"In Arab culture, throwing shoes at someone, or sitting so that the bottom of a shoe faces another person, is considered an insult."
Thanks CNN. It is a good thing you specified that you were referring to Arab culture, because no one in any other culture would consider having a shoe thrown at them an insult. Here, it is a gift, as in "please, take my shoe and no, you don't need to come over, I will throw it to you". Arab culture is so different than ours... can we ever understand each other?
Monday, December 15, 2008
Tuesday, December 9, 2008
Quick Hits II
I was at Barnes and Noble looking through the CDs and came across the soundtrack to Jesus Christ Superstar, the original London cast version of the 40 varieties available. It is a very expensive soundtrack even when compared to the other versions but I wanted to get it for a while so I took it up to the cashier. As she rang it up, she looked at the price and asked, "Damn! Does Jesus come with this?"
Later while back at my apartment, I attempted to open that same CD. It was sealed as if a relic was inside it and I released a stream of profanities, curses, and, most emphatically, 2nd-commandment-breakers. Then when trying to separate the CD from the case a second round of the same. I was wondered how many people used 2/3 of the title of the CD as exclamation while trying to enjoy the music. Sacrilicious.
On a recent episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen broke out his sweetness (that is, his gun). It looked suspiciously familiar to me. I had written a sketch that involved a gun and in order to create the prop I bought a cheap plastic gun from a costume store. This being NYC, they aren't allowed to sell realistic looking guns, so, while the shape looks like an actual gun, the color is in headache-inducing neon pink and green. I applied black spray paint liberally to cover the garish original color and I had a passable gun... and a doppelganger to Stephen's sweetness (you can even see the plastic bit covering the muzzle). Where is the truthiness Stephen, where?
Later while back at my apartment, I attempted to open that same CD. It was sealed as if a relic was inside it and I released a stream of profanities, curses, and, most emphatically, 2nd-commandment-breakers. Then when trying to separate the CD from the case a second round of the same. I was wondered how many people used 2/3 of the title of the CD as exclamation while trying to enjoy the music. Sacrilicious.
On a recent episode of The Colbert Report, Stephen broke out his sweetness (that is, his gun). It looked suspiciously familiar to me. I had written a sketch that involved a gun and in order to create the prop I bought a cheap plastic gun from a costume store. This being NYC, they aren't allowed to sell realistic looking guns, so, while the shape looks like an actual gun, the color is in headache-inducing neon pink and green. I applied black spray paint liberally to cover the garish original color and I had a passable gun... and a doppelganger to Stephen's sweetness (you can even see the plastic bit covering the muzzle). Where is the truthiness Stephen, where?
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Friday, November 7, 2008
Reaction to the Election and the Current Condition of the United States of America, 2008
Also, read the 2004 Edition.
What follows are my opinions about the current state of America. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I am not a Christian, or Jew, or Muslim. For the following, I am only a concerned citizen and was inspired to write this after seeing the results of the election. To wit, I choose to us the pen, electronic though it may be, to express and disseminate my thoughts on the subject.
I do not expect that everyone that reads the following will agree with everything contained therein. I do, however, ask that you will grant me the right to my opinions as I would surely grant you yours. It is only through honest discourse that we can hope to understand each other and so I have endeavored to provide just that.
November 5, 2008
The result itself was not surprising. All the polls leading up to it predicted how it would all play out and all the experts felt the same way. The outcome was all but certain going in, but that did not put my mind at ease, nor did it for many wanting the result so assumed. What was so surprising is that the event foretold actually came to be; that it came to that historic conclusion.
The wave of blue that swept in from the coast to put out the red flame of fear and intolerance that was kindled eight years ago and threatened to engulf the country was a long awaited sight. That flame was fed from our fears of past events, but the fuel could only feed the fire for so long before it was spent. Fear is an ephemeral emotion; it is not sustainable in the long run. It leaves people a hollow shell and they will look to fill it with something positive. And so the people of this country did, when they found hope.
It was not real for me until Barack Obama walked out on the stage and gave another rousing speech. I was left with a tear in my eye for I was watching history, but it was so much more than that alone. I was watching good history, the right history.
I have seen a lot of history before last night in my lifetime but nearly all the memories that fill my head are negative. My earliest memory of history is the explosion of a mission to space and the confusion and hurt that followed. I see a shell of a bombed building and school shootings. I see tidal waves and earthquakes. I see towers crumbling and, of course, I see war.
The only history that I celebrated was the pulling down of a wall and it was echoed last night with the destruction of another wall, a symbolic one but a wall nonetheless. It was a wall that should have been destroyed a long time ago but it took the right person at the right time to do it. Many thought it impossible and a few wanted that barrier to be permanent. But like any impedance of a people, it will eventually fail, either through the natural effects of time or through the demand for change or both.
Every parent at some point has told their child that they can be anything they want, even president of the United States. Many said this knowing it was a lie; a lie to inspire and build up rather than tear down but a lie nonetheless. It parallels the lie of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. These are lies that brings the extraordinary into the ordinary, that makes the impossible possible, that bring hope to the hopeless. Parents say this to their children not because they believe it to be true but in the hope that someday it could be. Now, that hope of possibility has turned into reality. No longer does a parent need to lie to their child, that ideal is true now. That day has come; that day is history.
That word cannot be used enough-- history. It was a historic election and a historic result. Not just because America stood up and picked an African-American for the first time in its history. This in and of itself is marvel and is unparalleled, and was long overdue. It was not only this but that America picked the more deserving candidate. We picked the more deserving candidate and, unlike in many elections, one that deserved to be picked. In everything he has done and in everything he has said, Barack Obama presented himself as a man who wants the country as a whole to succeed while being himself humble about his role. He heard the cries for change and promised to deliver through both his actions and words.
The demand for change in this country was strong even before Barack Obama made that his core message, but the fact that he was aware of the populace's demand shows an awareness that neither his opponent nor the current president have shown. That demand is strongest when there is dissatisfaction with the present, and the present is indeed bleak. The people then have no choice but to look to the future and there was little question as to which candidate represented the future.
John McCain did try to usurp the message of change during the campaign but it was a hard sell when everything he did bespoke a lie. He promised to bring change to place he has worked for nearly three decades while at the same time promoted his experience. This is as blatantly disingenuous as one can get. Experience is worthless if you plan on completely changing the system in which that experience was gained so we must discount your experience if you truly want to bring change. On the flip side, we cannot believe that McCain would bring change if we send him back to work in a place he has worked for so long, therefore we must discount your message of change if you wish to use your experience.
It is also strange to focus your claims to experience as an executive by talking of your experience as a legislator. There is a much better example that each have had over the past couple of years. The head of a campaign is much closer to president than that of a senator. You must lead a large group and get everyone on the same page. You must craft a message that resonates not just with you and your supporters but to the country as a whole. You must inspire and bring together those with differing opinions. All of these things you must do as the head of a campaign must also be done once a campaign is successful. The campaign is president practice.
In all honesty, there was no real comparison between the two campaigns. The McCain campaign bungled from one misstep to another, none bigger than the selection of his vice president running mate. McCain was impulsive, quick to decide without scrutiny, which is the exact opposite of what is require to be a good president. A thoughtless action during the campaign leads to negative publicity, a viral video, and perhaps a few percentage points drop in the polls. A thoughtless action as the chief executor of the country could be disastrous: it can cause an economic depression, antagonize an enemy, or precipitate yet another war. McCain has a documented history of being a hot-head whose temper is a hair's breadth away from boiling over and that is not the temperament we need.
Contrast that with the cool, calm demeanor of the man who was often under attack. Barack Obama handled everything that came his way without ever getting flustered. He was under the largest microscope this country has ever created for two years with nary a major mistake. And be sure any mistake would be magnified greatly by that microscope because of who he is. There was no second chance for him-- a mistake would not mean doubt from many voters but a permanent scar which he would be unable to hide. He was under intense and continuous pressure, much like a president, and came away unscathed. Barack Obama's long time in the crucible of the spotlight has galvanized him for his future task.
Having said all that the experience argument is a poor one. Some of our greatest presidents have had less experience than Barack Obama, and some of our worst have had resumes to compare with John McCain. This is why experience does not define a president. The president is a person of the moment and not of the past. They must be aware of the past and learn from it but decisions cannot be made there. The value of experience is highly overrated by the candidates themselves and the electorate as a whole. There are much more important characteristics that often get overlooked, but this time they came shining through. One candidate pushed a message of hope and promise the other on fear and hatred.
John McCain focused not on building himself up but tearing down Barack Obama which was a stunning example of the disconnect he had with the zeitgeist. He punched at the pedestal that Barack Obama stood upon, the pedestal he himself had helped create. Instead of concentrating on his own perch he remained fixated on destroying his enemies'. Each attack was more desperate, more pathetic, and less effective. This tactic did nothing but waste time, and when time ran out he was left on the ground looking up at Obama in the rarefied air above him. It was the last gasp of a man whose time had passed.
McCain's time should have been 2000 and had he been elected then maybe we would not be in such dire straights now. Back then his claims of being a Maverick were justified instead of just being empty hot air. But to try and correct that error now will just make matters worse, you cannot fix the past by making another mistake in the present. You can only hope to fix the future by choosing wisely now.
Fear was the status quo over the past eight years and Obama's opponents assumed that it would remain so. Fear got them into places of power and they went with their tried and true tactic ignoring the state of the country. They bet that the fear of change and the fear of the person that would bring it would be sufficient to win. They went all in and lost.
McCain and his campaign tossed accusations at the wall like spaghetti hoping something would stick. The claim that Obama was paling around with terrorists was frail in compared to Obama's obvious love of his country. Charges of socialism was wordplay and convinced only those already in agreement. They claimed him to be ignorant on topics on which he was obviously well versed, while at the same time desperately trying to keep Sarah Palin out of the spotlight or any light.
Perhaps their stupidest attack was that Barack Obama is all rhetoric, for even if that were true, it is more than they could offer. The pen is mightier than the sword. We are what we think, and the pen has the power to shape our thoughts. Words can change the country and the world, then can inspire and drive, they can give hope and change minds. Words written on a parchment in 1776 gave us freedom, a pamphlet that same year gave us Common Sense and the determination to fight. Words helped repair this country after its civil war and helped put a man on the moon. There is nothing they cannot do and to have a leader who is aware of their power and both wise and skilled in using them is the highest complement one can give.
It is the words of the great leaders of the past that we remember, that we learn in school, that we repeat to make a point. We repeat these speeches because they still carry weight, they helped shaped the opinions of the day and even years after spoken they still retain the significance they once did. For the great presidents, we remember not only what they did but what they said. The latter affects us to a greater degree today. Deeds often lose significance as time moves on, like a dream fades away once you are awake, but words and ideas last forever because they are constantly reborn when repeated and pondered.
Even if Barack Obama were only words, great words, that would be a breathe of fresh air and sufficient to do his job. But Obama is more than just words. He is intelligence, fortitude, confidence, and determination. He will surround himself with good people and actually listen to them. Better than that, he will understand the issues and make informed decisions rather than rely exclusively on the decisions of those around him.
The presidents job is to ensure that the will and judgment of the people, through their representative, is done. He has no power to make laws nor power to render decisions. His power is but to lead, to motivate, to inspire; he is almost a figurehead. The real power lies not in the president himself but in the ideal of the president-- what the office represents. The president is a leader and an ambassador to the country and the world.
