too loud, too proud

Life would be so much easier if 1980’s pop stars were all robots and decided to stage a giant gladiatorial match in order to determine which one was truly deserving of being atop the pop charts. I think the prime matchup, the “A Card” if you will, would have been Tiffany versus Debbie Gibson. As if these two weren’t already at each others’ throat throughout the late 80’s, imagine if you will if both of them were in fact robots and were only assuming the young, nubile body of a blooming female in order to get achieve great fame and wealth. TIffany may in fact have been a probot. A probot, for those of you who do not know, is a portmanteau of “probe robot”, which comes from The Empire Strikes Back. Han and Chewie worked together to blast a probot on the cold, frozen plains of the planet Hoth. However they were too late and the Empire already knew they were there and they had to evacuate and the probot made a weird noise as it scanned and then it blew up fantastically into a bunch of pieces that were still on fire as they landed in the snow. The point is, Tiffany was actually one of these probots, although she was not sent by Darth Vader to find the Rebels. In fact, she was born much like any of us, out of a female’s womb and into the caring hands of a midwife, who suckled this young probot because her mother was unable to produce breastmilk at the sight of such a horrific mechanical being. Young Tiffany learned at an early age that she would have to morph into human form to fit in. One day at the shopping mall she came across a young teen who she found attractive enough to form her shape after. Of course, you couldn’t have two young teens running around who looked exactly the same, so probot Tiffany disposed of this young lady with a screech. Meanwhile, half way across the country, a meterorite streaked out of the sky and landed in a field. Out of this flaming rock strode Optimus Debgib, an mechanical being which proclaimed that “freedom was the right” of all sentient beings. Of course, it soon became clear to Optimus that this was hardly the way to break into the music business so she decided to modify her slogan to “pop music is the right of all youngsters”. By slightly changing her name to DEBbie GIBson, she could fit right in with all the other young white girls chasing their dreams in shopping malls and playing The Bangles and The Go-Go’s at excessive volumes. Screw you Bananarama you always sucked. Anyways, the point is these two were fated to butt heads; robotic, greasy, mechnical heads. I imagine that on December 31st, 1989 both met in a shocking and decisive fight. On the cusp of the 1990’s, and the instant coolness which followed, both girlbots removed their bedazzled denim and neon shirts and reverted to their respective robot and probot forms. No one who was there that day can clearly recall what happened next. It was so fast that if you dared blink much of the action passed you by. In the end, victory was sweet for neither. Having damaged each other destructively, both girlbots decided that the only way to survive would be to call a truce and in fact record a song together. That song has never been heard by human ears, as it is recorded in robot speed and is so fast that it is impossible to hear. And so ends the saga of probot versus robot

leave my house I despise you!

It has been a little quiet around here as of late. I’ll admit the “joy” of blogging has pretty much left me this last while, and even now I have very little of interest to say. However I thought I’d make an effort if only to keep this thing alive (albeit, barely). So, today I was reading an issue of “Ladies Home Journal” from December 1990. You might say “but wait! You’re sixteen years too late to enjoy reading an expose on Three Men and a Little Lady. Nonsense. Danson, Guttenberg, and Selleck are comedic geniuses no matter what the decade. Actually, I was more interested in the ads in the magazine than the stories (although, it was nice to see that the list of “tips for surviving the holidays” remains virtually unchanged from the list in this year’s “Good Housekeeping”). I find advertisements always interesting, especially those from the past because they very often capture an era better than anything else. What was selling in the early 1990’s is no exception. Since this is a woman’s magazine, not surprisingly there are alot of ads for perfumes and home appliances (and also family-friendly cars half a decade before the SUV became the car of choice for soccer moms). As I admire these products, I am fascinated by what was the aesthetic of the early 1990’s. There is a very streamlined, clean look to everything. I think Black & Decker products of the time sum it up quite nicely. Functionality overtook expression. You could perhaps say that the “yuppie” aesthetic became king, if only for a short while. I don’t think there has been another time where the trendsetters on Madison Avenue and Wall Street so clearly saw their tastes and values spread into the marketplace of mass consumption. This isn’t to suggest that we aren’t still living in a world where our trends reflect those started in the cathedrals of consumption in New York City. However, I think the late 80’s and early 90’s reflect the peak of this alignment between Madison Avenue and Madison, Wisconsin. Looking back on these advertisments now what is missing is the irony and detachment with which we view ads today. I don’t want to suggest we are living in a world with a reduction of the power of advertising; in fact, with the proliferation of various multimedia advertising outlets we are more inundated today than at any point in the past. Yet it is easy to see how advertising once relied much more heavily on provoking an emotional response than an intellectual one. Perhaps much of it has to do with the fact that we cannot as easily determine which culture we which to identify with. The yuppies are gone, but who took their place? If Generation X has almost ascended to the stations of power, than it is not surprising that such a jaded generation equals a difficult culture to identify with for those who came before. 1990 perhaps represents a much more important decade turning point than 1980 or 2000 ever did. It is not an understatement to say that the collapse of the Soviet Union did much to centralize the locus of world power directly in the United States. The machines which make such a country work best are often those which work on the level of media and consumption. Not surprisingly then, the advertising world of 1990 reflects an America in which the pursuit of wealth (and consequently, the consumption of products) is directly linked to its status as world superpower. However, I am getting off topic. All I really wanted to say was I got a kick out of reading this old magazine because it reminds me of my own childhood and invokes those feelings of nostalgia which often, and incorrectly, lead us to believe we came from a “simpler” time. Not simpler however; just different.

