Barackee" skit, a man who is also a fantastic dancer. Unfortunately for all of us, THAT SHIT AIN'T THE TRUTH. Check out the news, I'm sure Obama will enforce and/or expand illegal bush adminstration policies again sooner or later.

Dispirit of Radio

2009-10-06T17:08:00.016-04:00

Part Two: Deregulation, Lowry Mays and the Clear Channel Empire.

(You can find Part One here, Part Three will appear on Friday, October 9)

By the mid 1990s, local rock stations with devout followings like WBCN in Boston were being devoured by large media companies. Ownership regulations were loosened so drastically by the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that companies could now own up to eight stations in a single market. And one company seemed particularly hell bent on pushing these new allowances to the limit; Clear Channel Communications.

Clear Channel Communications was founded by a Texas investment banker named Lowry Mays. In 1972, Mays was talked into investing in a struggling radio station in San Antonio. Not knowing anything about radio, he turned to another friend - a used car salesman - to help him turn the station around. Mays and his business partner spent the next two decades buying up radio stations that were operating in the red and making them profitable. By 1995, Clear Channel owned 43 stations. In 1996 – when the Telecommunications Act passed - they purchased an additional 49.

And by 2001, they owned a staggering 1200 stations worldwide.

Local artists and small radio station managers quickly found themselves losing airplay opportunities and creative control with corporate programmers now at the helm. Most rock radio DJs had always been given some degree of latitude by management to take chances and break local artists. Now, they were tied down by stringent, mind-numbing play lists from outside programmers hired by media companies and influenced by major record labels. Many in the music industry saw it as a sort of modern-day, but legal Payola.

In late 2002, an artists’ advocacy group called The Future of Music Coalition released a scathing 160-page study decrying the effects of radio deregulation. FMC spokesperson Jenny Toomey delivered a statement during a January 2003 Senate Commerce Committee hearing on media ownership and radio.

The broadcast industry defends the radical restructuring by pointing at other entertainment industries and saying, “We’re not as bad as those guys,” Toomey said. “But they aren’t “those guys”. Radio is not a private property but a public resource regulated by the government on behalf of citizens. For decades, it was based on a model of local ownership.

Mays himself later testified to the committee espousing the benefits of deregulation.

“Deregulation has benefitted listeners as well as owners,” Mays insisted. “Study after study demonstrates that consolidation has led to increases in the diversity of formats available to listeners in local markets. Owners with several stations are better able to diversify their programming to serve the variety of demographics that are present in the market.”

Mays' testimony was a complete sham. He even admitted as much in an article Fortune Magazine ran less than two months after the Senate hearing. "If anyone said we were in the radio business, it wouldn't be someone from our company," he said.

We're not in the business of providing news and information. We're not in the business of providing well-researched music. We're simply in the business of selling our customers' products.

Listeners agreed. And they tuned out in droves.

Facial Recognition Ability is Completely Useless

2009-10-05T22:27:00.007-04:00

For years I have wondered if there is any real use for the ability to recognize faces. This article from Harvard Magazine sheds some light on how this ability functions in people's brains, and the mildly bizarre situations people who have this ability often find themselves in, but does not really offer much in terms of suggesting how this skill should be used.

While holiday shopping with my brother (December 2008) at the CambridgeSide Galleria, I spotted one Chris L. (last name withheld) who I had not seen in 18 years and barely knew back then. I pointed him out to my brother since he had attended the same computer camp that I recognized this kid from. He immediately denied that it could possibly the same kid, so I suggested he ask him, so he walks over to the guy, says "Are you Chris (last name withheld)?" and he responds "Yes" with a look of surprise on his face. In this situation I found myself living one of the exact scenarios described in the HM article, since I would be willing to bet that Chris could not have identified either one of us if his life depended on it. And once again I was left asking, is there any possible use for this ability? To date, the answer appears to be "no".

Recently I took 2 facial recognition tests online. The first one was done in two sections, you look at a group of photographs of people, take a 5 mintue break, then look at a second group, 5 mintue break, and move to Part 1 of the test which involves identifying which photographs you had seen in either of the two groups, and which you had not, in a new group. In this section of the test I scored 100%. In the second section of the test, identifying which photos came from the first group and which from the second, I scored 83%. Impressive scores? Yes, but scores which display an ability that is completely useless.

