Search This Blog

Provided by SEO company.

Wednesday, September 28, 2011

An (extended) week of rants, part VI: Top-5 most over-rated guitarists.

Inspired by my last rant, I am going to give a quick list of the most over-rated guitarists ever. (please note, these are modern electric guitarists.) These guys aren't necessarily bad, but they are way too popular, and given too much credit.

5. Eddie Van Halen: Everybody thinks his song "Eruption" is the greatest thing ever played on a guitar. When he played it, it was new. Two-handed tapping was new, and the sounds he created, scales he used, speed, were all new. But in all perspective, he wasn't all that great. In order to be a great guitarist, you must also be a great musician. Eruption

4. Slash: Slash sucks. Seriously. Everything he does is played with a Wah pedal. While he has the basic concept of feeling, he rarely is capable of matching his the tone and sound of his solos to the sounds and tone of the song. Slash

3. Kirk Hammett: As I stated previously, Kirk has no feeling, no technique, no skill. His picking is kinda fast, but not much else going for him.Kirk

2. Yngwie Malmsteen: He is the most well-known Neo-classical guitarist; also, he is the least-talented. His idea of guitar playing is that: Play scales and arpeggios really fast. That works great with bowed instruments, but they have a short sustain- a guitar has prolonged sustain, and that should be used. Yngwie.

1. Jimi Hendrix: Hendrix is the most well-known electric guitarist. He did so soem really cool stuff, but Rolling Stones voted him the best guitarist ever. Seriously? No. He plays cool-sounding stuff, but as I've stated before, their isn't much more than lose expression in it. A guitarist must also be a musician, and Mr. Hendrix is not.  Voodoo Child

Sunday, September 25, 2011

An (extended) week of rants, part V: An argument that doesn't make sense.

I hate most of Metallica's music. (Most anything that wasn't written by either Dave Mustaine or Cliff Burton.) I don't really make a habit of listening to them or watching Metallica videos on Youtube; however, I do watch  few from time to time.

Now, James Hetfield, Metallica's rhythm guitarist/lead singer, is alright. His guitar riffs aren't too complicated, and about half of his lyrics are the word "yeah", but he's decent. Metallica has always had outstanding bassists, but Kirk Hammett (lead guitar) and Lars Ulrich (drums) suck. They are terrible, and worst, over-rated. There are millions and millions of fan boys and fan girls who swear Lars and Kirk are the greatest ever. (Don't get me wrong, there are tons of Megadeth fanboys who think Dave Mustaine is the greatest guitarist ever, but while that isn't true either, he is at least much better than Jame and Kirk.)

I see a ton of people who bash Kirk and Lars. It's everywhere. It's not as much that we are singling them out because we hate them or wanna destroy their careers, but they get way too much credit. But every time someone calls out Kirk for playing out of key, or Lars for playing off tempo, (both of which happen regularly...)  some idiot always comes back with "Well can YOU play better than him?"

What a stupid comeback.

I can't even draw a strait line, (or even a crooked one) but I can sure as hell tell if someone else sucks at drawing as well.

I don't play Violin, or write classical music, but I can surely tell you "Cannon in D" isn't all that amazing

I'm not very good at spelling, but I can surely tell you any1 who talk like dis cuz they cool n u don't b hatin is a complete moron.

What makes this worst is a lot of the people who call out Kirk and Lars PLAY the freakin' guitar/drums. I know Lars isn't very good at drumming because I listen to his beat patterns, and they are easy, and always the exact same. He uses the wrong symbols at the wrong time. He seriously sounds like a little kid with no sense of timing or musicality. Kirk always uses the Em Pentatonic scale for EVERY solo, over-uses the Wah pedal, uses very basic tapping techniques and never follows the chord progressions. (Don't get me started on his lack of feeling.)

I play guitar. I played on drumline. I love music, and have a well-developed ear for music. I know what both instruments should sound like, and these guys don't have it. I'll never undstand why they are so popular.

I'll never understand why Kirk is put in with the likes of Marty Friedman, Jason Becker, Joe Satriani, Al Pitrelli, ect.

