West
SJC
DET
VAN
NAS
East
WAS
PIT
BOS
PHI
R2:
DET
VAN
WAS
PIT
Finals
VAN
WAS (winner)
Goals in SC series: 34
So is it written.
]]>Anyway, this entire episode is interesting, but I very much enjoyed the last half of this BHTV diavlog, which I think has insights not only on the lives of the poor but also on the irrationality of behavior under scarcity. Which may not sound fascinating, but give it a try anyway. Trust me.
]]>But since I bothered to post, I'll link to the greatest thing I've found recently. An article in which the author, a serious Beatles fanatic, ranks all 185 Beatles songs from last to first, with detailed explanations of his reasoning as well as fascinating background on many of the songs and the band drama behind them.
This is only recommended if your a pretty serious Beatles nut. If you can name more than 5 album names and half of the songs on those albums, then you are ready for this list (and probably didn't need me to tell you that). But if you like a few Beatles songs and couldn't which album any Beatles song is on, you can safely skip it.
I disagreed with him on a number of rankings, but that's only obliquely the point of this countdown. Its more interesting as an examination of one man's relationship with all of the Beatles music, and how it causes you to reflect on your own.
Excerpts:
169. "Don't Pass Me By"LISTEN HERE You Tube Favicon
There apparently is evidence of Ringo Starr mentioning on a BBC program somewhere around 1964 that he had been working on a song called "Don't Pass Me By." It was finally released on The White Album in 1968. That means it took 4 years for Starr to polish up this song, his first solo composing credit with the group.
The other odd thing about this number...is that, considering it was written by a drummer, it's got probably the clunkiest rhythm of any Beatles track out there.
Considering all of that time spent, you might have expected something Beethovenesque as the result. Instead, we got a bizarre, fiddle-laden, country number which finds Ringo moaning over a love who keeps him waiting. I don't know why he'd be so worked up, since it appears the girl in question is now bald as a result of an auto accident. Maybe she had an early prototype for the Flobee, and things went horribly awry when she tried to give herself a trim using the rear-view. Don't cut and drive, people. It's the law.
The other odd thing about this number (actually there are about a million odd things about this number, but let's keep it brief) is that, considering it was written by a drummer, it's got probably the clunkiest rhythm of any Beatles track out there. Usher couldn't dance to this song.
But, then again, it's quintessentially Ringo, isn't it? It's charming in an oddball way, and the whimsy is unforced, as opposed to some of the unsubtle attempts at humor found elsewhere on The White Album. We'll give Ringo a pass here, and hope that the girl in the song discovered Rogaine somewhere along the way.
]]>
44. "Back In The U.S.S.R."LISTEN HERE You Tube Favicon
An ingenious pastiche of Chuck Berry and The Beach Boys, two of Paul McCartney's chief idols/inspirations, "Back In The U.S.S.R" starts the White Album off with a heaping helping of old-fashioned, American-style rock'n'roll. The album would veer wildly away from such straightforward pleasures, but the incongruity of this track's placement as the opener is somehow fitting.
...it's well-known that the creative rivalry (McCartney) indulged in with Brian Wilson led to some of the most breathtaking music of the 60's...
McCartney gets every detail spot on, and it's easy to understand why. His debt to Chuck Berry's nimble storytelling is clear in early songs like "I Saw Her Standing There," so it's no surprise that he pulls it off well here. And it's well-known that the creative rivalry he indulged in with Brian Wilson led to some of the most breathtaking music of the 60's, so it's only right that he should pay his respects with the expert mimicry of the trademark Beach Boy vocals in the bridge to this song.
The ironic thing, of course, is that all of this Americana flavoring serves lyrics that pay tribute to the top U.S. rival throughout much of the decade. Paul makes sure not to mess up his references to the U.S.S.R.; it must have been quite a thrill when he realized that "balalaikas" was such a perfect metrical fit. (This may also be the only Beatles song that alludes to one of them vomiting, as Paul implies that he did the Technicolor yawn during his song-opening flight from hell.)
The unfortunate thing here is the absence of Ringo Starr. The song was recorded while Starr had temporarily left the band in frustration, partly due to Macca's criticism over his inability to get this particular song right. Paul played the drums capably on the song, but it's interesting to note that, while he was practicing Glasnost in his lyrics, he couldn't help but be enmeshed in a Cold War within his own band.
