Oops, had to re-edit because I forgot a title.

Well, I do believe that this shall be my final post for a few days. I am taking a trip “up North” to partake in the joys of cottaging in the “Great Canadian Wilderness”. I am also sure to arrive back in Hamilton dejected from blackfly bites and the horror of a hangover. However, before I do go, I wish to make a small post by which to tide you over, providing you actually need any tiding over from me (a slim possibility, I admit). I have actually been stressing the last few days over what to write a post about. I see my fellow bloggers post frequently and seemingly with great ease. I myself struggle to maintain a coherent thought, let alone hold onto it long enough to transcribe it to the web. I actually half-started many posts, from such different topics as nuclear war to the fate of Red Lobster. However, none captured my interest, nor did I think they would capture yours. Here on the cusp of both a new month and the half way mark of 2006, it seems time to refresh and renew my blog, to wake it up from the doldrums of daily existence and provide my readers with a scintillating read. Yet I do believe I will accomplish neither of these things. I am merely writing to take up space before I can publish a blog that is of a reasonable length. I think what I am in fact writing here is an “IOU”, as in “I owe you” a great blog when I get back. That is what you shall get. I plan to write down some funny things which will no doubt occur when I am away, and I will put those up when I return. So, hold steady friends. Enjoy your Canada Day, even if it means burning your fingers on cheap fireworks. Let June go out with a whimper and welcome in July with a bang. Prove T.S. Eliot wrong. Prove all the great writers wrong, if you dare. Awake, arise, my children of the night. And so forth. See you in a few.

secret blend of herb tarlek and spices

Styrofoam used to rock my world.

But something happened in 1990. Something so profound, something so life-altering, that I have never been the same since. I do believe that one day in the future I will look back on my life and mark that horrendous year "Year 1", as if the reign of Good King Grimace had ended and Evil Despot Hamburglar had begun. With that terrible thief of all things beef came a sea of paper wrappers. Why you might ask? The answer is simple. McDonald's stopped using styrofoam containers for their "food".

Why do I get so disjointed and brokenhearted over such a loss? Maybe it was the strange feeling you got when you ran your fingernails over that little styrofoam container. Perhaps it was the way your hotcakes stayed nice and hot and greasy trapped inside that little portable heatsink. But maybe I am mourning the loss of the permanent fast food industry. I say permanent not because McDonald's products incubate in your colon for three weeks, but rather because with styrofoam I felt safe in knowing that my children and my grandchildren and my great-grandchildren would be able to enjoy all that styrofoam. Of course they still can. Right now in various landfills located all over this country are piles of styrofoam containers that have not rotted or decomposed in the slightest. We could perhaps dig them up and construct playgrounds out of them. Think about how those containers have soaked in the smells of hamburgers and hotcakes. Now think about how good those playgrounds would smell. The point is now all we have are paper containers and wrappers. Even the coffee cups are paper-based. Goddamn styrofoam coffee tasted sooooooo good.

I think fast food peaked in the 1980's. What a decade for wondering where the beef was, making a run for the border, and deserving a break today. It was a beautiful time where precious wall space did not have to be wasted on "nutritional information". Kids' Meals came with incredible toys that just so happened to tie in with the latest movie or cartoon. The formative memories of my childhood lie behind those Golden Arches, and damn it if they weren't the goldenest arches around. So what was the point of this whole blog? I don't think there was one actually. But it was certainly finger lickin' good.

heaven is indeed a place on earth

Over the last few years, here in the wee first years of the twenty-first century, the end of my street has become overrun with small children. Seeing as how I live near the end of the street, this directly affects me. You should understand that for many years, there was nary a little bastard to be found around here. My sister and I were perhaps the youngest, if not only young adults holding down the fort, a situation which suited me fine. Then the baby boom came. It was as if Victory over Japan had been declared and the sailors had come home with a belly full of rice and loins full of willing sperm. In the house beside me, a new bastard (literally, because there is no father). The one beside that, an orphan from Haiti had arrived (upping the Black Canadian quotient on my street to 1). Across the street from that house, two small ones. Beside that house, three of them (and by the looks of the woman who lives there, perhaps four soon enough – but that might be a BIG mistake on my part). The point is the relative quiet and peacefulness of this street has been disrupted. The sad fact is many of the older folks on my street are leaving — either for Florida or the graveyard. This is opening up places for young, upwardly mobile families to move in. This is also making me rather pissed. I used to be able to count on hearing nothing in this neighbourhood but the occasional idiot mowing his lawn in the morning. Now all I hear is young children screaming, and I can't even tell what they are saying because it all sounds like just one high pitched "YEEEEEEEEEEEEE". Children are fine I suppose. But at least the old people did not yell so much. Damn you grim reaper. I certainly don't fear the reaper, but I do hate him. Oh yes, there is also a Blue Oyster Cult song called "I'm Burning for You". But I couldn't think of a way to work that title into this entry. Perhaps my forthcoming post on self-immolation would be better suited for that.

