I'm confounded by the Obama bandwagon. No, not the "I love Obama" bandwagon. The other one: the "I hate Obama" bandwagon. Why are people so hungry to hate a man who speaks of hope? I'm not talking about those who don't agree with his politics (even though I believe many of those people are misinformed about what he actually stands for and believes in). I'm referring to people who truly want to despise the most inspiration political figure in years. Hateful emails are being passed around, malicious youtube videos are being circulated, and detestable political ads are being aired, all based on loathsome lies. Two of the top five hardcover "non-fiction" books on the New York Times best seller list are anti-Obama (Obama Nation and The Case Against Obama). Not that they're based on fact or research, mind you. They just want other Americans to buy into the fear and hate as much as they do (and if they're that on the list, it's apparently working). How many times has he been referred to as Osama, or his middle name been brought up in a derogatory way? How many times he been called a Muslim? How many times has Michelle been called an angry black woman? How many times has Barack been labeled an 'elitist'? Are any of these people familiar in the least with his biography? And why are these attacks so prevalent? Are that many Americans secretly racist? Do people give in that easily to fear? Are we that adverse to change?
Now don't get me wrong: I don't think a presidential candidate should be above criticism. I just think it should be true and pertain to the person's ability to lead the nation. Question his policies, criticize his credentials, but don't make up malevolent lies about him. Why can't we have an intelligent dialogue about issues? Why do politics devolve to vicious attacks? Must we cater to the lowest common denominator?
So shame on you if you've bought into the hate. Shame on you if you've spread the lies. Shame on you if you've given in to fear. Do some real research, read some real books, and dare to hope.
"We hate some persons because we do not know them; and will not know them because we hate them."
-Charles Caleb Colton
“Hope – Hope in the face of difficulty. Hope in the face of uncertainty. The audacity of hope! In the end, that is God’s greatest gift to us, the bedrock of this nation. A belief in things not seen. A belief that there are better days ahead."
-Barack Obama
Friday, September 12, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
Let the couch indenting commence
I watch a lot more TV than I should, especially since Traci and I got DVR. That being said, I'm excited about the fall season. Summer TV stinks. Of course, the Olympics were on this year, but were short-lived and only come around every 4 years. Besides, they provide an excuse for me to watch things I would never ever pay attention to ordinarily - like water polo. But aside from that, the summer provides a dearth of quality programming. Bad reality TV (which is the vast majority of reality TV) and reruns provide a horrible TV-watching experience, and makes me feel guilty wasting time watching it. And who wants to feel guilty when they're wasting time.
Then along comes fall, bringing back-to-school woes, but balancing those woes with the excitement of football and a new season of real TV. Heroes is back and looks to improve vastly on last season's disappointments. I love Chuck, 30 Rock, the Office, and How I Met Your Mother, and welcome them all back like friends who have been on a long vacation. A couple of the new shows look like they could be interesting (I can't wait until Joss Whedon's "Dollhouse" is introduced), but some of them look like they're not much better than the summer fare. For instance, "The Mentalist" is a new show about a guy who people think is psychic because of his ability to pick up on subtle details, which he apparently uses to solve crimes. It sounds promising if it weren't a complete rip-off of "Psych" on USA (one of my favorite shows now - thanks Jeremy and Cali!)
Regardless, the new season does provide promise, especially since this year will hopefully be strike-free and give us a full season of couch potato escapism.
Then along comes fall, bringing back-to-school woes, but balancing those woes with the excitement of football and a new season of real TV. Heroes is back and looks to improve vastly on last season's disappointments. I love Chuck, 30 Rock, the Office, and How I Met Your Mother, and welcome them all back like friends who have been on a long vacation. A couple of the new shows look like they could be interesting (I can't wait until Joss Whedon's "Dollhouse" is introduced), but some of them look like they're not much better than the summer fare. For instance, "The Mentalist" is a new show about a guy who people think is psychic because of his ability to pick up on subtle details, which he apparently uses to solve crimes. It sounds promising if it weren't a complete rip-off of "Psych" on USA (one of my favorite shows now - thanks Jeremy and Cali!)
Regardless, the new season does provide promise, especially since this year will hopefully be strike-free and give us a full season of couch potato escapism.
Thursday, June 5, 2008
Speed Vs. Indy
“Speed Racer" was a better summer movie than "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" (and easier to say, too). There, I said it. I typically agree with the critics, but they got this wrong. Apparently, so did the rest of the country. Why do I make such a bizarre and seemingly indefensible claim? Glad you asked. Let's compare the two movies.