I'll never understand how people can compare Lars to Bonzo, Nick Menza, Jimmy Digrassio, Neal Peart, Pete Sandoval, ect.

I don't understand!!!

Proof Metallica sucks 
Video One
Video Two

Speed Safely

Saturday, September 24, 2011

sorry bout the silence yall. been busy the past few days.

Wednesday, September 21, 2011

A week of rants, part IV: The ignorance of Florida drivers.

For those who don't know me personally, I don't own a car for financial reasons. I bike everywhere. I've been hit by cars numerous times, with injuries ranging from scraped hands and twisted ankles to being bed-ridden for a week with a severity bruised ACL. None of those were my fault. So, as a PSA, I'm going to teach everyone some lesser-knows driving laws and general safety tips. And don't knock it just 'cuz I don't drive regularly- I got a perfect score on my driving test, perfect score on my driving law knowledge test, and everyone I've ever driven with think I'm a great driver.
 Please note these are the laws here in Florida. Other states may be different, but they're all pretty close.

1) When making a right-hand turn, ALWAYS check down BOTH directions of the sidewalk and bike path. If there is a tie at the crosswalk, bikes/pedestrians lose, but YOU pay. (Just ask the guy who drove his car into my knee.)

2) Bikes have the same right-of-way privileges as cars. If a bike is going strait, and you're making a turn, the bike has right-of-way. (As a general rule, unless you have a green TURN ARROW, you do not have the right-of-way when turning, left or right.)

3) Bikes have full legal right to the left-hand turning lane. Do NOT drive around them in the lane.

4) When passing a bike in the roadway, the minimum distance in 3 feet, but you must leave him enough room to lay down his bike/ swerve to avoid obstacles, whichever is the greater distance. Also, in the state of Florida, if the lane of traffic (space between lane markers, NOT just the pavement) is less than 12ft wide, a bike may ride as far to the left as the middle of the lane.

5) Bikes are not required to ride on the shoulder of the road. Also, bikes are to ride as far to the right as PRACTICAL, not possible.

6) As a general safety tip, before entering an intersection, follow the pavement from the front of your car down the road in BOTH directions. This is the only way to ensure you don't miss anything.

7) Bikes, (and pedestrians, too) are NOT required to follow cross-walk signals. They follow the traffic signal on the same side of the roadway they are on. (closest lane of traffic)

8) When stopping at an intersection, your ENTIRE car must come to a stop BEHIND the white line on the pavement. That white line is the edge of the intersection.

9) ALWAYS look BOTH ways before turning onto a road. Sidewalk traffic is uni-directional. If you hit any cross traffic in the crosswalk, you are at fault.

10) In Florida, Bikes may use either the sidewalk OR the bike path/roadway, whichever is deemed safer. In other words, a bike is NEVER required to stay off the sidewalk.

The next person who hits me is getting sued.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

A week of rants, part III: Virginity, Virtue, and Value

This one can be a bit touchy, but I am going to address it anyways.

I'm sure my readers remember my rant on RMs and dating, so this one is going along similar lines: Virginity and Virtue are NOT interchangeable. Not all virgins are virtuous, and not all those who are virtuous are virgins.

There are some things that are always said in church, by well-meaning people, that irk me. One of them is the "bubble gum analogy." The basic premise is would you rather have a fresh new piece of gum, or one that's been chewed already. Some people add to this by adding that once gum has been chewed, it cannot be returned to it's previous state.

I hate that analogy. It is a spit in the face to repentance and the true power of the atonement. While it's true that being a virgin is a one-time loss, the bubble-gum analogy implies that someone who has had sex outside of marriage is damaged goods. This is not true. When someone repents, truly, they become just as pure as they were before. While there may be long-lasting implications of the actions, (STDs, pregnancy, bad memories, ect.) a person themselves may become just as pure as they were beforehand. (See Isaiah 1:18) As much as I enjoy Dear Bro JO, there have been many things where he and I disagree. One of these is when he told one girl that men will not consider her for marriage because she wasn't a virgin, and that they had every right to. IMHO, there isn't a bigger load of crap. In some way, EVERYONE is ABC gum. The only difference with sex is that no amount of repentance will ever restore physical virginity. But, the innocence, the purity, and virtue can be. Virtue isn't a set of requirements- it's a manner of living. A virtuous person lives his/her life in a way that is pleasing to the Lord. A virtuous person lives a life of true sexual purity, even if it hasn't been perfect; inversely, someone may do lots of things, but never go "all the way," thus being a virgin, but not virtuous.