There is no one in the world right now that equals Barack Obama on those fronts. He motivated throngs of people to follow him and help elect change into office. Hundreds of thousands gather to hear him speak wherever he goes, whether it is in the United States or elsewhere, because his words echo what they feel and what they hope. The whole world looks at us in a new light because of our ability to see through the usual politics and choose someone that they see as the better leader for the world. That is a leader; that is an ambassador.
Obama has fought against innumerable detractors for years and even after he has been elected there are those still looking to bring him down. He will never be complacent because there are many who will never let him: his detractors will never stop looking for weaknesses or mistakes and his supporters will constantly put pressure on him to live up to place in history.
The storybook ending to this election is just the beginning of this story. What we do now determines whether this story ends as a comedy, tragedy, or, dare we hope, a heroic epic. Obama cannot do it alone, it will take not only the support of those he already has but everyone in this country. We can only hope that those who voted against him will not be unwilling and unable to open their minds to change. That instead of sitting on the sidelines hoping the revelers stay off their lawn that they join in the revelry and help reshape the coming days. We also must be vigilant that the current celebration drunk with emotion does not slip into a hangover of apathy and disinterest like this country is so accustomed. The task is not done but simply started and we must not waste this start. We must follow this change through to the end.
The only road to the White House is no longer only presumption of birth or wealth or military achievement but there is also a heretofore mythological road; that legendary path that parents have spoke of with their children for hundreds of years but that they themselves doubted even existed. It was a road not only less traveled by but never trampled on by human feet. Until now, where together we found it as a nation and watched as one walked it for the first time. That road was discovered last night and it can never be hidden again.
It was indeed small steps with which Barack Obama walked out onto the stage at Grant Park in Chicago, but it was a giant leap forward for America and the world. The long night that has blanketed this country is not yet over, the sun not yet above the horizon, but the east is aglow with the light that precedes the dawn... and it is growing brighter.
-----------
While we can celebrate this presidential victory as a great moment in history, where the color of a person's skin was indeed overlooked in favor of the content of that person's character, this celebration must be tempered. As a nation we rose up and tossed aside an old discrimination but found a new and more modern kind in its stead. This bigotry was on display across the country, every ballot measure concerning it ended up on the wrong side, even in the most progressive of states, California.
Anti-gay sentiment is the hate du jour and it is widely spread in the United States. The bigots speak of homosexuality as if it is a choice, which it is not, or that it is not natural, which it is. They speak of these things as if they would justify their loathing of homosexuals even if either or both were true.
America is about freedom, freedom to choose how you want to live. So even if homosexuality were a choice, they should be afforded this choice. And if homosexuality is a choice, they so must heterosexuality be. Therefore if you allow yourself that choice, you should allow others theirs.
The supporters of these ballot measures claim they are defending marriage. How does allowing a gay couple to marry detract from your marriage in any way? How does acknowledging more love cheapen marriage? The answer is, of course, that gay marriage does not affect them or marriage itself in any way. They fear and hate gays so they resist them being accepted anyway they can. It is not truly about marriage but about making sure that the gay lifestyle is not brought into the mainstream.
The bigots look for justification from god and for truth in a book that has none to give on the subject. That again goes to illustrate the power of words. Even a few words written by an unknown man in an ancient and mostly forgotten language thousands of years ago can still greatly influence the opinions of those alive today. Not just influence, but give them the unflappable knowledge that they are both right and just in their reduction of another human being to that of an animal, one that does not deserve all that they have.
They do all this because of a few passages in a ancient book. An ancient book that would have nearly everyone alive today stoned to death for various innocuous infractions, but they ignore this and focus only on their own goal. They ignore that morality from the bronze age is no longer appropriate in 21st century America. Most people have stopped looking to the old testament as a morality guide in everything but this one issue. Why grasp so hard at this one fuzzy prescription?
What it comes down to is that gay Americans are not fully a person according to the majority. It is acceptable that they can have all the rights as straight Americans do all long as it is outside their "pursuit of Happiness". So it has been decided that gays are not a full person, more than three-fifths, but not a full five-fifths either.
The population of those we Americans discriminate against grows smaller each time, but that does not make it any less wrong. First it was all about the genitals you have, then about the color of those genitals, and now it concerns where you put those genitals. Each issue as ridiculous and stupid as the last. We are one species and should act like it and accept each for who they are. We are taught to treasure the differences in each other because that is what makes each person unique. The lesson here is that differences are acceptable as long as they aren't too different, or scary, or against another's beliefs.
There is a easy solution to this problem, simply remove the government entirely from the marriage debate. Every joining of two people in the governments eyes would simply be a civil union, both gay and straight. Remove government from the discussion entirely so as to remove the defense of marriage as an excuse to reduce the worth of a person. This would leave only their bigotry as reason to not allow fully equal rights for homosexuals. The only problem with this solution is it would hide the anti-gay feelings and a hidden discrimination does not progress towards equality as fast as a conspicuous one. It is a solution that is penny wise and pound foolish, sacrificing the long term for the immediate.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order for anyone to laud yourself for having a hand in the watershed moment of electing Barack Obama while not chastising yourself for being homophobic. At the same time you are patting yourself on the back for being so enlightened for helping to elect an African-American as president, you should be kicking yourself in the nads for perpetuating bigotry in another form. You are not enlightened because while you may have managed to help lift one group up you did so while pissing on another.
Rest assured, this ban will not last nor will the feelings of fear and hate. It will be fixed in time-- those that want things to remain static can only accomplish that for so long, any impedance of a people will fail. Time changes all and progress will not stop forever no matter how hard some people try. All this codified discrimination did is weaken a country-- it did so by weakening a part of us and so all of us are less because of it.
The joy in this election is not as much as it could have been, not as much as it should have been.
What follows are my opinions about the current state of America. I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican. I am not a Christian, or Jew, or Muslim. For the following, I am only a concerned citizen and was inspired to write this after seeing the results of the election. To wit, I choose to us the pen, electronic though it may be, to express and disseminate my thoughts on the subject.
I do not expect that everyone that reads the following will agree with everything contained therein. I do, however, ask that you will grant me the right to my opinions as I would surely grant you yours. It is only through honest discourse that we can hope to understand each other and so I have endeavored to provide just that.
November 5, 2008
The result itself was not surprising. All the polls leading up to it predicted how it would all play out and all the experts felt the same way. The outcome was all but certain going in, but that did not put my mind at ease, nor did it for many wanting the result so assumed. What was so surprising is that the event foretold actually came to be; that it came to that historic conclusion.
The wave of blue that swept in from the coast to put out the red flame of fear and intolerance that was kindled eight years ago and threatened to engulf the country was a long awaited sight. That flame was fed from our fears of past events, but the fuel could only feed the fire for so long before it was spent. Fear is an ephemeral emotion; it is not sustainable in the long run. It leaves people a hollow shell and they will look to fill it with something positive. And so the people of this country did, when they found hope.
It was not real for me until Barack Obama walked out on the stage and gave another rousing speech. I was left with a tear in my eye for I was watching history, but it was so much more than that alone. I was watching good history, the right history.
I have seen a lot of history before last night in my lifetime but nearly all the memories that fill my head are negative. My earliest memory of history is the explosion of a mission to space and the confusion and hurt that followed. I see a shell of a bombed building and school shootings. I see tidal waves and earthquakes. I see towers crumbling and, of course, I see war.
The only history that I celebrated was the pulling down of a wall and it was echoed last night with the destruction of another wall, a symbolic one but a wall nonetheless. It was a wall that should have been destroyed a long time ago but it took the right person at the right time to do it. Many thought it impossible and a few wanted that barrier to be permanent. But like any impedance of a people, it will eventually fail, either through the natural effects of time or through the demand for change or both.
Every parent at some point has told their child that they can be anything they want, even president of the United States. Many said this knowing it was a lie; a lie to inspire and build up rather than tear down but a lie nonetheless. It parallels the lie of Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. These are lies that brings the extraordinary into the ordinary, that makes the impossible possible, that bring hope to the hopeless. Parents say this to their children not because they believe it to be true but in the hope that someday it could be. Now, that hope of possibility has turned into reality. No longer does a parent need to lie to their child, that ideal is true now. That day has come; that day is history.
That word cannot be used enough-- history. It was a historic election and a historic result. Not just because America stood up and picked an African-American for the first time in its history. This in and of itself is marvel and is unparalleled, and was long overdue. It was not only this but that America picked the more deserving candidate. We picked the more deserving candidate and, unlike in many elections, one that deserved to be picked. In everything he has done and in everything he has said, Barack Obama presented himself as a man who wants the country as a whole to succeed while being himself humble about his role. He heard the cries for change and promised to deliver through both his actions and words.
The demand for change in this country was strong even before Barack Obama made that his core message, but the fact that he was aware of the populace's demand shows an awareness that neither his opponent nor the current president have shown. That demand is strongest when there is dissatisfaction with the present, and the present is indeed bleak. The people then have no choice but to look to the future and there was little question as to which candidate represented the future.
John McCain did try to usurp the message of change during the campaign but it was a hard sell when everything he did bespoke a lie. He promised to bring change to place he has worked for nearly three decades while at the same time promoted his experience. This is as blatantly disingenuous as one can get. Experience is worthless if you plan on completely changing the system in which that experience was gained so we must discount your experience if you truly want to bring change. On the flip side, we cannot believe that McCain would bring change if we send him back to work in a place he has worked for so long, therefore we must discount your message of change if you wish to use your experience.
It is also strange to focus your claims to experience as an executive by talking of your experience as a legislator. There is a much better example that each have had over the past couple of years. The head of a campaign is much closer to president than that of a senator. You must lead a large group and get everyone on the same page. You must craft a message that resonates not just with you and your supporters but to the country as a whole. You must inspire and bring together those with differing opinions. All of these things you must do as the head of a campaign must also be done once a campaign is successful. The campaign is president practice.
In all honesty, there was no real comparison between the two campaigns. The McCain campaign bungled from one misstep to another, none bigger than the selection of his vice president running mate. McCain was impulsive, quick to decide without scrutiny, which is the exact opposite of what is require to be a good president. A thoughtless action during the campaign leads to negative publicity, a viral video, and perhaps a few percentage points drop in the polls. A thoughtless action as the chief executor of the country could be disastrous: it can cause an economic depression, antagonize an enemy, or precipitate yet another war. McCain has a documented history of being a hot-head whose temper is a hair's breadth away from boiling over and that is not the temperament we need.
Contrast that with the cool, calm demeanor of the man who was often under attack. Barack Obama handled everything that came his way without ever getting flustered. He was under the largest microscope this country has ever created for two years with nary a major mistake. And be sure any mistake would be magnified greatly by that microscope because of who he is. There was no second chance for him-- a mistake would not mean doubt from many voters but a permanent scar which he would be unable to hide. He was under intense and continuous pressure, much like a president, and came away unscathed. Barack Obama's long time in the crucible of the spotlight has galvanized him for his future task.
Having said all that the experience argument is a poor one. Some of our greatest presidents have had less experience than Barack Obama, and some of our worst have had resumes to compare with John McCain. This is why experience does not define a president. The president is a person of the moment and not of the past. They must be aware of the past and learn from it but decisions cannot be made there. The value of experience is highly overrated by the candidates themselves and the electorate as a whole. There are much more important characteristics that often get overlooked, but this time they came shining through. One candidate pushed a message of hope and promise the other on fear and hatred.
