Act 1: sadness

I was at a party or wedding with Niamh. Lots of people I like but hadn’t seen in ages were there, but I wasn’t really enjoying it because I was in some kinda of downer bubble

Act 2: hope

Then we heard amazing music and went to investigate where it was coming from. We found a big bunch of young men, guests from the wedding, high up in the building like a lecture theatre or the choir gallery of a church, and they were singing. I think the words had something to do with pirates.

Act 3: terror

Then we went down to the basement and it was like a warehouse. There was a container of stuff something like plasticine that seemed somehow alive – it was moving and forming hand shapes. Someone put an handful of it on a metal plate on the back of an inactive robot, which activated and grew enormous and proceeded to kill/enslave everyone in sight. Eventually we escaped, but it was still on the rampage back in the warehouse, and would never, ever stop.

Lent

February 16, 2010

It occurred to me this morning that the Lenten fast coincides with that time in northern Europe when last year’s food stores are almost used up and none of this year’s crops are ready to harvest. What an amazing coincidence!

“Society”

So now the list reads:

  1. Insane
  2. Junkie
  3. Society

Any of these words in a song’s lyrics automatically makes the song shit, ok? There are exceptions, of course (“Insaaane in the braaaain”), but not that many.

Oh, and Lily Allen – you really need to grow up a bit before you understand what “society” says (as opposed to what you and your hip young buddies think) about a 29 year-old’s life.

… when you’re supposed to be doing something else is enjoyable. Wasting your actual leisure time reading such a load of bollocks is just depressing.

Here’s what I’ve been working on lately – my very own online children’s music shop called kids-tunes.com. If you have kids yourself, or if you’ve to buy presents for friends-and-relations’ children, you should take a look.

Freakonomics on crime

March 25, 2009

I read the book “Freaknomics” recently and enjoyed it, mostly, although in the end it turned out to be a disappointment. In the introduction is said something like “economics is a set of tools that allows us to study incentives and how people respond to them” but really the only tools I saw being used were a) plain old statistics and b) plain old conjecture.

One of the chapters¬† I enjoyed most at first was the one on abortion and crime – the authors attribute the fall in violent crime in the 90s in the US to the legalisation of abortion around 20 years previously. Fewer unwanted kids = fewer criminals, they say. At first I went “oh yeah, that makes sense” and, on the surface, it does, and they use a lot of science-y sounding language to back up their case which would be inclined to convince a fella.

But then at the back of the book they answer some detractors who’ve found fault with their approach by giving some more technical information on the statistical analysis they’ve used. They modify their treatment of the data saying the new way is “more accurate”, and end up with a stronger relation between abortions 20 years ago and the crime drop today. I don’t really have the statistical chops to check whether their analysis is reasonable, but this carry-on makes me suspicious – is their new treatment really more accurate, or are they just massaging the data so that it agrees with their thesis better?

I’m not sure I trust these guys. They attribute the rise in crime in the US during the 1960s to the (for the US) “liberal” political regime that was in place at the time and not to the big upsurge in drug use, but say the rise in crime during the 80s when there was a right-wing regime in power was exclusively due to drugs (crack cocaine in particular). Hmmm.

Rotting in hell

March 24, 2009

I don’t think you can rot in hell. Rotting is caused by micro-organisms, and it’d seem unfair if God sent micro-organisms to hell, seeing as he didn’t give them Free Will.