An important history lesson.
8.22.2009
3.12.2009
Why Would I Save A World I No Longer Have Any Stake In?
I saw Watchmen over the weekend. All things considered, I thought it was great. It's fantastic that a major studio released such a dense, challenging piece of work. While the cinematography and special effects were impressive, I was more engaged by the film's philosophical themes (which are undoubtedly carried-over from the source material).
Dr. Manhattan is especially fascinating. He's practically a god and illustrates just how problematic that proposition is (see title of post). He serves as a counterbalance to the other costumed "heroes" who are driven to crime fighting by emotional needs. Silk Spectre II is trying to live up to her mother's expectations. Nite Owl II can't get it up without a little caped crusading first. The most extreme is Rorschach, who's so dependant on his mask for a sense of identity that he calls it his face. Dr. Manhattan, meanwhile, doesn't seem to have any desires at all. He is a wholly logical being whose humanity has all but vanished.
This paradigm reminded me of a book I've been reading called "How We Decide." Jonah Lehrer, the author, details the neurological process of decision making. He explains that the brain is in a constant argument with itself. This is simplifying it a bit, but there are basically two parties in the debate, the emotional brain and the rational brain. The emotional brain is the sum of a person's experiences. Through the regulation of dopamine, it learns patterns and behaviors that inform our visceral reactions. The rational brain is what separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. It's our consciousness.
Rorschach personifies the emotional brain. He reacts to everything on a gut level. His experiences have ingrained in him a moral code that he can't bear to deviate from. This leads him to commit acts of horrible violence, but to him it's all about justice. On the other end of the spectrum, we have Dr. Manhattan. His power-endowing accident removes his emotional brain almost entirely. As a result, he is coldly calculated. This also leads him to unspeakable violence (we win Vietnam), but not because of a moral imperative. Instead, it is out of apathy for suffering. He has lost the ability to empathize with others (a problem also associated with autism).
Typically, we think of acting only out of rationality as a good thing. But the film's end takes this idea to a conclusion that's difficult to swallow. I won't go into details, but the trade-off our "heroes" face is similar to one of Lehrer's thought experiments (paraphrased):
Imagine you are in the driver's seat of a runaway train that's approaching a switch track. On it's present course, the train will hit five railway workers on the track ahead. If you activate the switch, the train will be diverted to the side track where it will hit one railway worker. Do you hit the switch?
Now consider this same senario but slightly altered. Instead of sitting in the driver's seat, you are on a bridge above the tracks in between the runaway train and the five workers. Standing next to you is a man with enough girth to halt the train if it struck him. Do you push him onto the tracks?
3.05.2009
3.04.2009
Beatlesque: The Invasion
***THIS POST IS PART OF MY BEATLESQUE SERIES, IN WHICH I DISCUSS MUSIC THAT WEARS IT'S BEATLES INFLUENCE SO WELL YOU COULD ALMOST MISTAKE IT FOR THE LADS THEMSELVES***
In 1962, Decca Records declined to sign a young group of rock n'roll playing, long-haired Liverpudlians. The executive A&R man, Dick Rowe, told their manager that "guitar groups are on the way out." He is now famous as "the man who turned down The Beatles" and his prediction concerning music trends of the 1960's couldn't have been more boneheaded.
When The Beatles burst into national (and quickly international) popularity, it didn't take long for Dick Rowe's colleagues to realize that there were gobs of money to be made. And luckily for producers and promoters, young men with guitars were roaming the countryside in groups of four or five just waiting to be crowned the new hitmakers! The result was a tidal wave of Beatlesque music, to use the term more generously. Most of these groups are long forgotten. And after listening to many, many of their songs, I'm sorry to report that the vast majority do not fit my definition of Beatlesque. Some are still great tracks; they just don't capture that distinctive sound. For instance...
That's the Knickerbockers with "Lies." While many considered this at the time to be a dead-on Beatles knock-off, I don't think I'd ever be fooled by it. That weird guitar bend is rather unsophisticated. Overall, it's just too choppy. The songs various parts (verse, chorus, bridge) don't really fit with one another. One thing the Beatles were masters of was song structure. Their songs sometimes went in unexpected directions, but it always came off sounding like the next logical step. Even when they changed time signatures during a song, it flowed naturally. I'll admit the voice is a great Lennon impersonation. But for me, the craft just isn't there.