John McCain focused not on building himself up but tearing down Barack Obama which was a stunning example of the disconnect he had with the zeitgeist. He punched at the pedestal that Barack Obama stood upon, the pedestal he himself had helped create. Instead of concentrating on his own perch he remained fixated on destroying his enemies'. Each attack was more desperate, more pathetic, and less effective. This tactic did nothing but waste time, and when time ran out he was left on the ground looking up at Obama in the rarefied air above him. It was the last gasp of a man whose time had passed.
McCain's time should have been 2000 and had he been elected then maybe we would not be in such dire straights now. Back then his claims of being a Maverick were justified instead of just being empty hot air. But to try and correct that error now will just make matters worse, you cannot fix the past by making another mistake in the present. You can only hope to fix the future by choosing wisely now.
Fear was the status quo over the past eight years and Obama's opponents assumed that it would remain so. Fear got them into places of power and they went with their tried and true tactic ignoring the state of the country. They bet that the fear of change and the fear of the person that would bring it would be sufficient to win. They went all in and lost.
McCain and his campaign tossed accusations at the wall like spaghetti hoping something would stick. The claim that Obama was paling around with terrorists was frail in compared to Obama's obvious love of his country. Charges of socialism was wordplay and convinced only those already in agreement. They claimed him to be ignorant on topics on which he was obviously well versed, while at the same time desperately trying to keep Sarah Palin out of the spotlight or any light.
Perhaps their stupidest attack was that Barack Obama is all rhetoric, for even if that were true, it is more than they could offer. The pen is mightier than the sword. We are what we think, and the pen has the power to shape our thoughts. Words can change the country and the world, then can inspire and drive, they can give hope and change minds. Words written on a parchment in 1776 gave us freedom, a pamphlet that same year gave us Common Sense and the determination to fight. Words helped repair this country after its civil war and helped put a man on the moon. There is nothing they cannot do and to have a leader who is aware of their power and both wise and skilled in using them is the highest complement one can give.
It is the words of the great leaders of the past that we remember, that we learn in school, that we repeat to make a point. We repeat these speeches because they still carry weight, they helped shaped the opinions of the day and even years after spoken they still retain the significance they once did. For the great presidents, we remember not only what they did but what they said. The latter affects us to a greater degree today. Deeds often lose significance as time moves on, like a dream fades away once you are awake, but words and ideas last forever because they are constantly reborn when repeated and pondered.
Even if Barack Obama were only words, great words, that would be a breathe of fresh air and sufficient to do his job. But Obama is more than just words. He is intelligence, fortitude, confidence, and determination. He will surround himself with good people and actually listen to them. Better than that, he will understand the issues and make informed decisions rather than rely exclusively on the decisions of those around him.
The presidents job is to ensure that the will and judgment of the people, through their representative, is done. He has no power to make laws nor power to render decisions. His power is but to lead, to motivate, to inspire; he is almost a figurehead. The real power lies not in the president himself but in the ideal of the president-- what the office represents. The president is a leader and an ambassador to the country and the world.
There is no one in the world right now that equals Barack Obama on those fronts. He motivated throngs of people to follow him and help elect change into office. Hundreds of thousands gather to hear him speak wherever he goes, whether it is in the United States or elsewhere, because his words echo what they feel and what they hope. The whole world looks at us in a new light because of our ability to see through the usual politics and choose someone that they see as the better leader for the world. That is a leader; that is an ambassador.
Obama has fought against innumerable detractors for years and even after he has been elected there are those still looking to bring him down. He will never be complacent because there are many who will never let him: his detractors will never stop looking for weaknesses or mistakes and his supporters will constantly put pressure on him to live up to place in history.
The storybook ending to this election is just the beginning of this story. What we do now determines whether this story ends as a comedy, tragedy, or, dare we hope, a heroic epic. Obama cannot do it alone, it will take not only the support of those he already has but everyone in this country. We can only hope that those who voted against him will not be unwilling and unable to open their minds to change. That instead of sitting on the sidelines hoping the revelers stay off their lawn that they join in the revelry and help reshape the coming days. We also must be vigilant that the current celebration drunk with emotion does not slip into a hangover of apathy and disinterest like this country is so accustomed. The task is not done but simply started and we must not waste this start. We must follow this change through to the end.
The only road to the White House is no longer only presumption of birth or wealth or military achievement but there is also a heretofore mythological road; that legendary path that parents have spoke of with their children for hundreds of years but that they themselves doubted even existed. It was a road not only less traveled by but never trampled on by human feet. Until now, where together we found it as a nation and watched as one walked it for the first time. That road was discovered last night and it can never be hidden again.
It was indeed small steps with which Barack Obama walked out onto the stage at Grant Park in Chicago, but it was a giant leap forward for America and the world. The long night that has blanketed this country is not yet over, the sun not yet above the horizon, but the east is aglow with the light that precedes the dawn... and it is growing brighter.
-----------
While we can celebrate this presidential victory as a great moment in history, where the color of a person's skin was indeed overlooked in favor of the content of that person's character, this celebration must be tempered. As a nation we rose up and tossed aside an old discrimination but found a new and more modern kind in its stead. This bigotry was on display across the country, every ballot measure concerning it ended up on the wrong side, even in the most progressive of states, California.
Anti-gay sentiment is the hate du jour and it is widely spread in the United States. The bigots speak of homosexuality as if it is a choice, which it is not, or that it is not natural, which it is. They speak of these things as if they would justify their loathing of homosexuals even if either or both were true.
America is about freedom, freedom to choose how you want to live. So even if homosexuality were a choice, they should be afforded this choice. And if homosexuality is a choice, they so must heterosexuality be. Therefore if you allow yourself that choice, you should allow others theirs.
The supporters of these ballot measures claim they are defending marriage. How does allowing a gay couple to marry detract from your marriage in any way? How does acknowledging more love cheapen marriage? The answer is, of course, that gay marriage does not affect them or marriage itself in any way. They fear and hate gays so they resist them being accepted anyway they can. It is not truly about marriage but about making sure that the gay lifestyle is not brought into the mainstream.
The bigots look for justification from god and for truth in a book that has none to give on the subject. That again goes to illustrate the power of words. Even a few words written by an unknown man in an ancient and mostly forgotten language thousands of years ago can still greatly influence the opinions of those alive today. Not just influence, but give them the unflappable knowledge that they are both right and just in their reduction of another human being to that of an animal, one that does not deserve all that they have.
They do all this because of a few passages in a ancient book. An ancient book that would have nearly everyone alive today stoned to death for various innocuous infractions, but they ignore this and focus only on their own goal. They ignore that morality from the bronze age is no longer appropriate in 21st century America. Most people have stopped looking to the old testament as a morality guide in everything but this one issue. Why grasp so hard at this one fuzzy prescription?
What it comes down to is that gay Americans are not fully a person according to the majority. It is acceptable that they can have all the rights as straight Americans do all long as it is outside their "pursuit of Happiness". So it has been decided that gays are not a full person, more than three-fifths, but not a full five-fifths either.
The population of those we Americans discriminate against grows smaller each time, but that does not make it any less wrong. First it was all about the genitals you have, then about the color of those genitals, and now it concerns where you put those genitals. Each issue as ridiculous and stupid as the last. We are one species and should act like it and accept each for who they are. We are taught to treasure the differences in each other because that is what makes each person unique. The lesson here is that differences are acceptable as long as they aren't too different, or scary, or against another's beliefs.
There is a easy solution to this problem, simply remove the government entirely from the marriage debate. Every joining of two people in the governments eyes would simply be a civil union, both gay and straight. Remove government from the discussion entirely so as to remove the defense of marriage as an excuse to reduce the worth of a person. This would leave only their bigotry as reason to not allow fully equal rights for homosexuals. The only problem with this solution is it would hide the anti-gay feelings and a hidden discrimination does not progress towards equality as fast as a conspicuous one. It is a solution that is penny wise and pound foolish, sacrificing the long term for the immediate.
It is hypocrisy of the highest order for anyone to laud yourself for having a hand in the watershed moment of electing Barack Obama while not chastising yourself for being homophobic. At the same time you are patting yourself on the back for being so enlightened for helping to elect an African-American as president, you should be kicking yourself in the nads for perpetuating bigotry in another form. You are not enlightened because while you may have managed to help lift one group up you did so while pissing on another.
Rest assured, this ban will not last nor will the feelings of fear and hate. It will be fixed in time-- those that want things to remain static can only accomplish that for so long, any impedance of a people will fail. Time changes all and progress will not stop forever no matter how hard some people try. All this codified discrimination did is weaken a country-- it did so by weakening a part of us and so all of us are less because of it.
The joy in this election is not as much as it could have been, not as much as it should have been.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Heroes, Villains, and Vampires
Let's start off with the bad of TV season, Heroes. The show used to be good. The first season was an original series that was dense plot wise but interesting to watch. The ending of the first season was a bit anticlimactic but it was somewhat satisfying. The second season devolved a bit-- it became repetitive and used the same characters to do what they've always done. And now the third season, they fell into a vat of crap.
In a show that is all about the battle between good and evil, very little of note actually happens. It is the only war in which no one ever dies. Even if you think they are dead, they aren't dead. Even if you see them killed, they aren't dead. It'd probably be easier to count the characters on the show that haven't been dead at one point or another (in the present or the various futures they've had) than count the ones who haven't died.
The show has jumped the shark (and this shark has the ability to shoot laser beams out of its head). Problem with the same old villains? We'll just switch the heroes and the villains instead of actually killing some characters off and think of new and exciting ones. Hard to deal with the fact that Peter should be invincible? We'll just take his powers away so he is weak and we can go through season 1 again where Peter gathers his powers (I guess the logic here being we should just relive the good season of the show). Hiro can time-travel and should be able to go anywhere in time and fix anything that pops up? We'll just make him so ridiculously stupid that ever time he tries to go through time and fix things he screws up and then decides to stop messing with time. It just goes on and on: Claire is indestructible but no one lets her do anything (and give her useless people to protect her). Ali Larter must have had a three year contract because even though her character died she had an identical twin (God forbid we get a new actress to play the part, and because it is the same actress we have to go through and explain why she looks exactly the same as another of the heroes... can you say needless exposition?)
There are so many characters running around that just seem pointless to the main plot (and I use the term plot loosely as so little has happened over the course of three seasons). If only the villains would man up and start taking some of them out things might get streamlined enough to get interesting again.
I used to look forward to watching this but it has just gotten so bad recently that the DVR has no room for it any more.
(As an aside, there was a nice goof in the last episode: When Hiro froze time in the first episode with the Daphne (the super speed girl), she lost her super speed but could still move at a normal pace. Last episode, he freezes time to go in the past and replace his sword and get fake blood to "kill" with Ando and this time Daphne is completely frozen. Consistency-- let's get some.)
Now to the good, True Blood. To be honest, I nearly gave up on this show a few minutes into it but I am glad I didn't (and not just because Anna Paquin gets naked). It is an atmospheric and campy vampire tale (while those don't sound like they'd go together, they do).
The show gives their version of the vampire mythology, straying here and their from the basics but not so much as to be distracting. In the show, the vampires have 'come out' after a synthetic blood, marketed as True Blood, was developed to allow the vampires to survive without feeding off of humans. Some vampires, like the main protagonist Bill Compton, tries to rejoin society. He meets a woman, Sookie, who can read people's thoughts and there is an attraction right away.