sentimental lady, gentle one

When Huey Lewis and The News said "tell me doctor, where are we going this time?" in their 1985 hit Back In Time from the Back to the Future soundtrack, I think they had the right idea. Indeed, if Marty is asking Doc where they plan on travelling "this" time, it suggests that Marty does in fact A) time travel often, and B) enjoys the foibles and mixups that occur in messing around with timelines, even though he often seems exasperated when they occur. It seems strange that he would refer to Doc as "doctor", seeing as how he never said that during the films and it is way too formal for a young man to address the man who he time travelled with in such a staid and proper way. Also note that in the song the singer (is it Marty who Huey is pretending to be? I think so) asks the doc to "promise" him that he will get back in time. Back in time for what you might ask. I certainly did. I think perhaps Marty had a date with Jennifer Parker. If that is the case, then I certainly understand why Marty would not want to be late because Jennifer Parker was an attractive gal and frankly who wouldn't want to spend as much time with her as possible.

Here is a funny story that is not really related to Back to the Future, but at the same time it is. There used to be a children's game show that I believe was a toned-down version of Wheel of Fortune, so essentially it lacked Pat and Vanna. It really doesn't matter what show it was I suppose, but up until now I was sure I knew what it was. Regardless, I remember watching it with my sister and there was a fat kid on that show who looked like a Biff Tannen-type. He had a short crew cut and a white t-shirt I think. Mind you this was like a decade ago so I am having trouble remembering. The point is to this day I am positive that the kid's name was actually "Biff", because I remember laughing at that. However, my sister vehemently disagrees with me on this. She claims that we just called the kid "Biff" because he looked like him, and that his name was actually something else. I refuse to believe her, and I am very positive his name was actually "Biff". Either way, it is hilarious that this "Biff" kid even made it onto a television game show.

Here is another silly story involving my sister and I. Once on vacation, we happened to be in a mall (which in fact happened alot during our vacations). This was in the early 1990's, so I guarantee I was wearing neon shorts and maybe a t-shirt with either Dick Tracy or the Terminator on it. But the point is we were in a store, I do not remember what the store was selling anymore. So I happened to pick up something and all of a sudden some man who worked at the store yelled at me to put it down. But where it gets strange is that I have always remembered that the man sounded and acted exactly like the character Janosz Poha from Ghostbusters II. I cannot explain how he behaves, but if you have seen the movie then you will know. I thought he was in fact the same person. Years later I discovered that the actor who played that character in fact sounds or acts nothing like Janosz, and it was an elaborate act. But the question remains why I seem to think I encountered him in that store. I suppose my memory is not very good, or at least it works in strange and baffling ways. This whole post was pretty strange and baffling. I apologize. Lady Liberty indeed.

will lou dobbs discuss immigration tonight?