Now, on to two tracks from this era that DO make the cut.
Track title: Promise You'll Tell Her
Could Have Been On: Please Please Me
This song, from The Swinging Blue Jeans, sounds a lot like an early Lennon/McCartney composition. Stylistically, it reminds me of "There's a Place." Indeed, the plodding bass line and tight harmonies make it a perfect fit for Please Please Me (The Beatles' first album). The lead vocal sounds like George, as does the clean guiatar solo. It wouldn't have been their next single, but then most of these band's best songs were comparable to a solid Beatles album cut.
Track Title: Because
Could Have Been On: Please Please Me
"Because," by The Dave Clark Five, is another great example of tight Beatlesque harmonies. It's got a great melody. If I had to compare it to a specific song, it would probably be "P.S. I Love You." The chord progression is simple but engaging, lots of augmented fifths. Ending on a major 6th is very Beatley as well. I definitely see it as the B-Side of some uptempo single like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand."
In 1962, Decca Records declined to sign a young group of rock n'roll playing, long-haired Liverpudlians. The executive A&R man, Dick Rowe, told their manager that "guitar groups are on the way out." He is now famous as "the man who turned down The Beatles" and his prediction concerning music trends of the 1960's couldn't have been more boneheaded.
When The Beatles burst into national (and quickly international) popularity, it didn't take long for Dick Rowe's colleagues to realize that there were gobs of money to be made. And luckily for producers and promoters, young men with guitars were roaming the countryside in groups of four or five just waiting to be crowned the new hitmakers! The result was a tidal wave of Beatlesque music, to use the term more generously. Most of these groups are long forgotten. And after listening to many, many of their songs, I'm sorry to report that the vast majority do not fit my definition of Beatlesque. Some are still great tracks; they just don't capture that distinctive sound. For instance...
That's the Knickerbockers with "Lies." While many considered this at the time to be a dead-on Beatles knock-off, I don't think I'd ever be fooled by it. That weird guitar bend is rather unsophisticated. Overall, it's just too choppy. The songs various parts (verse, chorus, bridge) don't really fit with one another. One thing the Beatles were masters of was song structure. Their songs sometimes went in unexpected directions, but it always came off sounding like the next logical step. Even when they changed time signatures during a song, it flowed naturally. I'll admit the voice is a great Lennon impersonation. But for me, the craft just isn't there.
Now, on to two tracks from this era that DO make the cut.
Track title: Promise You'll Tell Her
Could Have Been On: Please Please Me
This song, from The Swinging Blue Jeans, sounds a lot like an early Lennon/McCartney composition. Stylistically, it reminds me of "There's a Place." Indeed, the plodding bass line and tight harmonies make it a perfect fit for Please Please Me (The Beatles' first album). The lead vocal sounds like George, as does the clean guiatar solo. It wouldn't have been their next single, but then most of these band's best songs were comparable to a solid Beatles album cut.
Track Title: Because
Could Have Been On: Please Please Me
"Because," by The Dave Clark Five, is another great example of tight Beatlesque harmonies. It's got a great melody. If I had to compare it to a specific song, it would probably be "P.S. I Love You." The chord progression is simple but engaging, lots of augmented fifths. Ending on a major 6th is very Beatley as well. I definitely see it as the B-Side of some uptempo single like "I Wanna Hold Your Hand."
An Inbound Train Toward the Loop Will Be Arriving Shortly
The Chicago Transit Authority as a new voice, Carolyn Hopkins. I haven't noticed the change yet. According to the Chicago Tribune, her announcements began airing at certain stations in mid-February.
"I love Chicago," said Hopkins, who traces her affection for the city to a mid-1960s Beatles concert she attended at the old Comiskey Park...
I like her already! She can only be an improvement over the vaguely Midwestern accented women who over-enunciates the phrase "an inbound train... tWARD the loop... will be arriving shortly."
ALSO, this article answered a mystery I've pondered on many an "L" ride.
The sound bites played on CTA buses and trains are still rendered by a male voice-over announcer from Milwaukee who insists on remaining anonymous for fear of being typecast as a performer incapable of handling a script more demanding than "Doors closing."