The show is set in the deep south, so you have the obvious racial parallels as the vampires are discriminated against by the humans. Are they justified in doing so? The vampires have fed off them in the past-- will they live peacefully on the new blood or will they keep to their old ways. In addition, there is plenty of sex and drug issues as well... not that any of this is surprising as the show is on HBO (if you are going to be on pay cable you might as well get everything in the show they won't let on the other networks, otherwise it is just a waste of time)
I don't want to give any major plot points away, but if you have HBO and you haven't given it a try, you should.
In a show that is all about the battle between good and evil, very little of note actually happens. It is the only war in which no one ever dies. Even if you think they are dead, they aren't dead. Even if you see them killed, they aren't dead. It'd probably be easier to count the characters on the show that haven't been dead at one point or another (in the present or the various futures they've had) than count the ones who haven't died.
The show has jumped the shark (and this shark has the ability to shoot laser beams out of its head). Problem with the same old villains? We'll just switch the heroes and the villains instead of actually killing some characters off and think of new and exciting ones. Hard to deal with the fact that Peter should be invincible? We'll just take his powers away so he is weak and we can go through season 1 again where Peter gathers his powers (I guess the logic here being we should just relive the good season of the show). Hiro can time-travel and should be able to go anywhere in time and fix anything that pops up? We'll just make him so ridiculously stupid that ever time he tries to go through time and fix things he screws up and then decides to stop messing with time. It just goes on and on: Claire is indestructible but no one lets her do anything (and give her useless people to protect her). Ali Larter must have had a three year contract because even though her character died she had an identical twin (God forbid we get a new actress to play the part, and because it is the same actress we have to go through and explain why she looks exactly the same as another of the heroes... can you say needless exposition?)
There are so many characters running around that just seem pointless to the main plot (and I use the term plot loosely as so little has happened over the course of three seasons). If only the villains would man up and start taking some of them out things might get streamlined enough to get interesting again.
I used to look forward to watching this but it has just gotten so bad recently that the DVR has no room for it any more.
(As an aside, there was a nice goof in the last episode: When Hiro froze time in the first episode with the Daphne (the super speed girl), she lost her super speed but could still move at a normal pace. Last episode, he freezes time to go in the past and replace his sword and get fake blood to "kill" with Ando and this time Daphne is completely frozen. Consistency-- let's get some.)
Now to the good, True Blood. To be honest, I nearly gave up on this show a few minutes into it but I am glad I didn't (and not just because Anna Paquin gets naked). It is an atmospheric and campy vampire tale (while those don't sound like they'd go together, they do).
The show gives their version of the vampire mythology, straying here and their from the basics but not so much as to be distracting. In the show, the vampires have 'come out' after a synthetic blood, marketed as True Blood, was developed to allow the vampires to survive without feeding off of humans. Some vampires, like the main protagonist Bill Compton, tries to rejoin society. He meets a woman, Sookie, who can read people's thoughts and there is an attraction right away.
The show is set in the deep south, so you have the obvious racial parallels as the vampires are discriminated against by the humans. Are they justified in doing so? The vampires have fed off them in the past-- will they live peacefully on the new blood or will they keep to their old ways. In addition, there is plenty of sex and drug issues as well... not that any of this is surprising as the show is on HBO (if you are going to be on pay cable you might as well get everything in the show they won't let on the other networks, otherwise it is just a waste of time)
I don't want to give any major plot points away, but if you have HBO and you haven't given it a try, you should.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
Sarah Palin on My9
Brenda Blackman had Sarah Palin in the studio for the only interview in the NYC area. It is an exclusive and one I'd bet any channel would like to have. Given that, I am not sure why the campaign chose to go on My9 rather than any of the bigger networks. It is almost two weeks to the election and the McCain campaign still seems reluctant to let Palin do any interview that a large number of people will actually see.
After watching the interview, I understand why (not that I didn't before, but I was assuming after a while she would get better at it... she hasn't-- practice has certainly not made perfect in her case.) Also, My9 was probably so happy to get the exclusive that they didn't want to be too hard on her lest they never get another interview. Brenda Blackman took it extremely easy on Palin, embarrassingly so. It ended up being not as much an interview as a commercial and yet Sarah Palin still came out looking bad in the end.
The first section lasted 50 seconds, all dealing with what is the hardest part about running for president. She plays this part for pity-- the hardest part is the toll on her family because it was a complete surprise that that would happen. Maybe the vetting by McCain was so circumstantial that she thought no one would probe very deeply. Hard hitting journalism. Hit those hot button topics.
Next, 13 seconds on how the McCain/Palin ticket would lower taxes, not taking more of what our small businesses and families earn and "redistributing it". Then, 20 seconds on the accomplishments of fundraising and crowds that Barack Obama has gotten over the past month. It is impressive, like his speech but it is nothing compared to "trustworthy and, umm, noteworthy also heroic deeds that John McCain is offering in terms of service to his country". In other words, don't forget that John McCain was a prisoner of war over thirty years ago as it is really germane to the topic at hand.
8 seconds on the fact that she doesn't care what the polls say (just like she doesn't care what questions are asked in a debate, or what science says about climate change, or that dinosaurs didn't live with people). The only polls that matters is the one on November 4th.
12 seconds on Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama. She says it doesn't matter because it was "expected". Just like the current economic crisis doesn't matter because it was expected... oh wait, it still does matter doesn't it. Well, it also doesn't matter according to Gov. Palin because although the most famous, like-able, and marketable Republican military person is backing Barack Obama there are plenty of other Republican people that you've never heard of still supporting John McCain, so it is a wash.
16 seconds on her experience... frankly, the fact that she could fill that much is impressive. She has executive experience and apparently is a "regulator of oil and gas" (which sounds very much like that part of your resume that you pad with stuff you just make up: special skills-- can regulate oil and gas). Plus, she shares her vision with John McCain so who actually needs skill or knowledge. C'mon, they share a vision.
Then onto her SNL appearance that Brenda says "everyone is talking about". She fills 21 seconds on how fun it was and how nice everyone is and the fact that you need to have a sense of humor. So that is more time spent on SNL than on taxes, the economy, or any political topic that voters care about.
The last segment was on special needs children , where Brenda Blackman shared her story of her child with Lupus. Palin said that special needs children would be a priority. Her answer spanned 35 seconds and is reproduced here in its entirety:
"You know what we need to do is strengthen the Nation Institute of Health. We have not funded it to the degree it should be. we haven't prioritized so enough funds go there to strengthen that so that we can start finding some of these cures. We've been so reliant, appropriately, in a sense, on the private sector fundraising efforts, like you've been engaged in with Lupus, that's important too. But the federal government does play an appropriate role here in making sure that resources are prioritized appropriately so that NIH is strengthened and we can start doing even more for this research."
That is a classic Palin answer that rambles on and says absolutely nothing. Sure all politicians do that in a sense, but the good ones answer in a way that addresses part of the question and sounds satisfying. Palin's answer is a train wreck that fills time and makes her look stupid... and that she has a word of the day calendar and the words for the past two days were "appropriately" and "prioritize".
Here visit was "amazing", SNL was "awesome", and the set at My9, which is an issue that a lot of voters care about, is "very beautiful... just very sharp and classy". The interview was "so nice". Gee golly, this woman could be president dontcha know.
So totaling that up, she was in the studio for over an hour and they got just over 5 minutes good enough to put on the show. The segment itself was over 9 minutes long so it is pretty sad that you can barely fill half a segment devoted entirely to you. Brenda at one point described Sarah Palin as "gracious, forthcoming, and competent". Why they chose not to show any of those portions of the interview, I'll never know.
The interview only goes to show that, as Colin Powell says, she just isn't ready to be president. And My9 isn't ready to have a news program either.
After watching the interview, I understand why (not that I didn't before, but I was assuming after a while she would get better at it... she hasn't-- practice has certainly not made perfect in her case.) Also, My9 was probably so happy to get the exclusive that they didn't want to be too hard on her lest they never get another interview. Brenda Blackman took it extremely easy on Palin, embarrassingly so. It ended up being not as much an interview as a commercial and yet Sarah Palin still came out looking bad in the end.
The first section lasted 50 seconds, all dealing with what is the hardest part about running for president. She plays this part for pity-- the hardest part is the toll on her family because it was a complete surprise that that would happen. Maybe the vetting by McCain was so circumstantial that she thought no one would probe very deeply. Hard hitting journalism. Hit those hot button topics.
Next, 13 seconds on how the McCain/Palin ticket would lower taxes, not taking more of what our small businesses and families earn and "redistributing it". Then, 20 seconds on the accomplishments of fundraising and crowds that Barack Obama has gotten over the past month. It is impressive, like his speech but it is nothing compared to "trustworthy and, umm, noteworthy also heroic deeds that John McCain is offering in terms of service to his country". In other words, don't forget that John McCain was a prisoner of war over thirty years ago as it is really germane to the topic at hand.
8 seconds on the fact that she doesn't care what the polls say (just like she doesn't care what questions are asked in a debate, or what science says about climate change, or that dinosaurs didn't live with people). The only polls that matters is the one on November 4th.
12 seconds on Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama. She says it doesn't matter because it was "expected". Just like the current economic crisis doesn't matter because it was expected... oh wait, it still does matter doesn't it. Well, it also doesn't matter according to Gov. Palin because although the most famous, like-able, and marketable Republican military person is backing Barack Obama there are plenty of other Republican people that you've never heard of still supporting John McCain, so it is a wash.
16 seconds on her experience... frankly, the fact that she could fill that much is impressive. She has executive experience and apparently is a "regulator of oil and gas" (which sounds very much like that part of your resume that you pad with stuff you just make up: special skills-- can regulate oil and gas). Plus, she shares her vision with John McCain so who actually needs skill or knowledge. C'mon, they share a vision.
Then onto her SNL appearance that Brenda says "everyone is talking about". She fills 21 seconds on how fun it was and how nice everyone is and the fact that you need to have a sense of humor. So that is more time spent on SNL than on taxes, the economy, or any political topic that voters care about.
The last segment was on special needs children , where Brenda Blackman shared her story of her child with Lupus. Palin said that special needs children would be a priority. Her answer spanned 35 seconds and is reproduced here in its entirety:
"You know what we need to do is strengthen the Nation Institute of Health. We have not funded it to the degree it should be. we haven't prioritized so enough funds go there to strengthen that so that we can start finding some of these cures. We've been so reliant, appropriately, in a sense, on the private sector fundraising efforts, like you've been engaged in with Lupus, that's important too. But the federal government does play an appropriate role here in making sure that resources are prioritized appropriately so that NIH is strengthened and we can start doing even more for this research."
That is a classic Palin answer that rambles on and says absolutely nothing. Sure all politicians do that in a sense, but the good ones answer in a way that addresses part of the question and sounds satisfying. Palin's answer is a train wreck that fills time and makes her look stupid... and that she has a word of the day calendar and the words for the past two days were "appropriately" and "prioritize".
Here visit was "amazing", SNL was "awesome", and the set at My9, which is an issue that a lot of voters care about, is "very beautiful... just very sharp and classy". The interview was "so nice". Gee golly, this woman could be president dontcha know.
So totaling that up, she was in the studio for over an hour and they got just over 5 minutes good enough to put on the show. The segment itself was over 9 minutes long so it is pretty sad that you can barely fill half a segment devoted entirely to you. Brenda at one point described Sarah Palin as "gracious, forthcoming, and competent". Why they chose not to show any of those portions of the interview, I'll never know.