I’ll start with Speed Racer. I’m not incredibly familiar with the show. I’ve seen it a few times, but wouldn’t consider myself a fan. But from what I have seen of the show, the movie was spot on. It was like watching a live-action version of the cartoon. The casting was perfect, including Spritle and Chim-Chim, who were just as annoying as they were on the show. The fight scenes were perfect, the races were wonderfully outlandish, and the visuals – oh, the visuals. The Wachowski brothers didn’t try to make the movie more serious than the show or try to take it too seriously. They reveled in its campiness, and the movie was that much more enjoyable because of it. The plot gets a little bogged down and overly-complex towards the beginning, but you’re soon back to racing, fighting, and eye-popping color. I walked out of the theater feeling like a kid with a double-dip ice cream cone.
Now, for Indiana Jones and the Blah, Blah, Blah. I love of the Indy movies. They’re among my favorites in the action genre. This one isn’t on par with the first ones. Not even the Temple of Doom. The casting was good: Harrison Ford was in form, Shia Lebeouf was tolerable, and Cate Blanchett was great as the villain. Some of the action sequences were fun, but others were outlandish (and not in a good way). You expect a certain level of un-believability in an action film of this type, but you have to stay within the parameters you set up for yourself. Some of the action sequences in Indy 4 went way out of the range of believability, making them just plain goofy (Mutt as Tarzan, for example). And the plot was ridiculous. It’s not a good sign when you’re saying to yourself, “Really?! That’s where we’re going with this?!” as the plot unravels.
Both Indy 4 and Speed are basically excuses for visual effects and action. Even though Speed’s action sequences are more unrealistic, they’re more believable within the context of the movie than Indy’s. And Indy looked very much like the first three, which was nostalgic and fine. But Speed’s color palette and seamless blending of real world and CGI was ground-breaking. The plot was a little more complex than it needed to be in Speed, but it was downright ridiculous in Indy. Plus, the bogged down plot in Speed takes place earlier on, ending strong with trippy colors and ridiculously fast cars. Indy’s faulty plot elements come into play at the end, leaving them fresh – no, rotten – in your mind. Plus, I’m pretty sure Emile Hirsch could kick Shia LeBeouf’s mutt…er…butt. And Matthew Fox could hand Harrison Ford’s geriatric butt to him on a platter. Then John Goodman would clunk their heads together like Moe.
I’m not sure why critics were much more willing to forgive the flaws of Indy than they were those of Speed. I thought they were much more obvious and obtrusive in Indy, while Speed embraced it’s campiness with a self-awareness of its cheese factor. I was personally much more distracted by the faults in Indy than I was by those of Speed, so I had a much better time watching it. Maybe my expectations were higher going into Indy than Speed, but in the end, I felt it was a far better and enjoyable summer movie.
So if you haven’t seen either, go see Speed Racer – a great popcorn flick, topped with lots of gooey cheese.
I’ll start with Speed Racer. I’m not incredibly familiar with the show. I’ve seen it a few times, but wouldn’t consider myself a fan. But from what I have seen of the show, the movie was spot on. It was like watching a live-action version of the cartoon. The casting was perfect, including Spritle and Chim-Chim, who were just as annoying as they were on the show. The fight scenes were perfect, the races were wonderfully outlandish, and the visuals – oh, the visuals. The Wachowski brothers didn’t try to make the movie more serious than the show or try to take it too seriously. They reveled in its campiness, and the movie was that much more enjoyable because of it. The plot gets a little bogged down and overly-complex towards the beginning, but you’re soon back to racing, fighting, and eye-popping color. I walked out of the theater feeling like a kid with a double-dip ice cream cone.
Now, for Indiana Jones and the Blah, Blah, Blah. I love of the Indy movies. They’re among my favorites in the action genre. This one isn’t on par with the first ones. Not even the Temple of Doom. The casting was good: Harrison Ford was in form, Shia Lebeouf was tolerable, and Cate Blanchett was great as the villain. Some of the action sequences were fun, but others were outlandish (and not in a good way). You expect a certain level of un-believability in an action film of this type, but you have to stay within the parameters you set up for yourself. Some of the action sequences in Indy 4 went way out of the range of believability, making them just plain goofy (Mutt as Tarzan, for example). And the plot was ridiculous. It’s not a good sign when you’re saying to yourself, “Really?! That’s where we’re going with this?!” as the plot unravels.
Both Indy 4 and Speed are basically excuses for visual effects and action. Even though Speed’s action sequences are more unrealistic, they’re more believable within the context of the movie than Indy’s. And Indy looked very much like the first three, which was nostalgic and fine. But Speed’s color palette and seamless blending of real world and CGI was ground-breaking. The plot was a little more complex than it needed to be in Speed, but it was downright ridiculous in Indy. Plus, the bogged down plot in Speed takes place earlier on, ending strong with trippy colors and ridiculously fast cars. Indy’s faulty plot elements come into play at the end, leaving them fresh – no, rotten – in your mind. Plus, I’m pretty sure Emile Hirsch could kick Shia LeBeouf’s mutt…er…butt. And Matthew Fox could hand Harrison Ford’s geriatric butt to him on a platter. Then John Goodman would clunk their heads together like Moe.