I've often wondered if the dude who's told me countless times that "the next stop is... Damen" lived in Chicago. Can you imagine listening to yourself everyday during your commute? I suppose for an incredibly narcissistic person it would be great.
His friends that live in Chicago have probably learned to hate him over the years. He's constantly ruining their day with delay announcements. And then he has the nerve to say "We expect to be moving shortly." LIAR!
"Your attention, please. We are standing momentarily, waiting for signal clearance."
"Shut up, Ted."
No wonder he wants to remain anonymous.
2.27.2009
Every 72 Years (or so...)
I've been obsessed lately with a wikipedia page titled Historical Rankings of United States Presidents. It compiles 13 surveys (ranging from 1948 to 2009) that rank US Presidents from best to worst. What's interesting is that all the surveys more or less agree with one another. While the names in the middle tend to shift around (true to character, Nixon is particularly shifty), the edges of the list don't change much. James Buchanan and Andrew Johnson have staked their claims as our worst Presidents so far.
Mr. Bushmore (made by me)
Conversely, there is a strong consensus that Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin Roosevelt are our desert island, top three favorite Presidents of all time. I like them as a trio because they each represent a different century. How balanced! More importantly, each of their presidencies served as a fulcrum in American history. No doubt this is why they are considered so great. Each took office in a time of great unrest and doubt. But the times didn't just define their presidencies. They became the stewards of these shifts in our country's narrative. They facilitated change.
There are some obvious parallels to the current political climate. Obama has already been compared to Lincoln ad nauseum (FDR to a lesser extent). What's interesting is the timing. If we look at when these Presidents took office...
1788- George Washington
72 years later...
1860- Abraham Lincoln
72 years later...
1932- Franklin Roosevelt
72 years later...
2004- George W Bu... Wait! WHAT?!? (record needle scratching)
make that 76 years later...
2008- Barack Obama
Okay, so the years between FDR and Obama aren't exactly the same as Lincoln-FDR and Washington-Lincoln. Admittedly, my point is a little less sexy as a result. But I still think it's an interesting idea that every 72 years (or so) our country is ripe for a sea change. I imagine you can feel it in the air much like people said they could this past November. In those moments, we elect someone who both shapes this transformation and has their image shaped by it. They become the symbol.
And how do we comemorate the symbols of change? We make them the symbols... of change...
Mr. Bushmore (made by me)Conversely, there is a strong consensus that Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Franklin Roosevelt are our desert island, top three favorite Presidents of all time. I like them as a trio because they each represent a different century. How balanced! More importantly, each of their presidencies served as a fulcrum in American history. No doubt this is why they are considered so great. Each took office in a time of great unrest and doubt. But the times didn't just define their presidencies. They became the stewards of these shifts in our country's narrative. They facilitated change.
There are some obvious parallels to the current political climate. Obama has already been compared to Lincoln ad nauseum (FDR to a lesser extent). What's interesting is the timing. If we look at when these Presidents took office...
1788- George Washington
72 years later...
1860- Abraham Lincoln
72 years later...
1932- Franklin Roosevelt
72 years later...
2004- George W Bu... Wait! WHAT?!? (record needle scratching)
make that 76 years later...
2008- Barack Obama
Okay, so the years between FDR and Obama aren't exactly the same as Lincoln-FDR and Washington-Lincoln. Admittedly, my point is a little less sexy as a result. But I still think it's an interesting idea that every 72 years (or so) our country is ripe for a sea change. I imagine you can feel it in the air much like people said they could this past November. In those moments, we elect someone who both shapes this transformation and has their image shaped by it. They become the symbol.
And how do we comemorate the symbols of change? We make them the symbols... of change...
2.25.2009
2.24.2009
The Obama Code
FiveThirtyEight has a great post today by George Lakoff, a linguistics and cognitive science professor, called The Obama Code. No, it's not a two-thousand year old conspiracy that ends in a shitty Ron Howard movie. The word "code" is meant more in a Hammurabi sense. The piece has seven parts and is worth reading in its entirety. But one section in particular caught my interest.
"2.Progressive Values are American Values
President Obama’s second intellectual move concerns what the fundamental American values are. In Moral Politics, I described what I found to be the implicit, often unconscious, value systems behind progressive and conservative thought. Progressive thought rests, first, on the value of empathy —- putting oneself in other people’s shoes, seeing the world through their eyes, and therefore caring about them. The second principle is acting on that care, taking responsibility both for oneself and others, social as well as individual responsibility. The third is acting to make oneself, the country, and the world better—what Obama has called an “ethic of excellence” toward creating “a more perfect union” politically."
and a little farther down...