The interview only goes to show that, as Colin Powell says, she just isn't ready to be president. And My9 isn't ready to have a news program either.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Julia Nunes: I Wrote These
I just received my signed copy of Julia Nunes' new CD, I Wrote These. If you aren't familiar with her you probably don't go onto YouTube too often and probably don't play the ukulele. She is closing in on 50,000 subscribers-- get with the program. Julia is a singer/songwriter who plays the guitar, ukulele, and melodica and does both originals and covers. This new album is all her original work because "otherwise the title would be lying".
Ms. Nunes has a raw voice and I mean that in a good way. It isn't overly trained but she is a naturally good singer (both singing the melodies and harmonizing with herself). The rawness in her voice allows her to bring emotion and nuance to her songs which otherwise is missing in a lot of music these days.
As good a singer she is, her biggest strength is in her writing though: both in her lyrics and well constructed melodies. The words and phrasings are clever and you'll be singing along with the songs once you know those words.
In addition to her musical talent, another great advantage Julia Nunes has is she is a real person. You can go on YouTube and watch her videos and you get much more than the music: you get a genuine and fun person. And it isn't just an act as I went to her concert here in NYC a few months ago and she was the same (and was nice enough to hang around after the show and sign autographs and talk... I was meaning to write about that concert but never got around to it, oh well).
You don't have to take my word for it though, go watch the videos for yourself.
On to the new CD, Here's the track list (all the songs that appear on YouTube are linked):
1. Maybe I will (NYC concert)
2. Into the Sunshine
3. First Impressions
4. Binoculars
5. Pen to Paper (NYC concert)
6. Short and Sweet
7. Welcome Vacation
8. You Were
9. Stairwell
10. Regrets
11. Odd
12. Sugar Coats
13. Roles Reversed
14. The Debt
Into the Sunshine makes its fourth appearance (the one YouTube video, two versions on her first CD, and now this one). This is her bread and butter song: its got a great melody and encourages singing along (especially during the 'bah bah bah' parts) and is her most marketable song. She used this to close her show in NYC (not counting the encore). Just before she played it she said she had one song left and someone yelled out "Into the Sunshine" to which she replied, "Well, of course."
Of the 4 versions out there, I don't think any of them really nailed it yet. All three version on the CD use a faster tempo than the YouTube version which I think is good, but the two on the first CD lack any harmonization (all the tracks on the first CD are very minimalist, just her and her guitar) which gives the song an unfinished sound even if it is just because I am used to the original version. The harmonies make a return (albeit in a modified form) in this new version but also added are a bass and drum track. The accompaniment muddles the music a bit and it takes away a bit of the fun, although I do like the harmonies making a return (but I prefer the original harmony lines). So to sum up: use the tempo from the CDs, the harmonization and arrangement from the original YouTube video. Still a catchy tune and obviously one of her favorites.
The only other negative I have about the YouTube songs is in reference to my favorite song, Regrets. It is a similar situation to Into the Sunshine, the new arrangement just doesn't work as much for me. The drum track is again too much, but even more importantly the song lacks some of the personal and emotional resonance the YouTube version has; it comes across as much more of a pop song. I still like it, but I prefer the original video. This is probably due to the fact that I've heard this song a lot and the changes here are very different and might take some getting used to (we'll see how I feel about it after I've heard it more).
All the other songs that were originally on YouTube are improved on this CD, especially Welcome Vacation. It wasn't my favorite of her songs online but this one is much improved. All these tracks stick much closer to the feeling of the videos (i.e. sans drums and bass) but with cleaner instrument lines (no missed chord in First Impressions anymore :) ) and higher quality recordings.
The new songs are all very good even on the first listen with the exception of Sugar Coats. I heard Maybe I Will and Paper and Pen at the NYC concert and both play as well live as on the CD (and the latter even has fun audience participation parts). Binoculars is a light-hearted song about voyeurism and is a fun tune. The Debt is a good tune and uses an interesting drum line, similar to this, that fits the song very well. You Were is my favorite of the new ones, a touching and well written song ("If I were god, I'd destroy all religion/ Abolish all the visions/and leave the world with love"). It is also the only song where the (actual) drums blend seamlessly into the song and adds something positive.
Sugar Coats sounds a bit out of place on this CD, perhaps because it is the only duet and co-written song. The tone is very different than the other songs and the guy who sings with her on the track is very nasal and sounds amateurish compared to Julia. I think the funny thing is Julia always jokes about people thinking she is, or at the very least sounds like, a boy so it might not have been the best idea to do a duet with a guy who sings in a higher register than you :).
Overall, the album is a great one and I'm glad I now have recordings of most of the originals that were on YouTube. This CD just confirms what I already thought, that Julia is best when she is stripped down... umm... that didn't come out quite right. I meant musically she is best when she strips the song to its basics and just lets it stand on its own.
I highly recommend I Wrote These, you should go and buy the CD (and while you are there buy her first album, Left Right Wrong, as well).
P.S. I was sad to see that "super old school Julia" (her song August) didn't make the CD, that along with Regrets are my favorites. I'm glad one of them made it though-- here's hoping it makes on the next album.
Ms. Nunes has a raw voice and I mean that in a good way. It isn't overly trained but she is a naturally good singer (both singing the melodies and harmonizing with herself). The rawness in her voice allows her to bring emotion and nuance to her songs which otherwise is missing in a lot of music these days.
As good a singer she is, her biggest strength is in her writing though: both in her lyrics and well constructed melodies. The words and phrasings are clever and you'll be singing along with the songs once you know those words.
In addition to her musical talent, another great advantage Julia Nunes has is she is a real person. You can go on YouTube and watch her videos and you get much more than the music: you get a genuine and fun person. And it isn't just an act as I went to her concert here in NYC a few months ago and she was the same (and was nice enough to hang around after the show and sign autographs and talk... I was meaning to write about that concert but never got around to it, oh well).
You don't have to take my word for it though, go watch the videos for yourself.
On to the new CD, Here's the track list (all the songs that appear on YouTube are linked):
1. Maybe I will (NYC concert)
2. Into the Sunshine
3. First Impressions
4. Binoculars
5. Pen to Paper (NYC concert)
6. Short and Sweet
7. Welcome Vacation
8. You Were
9. Stairwell
10. Regrets
11. Odd
12. Sugar Coats
13. Roles Reversed
14. The Debt
Into the Sunshine makes its fourth appearance (the one YouTube video, two versions on her first CD, and now this one). This is her bread and butter song: its got a great melody and encourages singing along (especially during the 'bah bah bah' parts) and is her most marketable song. She used this to close her show in NYC (not counting the encore). Just before she played it she said she had one song left and someone yelled out "Into the Sunshine" to which she replied, "Well, of course."
Of the 4 versions out there, I don't think any of them really nailed it yet. All three version on the CD use a faster tempo than the YouTube version which I think is good, but the two on the first CD lack any harmonization (all the tracks on the first CD are very minimalist, just her and her guitar) which gives the song an unfinished sound even if it is just because I am used to the original version. The harmonies make a return (albeit in a modified form) in this new version but also added are a bass and drum track. The accompaniment muddles the music a bit and it takes away a bit of the fun, although I do like the harmonies making a return (but I prefer the original harmony lines). So to sum up: use the tempo from the CDs, the harmonization and arrangement from the original YouTube video. Still a catchy tune and obviously one of her favorites.
The only other negative I have about the YouTube songs is in reference to my favorite song, Regrets. It is a similar situation to Into the Sunshine, the new arrangement just doesn't work as much for me. The drum track is again too much, but even more importantly the song lacks some of the personal and emotional resonance the YouTube version has; it comes across as much more of a pop song. I still like it, but I prefer the original video. This is probably due to the fact that I've heard this song a lot and the changes here are very different and might take some getting used to (we'll see how I feel about it after I've heard it more).
All the other songs that were originally on YouTube are improved on this CD, especially Welcome Vacation. It wasn't my favorite of her songs online but this one is much improved. All these tracks stick much closer to the feeling of the videos (i.e. sans drums and bass) but with cleaner instrument lines (no missed chord in First Impressions anymore :) ) and higher quality recordings.
The new songs are all very good even on the first listen with the exception of Sugar Coats. I heard Maybe I Will and Paper and Pen at the NYC concert and both play as well live as on the CD (and the latter even has fun audience participation parts). Binoculars is a light-hearted song about voyeurism and is a fun tune. The Debt is a good tune and uses an interesting drum line, similar to this, that fits the song very well. You Were is my favorite of the new ones, a touching and well written song ("If I were god, I'd destroy all religion/ Abolish all the visions/and leave the world with love"). It is also the only song where the (actual) drums blend seamlessly into the song and adds something positive.
Sugar Coats sounds a bit out of place on this CD, perhaps because it is the only duet and co-written song. The tone is very different than the other songs and the guy who sings with her on the track is very nasal and sounds amateurish compared to Julia. I think the funny thing is Julia always jokes about people thinking she is, or at the very least sounds like, a boy so it might not have been the best idea to do a duet with a guy who sings in a higher register than you :).
Overall, the album is a great one and I'm glad I now have recordings of most of the originals that were on YouTube. This CD just confirms what I already thought, that Julia is best when she is stripped down... umm... that didn't come out quite right. I meant musically she is best when she strips the song to its basics and just lets it stand on its own.
I highly recommend I Wrote These, you should go and buy the CD (and while you are there buy her first album, Left Right Wrong, as well).
P.S. I was sad to see that "super old school Julia" (her song August) didn't make the CD, that along with Regrets are my favorites. I'm glad one of them made it though-- here's hoping it makes on the next album.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
And the debates are over
It was the most interesting debate so far even if a lot of it was rehashed. I'm sure the McCain campaign was very happy the candidates were sitting this time so they wouldn't have to worry about McCain's aimless wandering that took place during the town hall debate. Although John McCain once again starts of a debate telling us someone is in the hospital, I guess at his age hospitals weigh heavily on his mind.
Overall, Obama won this one again making it a clean sweep (and it's not just me saying this nearly ever poll agrees-- CNN and CBS are the only polls I can find up right now).
The questions were varied and actually covered new ground and the moderator did a good job and got the candidates to actually address the questions (well, more so than usual anyway). Most of the answers were still the same old responses we've heard twice before but there was some new stuff that made the 90 minutes at least tolerable.
There were a few good lines during the night. McCain finally had a good line that someone other than himself laughed at (although he still had a few clunkers) when saying "I am not President Bush, If you want to run against president Bush, you should have ran 4 years ago". It was a good line and all the post-debate coverage focused on it however I feel Obama's line in response to McCain quoting ridiculous lines was better: "He must have been watching some ads of Senator McCain".
McCain once again looked angry and barely in control for portions of the debate and Obama kept cool and appeared presidential. Hopefully, the trends in the polls continue and we'll have a new direction to the country in three weeks (OK, the actual new direction wouldn't technically start until January but the hope would be there and isn't Obama all about hope?)
P.S. McCain kept talking about how Palin knows more about autism than most people and I am confused as to why he feels this is true. Last I knew her son had Down Syndrome which is completely independent of autism (you can have one and not the other or you can have both). You'd think he'd know the difference. He also noted that she would defend and help special needs families without mentioning the fact that she cut funding to them before.