Now I present the short play, "Daunte Culpepper Enters the Lions Huddle."Culpepper: "OK, guys, I'll be honest -- I don't really know any of the plays yet. So just tell me a play that usually works well for you guys and we'll do that."
(silence)
Culpepper: "Anyone? Quick, the play clock is running."
(silence)
Culpepper: "Come on! Something. Kevin, first thing that comes to mind?"
Kevin Smith: "... we punt pretty well?"
Culpepper: "OK. Let's run up the middle three times and run that."
End scene.
HOHOHO, its funny because its true. I thought Daunte looked OK, considering he'd only had 4 days to learn an offense that didn't work with a quarterback who has played in the last 2 years. I think signing him is a good move in a surprising chain of good moves lately (fire millen, trade Roy, get rid of Kitna). Whoever it is that has taken over for Millen should stay. Of course, most of these moves are improvements that take place in the future. Draft picks will take a while to mature (and until the offseason to even be drafted, of course), Daunte won't be able to step in a make a difference right away, and a new GM can't really do too much to change course in mid-season. But damn I hope something good happens this season anyway, if only to keep the Ford family interested in doing something useful with the team. Of course, it could be that the Lions are the only likely source of income the Ford family anticipates as that other family business doesn't seem to be going so well. I'm ready for Marinelli to go as well. And if they draft a hotshot wide-receiver in the first round in the draft I will punch myself in the face.
But until the Lions start doing something right on the field (less turnovers, better blocking, actually playing defense) I still can at least hold out hope they can be the record-setting first 0-16 team.
]]>I recall quite unfondly the experience of 2004, in which my two party presidential options were John Kerry and G.W. Bush, and I got to see the re-election of a man who had already been a bad president over a man who hadn't done anything worth commending since 1973. Also on tap was my state of Michigan deciding it needed to change its guiding document of governmental principles to let everyone know that we hate gay people, and don't want them to enter into committed relationships without punishment. My reactions to that year should be fairly predictable for any regular readers.
In contrast, I'm quite proud that my state had the basic sense to vote Yes and Yes on the two important state proposals. First, the idea that we should punish seriously ill people because their choice of medicine for relief of chronic pain or nausea also happens to make non-sick people feel good and listen to shitty music is so ridiculous that you'd have to go to a really bad church every week for several decades before you could make it make sense. Following that idea up with one that we shouldn't be allowed to find cures for these same sick people because some twisted sense of your own personal morality finds it icky is so foul that I have a hard time not screaming while thinking about it.
I try to be a rationalist, and most of politics I don't take personally. I've recognized over time that this is a minority behavior that most other people take it *very* personally. But Michigan's proposal 2008-2 is something I take very personally. Keeping science from finding cures for diseases because of a belief in "life" is so monumentally stupid that I'm having a hard time keeping my sentences under 500 words explaining it. Hell, I think this will even require bullet points.
Everything about the anti-stem cell position is Anti-life.
--It is against attempting to cure horrible diseases
--It is against in-vitro fertilization for couples and thus against more babies being born and allowing families to have children even if there are biological issues
--It is against further research in biology that could offer great improvements in quality of life besides disease cures
--It is against allowing research which will allow the Michigan economy to keep its bioscience jobs
As someone with several friends and family who were afflicted by some of the many conditions that research could ease, as well as friends who had no choice but to conceive through IVF (and some who are both, actually) the opposition really pisses me off. And then being forced to watch intentionally deceitful campaigns against it arguing about taxes as though their objection was about anything other than their narrow death-obsessed theology... I hope they all get Parkinson's. Today.
OK, sorry, that's what I mean when I say I take it personally. And going into election day after my experience in 2004, I had very little faith in my fellow Michigander's to vote the right way on either of these proposals. So I am incredibly happy and proud that we got it right. I suppose this is further encouraged by my own disappointment in myself for not doing enough to get the word out. I could make some excuses for myself I suppose, but I wish I would have done more to help people understand how important Prop 2 was. My cousin actually wrote "Vote Yes on 2" on a white T-shirt and then brought up the subject in discussion with anyone who cared to discuss at the bar where he works. I'm incredibly proud of him. That's civic duty in action and I failed at the task. Of course, there is a danger that I would spit on anyone who claimed that it's against God's law, and that wouldn't have won many votes.