I am sorry. That title is only funny if you ever happen to catch "Lou Dobbs Tonight" on CNN where it runs sandwiched in between endless hours of Wolf Blitzer's "The Situation Room". I am laughing because Lou Dobbs is so distressed by illegal immigration and the "loss" of middle class jobs that his every show focusses on the immigration "problem". So the answer to my question is "of course he will". I find Lou humourous. He is in fact a Republican, however his digust for George Bush's government is quite obvious. So perhaps he has something for everyone on the political spectrum to like. I give him credit for at least making himself enjoyable to watch. Mr. Wolf Blitzer is unfortunately very difficult to watch. While he has the most engaging name in all of television news reporting, he does very little to endear himself to you. I believe this is because he has a tendency to report news in a "breathless" manner in which every event that occurs is apparently to Wolf of the most singular importance. If he were ever to report on World War III I am certain "The Situation Room" would in fact turn into a live broadcast of paramedics trying in vain to bring Wolf back to life after severe cardiac arrest. Another problem with Wolf's show is his pairing with Jack Cafferty. Jack tends to provide an opinion on the show (whereas Wolf tends to play it safe and keep his true thoughts hidden from us), and while Jack is frequently caustic and witty as he throws barbs at government incompetence, his funny comments tend to only bounce off Wolf. I have never seen Wolf laugh at them. Nor have I seen him cry. I am not sure if he is human. After all, he is a Wolf. Frankly, I ask where is Bernard Shaw? You may remember him as he used to be a prominent anchor on CNN who spoke with a certain "gravitas", much like Stone Phillips. CNN is merely a shell of its former self. "Headline News" is no longer an entire news channel either. It now provides prime time programming such as Nancy Grace's show. I hate Nancy Grace. She is very shrill and demanding and vindicative. While she may attempt to appear sympathetic occasionally, in fact it is all a sham. She has no true emotions. However, she is not the worst offender on CNN. That honour goes to a man whose name is mentioned on various other blogs, such as Chris Chambers' blog. That man is Larry King. Larry is perhaps the worst interviewer ever given such a prominent, long running show. Larry does not know how to interview. He is prone to asking his guests stupid stupid questions which provoke obvious answers. If they happen to be a musician he will even get them to play a song or two. I remember one particularily memorable episode in which Larry interviewed a fat and obviously disoriented Marlon Brando, who was also shoeless. I also remember a funny incident on the bus one time where I met Brett Lintott. This was shortly after Johnny Carson had died, and we were discussing Larry's guest the night before, Ed McMahon. Larry had asked Ed what kind of person Johnny was. What was funny was our observation that there was no answer Ed could give but "Johnny was a nice guy". He was not going to badmouth the deceased. These are the deep questions Larry is fond of asking. Larry could not even interview himself if such an opportunity were to arise. Of course it would not. That is impossible.

how we built walt disney world

You could probably argue that Walt Disney World is the most famous theme park in the world, and I do not think that I would disagree with you. It wasn’t the first, it hasn’t been the last, and in terms of rides it is not even the greatest or most advanced. However, it is perhaps the best known and most loved in terms of providing the “theme park experience” and all that entails. I think Disney World perhaps best encapsulates what we, as the human race, have made of our time here at the end of the twentieth century and the beginning of the twenty-first, for better or worse. Given that, perhaps it would be interesting to learn a little about how the park came about and why it occupies such a huge space, figuratively and literally, in our cultural landscape.

The “Florida Project”, as it was known in its earliest incarnations, came about due to Walt Disney’s dissatisfaction with Disneyland in Anaheim, California which opened in 1955. Disneyland was built right in the middle of a growing, thriving community, mere miles from downtown Los Angeles. Since Disney did not own the rights to the land immediately adjacent to the park, businesses built up around the park hoping to capitalize on their proximity to Disneyland. Of course, while Disney may have been concerned with what type of entertainment his guests were being exposed to (focussing on the family was a prime objective), the industry which built up around Disneyland had no such qualms about capitalizing as much as possible on Disneyland. This factor, plus the lack of available space to expand the park, had Disney soon looking for a location in which he could control enough land in which to situate his park and isolate it at the same time. It is also important to note that Disney did not just want to create a redux of Disneyland. In fact, Disney wanted to create a community,of which the theme park itself would only be a small part. This “Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow”, or EPCOT, would be a futuristic utopia in which people would live in harmony with the environment around them. EPCOT would have an airport, industrial park, housing, and commercial space; in effect, a small city where residents would not have to travel far to find what they needed. The story of EPCOT is too grand to tell here; suffice it to say, EPCOT was never realized on the grand scale Disney himself had imagined. A smaller version known as EPCOT Center would be opened in 1982, as a theme park/leaning environment, but this EPCOT had little in common with Disney’s original plan.