Overall, Obama won this one again making it a clean sweep (and it's not just me saying this nearly ever poll agrees-- CNN and CBS are the only polls I can find up right now).
The questions were varied and actually covered new ground and the moderator did a good job and got the candidates to actually address the questions (well, more so than usual anyway). Most of the answers were still the same old responses we've heard twice before but there was some new stuff that made the 90 minutes at least tolerable.
There were a few good lines during the night. McCain finally had a good line that someone other than himself laughed at (although he still had a few clunkers) when saying "I am not President Bush, If you want to run against president Bush, you should have ran 4 years ago". It was a good line and all the post-debate coverage focused on it however I feel Obama's line in response to McCain quoting ridiculous lines was better: "He must have been watching some ads of Senator McCain".
McCain once again looked angry and barely in control for portions of the debate and Obama kept cool and appeared presidential. Hopefully, the trends in the polls continue and we'll have a new direction to the country in three weeks (OK, the actual new direction wouldn't technically start until January but the hope would be there and isn't Obama all about hope?)
P.S. McCain kept talking about how Palin knows more about autism than most people and I am confused as to why he feels this is true. Last I knew her son had Down Syndrome which is completely independent of autism (you can have one and not the other or you can have both). You'd think he'd know the difference. He also noted that she would defend and help special needs families without mentioning the fact that she cut funding to them before.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Emmy fun
Personally, I actually enjoyed the Emmys more than usual (which isn't saying too much and some of that enjoyment may have come from the fact I was watching in on my DVR and had more control than usual). Everyone else is talking about how it was the most awful thing ever broadcast on TV. The hosts were pretty bad overall but individually Jeff Propst and Howie Mandel were pretty good, Ryan was serviceable, but Heidi Klum and Tom Bergeron were awful. None of that is shocking at all.
The medley sang by Josh Groban was inexplicably bad, but it was interesting in the same way that you must look at a car accident on the highway as you drive past. The Laugh-In reunion was probably the most embarrassed I've ever been for people on TV. Young people who have never seen the show before will think their parents are insane for ever watching the show because it was that bad. Someone should have mentioned the fact that it was horrible and they could save 7 minutes by not doing that and everyone would be much happier.
The only amusing parts of the night were, not surprisingly, the unscripted parts (and by that I mean the parts not written by the writers at the Emmys, not that they weren't written at all). Don Rickles was funny and old enough that he didn't really care about the crap written for him and went off on his own tangents.
As for the awards, I am very happy that 30 Rock took home a bunch of awards (especially that Alec Baldwin took the best actor in a comedy). I would have liked Hugh Laurie to win best actor in a drama but I always liked Bryan Cranston in Malcom in the Middle so I don't feel too bad. The only awards I was annoyed about were two supporting actor awards. Neil Patrick Harris should have won for best supporting actor in a comedy but instead Jeremy Piven won again (proving once again that once you win an Emmy for a specific character you can keep winning indefinitely as long as you change nothing and keep doing exactly the same thing). Tom Wilkinson won best supporting actor in a miniseries for his portrayal of Ben Franklin in "John Adams" but that was a pretty bad choice-- right miniseries but wrong actor. Stephen Dillane, playing Thomas Jefferson, was the best part of that miniseries by a long shot (yes, better than Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney) and definitely deserved it. That was the only award of the night I cursed when the winner was announced, which was an improvement over most years.
Overall, as far as awards shows go, it was pretty good. I learned always to watch it off the DVR and not live though.
P.S. I hear Ricky Gervais is being pursued as the host of the Oscars. I approve of that choice. he had the only funny bit on the Emmy broadcast and is a damn funny man.
P.P.S. Why does every awards show run long? Do they not rehearse? They always seem surprised when half way through the show they are a half an hour late and have to start cutting bits. Here is some advice: after you write all those god-awful banter bits, and horrible medleys, and embarrassing "reunion" pieces take them all and do a run through of the show, and here is the important part, while timing it. Then compare how long it ran against how much time you have and make edits accordingly. They don't seem to do this ever...
And yet somehow the directors of awards shows on TV keep getting Emmys. If your show ran long you didn't do a good job as a director so you don't deserve the award.
The medley sang by Josh Groban was inexplicably bad, but it was interesting in the same way that you must look at a car accident on the highway as you drive past. The Laugh-In reunion was probably the most embarrassed I've ever been for people on TV. Young people who have never seen the show before will think their parents are insane for ever watching the show because it was that bad. Someone should have mentioned the fact that it was horrible and they could save 7 minutes by not doing that and everyone would be much happier.
The only amusing parts of the night were, not surprisingly, the unscripted parts (and by that I mean the parts not written by the writers at the Emmys, not that they weren't written at all). Don Rickles was funny and old enough that he didn't really care about the crap written for him and went off on his own tangents.
As for the awards, I am very happy that 30 Rock took home a bunch of awards (especially that Alec Baldwin took the best actor in a comedy). I would have liked Hugh Laurie to win best actor in a drama but I always liked Bryan Cranston in Malcom in the Middle so I don't feel too bad. The only awards I was annoyed about were two supporting actor awards. Neil Patrick Harris should have won for best supporting actor in a comedy but instead Jeremy Piven won again (proving once again that once you win an Emmy for a specific character you can keep winning indefinitely as long as you change nothing and keep doing exactly the same thing). Tom Wilkinson won best supporting actor in a miniseries for his portrayal of Ben Franklin in "John Adams" but that was a pretty bad choice-- right miniseries but wrong actor. Stephen Dillane, playing Thomas Jefferson, was the best part of that miniseries by a long shot (yes, better than Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney) and definitely deserved it. That was the only award of the night I cursed when the winner was announced, which was an improvement over most years.
Overall, as far as awards shows go, it was pretty good. I learned always to watch it off the DVR and not live though.
P.S. I hear Ricky Gervais is being pursued as the host of the Oscars. I approve of that choice. he had the only funny bit on the Emmy broadcast and is a damn funny man.
P.P.S. Why does every awards show run long? Do they not rehearse? They always seem surprised when half way through the show they are a half an hour late and have to start cutting bits. Here is some advice: after you write all those god-awful banter bits, and horrible medleys, and embarrassing "reunion" pieces take them all and do a run through of the show, and here is the important part, while timing it. Then compare how long it ran against how much time you have and make edits accordingly. They don't seem to do this ever...
And yet somehow the directors of awards shows on TV keep getting Emmys. If your show ran long you didn't do a good job as a director so you don't deserve the award.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Attempting to motivate
I am finding very hard to motivate to do anything right now. I have a few things I want to write about but they are all rather lengthy and would require a little discipline to get done which sadly I don't have. Maybe again soon.
On the bright side, I did start studying my memory techniques again. I am hoping to actually compete in the US championships this year like I did three years ago. I should be able to improve on my 10th place finish though especially since I am starting in so early. My goal is to set a couple of American records and maybe win the whole thing. We shall see.
Also, I've purchased Sets 1-3 of the Woody Allen collection and have been watching those. So far watched Annie Hall, Sleeper, and Bananas. You can't really go wrong with classic Woody. The only question I always have while watching one of his films is how the hell did he get all those beautiful girls... I guess, to paraphrase another comic legend, "it's good to be the director... and writer". I've got 15 more to go though so I'll always have something to watch while I am procrastinating and not doing anything.
On the bright side, I did start studying my memory techniques again. I am hoping to actually compete in the US championships this year like I did three years ago. I should be able to improve on my 10th place finish though especially since I am starting in so early. My goal is to set a couple of American records and maybe win the whole thing. We shall see.
Also, I've purchased Sets 1-3 of the Woody Allen collection and have been watching those. So far watched Annie Hall, Sleeper, and Bananas. You can't really go wrong with classic Woody. The only question I always have while watching one of his films is how the hell did he get all those beautiful girls... I guess, to paraphrase another comic legend, "it's good to be the director... and writer". I've got 15 more to go though so I'll always have something to watch while I am procrastinating and not doing anything.
Thursday, August 28, 2008
America's Got Even More Crap
I just watched the first semi-final of America's Got Talent (I don't know why... it was on my DVR so I figured I should). While watching it three words came to mind: awful, awful, awful. From start to finish.
The judges loved them all though, but that just goes to show how smart they are. Of course, I'll let them speak for themselves. David Hasselhoff had the gem of the night with this line: "You're as American as the Olympics". Brilliant David (surprisingly the Olympics and AGT happen to be on the same station... I'm shocked they didn't start selling the Michael Phelps DVD although he did get a mention later on the show).
Piers came in close second when telling Neal E. Boyd, the opera singer (who can't tell the difference between show tunes and opera), that "only in America" could someone who works in a job like an insurance salesman come into a talent show and sing like him. Piers forgets Britain's Got Talent (on which he is also a judge) where Paul Potts, a phone salesman, not only came in and sang better but won the whole competition. Maybe he meant that only in America someone can sing a show tune in an operatic style and in the process make both sound stupid.
They need to change the title to "America's Got a Modicum of Talent But Is Nearly All Crap" (or AGAMOTBINAC for short).
The judges loved them all though, but that just goes to show how smart they are. Of course, I'll let them speak for themselves. David Hasselhoff had the gem of the night with this line: "You're as American as the Olympics". Brilliant David (surprisingly the Olympics and AGT happen to be on the same station... I'm shocked they didn't start selling the Michael Phelps DVD although he did get a mention later on the show).
Piers came in close second when telling Neal E. Boyd, the opera singer (who can't tell the difference between show tunes and opera), that "only in America" could someone who works in a job like an insurance salesman come into a talent show and sing like him. Piers forgets Britain's Got Talent (on which he is also a judge) where Paul Potts, a phone salesman, not only came in and sang better but won the whole competition. Maybe he meant that only in America someone can sing a show tune in an operatic style and in the process make both sound stupid.
They need to change the title to "America's Got a Modicum of Talent But Is Nearly All Crap" (or AGAMOTBINAC for short).
Thursday, August 14, 2008
Olympics Coverage
I've been spending essentially every free minute of my time watching the Olympics recently which goes to explain my lack of posting. So here is a post about the Olympics
- I'm glad Michael Phelps got his 8 golds but I am also glad he is finished for a few reasons. First, so that NBC will just stop saying his name. And two, Most of his races were boring to watch because he was just so much better than everyone else (the two big exceptions being the 4X100 freestyle relay and the 100M butterfly which were two of the most exciting moments so far).
- In keeping with the media saturation this bullet will also be about Mr. Phelps. Yes, Michael Phelps is great swimmer, probably the best ever. But he isn't a good interview so I don't know why NBC insists on repeatedly having extended interviews with him, and his coach, and his mom. How about showing some other sports NBC, huh? No, you'd rather spend another 40 minutes talking to Michale Phelps's dry cleaner... ok.
- In the rare cases NBC shows a sport that isn't all that popular in the US you know the US is going to win (because why else would they show it?) Women's rowing eights on tape in prime time... hmm... I wonder if we are going to win this. Thankfully though, NBC has a ton of other channels showing Olympic coverage so if you want drama watch the sports on those channels.