I'm very happy and gratified that our country has its first non-white President. I hope it is a signpost on our country's path to a truly post-racial environment, though I suspect that is a journey that will take a long time to complete. I also think that being "not-white" is a particularly bad reason to vote for someone.
The last time I voted for one of the two parties was 1996, in my first Presidential election. In retrospect, I find Clinton to be a decently moderate politician, with a record that is generally pro-freedom and far more fiscally conservative than any Republican has been in 30 years, though I'm not sure I would vote for him today had I the opportunity for a "do-over". As I've explained before, until the major parties make some attempt to represent the actual people instead of their corporate benefactors, I feel very wrong about participating in the process, even if I do find one candidate to be less evil than the other.
Barack Obama came close to making me believe. But ultimately he revealed himself to be just another (albeit incredibly inspirational and well-spoken) politician. Evidence? Two things: Public Financing and Joe Biden. A man who really meant the things he said would not have made those two decisions. Those decisions come from a man who thinks that getting elected is more important than what you do when you get there. I'm happy to see so many people swept up in the spirit of this time. I hope it encourages them to keep up their spirit of community and change, I hope it helps them to "be the change they want to see in the world". But I know well-enough, Obama is *not* your new bicycle. He's just a man, a politician, and holding him up as a magical totem is dangerous for everyone.
I've read two articles recently that, counterpoised, sum up a bit of my feelings. The first is by Carlos Fierro an anarchist in Fresno, writing on counterpunch. While I'm not nearly as radical as Mr. Fierro, I agree with him up until the last few paragraphs. The second comes from Will Wilkinson, whom I also have regular disagreements with but also sums it up nicely. I'd really encourage you to read them both, but since you probably won't, I'll sum up the point here quickly.
The President is not *that* important. Lincoln didn't free the slaves, Hoover didn't cause the Depression, FDR didn't fix the Depression, Kennedy and LBJ didn't give Blacks civil rights and G.W. Bush didn't take them away from all. All of these things were accomplished by the collective action or inaction of the people (as in "We The People") through slow social movements with years of agitating. These Presidents that we idolize (or demonize) all were merely responding to the actions and will of the people. It is to their credit or detriment that they behaved the ways they did, or that they took action when they did. But LBJ didn't create civil rights. Martin Luther King, Jr, and the thousands who marched with him, and the millions who looked on with empathy and compassion did.
I hope that an Obama administration can do something to reflect the change for which people clamor. But you can't forget, he is not the change. He is just a man who in mid-January will sit behind a desk in an oblong office reacting to the will of the people.
Got on a bit of a rhetorical roll there and probably should've stopped, but I've got a few more things to say. In my final ballot I voted for 4 different parties, and skipped one race altogether because I didn't know anything about the candidates which seems like the only proper response to such a situation unless you subscribe to the distributed randomness model of candidate selection.
This marks 3 elections in a row that I've voted for Ralph Nader, and I don't really care what you think about that. As far as I'm concerned, Nader is an American Hero, who has actually accomplished more as a citizen than any of the last 5 President's combined. He means what he says and as near as I can tell is as close to incorruptible as any human I've seen. He was willing to run for President in 2000 despite what it might do to his "legacy", because he knew that as President and as a presidential-candidate he could accomplish more to advance the issues he felt were most important. That is what actual political courage looks like, and as should be expected, the craven hacks in the Democratic party demonized him for it. As far as I'm concerned, Al Gore should have dropped out of the race to let Nader run. OK, I apparently take this topic kind of personally as well, as I'm currently having very evil thoughts about Eric Alterman. Moving on.
I'm also with Will as a "cognitive Madisonian" who supports divided government. I'd much prefer it be divided by two very different parties, with the independents being truly independent and not just former party members who became too moderate to be allowed to wear the varsity jacket anymore, and it would be nice if at least *one* of the parties thought it was a bad idea to sell our country's future to China and continue spending 125% of our income, while spending more on interest payments for debt than anything but defense and social programs. (Where did people learn to take interest only mortgages? "I learned it by watching you, alright!"
So I'm pleased to see the Democrats in a slight majority, and overall, I think the election turned out about as well as can really be expected (unless you're a gay couple in a committed relationship in California). But there are still enormous problems to confront and I sorely hope that President-Elect Obama is up to the task. Even more, I hope the American people are.
Notes:
Rambling and veering off-topic regularly and only sparsely well-written, but hell, no one's paying me for this so it'll have to do. And I managed to find a rhetorical flourish to finish on anyway. Yay, me.