The second test involved looking at a group of six very similar male faces and then seeing if you can pick out which one is one you've seen out of a group of 3. The groups of 3 faces are shown at quick intervals, and all of the faces look very similar. On this test, I scored 99%, identifying 71 out of 72 faces. I have since developed an Obsessive-Compulsive psychosis which stemmed from the fact that I came as close as possible to getting 72 out of 72 without scoring 100% on the test. I failed to do the test perfectly, and it haunts me. As does the fact that, as I've mentioned, this ability seems to be completely useless.

Rock Radio Dead in Boston. Satellite Radio in Limbo. What's Next?

2009-10-03T20:51:00.010-04:00

Part One: "So Long, Rangoon!" The slow, painful death of "The Rock Of Boston".

When the news dropped in July that CBS had axed WBCN from the FM dial, Greater Bostonians over the age of 30 felt a collective twinge in their chests. In truth, the longtime "Rock Of Boston" had been ailing for at least ten years. Long gone were the days of Charles Laquidara's Big Mattress, "Captain" Ken Shelton's Mighty Lunch Hour and Marc Parenteau's Morons, Psychopaths and Mental Defectives . No more Mishegas. No more rides on The Elevator From Hell.

In its heyday, 104.1 WBCN offered a unique blend of music, humor and news that was unparalleled even by college radio. The programming could appeal to just about anyone. They played everything from Bob Marley to Nirvana. The comedy bits often crossed the line ("Down at Revere beach sittin' on the wall..."), but were always done lovingly and rarely maliciously. And people of all political affiliations could hold hands and share a good chuckle when Marc Parenteau and then-City Councillor Dapper O'Neil would duke it out over the phone on the air.

"I was actually a listener as well as an on-air guy", said Longtime DJ Charles Laquidara in a recent interview with Boston Globe reporter Emily Sweeny. "I loved the audience. We had a mutual thing going back and forth that will probably never happen again. WBCN will probably go down in history as one of the greatest rock stations that ever existed."

So what went wrong?

Many assert that the undoing of WBCN and many other FM stations of its ilk came with the total deregulation of radio that occurred with the Telecommunications Act of 1996. This law allowed large media companies to now own more than one station within a single market. Infinity Broadcasting had owned WBCN since 1979 and soon purchased its largely successful sister station, WZLX (100.7-FM). In an effort to maximize ratings at both stations, Infinity implemented a plan to lower the age group of WBCN's target audience. Most of the DJs were replaced and the station's music format was changed to almost exclusively feature alternative rock. Local music was no longer promoted as heavily. Howard Stern was picked up in syndication for the morning drive time slot and the station soon became dominated by syndicated talk show programs and sports broadcasts.

The plan backfired over the next few years as management watched the station's ratings deteriorate.

"They definitely brought it on themselves," said Oedipus, longtime WBCN Music Director, in a recent interview with TV's Greater Boston. "It was woefully mismanaged. They took the creativity out of the programming and let the suits program the station. That's the death of any radio station."

"All the corporate people," Laquidara adds, "they're famous for destroying radio stations. They buy them and then they destroy them. I guess that's not even a secret amongst the industry. Everybody knows that. Because their bottom line has always been the bottom line."

By the time Howard Stern left FM radio for good in 2005, WBCN's rating sank to lows from which they were unable to recover. CBS Radio, the successors to Infinity Broadcasting, decided to replace WBCN completely with WBMX, an adult contemporary station in July 2009.

"BCN just kind of rusted away", Oedipus added. "They got away from being part of the Boston Institution. BCN was a Boston Institution, like the Red Sox, like The Boston Globe. You had to listen to WBCN to know what was going on in music and also what was happening in terms of lifestyle."

(Part two of this feature will look at radio deregulation and appear on October 6.)

Greenspan Sez Fed is Above the Law

2009-09-30T22:27:00.002-04:00

In this video, we see Alan Greenspan admit that the Federal Reserve is above the law. He says that "there is no other agency of government which can overrule actions that we take". How the F*** does that work??