- The Chinese gymnasts aren't over 16 (and won't be by the end of the year). They are clearly cheating and I think the IOC is ignoring the issue until after the games are over. Once they are out of China and the repressive government, I think they may investigate a bit more (or at least I hope they do as there is plenty of evidence out there)
- Some of the gymnastic judging has seem suspect at times but it is nothing compared to how bad the boxing judging has been. There are five judges and they have two buttons in front of them, one for each fighter, and three of them have to register a scoring punch within one second of each other for the punch to count. It is at least open scoring (i.e. you know the score during the fight and so do the fighters and the audience, as there booing and cheering attest to) but that doesn't change the fact that the judges miss a lot of scoring punches and sometimes even score phantom blows (maybe they hit the wrong button who knows). But because it is so hard to score a point, whenever someone takes a lead into the last round all they do is run away and hold. It is not boxing at all really... it is more like a game of tag with headgear.
- I love the super slow motion replay, the expressions the athletes make and the way their flesh bounces around, it always makes me laugh. It goes to show that even incredible physical specimens can still look ridiculous when photographing them at a hundred frames a second.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Last Last Comic Standing
The summer reality shows are winding down and that means the scripted part of the TV year (i.e. the good part of the TV year) is starting up again soon. That and the hockey and football season... good times.
Last Comic Standing had their last performance show this past week. It was thankfully much better than last year's show, both the comedians and the filler. We only got two acts other than the comedians: a painfully unfunny intro song from The Dan Band and a thankfully brief stand-up from host Bill Bellamy.
The show instead filled time this year by having all the comedians from last week perform and only tell them afterward whether they were in the top 5 (they also did little profiles of each comedian before their set but since I DVRed the show I was able to skip right over those. I don't want to bias my opinion with their back stories). It is rather harsh for those who didn't make it but at least they get to perform one more time in front of millions (and try to prove America wrong after the fact).
The contestants got a gift from the producers and got their sets extended to 5 minutes (or the equivalent of what a neophyte comedian would get at a minimum in any club).
Let's get to the comedians:
Now bring on the scripted shows, and the Rangers, and the Giants...
Last Comic Standing had their last performance show this past week. It was thankfully much better than last year's show, both the comedians and the filler. We only got two acts other than the comedians: a painfully unfunny intro song from The Dan Band and a thankfully brief stand-up from host Bill Bellamy.
The show instead filled time this year by having all the comedians from last week perform and only tell them afterward whether they were in the top 5 (they also did little profiles of each comedian before their set but since I DVRed the show I was able to skip right over those. I don't want to bias my opinion with their back stories). It is rather harsh for those who didn't make it but at least they get to perform one more time in front of millions (and try to prove America wrong after the fact).
The contestants got a gift from the producers and got their sets extended to 5 minutes (or the equivalent of what a neophyte comedian would get at a minimum in any club).
Let's get to the comedians:
- Marcus: Apparently, he is too important to have a surname. You win one challenge on LCS and all of a sudden you are just Marcus, huh? A lot of his jokes weren't very original and often setups just to do impressions. If you like Dane Cook, you'd like Marcus. His style is very similar, although Marcus has got a bit more talent as he is a good impressionist. Even still, I wasn't impressed but America loves Dane Cook so who knows...
- Ron G: Big energy, lots of character work, but not a great set (although I did enjoy the LA church bit of a guy getting baptised with a bluetooth headset). Doesn't really matter as he didn't make the top 5 anyway.
- Jim Tavare: His usual weird self and thankfully America liked him last week as well and he was in the top 5. I just enjoy watching him and what I said last week still holds: original, clever, deadpan, and English. He had a couple of groaners but even when he has a miss he is still interesting.
- Louis Ramey: Looking sharp and, as always, very funny. He started off a little slow but built as he went along and ended very strongly. I'm sure he is used to doing a longer set than 5 minutes so his last joke took a while to setup but it was still worth it. Of course, he was in the Top 5.
- Adam Hunter: His set is extremely scattershot and he jumps topics all over the place. He just went too quickly, barely even pausing between jokes. It was hard to recognize the punchlines because he sped right passed them not even giving the audience a chance to laugh. The crowd, however, really enjoyed him and were upset when it was announced he wasn't in the top 5.
- Jeff Dye: He grew on me this week; I liked him better than last week (maybe it was because he did 3 minutes on the board game Guess Who? because I used to play that all the time). He was funny but I still don't get a lot of depth from his persona. He made it in the top 5.
- Sean Cullen: He was not as strong as last time, but his personality is still winning. Some jokes he did I've heard similar ones before but they weren't bad. I got the impression his heart wasn't in his performance... maybe he knew he wouldn't be in the top 5 (which he wasn't).
- Iliza Shlesinger: She also, like Sean, was not as good as last show although she kept her high energy and her pacing. She really played to the younger people in the audience, both in the theatre and watching TV, by doing an extended bit on drinking games (I haven't looked at the ratings for LCS but I would imagine it skews young and as such it may have been a good tactic on her part). Of course, the drinking game section wasn't very strong. The crowd was really behind her at the beginning but she seemed to lose the energy by the end. For those that can count, she was obviously in the top 5.
- Louis Ramey
- Jim Tavere
- Jeff Dye
- Iliza Shlesinger
- Marcus
- Sean Cullen
- Adam Hunter
- Ron G
Now bring on the scripted shows, and the Rangers, and the Giants...
Saturday, August 2, 2008
Poetry Night III
It has been a while, but poetry night is back. I'm sure everyone has been praying that this come back, so here it is.
Apparently, I wasn't accurate in my first poetry night post as I said that was the oldest poem I had written but I was wrong. I don't know why I said that because I had the following one then. This one dates a full year earlier than the first, all the way to 9th grade English class. (I know I have two older poems somewhere-- one titled "Unlucky Day" from that same year and one from 6th grade when I wrote a poem about the Norman Invasion of England... yes, I was a weird kid).
This one is untitled.
A scathing look at the meat industry, isn't it? It was written from a cow's point of view going to the slaughter. Now I am not a vegetarian but one of my friends at the time was. I remember have a discussion about eating meat and other related things and it inspired me to write the preceding poem (that and the assignment that was given in class-- inspiration combined with a deadline is the situation under which I can create the most).
Mr. S, my English teacher that year, was a bit of a douche. First of all, when reading this poem to the class he totally blew the last line. Obviously, the poem is written in rhyming couplets, and as such the end of last line should be read as "fresh hamburger meat two twenty nine". He instead read it as "fresh hamburger meat two dollars and twenty nine cents". Any English teacher worth his salt should have realized that reading the line like that would kill both the rhyme scheme and the meter (as loose as the meter was... his version still just sounds stupid).
Of course, that just goes to show he was an idiot, not a douche. But he also was a douche-- he would insert smug statements in the middle of class for no reason (e.g. "Oh, I live in a much richer neighborhood than any of you" which even if true, and that is debatable, is still a pathetic thing to claim over the students in your class). He also would make fun of the students, and as usual I was one of the few who would stand up to him. I told him to shut up once while he was insulting me-- apparently, he thought it was OK to make fun of his students and not for them to fight back in any way.
You may just say that I was a stupid kid and he probably wasn't that bad. But even the other teachers agreed. My friend (the one who inspired the poem) and I were in the teacher's office area talking to our senior year teacher when Mr. S came over and said something stupid that I don't remember. As soon as he walked away our much cooler teacher said, "He is such a prick."
OK, so I wrote more about my 9th grade English teacher than the poem, but I think that was much more interesting anyway (plus, I pretty much said everything there is about the poem....).
Apparently, I wasn't accurate in my first poetry night post as I said that was the oldest poem I had written but I was wrong. I don't know why I said that because I had the following one then. This one dates a full year earlier than the first, all the way to 9th grade English class. (I know I have two older poems somewhere-- one titled "Unlucky Day" from that same year and one from 6th grade when I wrote a poem about the Norman Invasion of England... yes, I was a weird kid).
This one is untitled.
He looked for a place to escape or somewhere to run
But, alas, to his dismay he found there was none
Even so, he waited for a chance to flee
for if he did not escape, he knew he would be
dead in a moment, killed by the madman's knife
Although the outcome looked bleak, he prayed for his life
The guards pushed him forward into a small cramped room
the approaching footsteps sounded impending doom
his future killer stood near him with a dagger at the ready
he tried to fight or to struggle but the guards held him steady
The assassin grinned evilly as the knife began to rise
he could do nothing but stand there with tears in his eyes
the dagger flashed down and cracked into his spine...
The next day there was a special, fresh hamburger meat $2.29
A scathing look at the meat industry, isn't it? It was written from a cow's point of view going to the slaughter. Now I am not a vegetarian but one of my friends at the time was. I remember have a discussion about eating meat and other related things and it inspired me to write the preceding poem (that and the assignment that was given in class-- inspiration combined with a deadline is the situation under which I can create the most).
Mr. S, my English teacher that year, was a bit of a douche. First of all, when reading this poem to the class he totally blew the last line. Obviously, the poem is written in rhyming couplets, and as such the end of last line should be read as "fresh hamburger meat two twenty nine". He instead read it as "fresh hamburger meat two dollars and twenty nine cents". Any English teacher worth his salt should have realized that reading the line like that would kill both the rhyme scheme and the meter (as loose as the meter was... his version still just sounds stupid).
Of course, that just goes to show he was an idiot, not a douche. But he also was a douche-- he would insert smug statements in the middle of class for no reason (e.g. "Oh, I live in a much richer neighborhood than any of you" which even if true, and that is debatable, is still a pathetic thing to claim over the students in your class). He also would make fun of the students, and as usual I was one of the few who would stand up to him. I told him to shut up once while he was insulting me-- apparently, he thought it was OK to make fun of his students and not for them to fight back in any way.
You may just say that I was a stupid kid and he probably wasn't that bad. But even the other teachers agreed. My friend (the one who inspired the poem) and I were in the teacher's office area talking to our senior year teacher when Mr. S came over and said something stupid that I don't remember. As soon as he walked away our much cooler teacher said, "He is such a prick."
OK, so I wrote more about my 9th grade English teacher than the poem, but I think that was much more interesting anyway (plus, I pretty much said everything there is about the poem....).
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
America's Got Crap
Why do I continue to watch America's Got Talent? It is pretty much the worst show on TV right now.
They really play to the lowest common denominator. Every aspect is just so dumb. First and most obvious, the judges are annoyingly stupid. It is rather odd to have a show dedicated to finding talent and then stock the judges table with the most untalented people imaginable. Everyone who shows marginal talented is described by the judges as either what America is all about or the show or both.
Just as bad is the audience. I really hope that they are instructed to be annoying by the producers and aren't naturally that rude and impatient. It is hard to know for sure.
Both the judges and the audience suffer from the America's Funniest Home Videos syndrome-- kids, old people, and animals get a free pass. Apparently, if the title of the show has the possessive form of our country's name, it is going to pander and pander hard.
You don't even have to watch the performances on the show to know if they advance (although, you have to watch to know if they are even marginally good since a lot of crap gets let through do to both the aforementioned AFHV syndrome and the fact that they let "interesting" acts through to add variety and torture us again in the later rounds). If the music they play of the intro is touching or happy, they are moving on (even if they try to add the drama of having one judge say 'no' , you know the last one is saying yes when the treacly music kicks in). If the music is weird, they are going to be horrible.
Usually, in reality shows, seeing people embarrass themselves is fun; schadenfreude in its fullest flower. Somehow the producers of this show screw that up and it is just frustrating to see them parade the shrill and the tone deaf, the deluded and the moronic. AGT also has the highest commercial to content ratio I've ever seen (and I use the term content loosely).
