Another interesting linky just in case I forget - here's Pitchfork Media's list of the top 100 albums of the '70s. You can tell that it's a critic's (critics' rather, it seems to be done by a group) compilation, and it features some interesting choices. Kraftwerk, Bowie, Eno, such artists rarely appear three or four times in such lists. I can't say I agree with a lot of the choices, but what do I know?! Interesting, nonetheless. It has a lot of albums which I've never heard of, which is great, because I'm always willing to expand my selection.

These "top albums of the " lists are ultimately pointless but they're also fun once in a while. In fact there's a whole stack of them here, so knock yourself out. The problem is that a lot of lists are pretty predictable - throw in your Sgt. Pepper's, Velvet Underground and Nico, Highway 61, some whacko choices for good measure and you're set (pardon my cynicism). At the same time, when I see a list that substantially deviates from the pattern, I am outraged at the thought that they didn't include album A, B, C which make frequent appearances on other lists. But my foibles should not deter the budding list-maker! In fact I ought to make a list like this someday, just for the heck of it. The problem is, I haven't heard 100 great albums..! More like 25. Wait a sec, didn't I already do that much earlier, with this? How time flies. Actually, I ought to update that a bit, I made the whole thing in one day and it really shows.

And another thing to update is the blog layout - unfortunately, I'm no good with web design in any shape or form, so I'll probably end up butchering the whole thing like I normally do. The price of failure, I suppose.

I watched Bowling For Columbine earlier today, and promptly sat down and read all the criticisms of the facts in the movie. A digression - do I tend to do that too much, too often? It's nice to have an open mind, sure, but there has to be a limit. I think nowadays I am so struck by "being open-minded" that I will readily accept an opposite point of view, while really what I should be trying to do is think about the viewpoint critically. I think what I tend to do is listen to the other view and say "Hey, you're right" and then totally dismiss my previous opinion. Of course, if I get presented with an argument that supports this newly discarded opinion, then I embrace it again. A vicious circle, really, my mind oscillates between viewpoints and choices so much, I really don't know where I stand on a lot of issues.

Anyway, back to the movie. Moore has been accused of being a master manipulator and deceiver. I can't pass judgement on him, since there seems to be a lot of conflicting views from both sides. But at least the film made me think about some pretty serious issues, and that's something in itself. Seeing footage of the kids in Columbine cowering in fear was just sickening. To me, I don't know, sometimes I just wonder what is going on with the earth. I am reminded of something the protagonist says in Zen and the art of motorcycle maintenance (which I ought to read again), something about what the hell is wrong with this century. There's a certain power in the way he expresses this which I like. As you can tell, this is another of my vague literary cul-de-sacs, so let's move on.

I'd really like to know more about the truth behind BFC. If it's all true, then it's frankly quite disturbing; I mean, a six year old shooting another six year old just makes ne want to get down on your knees and give up. If most of it's fabricated, well, I feel cheated. Some of the criticsm is about the editing of the Charleton Heston NRA speech(es). I didn't actually interpret the edits in the way that the critics of the film say that people might, but fair enough, perhaps I'm an exception to the rule. I didn't think, for instance, that the bit with "from my cold, dead hands" was just after Columbine, but I can see how some people might. Of course the pathos is very strong, but is Moore entitled to persuade us with emotion? If he presents facts too, I think that's acceptable, but then again I'm the sort of person who agrees with things when they suit my opinion.

Why does everything have to be complicated? I sometimes have these wonderful flashes where suddenly I comprehend the reality of the world we live in, and see how wrong it all is. For instance, I think I saw something about casualties in one of the US's occupations, and in a moment I saw that it is truly a wretched world we live in that mass death should be allowed to exist. Sure, once you bring in logic and reason to the matter, and realize that there is some purpose (possibly flawed) behind this, nothing becomes so clear-cut as "morally right" and "morally wrong". But surely there is something fundamentally wrong with the world that such things be allowed to happen?

Perhaps this boils down to the existence of evil, and that it is something innate in human nature (or is it?) Brave New World convinced me that we need pain and suffering in order to enjoy life, but there has to be a limit? There has to be a fine balance between total peace and happiness and total chaos and destruction. More idealistic hippie dreaming, probably, but sometimes all you can do is dream..(pretentious, no? I hate it when I say stuff like that).

It's remarkable how I went from David Bowie's albums to what's wrong with humanity!

Note to self: clean the keyboard and computer case sometime, they're filthy!