Text Messaging about the Beer Summit

2009-09-29T17:11:00.006-04:00

Most of you reading this probably recall the "Beer Summit" President Obama held at the White House following the unfortunate incident where Harvard professor Henry Louis "Skip" Gates Jr. was arrested at his own house by Cambridge, MA, police. Needless to say, this incident offered many opportunities for humorous pokes at Obama, Gates, and the Cambridge Police. The funniest take I have seen so far was from an intro skit to the Bill Maher show on HBO called "Old Barackee".

To date, I believe I have watched the video of this skit approx. 734 times. For some reason I find it to be one of the funniest things I have ever seen. While enjoying time between a recording session over the weekend (Sept.26-28, 2009), myself and 2 friends were looking to "lighten the mood" after watching online videos of the protests at the G20 Summit. (These videos do not exist, by the way.) I suggested a viewing of "Old Barackee", which one of my friends had not seen yet. We watched the video and enjoyed a laughter session that was up there with the all-time greats.

In addition, my friend Mike and I saw the same opportunity for jokes about the "Beer Summit" that Maher's writers had acted on so well. The joke-trading via text went as follows:

July 31 8:08 PM drh
beer summit ends flat.
July 31 8:02 PM drh
beer summit ends with a clean finish.
July 31 6:25 PM drh
beer summit beechwood aged.
July 31 6:22 PM mike
Tensions bubble to the surface.
July 31 6:21 PM drh
beer summit causes racial issues to ferment.
July 31 10:51 AM drh
Yeast we can.
July 31 10:44 AM drh
Obamafest.
July 31 10:43 AM mike
White Haus.
July 31 10:39 AM mike
Henry Brewis Grapes.
July 31 10:36 AM drh
the audacity of hops.
July 31 10:34 AM mike
Draughts of my father.
July 30 9:09 PM drh
Gates tapped from this experience.
July 30 8:36 PM drh
Gates arrested once in a blue moon.
July 30 8:28 PM drh
Gates frosty.

Cops at G20 Protests dressed as "Anarchists"

2009-09-28T17:49:00.005-04:00

More surreal ridiculous behavior from the Police at the G20 protests. This is an obvious indication that they are attempting to provoke peaceful protesters, and also paint them as "Anarchists", which is a code word for people who like to create violence and destruction. I am still dealing with trying to fully process what happened at these protests. Denial seems to be a comfortable place for most people.

Speaking of denial, in response to HP's comments about "When it comes to losers and trouble-makers, most Americans don't mind the cops bending the rules and/or busting heads", I agree. However, it is important to point out the reason why people do this. They assume, that because the police officer is an authority figure, and he is there to do his job, which is a noble occupation, therefore he will act in accordance with the rules and regulations set in place for the police to follow. Even if he bends the rules, he is doing so with the public's best interests at heart.

Given these assumptions, there is almost no circumstance that you could present to people who think this way (like the YouTube commenter) which would result in them not siding with the police. It is a very frightening reality to exist in when you acknowledge what the police are actually doing. There is a huge amount of false comfort in just assuming that because they are the police, they are automatically in the right when it comes to dealing with anyone who is labeled a "protester" or otherwise. These people are in denial of the fact that a police officer violating a citizen's rights is no different than anyone else doing so. And who can blame them? It's not comforting to believe that the people who "protect and serve" are also blatantly violating Americans' rights and inciting protesters to violence, even if you have videotape evidence.

Protests at G20 in Pittsburgh

2009-09-25T18:40:00.010-04:00

The techniques that the police use in these videos should make every American who cares about this country and the Constitution very concerned and upset. The fact is that it is now completely undeniable the the former USA has now become a military police state where rights that were previously assumed to be inalienable may only be selectively exercised when the police determine so. This should not be happening in America, and the average American doesn't even know about it because they're too concerned withfollowing the latest catfight between news pundits and talking heads on from the "liberal" and "conservative" media. What is the latest ridiculous, racist, stupid and incomprehensible thing that some "right-wing" pundit has said about Obama, so that the "left" can jump all over them and wax poetic about how stupid they are? People are obsessed with this meaninglessness while the country has ALREADY been completely turned into a police state where our rights do not apply if the police say so. Regarding the equipment and vehicles used in these videos: WHAT THE FUCK??? Using sound weapons on protestors? Abducting protestors and shoving them into cars? Giant high-budget paddy wagons on steroids that blast a deafeningly loud voice that says:

“BY ORDER OF THE CITY OF PITTBURGH CHIEF OF POLICE WE HEREBY DECLARE THIS TO BE AN UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY.”

IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT YOUR PURPOSE IS, YOU MUST LEAVE. IF YOU DO NOT DISPERSE, YOU MAY BE ARRESTED AND/OR SUBJECT TO OTHER POLICE ACTION. OTHER POLICE ACTION MAY INCLUDE ACTUAL PHYSICAL REMOVAL, THE USE OF RIOT CONTROL AGENTS AND/OR LESS LETHAL MUNITIONS WHICH COULD CAUSE RISK OF INJURY TO THOSE WHO REMAIN.”

This terrifyingly surreal situation is made worse by the fact that NO ONE GIVES A FUCK. The language used in the recorded voice is something straight out of a science fiction film. Obama is allowing this to happen. I guarantee the police are using 1 or more provisions from the Patriot Act (supported by Obama) in order to do this. The Patriot Act was supposed to be used against "terrorists" and is instead being used against peaceful American citizens. The same weapons designed for use against terrorists are being used against peaceful Americans. WHY?? Why is this allowed to happen? Rights are rights. Rights are determined by the Constitution, not the Police!

http://rawstory.com/2009/09/video-appears-to-show-us-troops-kidnapping-protester/

Obama Fatigue

2009-09-23T22:39:00.004-04:00

The average person who voted for Obama is not willing to believe the possibility that he is involved in many of the things that Bush was called "evil" for doing. If you continue (and in some cases expand) "evil" policies, what does that make you?

The problem is people who were actually paying attention to what Bush did from 2000-2008 are so incredibly fatigued from the experience that they will not allow themselves to stay in this same mindset with regard to how they view Obama; and this fatigue (which was temporarliy relieved for many people when Obama was elected) will remain in the mind of any person who bothers to notice what Obama is doing with regard to maintaining and expanding many of the policies set in place by the Bush administration.

This is why "left-wing" types are attacking the "right-wing" types, who are attacking Obama for all the wrong reasons. It's not hard to figure out why the "right-wingers" do this. If they attacked Obama for continuing all of the horrible policies of the Bush administration that they gushed over from 2000-2008, they'd look kinda silly. Instead they bait left-wing types with ridiculous comments that are often racist, closed-minded, and/or don't even make sense to anyone. This gives their enemies the "left" plenty of ammunition to attack them with for looking foolish. Meanwhile, no one in this huge group of "left" and "right" bothers to look at Obama's policies from a factual and non-emotional perspective, because this type of thinking would force them to jump right back in to the same feeling of fatigue they felt during the Bush administration.

I completely understand why people do this, and I do it myself. The problem is, THAT SHIT AIN'T THE TRUTH. Why do we still have the Patriot Act? What about ending the Iraq war? What about CHANGE??? What about closing Gitmo? Why did Obama vote for the FISA bill? FUCK!!!!!! One of the most frustrating things is that NO ONE on either side ever talks about these issues unless it is done for the sake of supporting an attack on someone from the other side, not for the sake of actually discussing the issue itself.

A good collection of articles if you are interested in knowing the details of how Obama has kept the illegal un-American policies of the Bush administration in place:

http://www.obamadeception.net/articles.html

Rubberoom's album "Architechnology"

2009-09-23T21:02:00.006-04:00

Pure grime from Chicago, MC's Metamo and Lumba destroy this album...too many people have never even heard of this, even among obsessed hip-hop listeners. Metamo's page has some clips from this album under the track listing "Medley". It is available at amazon.com for 69 cents.

http://musicsnotalanguage.blogspot.com/2008/05/rubberoom-architechnology.html

Sunz Of Man feat. Killarmy - Soldiers Of Darkness

2009-09-21T20:20:00.000-04:00

One of the best hip-hop videos ever. WU-TANG!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMMgirimVX4&feature=PlayList&p=083AD58DF8FB3F3F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=21