The only good thing about all this is I can watch an episode in about seven minutes... so it saves me some time. It allows me to both watch it and write out this complaint about it in less time than the episode was scheduled for. Now that is efficiency.
They really play to the lowest common denominator. Every aspect is just so dumb. First and most obvious, the judges are annoyingly stupid. It is rather odd to have a show dedicated to finding talent and then stock the judges table with the most untalented people imaginable. Everyone who shows marginal talented is described by the judges as either what America is all about or the show or both.
Just as bad is the audience. I really hope that they are instructed to be annoying by the producers and aren't naturally that rude and impatient. It is hard to know for sure.
Both the judges and the audience suffer from the America's Funniest Home Videos syndrome-- kids, old people, and animals get a free pass. Apparently, if the title of the show has the possessive form of our country's name, it is going to pander and pander hard.
You don't even have to watch the performances on the show to know if they advance (although, you have to watch to know if they are even marginally good since a lot of crap gets let through do to both the aforementioned AFHV syndrome and the fact that they let "interesting" acts through to add variety and torture us again in the later rounds). If the music they play of the intro is touching or happy, they are moving on (even if they try to add the drama of having one judge say 'no' , you know the last one is saying yes when the treacly music kicks in). If the music is weird, they are going to be horrible.
Usually, in reality shows, seeing people embarrass themselves is fun; schadenfreude in its fullest flower. Somehow the producers of this show screw that up and it is just frustrating to see them parade the shrill and the tone deaf, the deluded and the moronic. AGT also has the highest commercial to content ratio I've ever seen (and I use the term content loosely).
The only good thing about all this is I can watch an episode in about seven minutes... so it saves me some time. It allows me to both watch it and write out this complaint about it in less time than the episode was scheduled for. Now that is efficiency.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
Playmates and Performances (of a comedy nature)
Last Comic Standing had their last show before the final with the self-proclaimed shocking turn of events that had all the comedians competing for a spot in the final.
All except for Marcus who won the pretty across the board awful challenge: Creating a bedtime story for some playmates. Unfortunately, the playmates were playing with slightly less than a full deck and didn't quite get some of the stories. Not that any were particularly good, but they did pick the one story that wasn't a story but a trailer of sorts.
Anyway, the better portion of the show was the second hour when all the contestants performed. Unfortunately, they were all saddled with a mere 3 minutes of stage time. Having done plenty of stand-up, I can attest that 3 minutes is a ridiculously short time to show your stuff. But the network has to have a commercial break after every comedian so less time for the actual contestant.
To the comedians:
I'm not exactly sure how many people actually get through to the finals. Louis Ramey was the best and should definitely be in the final. I'd put Jim and Iliza in the next tier so if three people move on that's be my choice. I'm guessing the voters would pick also pick Louis. As for the other two, I think they'll go with Jeff and either Ron or Iliza.
At least the field of performers have improved from last year. I'd prefer anyone in this crop to those from last year. So I won't be too annoyed no matter who wins (though Louis definitely should).
(Random aside: For some stupid reason they kept cutting to some stoic guy in the audience. It was very annoying as the people around him were laughing but he never was and yet they kept showing him)
All except for Marcus who won the pretty across the board awful challenge: Creating a bedtime story for some playmates. Unfortunately, the playmates were playing with slightly less than a full deck and didn't quite get some of the stories. Not that any were particularly good, but they did pick the one story that wasn't a story but a trailer of sorts.
Anyway, the better portion of the show was the second hour when all the contestants performed. Unfortunately, they were all saddled with a mere 3 minutes of stage time. Having done plenty of stand-up, I can attest that 3 minutes is a ridiculously short time to show your stuff. But the network has to have a commercial break after every comedian so less time for the actual contestant.
To the comedians:
- Adam Hunter- Pack your bags, dude. Not did he have to perform first, but he wasn't very memorable. The ending of his set was a bit awkward. I'd give him a 'meh' at best (but would still take him over last years winner)
- Iliza Shlesinger- She has a good pace to her set; she talks fast (which is vital to getting a lot of material into 3 minutes). I thought she had good material as well and a decent presence.
- Sean Cullen- He is a very strange man, both his humor and mannerisms are quite unique. I appreciate originality and enjoy watching him perform. I also really like that he incorporates songs into his sets (but doesn't exclusively sing). 3 minutes is quite crippling for him because the song takes up 80% of his time (and you can't just sing faster). I enjoyed it, but will the rest of the audience.
- Jim Tavare- Original, clever, deadpan, and English... which means he is probably not going to make the final. This show has never been kind to the non-US comedians even when they are better than the others and I don't think it is going to change here. Anyone who uses a cello on stage gets my vote (well, my metaphoric vote... I'll watch the show but won't demean myself by voting). I have him as second best of the night but I don't decide.
- Jeff Dye- I don't know why but I don't like him that much. He has good material but he seems very bland on stage. He isn't very memorable. Plus, he kept telling the audience to wait when they started to laugh at his jokes as if correcting them because they weren't laughing at the right time. Here's a tip: when the audience is laughing and enjoying your jokes, don't tell them to stop. It's bad form.
- Ron G- He was a ball of energy (some of which probably came from being nervous). I've never been a huge fan of his and this set didn't really change that. He was OK.
- Louis Ramey- I've been a fan of his from way before this show started and so I was not surprised that he had the strongest set. They had the veteran performer closing the show and that was a wise choice. He is extremely comfortable on stage, has great material, and is just naturally funny. Best of the night by a pretty wide margin.
I'm not exactly sure how many people actually get through to the finals. Louis Ramey was the best and should definitely be in the final. I'd put Jim and Iliza in the next tier so if three people move on that's be my choice. I'm guessing the voters would pick also pick Louis. As for the other two, I think they'll go with Jeff and either Ron or Iliza.
At least the field of performers have improved from last year. I'd prefer anyone in this crop to those from last year. So I won't be too annoyed no matter who wins (though Louis definitely should).
(Random aside: For some stupid reason they kept cutting to some stoic guy in the audience. It was very annoying as the people around him were laughing but he never was and yet they kept showing him)
Monday, July 21, 2008
WALL-E
Wall-E was the best movie I've seen in a long, long time. Not only that, but it is one of the best movies I've ever seen (I'd put it in my top five). If you haven't yet had the pleasure of seeing it, I suggest you do. Wall-E is the only movie I've ever seen that I was still thinking about weeks later. I saw the movie over too weeks ago and will periodically find myself thinking of a scene from the movie or singing the numbers from 'Hello, Dolly'. It is nothing short of magical-- the characters, the styling, the emotion. Simply amazing.
It is a movie that works in so many different ways: as a love story, a sci-film, a moralistic tale, and many more. Each operates simultaneously and also seperately. It is a movie you can watch over and over and enjoy a different aspect. It is a nod to the past and a look to the future. The movie is essentially divided into three parts that cover loneliness, love, and redemption respectively (and each of those parts operate on many levels as well).
The plot is nothing Earth shattering in its originality, but the journey is. In the end, I cared more about the robots in this movie than just about any human character in any other movie. The emotion that the filmakers could generate from simple physicality, beautiful visuals, and music is incredible. This is why Pixar is the best movie studio these days. They care about so much more than the cheap joke, or dumbing down the movie for the kids, or making the movies that will make the most money-- they want to tell a great story with great characters and they hope the money will follow.
Pixar tries to raise the bar everytime they create a new film and do something orignal and exciting, whereas the other studios (ahem Dreamworks and Fox Studios) just use the cookie cutters. Just compare Toy Story 2 to Shrek 2 and you'll get the picture-- Toy Story was an incredible groundbreaking film and it was improved upon in nearly every fashion in the sequel. Pixar didn't just make a sequel to make more money, they only did once they had a story that warranted another movie. Shrek was a very funny movie and Shrek 2 was essentially the same movie. And such it was much less enjoyable the second time around. Then the dreck that was Shrek 3 came out and it just goes to show that every one invlovled is focused on making money (lets tell the same story with the same characters). It is good to see some people focus on the quality of a movie over the quantity of money it will produce.
The only reason the top ten computer animated films aren't all Pixar films is because they haven't yet made 10 films. They'll own the chart come next year.
It is a movie that works in so many different ways: as a love story, a sci-film, a moralistic tale, and many more. Each operates simultaneously and also seperately. It is a movie you can watch over and over and enjoy a different aspect. It is a nod to the past and a look to the future. The movie is essentially divided into three parts that cover loneliness, love, and redemption respectively (and each of those parts operate on many levels as well).
The plot is nothing Earth shattering in its originality, but the journey is. In the end, I cared more about the robots in this movie than just about any human character in any other movie. The emotion that the filmakers could generate from simple physicality, beautiful visuals, and music is incredible. This is why Pixar is the best movie studio these days. They care about so much more than the cheap joke, or dumbing down the movie for the kids, or making the movies that will make the most money-- they want to tell a great story with great characters and they hope the money will follow.
Pixar tries to raise the bar everytime they create a new film and do something orignal and exciting, whereas the other studios (ahem Dreamworks and Fox Studios) just use the cookie cutters. Just compare Toy Story 2 to Shrek 2 and you'll get the picture-- Toy Story was an incredible groundbreaking film and it was improved upon in nearly every fashion in the sequel. Pixar didn't just make a sequel to make more money, they only did once they had a story that warranted another movie. Shrek was a very funny movie and Shrek 2 was essentially the same movie. And such it was much less enjoyable the second time around. Then the dreck that was Shrek 3 came out and it just goes to show that every one invlovled is focused on making money (lets tell the same story with the same characters). It is good to see some people focus on the quality of a movie over the quantity of money it will produce.
The only reason the top ten computer animated films aren't all Pixar films is because they haven't yet made 10 films. They'll own the chart come next year.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Primed to be back
I think after nearly ten months of rest, reflection, and pondering the mysteries of life I am ready to write in here again (and, of course, by rest, reflection, and pondering the mysteries of life I actually mean sloth, day-dreaming, and watching TV).
I'm another year older today, and that is as good a time as any to have another go at this. Perhaps I'll be more mature and committed to writing in here.
So... 29 years old. I don't know how I feel about that. There is the spectre of the big three-oh looming large. But I am still not there yet; I have a whole year until I wave bye-bye to my twenties. It is time to live it up... they say life ends as 30, don't they?
While I may not be "perfect" anymore, I am "prime"d to make this year a good one... because I'm not getting any younger (and the math jokes aren't getting any funnier).
[Perhaps the blogger site is trying to tell me something, the server is down. The one time I try to post in nearly a year and I can't. I will persevere! Never shall I give up! Never shall I abandon... oh, there it is. It's back. My perseverance paid off-- let that be a lesson to everyone else.]
I'm another year older today, and that is as good a time as any to have another go at this. Perhaps I'll be more mature and committed to writing in here.
So... 29 years old. I don't know how I feel about that. There is the spectre of the big three-oh looming large. But I am still not there yet; I have a whole year until I wave bye-bye to my twenties. It is time to live it up... they say life ends as 30, don't they?
While I may not be "perfect" anymore, I am "prime"d to make this year a good one... because I'm not getting any younger (and the math jokes aren't getting any funnier).
[Perhaps the blogger site is trying to tell me something, the server is down. The one time I try to post in nearly a year and I can't. I will persevere! Never shall I give up! Never shall I abandon... oh, there it is. It's back. My perseverance paid off-- let that be a lesson to everyone else.]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)