This is where the 3rd V, Value, comes in.

When we look at the value of a person spiritually, are we looking for the right things? Shouldn't we be more worried about someone who is virtuous, loyal, and spiritual, rather than a set of requirements that may not be fair? If Heavenly Father has forgiven a person, and thus "remembers [the sin] no more", (D&C 58:42) than who are we to hold it against them? If the fact that someone has transgressed bothers you, than you have no testimony or faith in the atonement.

II remember once hearing a story of someone who was a chain smoker. He was shunned a lot by members of the church because his clothes smelled of cigarettes. He said: "The only difference between me and everyone else is my sin has an odor."

Let us learn to forgive everyone, as it is required of us. Don't EVER judge another person for past mistakes they've repented of.

Monday, September 19, 2011

A week of rants, part II: What does it mean to be a man?

First, read this article. 

Now that you have an idea of what a man truly is, I'ma make a list. (I suppose- I'm kinda making this one up as I go.) This list will include examples, scenarios, and just plain are/are not lines of what manhood really is.

1) A real man loves everyone woman in his life and treats every one of them with the up-most respect. A man would never share intimate details about his wife, mother, daughters, sisters, or any one else. A man would never use a woman, for anything. A man never hits a woman in an attacking manner. ( I do believe a man has the right to defend himself if attacked, but self-defense doesn't necessitate beating someone up.)

2) A real man loves, honors, sustains and respects his wife.  This includes how he speaks to her and about her. A real man doesn't raise his voice with a woman. A real man doesn't belittle a woman to her face, and would never dream of speaking ill of her behind her back. An example of a guy not being a man is someone I'll refer to as "Vance." A close friend of mine, Vic, whom I consider a 3rd grandpa, used to go have "Vance" as a primary-care doctor. Vic told me, after Vance had run off with a younger woman, (something else a real man would never do,) how Vance would brag to Vic about the things Vance's wife would do sexually. I got sick when I heard that. What type of person would betray his wife like that? The things that a wife does to show her love to her husband should NEVER be discussed outside of the marriage, except in situations where is it necessary, such as marriage counseling.

3) A real man owns up to his mistakes.

4) A real man doesn't let another person be singled out, or get thrown under the bus. In example, when a girl I know got caught making out with her boyfriend, (no, it wasn't me) her boyfriend didn't run out the door and drive off. He sat down and took the beratement that the girls father gave them both. 

5) A real man loves Heavenly Father and Jesus more than ANYONE else and ANYTHING else. No questions asked. This may seem to contradict numbers one and two, but if a man loves his God more than anyone else, a total and complete love for his wife, mothers, daughters and other beloved women will naturally occur, because in order to love God, a man MUST obey God's commandment to love Gods daughters.

6) A real man works. This may include a plethora of things, but a man works hard at every task he undertakes, takes price in his efforts, and does his employers well.

7) A real man takes care of his family. This means providing for them temporally, and spiritually. A real man always takes his children's feelings into consideration, and would NEVER intentionally hurt them. This includes yelling at them or losing his temper with them. Every man has the ability to control himself, and will be judged according to how well he actually does.

I could go on and on and on, but for the sake of those reading this, I'll keep it short and generalized. If anyone reading this would like to discuss this further/pick my brain on the subject, feel free to email me. 

In general, a real man truly is like Jesus. When I think about the type of man I want to be, I think of men I know personally. Men like Brother Vause, Brother Long, Brother Allen, Brother Singler. I have a complete and total respect for each and every one of those men. They are so close to the Lord, and it shows. I want to be like them. I wish I had known that when I was a teenager. 