sky phenomenon

I don’t often discuss American politics on here, because I realize the audience for that kind of discussion is limited. However, I think it’s time to discuss a couple of things which more people should be aware of if they do really care about democracy. American post 9/11 is not the democracy for which much of the world used to admire and aspire to be like. Under the guise of “homeland security”, and the threat of “terrorism”, the American government has covertly done what it can to strip American of their Constitutional rights in under the guise of protecting Americans from threats abroad. Unfortunately, the more dangerous threats can be found within the government itself.

Perhaps few of you know of the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Originally it was passed to ensure that Federal troops did not interfere in elections which were occurring within the former Confederate states. However, the Act more broadly ensures that the Federal government cannot use Federal troops within the United States in a law enforcement capacity (such as detaining citizens who are protesting, for example). Federal troops can only be used under the explicit authorizations of Congress or from within the Constitution. You can see how important such an Act is; it prevents such a government from using its troops to quell insurrections with a country which may in fact be directed at said government. However, now that Americans live under a constant threat of “terrorism”, this Act may not in fact be followed if the time comes. Note this blog, http://balkin.blogspot.com/2005/07/does-posse-comitatus-act-still-exist.html where is excerpted a footnote which declares that the Act does not “forbid the use of military force for the military purpose of preventing and deterring terrorism within the United States”. Under the threat of “terrorism”, the Posse Comitatus Act has essentially been ignored.

Of course, we have yet to see Federal troops descend on the American population in order to quash their individual rights. Yet yesterday we saw a law which does in fact violate the Consitution become law. The Military Commissions Act of 2006 was passed into law, however much of the American public seems oblivious as to what this law really means. Essentially, it has now given the President the authority to, on a whim, declare American citizens “enemy combatants”. Such a declaration can be made on the smallest of charges, such as providing support to what the President determines is a terrorist organization (which may seem sensible at first until you realize that “support” is a vague term which may in fact require you did very little at all). Once you are declared an “enemy combatant”, rights which were previously guaranteed you as an American citizen under the Constitution (habeas corpus, whereby you have the right to a trial by which you can defend yourself), no longer exist. Perhaps you will find yourself carted away to a secret CIA prison where various “interrogation” techniques will be performed against you. These techniques amount to torture; an act which is expressly prohibited by the Geneva Convention, to which the United States agreed to. Your torturers (Americans, by the way), will not be charged with any crime under this new Act. Here’s a great op-ed which sums up just what this Act means, and how it undermines the very fabric of the American Constitution. Take a look: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/opinion/28thu1.html?ex=1317096000&en=3eb3ba3410944ff9&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss . It can’t happen here right?