"Those empathy-based moral values are the opposite of the conservative focus on individual responsibility without social responsibility. They make it intolerable to tolerate a president who is The Decider—who gets to decide without caring about or listening to anybody. Empathy-based values are opposed to the pure self-interest of a laissez-faire “free market,” which assumes that greed is good and that seeking self-interest will magically maximize everyone’s interests. They oppose a purely self-interested view of America in foreign policy. Obama’s foreign policy is empathy-based, concerned with people as well as states—with poverty, education, disease, water, the rights of women and children, ethnic cleansing, and so on around the world.
How are such values expressed? Take a look at the inaugural speech. Empathy: “the kindness to take in a stranger when the levees break, the selflessness of workers who would rather cut their hours than see a friend lose their job, the firefighter’s courage to storm a stairway filled with smoke, but also a parent’s willingness to nurture a child…” Responsibility to ourselves and others: “We have duties to ourselves, the nation, and the world.” The ethic of excellence: “there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of character, than giving our all to a difficult task.” They define our democracy: “This is the meaning of our liberty and our creed.”
I volunteered at Obama's campaign headquarters during the election, specifically answering kid mail. It was an amazing experience, and often hilarious (one little boy wrote in asking for $15 to buy some Star Wars legos).
Here's part of the response letter that most of the kids received:
"Creating change and making the world better is not always easy, and you will probably find in your life that it is more comfortable to ignore injustices that don't affect you directly. Don't take that comfortable road. Challenge yourself to make a difference.
If you don't already know what it means, I want you to look up the word "empathy" in the dictionary. I believe we don't have enough empathy in our world today, and it is up to your generation to change that.
I leave you with three bits of advice that will make your life more fulfilling: Look out for other people, even when it does not directly benefit you; strive to make a difference everywhere you go; and get back up every time you are knocked down."
I'd say Lakoff is right on the money.
2.23.2009
You Commie Homo-Loving Sons of Guns
Temperature in Chicago last night: 14 degrees with -10 windchill
Academy Awards viewership in my apartment: 100%
Coincidence? Hardly.
I was mildly interesting in watching the proceedings anyway. And wouldn't you know it? We tuned in just after the most entertaining part of the show.
I probably wouldn't have been as harsh on Jackman's leaden jokes, if I had seen him deposit some goodwill with that opening number first. The movie-musical-medley half time show, on the other hand, is best summarized by the words ultra lame.
We did tune in just in time to be seriously creeped out by Tilda Swinton. It was probably her automaton voice and cult leader outfit, but I was worried they might sacrifice Amy Adams.
Creepy!
Other highlights included Dustin Lance Black winning best original screenplay for Milk. He and Sean Penn both gave great speeches. While it's not exactly a hard sell to tell the audience at the Oscars that gay marriage should be legal, there's no doubt that this fight is still not won.
"I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect. And anticipate their great shame, and the shame in their grand children's eyes if they continue that way of support. We've got to have equal rights for everyone."
Well said.
Academy Awards viewership in my apartment: 100%
Coincidence? Hardly.
I was mildly interesting in watching the proceedings anyway. And wouldn't you know it? We tuned in just after the most entertaining part of the show.
I probably wouldn't have been as harsh on Jackman's leaden jokes, if I had seen him deposit some goodwill with that opening number first. The movie-musical-medley half time show, on the other hand, is best summarized by the words ultra lame.
We did tune in just in time to be seriously creeped out by Tilda Swinton. It was probably her automaton voice and cult leader outfit, but I was worried they might sacrifice Amy Adams.
Creepy!Other highlights included Dustin Lance Black winning best original screenplay for Milk. He and Sean Penn both gave great speeches. While it's not exactly a hard sell to tell the audience at the Oscars that gay marriage should be legal, there's no doubt that this fight is still not won.
"I think that it is a good time for those who voted for the ban against gay marriage to sit and reflect. And anticipate their great shame, and the shame in their grand children's eyes if they continue that way of support. We've got to have equal rights for everyone."
Well said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)