All of this was in the future though; we are still in the early 1960’s at this point. In searching for the best possible location (including outside Toronto interestingly enough, which was turned down because Disney felt the climate could not sustain a theme park year round), Disney decided the park would have to be in the Eastern United States, based on the fact that while the majority of the American population lived east of the Mississippi, very few actually travelled the distance to Disneyland. After visiting the area just south of Orlando, Florida, Disney decided he had found his location (based partly on the fact that freeway routes in Florida bisected at the location, providing a steady influx of customers). The area itself was undeveloped and swampy, yet if Disney were to purchase a large lot of land (and he was going for 27,000 + acres), land prices would increase sharply and up the cost of the project. To get around this, Disney set up dummy corporations to buy the land in parcels, keeping the price down. By 1965 the secret was out however, and Disney was forced to go public with his plans for Disney World (at that time still going by the name EPCOT). From the start however, Disney planned on having his way in Florida. The Reedy Creek Drainage District was incorporate in 1966, giving Disney eminent domain on the land and allowing them the independence to decide how the land itself would be used. Walt Disney passed away shortly after on December 15, 1966. His brother Roy, now in control of the company, further petitioned the Florida Supreme Court to introduce in 1968 the Reedy Creek Improvement District. In doing so, Disney’s property in Florida was essentially a city, exempt from land use regulations and responsible to the state only for taxation. The RCID is an important part of understanding how Disney was able to gain complete control over the land, therefore giving them the right to decide how land use would alloted for the time in which they controlled the land. This ensured there would not be a repeat of Disneyland, and furthered tightened Disney’s grip on the area. I will not go into much more detail about this, however if you are at all interested in what Disney really gained by pushing through RCID, by all means take a look at http://www.rotten.com/library/travel/walt-disney-world/ .

By October of 1971, the first “park”, the Magic Kingdom, was ready to open, along with hotels owned and operated by Disney. Other resorts would come online in the intervening years, with EPCOT Center (by now a scaled down version of EPCOT incorporating a World’s Showcase) opening in 1982, MGM Studios in 1989, and Animal Kingdom in 1998. Yet Disney World is still haunted by Walt Disney himself. “What Would Walt Do?” is the question that reoccured throughout those years, and still does today. While Disneyland was very much a product of Disney himself, Disney World is the result of many visions, all attempting to follow in the footsteps of Walt. The question of whether the park is true to Disney’s original vision is impossible to know; although one of the various Disney rumours states that Walt left behind films in which he laid out where he felt the park should be during various years, this is simply not true. Much of Disney World is the result of guesswork and pressure to fit within the Disney mold.

I suppose then the question remains why Disney World remains so popular today and why we regard it as such an essential part of our postmodern culture. Much of its success is tied in with the Disney empire itself. Through cross-media pollination, such as movies and television, we are intimately familiar with Disney. We know the characters and the stories, and Disney World can capitalize on our familiarity. While this was also true of Disneyland, Disney World has room to expand and grow, adding on what is new in its films and removing those elements which are now unfamiliar to children. Yet much of the park’s popularity lies in position as a destination resort. Unlike Disneyland, where the large population that surrounds it can take frequent trips to the park, Disney World is relatively isolated. Given that most of the park’s visitors are out of state and even out of country, the resort becomes a destination itself. It is self-contained and capable of meeting the needs of all visitors, and given its location and cost, taking a trip becomes something that is saved up for over time. As an element of postmoderism, the Disney empire is highly representative of the “unreality” of our own existence. As philosopher Jean Baudrillard once famously remarked, “Disneyland is presented as imaginary in order to make us believe that the rest is real, when in fact all of Los Angeles and the America surrounding it are no longer real, but of the order of the hyperreal and of simulation.” What Baudrillard said could just as easily been applied to Disney World. From such a perspective we would see these parks as examples of cultural systems maintaining the illusion of their own “reality” by giving us something patently “false” or illusory. Take from that what you will. In any regard, Disney World stands as an achievement unlike any other. It is a beacon for capitalism, yet it provides us with a fun time. It is the product of various minds, yet it sprung from the ideas of one man. It requires a level of cultural knowledge, yet it itself has created that knowledge to sustain itself. Such paradoxes do not explain its popularity, but they do demonstrate how understanding Disney World requires investing yourself in all that is Disney, for better or worse.

If you made it to the end, I thank you for your patience in reading such a poorly written article. I invite you to check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walt_Disney_World_Resort , where I shamelessly stole some of this information and where you can find much, much more about what I have just barely touched on.

your child will be molested.