Luther Van Dam

You’re lucky you are all getting this post. As I was about to come upstairs five minutes ago I almost wiped out on a rug at the bottom of the stairs, which would have led to me cracking my skull on the steps and possibly dying. My last words would have been “Simply Red…..YES!”, because I had just come across some old cassettes. So my post is going to be about them I suppose. So, Simply Red is/was a band that was pretty damn popular back in the day. I think they put out an album a couple years back, but I’m not sure what their status is today. Anyways, in 1989 they had a tremendous hit entitled “If you don’t know me by now“. It was actually a cover of an earlier hit, however it was massive as I remember hearing it growing up. We still have the cassette single it came on. I always found the cassette single to be a strange anomaly. They came in a little paper sheath and usually had two or three songs on them, much like vinyl singles but with a much shorter life span as the cassette single never quite caught on. We actually have a bunch of singles, however I seem to remember this one the most because I believe my father played it over and over again until I couldn’t stand the song. But after hearing it again earlier this year for the first time in many years, I decided to give it a closer listen. I was surprised to find out that it is an incredible song, and has quickly become one of my favourites.

My parents I see have some interesting taste in music. There are some Oak Ridge Boys tapes, Jon Secada (remember him? probably not), Whitney Houston (her first album which is pretty incredible), Lionel Richie (who was one of my favourite artists when I was young mainly because of the song “Dancing on the Ceiling“, Michael Bolton (“Time, Love, and Tenderness” baby oh yeah), Billy Joel (in his mid-80’s pop phase), Bruce Springsteen (Born in the U.S.A. which rocks of course), and I have in front of me Air Supply. Let’s face it; Air Supply is one of the shittiest bands to walk the face of the Earth. Never minding they both had the worst haircuts impossible (men should not have perms; this was inexcusable even in the 1980’s), their music was beyond sappy. Yet, even as I say this I am listening to “All out of Love“, just one of their many songs which had “love” in the title. For some reason I have a weak spot for this song. Sure, it’s as overblown and over-the-top as the rest of their music, however there’s something so goddamn beautiful about it that I certainly don’t mind listening to it. For all their stupidity, these gentlemen had very nice voices.

Of course, the best tapes lying in that box were two masterpieces from Phil Collins: “…But Seriously” and “No Jacket Required”. Let me say straight out that Phil Collins fucking rocks! His “Greatest Hits…Live” was one of the first tapes I went to the mall to buy, and it is still a great live album. Phil has an amazing ability to write both catchy pop songs and heartbreaking love songs without going too overblown or sappy. He is often criticized for turning Genesis away from it’s prog rock roots and turning it into a pop band. But hell I always liked Genesis better that way anyways. Anyways, I want to save all my love for Phil for another post where I can go through some of his best work.

can I sit next to you girl?

Having just watched Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan again (I’ve lost track of how many times I have seen it), I wanted to use the movie as a jumping-off points for some of the big issues it discusses. I know many of you might be quick to dismiss a Trek film as a joke; something trekkies like me enjoy. And while I am not an obsessive Trek fan, I certainly love the many movies and tv shows a great deal more than I do other things. So I guess this does in fact make me a pretty big trekkie. However none of that takes away from some of the very big and very important issues Trek raises. Even if you want to dismiss the show as a fantasy, it is hard to ignore that sometimes Trek asks very important questions about humanity, where it has been, where it is going, and how we plan on getting there. But really right now I want to talk about The Wrath of Khan. This is a movie which is first and foremost about friendship, getting old, mortality, and sacrifice. It is regarded as the best Trek film specifically because it deals with these issues firstly, and the science fiction elements come secondly. It is actually highly regarded even by non-Trek fans, as it is a thrilling, entertaining, and engaging movie even for those people who know nothing about Star Trek. In the film, we see James T. Kirk, now an desk-bound admiral, wrestling with his inability to do what he does best: command a starship. His friends, such as Spock and Bones, recognize that Kirk is failing to do what amounts to his best destiny: commanding the Enterprise. Kirk is further bothered by a mid-life crisis; he is getting old and he lacks purpose and drive. When Khan, an enemy from Kirk’s past reappears, we see Kirk take command of the Enterprise once again and regain what he has lost. Yet at the same time Kirk is forced to confront his worst fear: the fear of losing. All his life he has cheated death by finding ways out of no-win situations; however this time his success and the survival of the Enterprise is tested by the ultimate no-win scenario, to which even Kirk has no answer. However, it is ultimately the dedication and friendship of Spock which saves the ship, although Spock gives his life in the process. He also gives Kirk a final gift; the understanding that his life can be reaffirmed by confronting the death of his friend, by which Kirk finally reveals he feels young once again. It is a bittersweet and moving moment at the end of the film seeing Spock say goodbye to Kirk as his friend. I think you can see what I mean when I say the film tackles some big issues. In a sense, it is a film about rebirth. The rebirth of Kirk, the possible rebirth of Spock, and the beginnings of life from which there was none before (the Genesis planet). Much of this gets me thinking. Death, for instance. We do much to shield ourselves from the reality of death and we often wish it away. Of course, in doing so we deny the very thing that makes us human: our mortality. It is in knowing that we must die that ultimately we can gain control over our lives and make them for the better. We hear that we should like each day like it is our last, however that’s often difficult to do when life itself gets in the way and we can’t find the time, or the honesty, or the bravery to do the things we want to do and say the things we want to say everyday to those around us. It’s easy to say “live everyday like it’s the last one”, but much harder to actually live it. But maybe all it really means is sometimes you have to take the time to realize that you live side-by-side with your own mortality, and the sooner you can accept it the sooner you can begin to live. I also like to think about another message in the film: that of rebirth, of hope, of possibility. Spock is often fond of saying “there are always possibilities”, and I think Kirk’s desire to defeat the no-win scenario reflects that. Everyday, every hour, every minute, every second the world around us changes and us with it. Often we don’t even notice that we change along with the world. But it’s not really a bad thing is it? It’s about hope I think. If everything is constantly reborn, becoming anew, then we truly do live in a world of possibilities. I don’t like to imagine that the world is slowly closing its doors to me; I prefer to think that in everything I do I will find more and more possibilities. Maybe that is why I have a hard time saying goodbye to things, because I like to believe that nothing truly ends or is over. Actually what this all reminds me of is a great poem by Ezra Pound entitled “Exile’s Letter”. There is a great line towards the end which states “there is no end of things in the heart”. I’ve always taken that line to heart, so to speak. Ultimately if we keep believing, then we’ll find it to be true. Ok, so I hope that was a bit deeper than trekkies usually go!