Sunday, September 18, 2011

A week of rants, part I: How to save millions in the Federal Budget

Eliminate the House of Representatives. The House of Representatives was born from the idea of states with larger populations having a greater say in the goings on of government. They wanted this because during the era of time when the Constitution was being drafted, the states had to compete with each other for governmental resources and  favor. But this is no longer the case. A single state, or group of states, cannot gain favor without affecting the other states as well. The welfare of all the states is tied together.

There are 435 representatives. The salary of a representative is about 174k a year. Speaker gets 223k. The majority and minority leaders get 193k. That's
That's 75M+.223M+.386M

76 millions dollars spent on just the salaries of the HoR. That doesn't include operating costs, salaries to pages, ect. That's just salaries. Health benefits and pensions aren't included.

Why are we spending this money? We are the only Republic government in the world (that I know of) that has two legislative bodies. It's a waste.

It also bogs down the system. The senate easily passes bills. It takes more than twice as long for bills to pass the House than it does for them to pass the Senate, even when the bills are wildly popular ones. Part of the reason for this is the fact that the entire house is up for re-election every 2 years, and popular opinion swings quite far, and very quickly. (Another thing about american culture I strongly dislike.)

So how do we fix this?

We eliminate the House of Representatives. We keep just the Senate. But, in order to keep the accountability in the Legislative Branch, we add a 3rd senator from each state. This way, we have one senator from each state up for re-election every 2 years, as it is with the entire HoR, but only less than one-half would be up for re-election, so bills would still pass the senate. Plus, the extra salaries would only add $8.7M in extra salaries for the Senate, which is MUCH lower the the $76M. $67.3M lower, to be exact.

It will never happen, but I can dream, can't I?

Time for an update

So, I have been terrible at keeping my blag lately. I'm sure my three loyal readers are just oh-so sad about this.

Chick-Fil-A is awesome. While I have been under a lot of stress during the 2pm-4pm period, that's just part of working fast food.

With a single click, my weeks and weeks of work (weeks of procrastination and a few days of work) was gone. That's right, my long-awaited taxes rant was accidentally deleted. I'm gunna do an abridged version later today. I've decided I'm going to do a series of rants. My ideas so far are
Taxes", "What is a Man?", "Virginity, Virtue and Value" and "Common Courtesy".

I also might add a rant on a crazy  idea I have for saving money in the federal budget: eliminate the House of Representatives.

Stay Posted. First rant should be up later today.

Monday, September 5, 2011


So as I read articles and talks about love and marriage, I've had some interesting thoughts.

When I was in middle school, my mom bought a book called "How do you know when you're in love?". It was very interesting to read. It was written by a psychology professor at BYU. He broke down what he called a "complete love" into three catigories: Friendship Love, Christlike Love, and Romantic Love.

Friendship Love is the base. It's the start. It's what makes you enjoy being around another person. It's what makes you wanna talk to the person.

Christlike Love is the spiritual aspect of love. It's what gives you concern for the other person's well-being.

Romantic Love is what gives you physical desires aside from lust. It is what makes you wanna express affection, kiss, cuddle, hold hands, ect. (you know what else there is.)

Friendship love is what makes you wanna sit next to your significant other on the couch.
Romantic love is what makes you wanna cuddle.
Christlike love is what keeps you from going too far physically.

It's amazing how it all works. You don't actually "fall in love." "falling" in love implies it is accidental, and you can't control it. But you can. You choose, though mostly subconscious. In the book, the author says you should never ask why someone loves someone else. 

But that makes me thin about something else.

You fall in love with someone because there are things about them that you adore and admire. Why is it then that when you break up, the other person is horrible? I've never been that way with an ex. I've been "in love" twice in the past, and while I have been very hurt by those girls, I still admire them. Melinda and Laura are wonderful women. I still think Mike is a very lucky guy to have married Melinda, and whomever Laura's future husband is is also very lucky. But I've moved on. Bailey and I have been "unofficially official" for a little over a week now. I love her. The distance makes it hard, but I don't regret this. 

Friday, September 2, 2011