I think you should read Brett's blog posthaste, as he did a superb job of hitting the intellectual and funnylectual highlights of last night at Hess Village (of the Damned). I will add some remarks however. My friends, the streets of downtown Hamilton were alive last night with fools in cowboy hats and the middle-aged, cougarish women who love them. Some of these folks obviously made their way to Hess, as evidenced by the occasional cowboy hat which rolled down the street, urged on by a stiff breeze and an innate desire to be anywhere but the sweaty, balding head of an overweight country music fan. I kid about that however. That did not actually happen. As Brett pointed out, no such sweaty fool would let an expensive hat like that get away. As the crowds at Hess were rather thin though, you did not have to look very hard to find such a hat and its owner enjoying a refreshing drink at one of the Village's many dark, dank, and depressing watering holes. One such location was the "Lazy Flamingo", where the name conjures up images of a enchanting tropical paradise yet the reality is much more concerned with subdued lighting and cheap bric-brac decorating the floors and walls. Anyways none of us went there for the decor or the musty smell; rather it was to see THE Chris Chambers Band hard at work. Work, they did. Hard, it was. Most of the crowd seemed to be in someway connected with the band either by friendship or hidden envy. I fall into the former category, as I just happen to know the gentleman whose name makes up 50% of the band's title. I will throw a plug in here and say that you should go see them, however my apologies in advance as anyone who actually reads this blog most likely was there last night anyways. I know many a funny observation was made last night by the very witty people who happened to be there, unfortunately I can barely remember any of such observations. I do know that "View" magazine however provides many an example of the dire shittiness of both A) the Hamilton bar scene and B) the employable babysitting crowd. Also, there was certainly no lack of NSDAP support as evidenced by the generous display of "Heil Hitlers", limp-wristed or otherwise. In conclusion I suppose last night was a microcosm of the Hamilton experience at large. That may explain all the laughing that went on, because frankly if you take anything too serious in this town you will find yourself roaming outside Hess in the wee morning hours, enjoying the music from afar as your ten-speed waits around the corner for another run at those two fellows across the street who look like they might have money to donate on behalf of A) your sorry person and B) "weed".

the lies that bruno gerussi told

Alright. I think we should make it clear that although the Canadian television industry does occasionally produce a decent show that is actually enjoyable to watch (and the only ones that come to mind right now are DaVinci's Inquest, Degrassi, and FX: The Series), it produces alot of shitty shitty shows that should never have seen the light of a Canadian day. Frankly I do not feel like listing them, because that would take more time than I am willing to spend on the topic right now. However some do come to mind. The Beachcombers. Holy shit this show is horrible. It would have been bad enough that one season of this show was produced, but incredibly it ran for NINETEEN seasons on the CBC, finally being taken out back and shot in 1991. This show is on reruns in the afternoon on SUNTV, which frankly is a horrible channel. SUNTV took over the spot Toronto One had occupied for a brief amount of time, and whereas that channel was notorious for showing Hollywood action movies constantly and giving us really shitty "entertainment" shows, SUNTV is much, much worse. The Beachcombers had one thing going for it: the beautiful scenery of British Columbia, and perhaps "studly" Bruno Gerussi for the ladies prior to say, 1980 when he started taking a turn for the worse in terms of attractiveness. However, this show is ridiculous. As a CBC show, of course it was cheaply produced and relied on the same six characters for NINETEEN years, in which for approximately NINETEEN of those years we cared nothing about them. I realize this show has now become a cultural icon in Canada, and I think that has less to do with it's actual quality and more to do with the amount of chest hair Gerussi cultivated over the course of the show. King of Kensington. You can also find reruns of this show on SUNTV. However, I do not suggest you actually watch any of them. It only ran for five years on the CBC in the late 1970's, yet those five years may represent the beginning of an inevitable cultural decline that we have yet to pull out of. To sum up this show, all you need to know is that Al Waxman (who you have probably seen in any number of Canadian features, most of them bad) played a convenience store owner in Toronto's Kensington Market. Apparently, the entire world revolved around him, as every episode saw Al solving the problems of his neighbours and friends. Yet even though this show is labelled a "sitcom", there is absolutely nothing funny about it. I have never laughed watching this show, yet the laughtrack would have you think it was a funny show. The acting is atrocious. The actors say their "funny" line and wait a beat for the laughter, yet they never say anything remotely funny. Fuck I hate this show. Open Mike with Mike Bullard. I believe that there is a special place in Hell for Mike Bullard. I believe that the Devil himself will refuse to hear any of Bullard's "jokes" because to do so would make Hell a bad place to be for the Devil. I know that my ears have bled anytime I happened to see this show, which ran for six seasons on CTV before Bullard jumped to Global, only to see his ratings crumble and his show removed from the air the next year. To the executives at Global, I say thank you. Bullard never said anything funny, which makes it hard for me to understand how A) he ever became a "comedian", and B) how he got his own show. I think perhaps he styled himself after David Letterman, but with a Canadian twist. And by that I mean he took what he thought were Letterman's best bits, watered them down, drowned them in fact, then added in something Canadian so we would laugh. I never laughed. I believe the people in the audience who were suckered into a taping of this show only laughed because off-camera Bullard's family stood ready with shotguns to plow down those folks who did not laugh at their "funny" son/nephew/uncle whatever. Bullard liked to ask his guests questions about Canada. If they were successful (and I do not think anyone ever was not), they received a gift from one of the show's sponsors, Canadian Tire. Oprah gives her AUDIENCE cars; Bullard gave his GUESTS a coffeemaker or a power washer. I realize he was working with a much smaller budget; yet since jokes do not cost money, there is no excuse as to why he sucked so bad. MuchMusic VJ Search. You may have seen episodes of this "show" earlier this year when reruns were broadcasted on CHUM channels at least two times a day. You might also have heard about it when it was mentioned on CityPulse news, even though there was nothing newsworthy about it and it is downright fucked that such cross-promotion occurs in a news broadcast, but I digress. Imagine if you will, a reality television show from America, in which contestants are whittled down until finally one emerges victorious. Now cut the budget by 90 percent, make your fantasy destination not Hawaii but EDMONTON, and get a host no one has heard of but uses her hands alot and gets WAY too serious during elimination. Oh yes, also have a judging panel made up of such "celebrities" as two past Much VJ's, and you have VJ Search. The promotion for this show was downright ridiculous; I must have heard it mentioned three times a day in some form every day as it ran. Thankfully, only ten episodes or so were shot, so the suffering was kept to a minimum. Whenever I happened to catch it, the music fan in me ran to a small dark corner of my soul and hid. I have been saying for years that Much as forgotten about hiring VJ's who knew what the fuck they were talking about, and instead is going straight for kid appeal. I say kid because who other than teenage girls watches Much anymore. It's hard to get excited about a channel that plays the same fifteen videos everyday. VJ Search is like the epitome of the "new" Much. Style over substance all the way, but with a limited budget and little talent. God I hope they do not decide to do this reality tv shit again. Why don't you hire a bunch of monkeys to be VJ's. I would find them more attractive and significantly more interesting than the empty shells of humanity you currently hire. Go to hell MuchMusic. And take Waxman and Gerussi and Bullard with you.