In other news, the Electoral college is still stupid.
Popular Vote
McCain: 46%
Obama: 53%
Electoral Count
McCain: 35%
Obama: 65% (and counting)
While I don't agree with a lot of his politics (he's a way beyond reason libertarian, far more than I can take) I couldn't agree more with the sentiment. I'm tired of participating in a broken system and rewarding the same mediocrity and corruption.
]]>Its pretty good. I like it. Had I never heard the previous one, had there not been decades of tradition associated with it, and were the previous one not so beloved as to be declared the "Second Canadian National Anthem" I might not have noticed the change. But I still miss the original. The new one is good but its hard to understand the change and most importantly, you can't sing "Punching Beavers in the Face" to the final tag.
Personally I like this alternative entry, including graphics:
]]>Its true that Ayers participated in the planning and execution of many bombings, most famously the Haymarket Riot Police Memorial (twice), the New York Police Headquarters, the US Capitol Building, and the Pentagon. And I also won't deny that his actions as a member and leader of the group were highly irresponsible and dangerous. But the group went very far out of its way to avoid harming civilians, and never targeted public places for the purposes of instilling fear. The best judgment is probably the maligned Bush phrase "enemy combatant" as the group had declared war on the US government and targeted mainly government institutions in response to actions in the Vietnam war and the culture wars occurring during this time.
Again, I'm not saying I support Ayers or the Weathermen's mission. But calling him a terrorist goes well beyond the meaning that word has today. By the same standards Sam Adams and Patrick Henry from the US, Nelson Mandela from South Africa, and several other celebrated leaders are terrorists.
Of course, this discussion is entirely too nuanced for our political scene, where we argue about lipstick jokes. But you know, in a perfect world people would attempt to be more appropriate with their language.
Notes: Out of time, you can go to wikipedia for yourself this time.
]]>Hopefully I'll have recaptcha up and running soon so I can avoid the 30 spam comments a day problem I was facing when I broke it the first time.
]]>In fact, I'm not convinced that Barack Obama is a "good person" either. I'm not really convinced that any of our Presidents have been or even should be good people. I loved the complaints in 2000 that Ralph Nader was only running for his "ego". Of course he's running for his ego! Everyone is! In order for you to get to the point where you can say with a straight face, "I think I should be the leader of the largest country in the world and de facto leader of the free world" you have to be a raging egomaniac. And in order to have gotten the political positions and favors necessary for anyone else to want to put you there you will have had to do a great many things that make you seriously unlikeable. In truth, Nader was running despite having very little chance of winning just to try to influence the debate away from the corporatism of both parties, which seems the least ego-driven of the candidates, especially as he didn't change his views or plans just to suit his own "Likability".
Truly I'm not looking for a President that I like. I'm looking for one who will represent me, will more often than not make the right choice for the country rather than for their own careers, and who have the political skills to get things done. And I haven't seen a candidate like that in a long time and I just can't support voting for someone who continues to support the same lowest common denominator crap that has dominated this country for the last 30 years (or more). I will not vote for evil, even if it is the lesser one. And for all the poetic talk of change I haven't seen anything from either of these candidates that makes me believe they will offer anything more than cosmetically superficially different.
If you'd have told me 10 years ago I'd be considering voting for Bob Barr, I'd have punched you in the mouth. But here we are. The choices get worse, the political courage gets more and more rare, and the country slips further. Just bring on the Visigoths and lets move on to whatever is next.
Notes:
The Rolling Stone article is long, but worth reading for an incredible portrait of someone so unlikeable who has managed to be very popular in the Senate. It really makes me wonder how much worse every one else must be.
Please don't tell me about how bad or good McCain or Obama are, or ask me to defend them. This is not a partisan post, I assure you I'm equally disgusted by both of them.
]]>Anyway, just sharing an article, not putting up my own commentary. But I love this article and find it shares a lot of my conflicting viewpoints. Just to say, though: How far outside the mainstream am I that it takes a lesbian sexologist to talk about the things I'm thinking?
UPDATE:
Will Wilkinson gets all LOLveeps on teh debait (one more reason you should read Will's blog)
Benefits include cash payout (likely very small and not worth it), 6-month credit monitoring plus cash, and 9-month monitoring, all free. Well, free now that your rights have been systematically violated for the last 20 years.
You must register by September 24th, so get there soon.
]]>