all in the name of liberty

Oddly enough, after having a discussion the other night with Brett about Ted “The Nuge” Nugent, I was unlucky enough to stumble across a show of his on OLN, which is the Outdoor Life Network for those of you without it. Anyways, this show is called “Wanted: Ted or Alive”, which in itself is humourous. However, my laughing soon ceased once I began to watch the show. Uncle Ted gets five people to come out to the wilderness with him, where he intends to reward them with money if the succeed in completing various “wilderness and hunting” related feats. Such feats include wearing nothing but buffalo skins; learning how to wield a crossbow in order to hunt; and killing and skinning a chicken for food. This is not so unusual because Nugent is in fact an avid and outspoken hunter and unapologetic “patriotic” American, which he believes gives him the right to slur and attack women and “foreigners”. Because he is such a blowharding jackass, it’s possible to find him humourous, although we are laughing at him, not with him. As we discussed the other night, Uncle Ted is like the more disturbing, less charming version of David “Diamond Dave” Lee Roth of Van Halen. While Dave always has a funny quip ready, Nuge would just as soon accuse you of being a pansy left-wing liberal Jew lover as he skins an animal alive. I have a wild fantasy where Ted actually contracts cat scratch fever and goes feral and runs off to live in the wild where he is promptly attacked and feasted on by a roaming pack of American Buffalo.

Still on the topic of OLN, let’s discuss another show entitled “Mantracker”. It actually is exactly what it sounds like. Two people are dropped off in the wilderness and given a certain amount of time to make it on foot to the finish line. That in itself is not so strange. What is strange is that chasing them the entire way is a rather gruff and angry looking man on horseback. He is the “mantracker” and it is his job to find his prey and catch them before they make it to the end. Mantracker seems to take his job very personally, and he gets offended if his prey disrepect him. His cold, steely blue eyes scan from ontop his mount for his victims, and God help you ladies and gentlemen if you piss mantracker off. However, mantracker is ultimately a eunuch. If he does find his prey, he doesn’t do anything remotely dangerous or deadly to him. In my version of this show at the very least he would chase them down and rope them like a wild bull. Perhaps he could even shoot them with buckshot or something, not kill them but give them a little incentive to be more cunning and wary while in the woods.