saturday night playlist

It is one of those Saturdays where I am really just putting the time in. So I thought that I would show you a slice of what I am currently listening to as of now, with a few comments here and there to justify my musical choices.

Stars – Sleep Tonight

You may not know of Stars, but they are coming out of the same Canadian indie rock scene that has given us The Arcade Fire, Broken Social Scene, and The Stills. In fact, Amy Millan of Stars has guested on some of BSS's stuff. This song in particular is I think the stand out track of Stars album Set Yourself on Fire. I particularly enjoy the lyrics, so you should check out at least this track if you decide to give Stars a go.

Prince – Eye Love U, but Eye don't trust U anymore

Just know that this is more current Prince stuff, so it is not as salicious or sexy as what he has done before. In fact, this is perhaps one of his greatest ballads, even though the subject matter is less romantic and more bittersweet.

Radiohead – Thinking about you

One of my all time favourite Radiohead tracks, this is a straightforward acoustic number seemingly about the demands and challenges that stardom puts on a relationship. However is it Thom who is the one feeling left behind and hurt, even as he declares that he has been the one who was always there, in fame and in not.

The Bee Gees – How deep is your love

You may mock The Bee Gees; many people do. However, that does nothing to diminish the fact that these gentlemen wrote and sung some incredible songs with an impressive vocal harmony between them. Sure it is a little overproduced, yet even with the extra touches this track in particular has a gentle, calm feeling to it, even as the lyrics ask "how deep is your love"? .

Nine Inch Nails - A warm place

The only song on The Downward Spiral you can safely play with your parents in the room. To really appreciate this track you should hear it as it is sequenced on the album. After the sonic assault of "Big Man with a Gun", this instrumental brings you down and gives you a breather. You need it to get through the rest of the album.

Red House Painters – I'm Sorry

This is actually a cover of a John Denver song, if you can believe it. However typecast Denver got as a rocky mountaineer, this song proves he had the songwriting chops to write some seriously sad and depressing stuff. Mark Kozelek and Red House Painters however give the song that melancholy touch that propels it into greatness.

Peter Gabriel – Mercy Street

Strangely missing off Gabriel's recent Hit/Miss album, "Mercy Street" is incredibly atmospheric and soothing. Gabriel's voice is in a deep register as he almost whispers the song. I appreciate the sparseness of this song, and if you do a little digging you will discover where his inspiration came from, which explains the feeling of sadness that permeates the song.

U2 – All I want is you

Probably one of the most overlooked songs in U2's catalogue, to which I credit the fact that it first appeared on Rattle & Hum, the album which has consistenly been dismissed as an excess of ego. However, even though I might partly agree with that statement, I will fight to the death for this song. One of the most incredible ballads I have heard, even with the excess of strings tacked onto the end of the song. For me, the genius of this song is achieved with the change of one word from the first chorus to the last chorus. Just go look up the lyrics, and see which word changes and you will understand. An admission of failure has never been done so romantically.

Salem’s Hot

We should perhaps discuss Satanism. The Oxford Modern English Dictionary defines Satanism as: "the worship of Satan, with a travesty of Christian forms; the pursuit of evil for its own sake; deliberate wickedness". Such a definition is perhaps rooted in a Judeo-Christian tradition which feels that the worship of anything else than God is necessarily a perversion of "Christian" values. However I don't wish to get too much into that. I'm more concerned with how Satanism is portrayed within popular culture and how it functions as a "boogeyman" which "concerned" conservative Christians can use to cloud an issue and dissuade discourse. In this way Satanism becomes the necessary evil by which binary positions can be established; essentially, Satanism is often used in the "us vs. them" trope. Think about your own encounters with Satanism and Satanists. More often than not, the topic is addressed not from a religious context, but from the position of fear; as a threat, as a lurking evil which is corruptive and constantly preying on the weakest in our species–children and teenagers. We hear about Satanism primarily in relation to things like child abuse (Satanic Ritual Abuse), serial killers (Richard Ramirez "The Night Stalker"), and heavy metal (Black Sabbath). The media thrives on issues like these, because they require little actual work and investigation. Just mention Satanism at a preschool and you will have people thirsting for blood; never mind that such allegations are most often proven false, the result of overactive imaginations on the part of the children and vindictive, dangerous "professionals" who are willing to use children as a way to increase their own profile. I refer you to google the "McMartin Preschool Case" for more information on how such investigations often turn into witch hunts, destroying the lives of innocent people. SRA was a popular topic in the 1980's, helped along by people such as Geraldo Riveria, who made outlandish claims on their "talk shows" that SRA was occurring within a large, nationwide network of Satanists who would regularly conduct black masses at which sacrifices and sexual abuse occurred. Nonesuch allegations have been proven to be true; however, the damage was done. Heavy metal has come under attack for promoting Satanism in its music and lyrics; bands such as Judas Priest and Ozzy Osbourne have been accused of planting subliminal messages in their music which encourage listeners to kill themselves. Judas Priest was forced to go to trial after two boys who had listened to their music attempted/committed suicide. The prosecution claimed that the message "Do it!" had been implanted in the music. Note that the "message" did NOT say "Do it; kill yourself", a point argued by the defense and which helped Judas Priest win the trial. Even when serial killers claim some link to Satan, as Richard Ramirez did after he was caught in Los Angeles in the 1980's after committing a series of killings, it is this tenuous link which is picked up and magnified by the media. Even the notion of the black mass has been distorted into the ultimate dark ritual. In fact, more often than not throughout history the black mass has merely been an excuse to join with a select group of people and engage in orgies and mass consumption of alcohol. I invite you to google the "Hellfire Club" to read about how the black mass was more a social ritual than Satanic invocation. Perhaps all of these examples show how Christian values have so deeply penetrated into our society that Satanism has become the ultimate evil. Satanists who are part of the Satanic Church founded by Anton LaVey are, for the most part, neither evil or malicious. The Satanic Church is more style than substance; it has created a belief system that encourages hedonism and debauchery, and taken Satan as the ultimate symbol of rebellion against Christianity. At the same time, such Satanism requires Christianity for its own survival; without it, Satan is not a figure or rebellion. It works both ways. Without Satan there is no ultimate evil to position yourself against. What I mean to say I suppose is that they require each other, as much as they seem to be at odds with each other.