Just on the basis of these two shows, I’ll dare say the outdoor life is not for me.

come on come on love me for the money

As I sit here listening to some of Billboard’s Top 100 from 1972, I’m amazed at how great some of these songs are and how much they move me (emotionally, friends, not physically). Take for example “Layla”, by Derek and the Dominoes. I’m sure most of you are familiar with this song; it’s highly regarded as an incredible piece of musicianship on the part of Eric Clapton. He wrote the song after falling in love with George Harrison’s wife, Patty. It is essentially two songs in the one; the blistering first half and the more gentle reflective second part. I could only get through the first half tonight actually. Sometimes you just want to hear that passion for love unfulfilled rather than the “filled” love part. Let’s also talk about the track I’ve got on now, Bread’s “Everything I Own”. My mother actually has the vinyl version of Bread’s greatest hits, so I feel as though I’m honouring a tradition of listening to sappy music by playing it now. Bread is perhaps best known for the song “If”, which is usually played at weddings (which gives you an indication of how sappy it is). But “Everything I Own” is a much more superior song. To be honest, this song always gets me choked up. He’s singing about a relationship after the fact, and his message is essentially “I’d give it all up you have you once again”. Pretty powerful stuff, and the music that goes with it is gorgeous. Let’s see. I’ve got on now Harry Nilsson covering Badfinger’s “Without You”. You might have heard one of the various other covers of this song, with the refrain “Can’t live if living is without you”. You might have heard that line at least. Anyways, those covers all suck. Nilsson’s is the definitive one, and you take a listen and you’ll see. Sure the song is overblown to begin with, but frankly I don’t mind. Somehow I always identify with this song, as sad and depressing as that is. It’s a very pessimistic, sad, and fatalistic look at relationships. Ok I’ve moved onto one of the most beautiful songs that has ever graced my ears: Roberta Flack singing “The First time ever I saw your face”. Roberta has a very commanding voice, but she exhibits a control over it which impresses me very much. It is a pretty and gentle song, and Roberta knows how to keep her emotions in check, which makes it all the more powerful. Clint Eastwood was a particular fan of this song. He put it in his movie Play Misty for Me, which is a nice little thriller about an obsessed woman. The movie actually popularized this song, and for good reason. I love Roberta. Anyways, that’s just a sampling of some very moving music from 1972.

i’ve got big balls

I got the inspiration last night at 4:30. If you haven’t seen Arnold’s movie “Commando” you probably won’t get the punchline. However, it made me laugh this morning and it still seems somewhat funny, so I figured I’d post it.

let there be rock

Today I was lucky enough to find on YouTube a little piece of television history.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GaXiWgDU4i0

Most kids I knew when I was growing up watched Sesame Street. It was hard to avoid it, really. It was already a legend in children’s programming by the 1980’s, and many of the first books I read were Sesame Street books. When I first started watching it, I’m not sure. Nor can I remember the day when I finally quit watching it full-time (although if I had to guess I’m pretty sure it was about the time that I got hooked on the Ghostbusters and Turtles cartoons). The episode that I’ve linked here I may or may not have seen. It first aired on Thanksgiving weekend (November) in 1983, so even if I did see it there’s no way I can consciously remember doing so (I was only 1 at the time!). However, I was aware of Mr. Hooper when I watched the show growing up, so my memories are pretty fuzy on the whole thing. Regardless, I’ve always known that Mr. Hooper died during the run of the series. This was not a plot contrivance; the actor who played Hooper, Will Lee, did in fact die during the series. The creators of Sesame Street, in a testament to both the actor and to the purpose of the series, decided not to write him out in a plot device. Instead, they integrated Lee’s death into the series as a way for children to understand the concept of death. Big Bird finds out that he can’t give Mr. Hooper the picture he drew of him because he is dead. The human cast then explains to Big Bird about death and the fact that Mr. Hooper won’t be coming back. It is a really well done scene where it is quite obvious the cast itself was still saddened by Lee’s death. Unfortunately, you don’t often see something this powerful on children’s tv today, for whatever reason. But check it out.

this house is on fire, and the flame is gonna burn you, you

Look at me, missing posts left and right and showing a general disregard for the September Extravaganza that I promised to provide. So why don’t I increase the sadness and just give you a movie review this time. And not even a well-written one at that.

The Amityville Horror (1979)

They just remade this one last year, but I think it’s ridiculous to draw any comparisons between the original and the remake. That’s not an issue of quality, or even nostalgia (although you could make arguments for both I won’t do that here). What it is a matter of is both the cultural awareness of the Amityville story AND developments in the horror film genre over the last twenty-five years. Amityville ‘79 is not a slasher film; in fact, it predates the beginning of the slasher film explosion in 1980 with Friday the 13th (although both Black Christmas and Halloween are often cited as slasher films, neither is representative of the bulk of slashers which were released in the 1980’s). It is rather a take on the haunted house story, of which Hollywood has been making films for years. More importantly, it is also the spawn of The Exorcist (1974), the seminal demonic possession film (Rosemary’s Baby, while predating The Exorcist, fails to ever appear to me as anything but a satire, not horror). Amityville ‘79, based on the “non-fiction” book of the same name was a publishing phenomenon. I say “non-fiction” because the book was quoted that way, the “true” story of one family’s struggle against the demonic forces which had taken over their home and which drove them out in a month’s time, leaving their possessions behind as they fled in terror. Of course the problem is the majority of the book is in fact made up; a fact admitted by the writer and the family (the Lutzes). There was a true backstory to the house; in 1974, Ronnie DeFeo Jr. shot and killed six members of his family in the house that the Lutzes would later move into. DeFeo would later claim he heard “voices” in the house telling him to do it, which is not surprisingly a favoured strategy by defendants to explain their behaviour. Either way, the elements were there: a “haunted” house, marred by the tragedy of violent death. The Lutzes told their story and the book was published as a true account, although even at that time the Lutzes admitted many of the events described in the book were embellished or misleading. After the success of the book, American International Pictures decided it would make a very scary film. Hoping to capitalize on the success of The Exorcist five years earlier, the rejected Exorcist score was in fact used for Amityville. That, however, is where the comparisons should end. In watching Amityville ‘79 what is most obvious is how the film is willing to use religious and demonic elements but at the same time refuse to provide any sort of explanation, even along religious lines. There is talk in the film of the house being located on an Indian burial ground (which interestingly enough is a major plot element in the remake), and although we see priests debating whether “evil” truly does inhabit the house, it feels like nothing more than colouring. This film realizes its own limitations; although the book itself is a sham, the film cannot add more flavour without ceasing to be “based on the book”. From the start you’ve got a handicapped movie. In trying to stay true to the source material (which is in fact made-up), the movie has to play it safe and keep the evil unknown and unconquerable. There is no slasher film to be found here then. The closest we get is to see George Lutz (played by an increasingly moody and unshaven James Brolin) threaten the children or complain about how “damn cold it is in here”. Between shivering in the house and chopping wood out back, George is nothing more than an angry stepfather, perhaps unconsciously regretting the choice he has made in marrying a woman with three children and purchasing a house which is financially beyond his means. Stephen King once described the entire story (and I’m paraphrasing here) as a “horror story about having a mortgage”, and he’s pretty much right. While the film does somewhat succeed in establishing an unsettling mood, the choppiness of the editing and the stupidity of much of the story refuses to be ignored. As a cultural phenomenon the film did have some success, although this owes more to the efforts of the book rather than the movie. Just say “Amityville” and people will know what you are talking about. But they aren’t recognizing the acting talents of Margot Kidder are they? It is more the house itself that becomes recognized. Shoot a movie in which we just watch the house sit there, those window-like eyes staring at us for ninety minutes, and you’ve got something. The remake in 2005 upped the gore and scares but adds nothing to the story which needed to be there. In fact, the addition of ridiculous elements such as a sprint across the rooftop to get away from George (in the rain, no less!) demonstrates the un-necessity (is that a word?) of the house itself in this newest version. Although the hype surrounding the remake was the “based on a true story” element, you aren’t fooling anyone. It is merely a matter of convience that the story chosen was the story of the Amityville house. A generation watching this film knows very little of the cultural impact of the original story. With a series of ridicuous sequels in the 80’s, even the house itself loses its presence. When you start making films that have nothing to do with the house or Amityville at all, then you are using a name brand to promote a totally different product. In spite of itself I think the original story gained a foothold in the cultural landscape precisely because it did so very little. A house can just sit there, it doesn’t need a machete or finger razors to hunt its victims. They come to it. Ultimately,it is the victims that construct the story of their own demise I suppose. Because a house sure as hell can’t do it.