I’m not sure why critics were much more willing to forgive the flaws of Indy than they were those of Speed. I thought they were much more obvious and obtrusive in Indy, while Speed embraced it’s campiness with a self-awareness of its cheese factor. I was personally much more distracted by the faults in Indy than I was by those of Speed, so I had a much better time watching it. Maybe my expectations were higher going into Indy than Speed, but in the end, I felt it was a far better and enjoyable summer movie.
So if you haven’t seen either, go see Speed Racer – a great popcorn flick, topped with lots of gooey cheese.
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
4'33" Revisited
Why are they still making bonus tracks? Even with iTunes and the digital music revoultion, I still prefer to buy the CD. I like having the complete album and listening to it as a whole, complete with liner notes (not to mention the higher audio quality). But the bonus track thing is getting old. I'm not talking about an extra track that's not on the back of the CD case. I'm talking about when they have ten (or more) minutes of silence after the last regular song, followed by an additional tune, sometimes only a minute or so in length. Sometimes it's not even a song, but the band members joking around or making weird noises. Even worse is when they have a bonus music video or other non-audio information as an extra track on the CD, where you're waiting through 30 minutes of silence for nothing. Surely there's a better way to include that extra information. Of the six CDs currenty in my car, four of them have a bonus track of some sort. That's a lot of silence to have to sit through while you're driving. I don't usually even bother waiting to find out if there is any bonus music anymore. If I hear more than 10 seconds of silence, I'm on to the next CD. It's not a concert, and I don't expect an encore. So bands, producers, and music studios take note - NO MORE BONUS TRACKS!
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Alice Cooper
In the immortal words of Alice Cooper..."School's out for summer." I haven't looked forward to summer this much since I began teaching. I'll get to spend more time with Traci, work on the house, compose, watch movies and play video games. I also have the promise of a "honey-do" list from Traci, who does not get the summer off. Despite that, it'll be nice just to take my mind of teaching for a couple of months. So, teachers, raise your margaritas: "Here's to summer."
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
April sucks
Worst...month...ever. If there's a month to burn out a music teacher, this is it. Three solo and ensemble festivals and state large group contest, all with the extra rehearsals, paperwork, and stress that go with them. This is the one month that I feel more like a coach than a teacher or musician.
They're all competitive. I struggle with that aspect of it. With sports you have a score and definite rules. You know when the basketball's gone through the hoop, when the baseball's gone over the wall, and when the wide receiver's holding the football in the end zone. Isn't music art? Aren't we creating? Where's the objectiveness in that? How can I tell a kid they got a "II" because the judge thought they played a "II"? Especially when a kid who didn't play as well got an easier judge and got a "I"? And what do I tell a kid who got a "IV"? "You must suck; give up"?
Contest is even worse. I try to get my students revved up, but I have trouble buying into it myself. Three judges sit there and rate my group, without knowing what my program looks like, how many students take lessons, what they sounded like at the beginning of the year, or anything besides what we put on stage that one time. And everyone knows what score you get. The other orchestra directors, your administration, the parents of your students...all make snap judgments, whether they mean to or not, based on that score. So I feel that a lot of emphasis has to be placed on contest, even though the very idea of it runs contrary to my philosophy of teaching music. I want my students to excel, but within the context of their own experience. After each concert, we do a self-evaluation where the students assess their performance, how we've improved, and how we can continue to improve. That's how I want my students to be motivated, not by the fear of how someone they don't even know could rate them on one performance. It's not that I don't think judges can't offer some constructive criticism or enlighten me and my orchestra with some insight from their own perspective: it's the score I have a problem with. The stupid freakin' score.
So, here I am, eating dinner from Wendy's before a two-hour "night before contest" rehearsal, trying to care and not succeeding. I want to forget about contest, play some great literature, and get my students excited about music. Is that too much to ask?
Also, these fries are soggy.
They're all competitive. I struggle with that aspect of it. With sports you have a score and definite rules. You know when the basketball's gone through the hoop, when the baseball's gone over the wall, and when the wide receiver's holding the football in the end zone. Isn't music art? Aren't we creating? Where's the objectiveness in that? How can I tell a kid they got a "II" because the judge thought they played a "II"? Especially when a kid who didn't play as well got an easier judge and got a "I"? And what do I tell a kid who got a "IV"? "You must suck; give up"?
Contest is even worse. I try to get my students revved up, but I have trouble buying into it myself. Three judges sit there and rate my group, without knowing what my program looks like, how many students take lessons, what they sounded like at the beginning of the year, or anything besides what we put on stage that one time. And everyone knows what score you get. The other orchestra directors, your administration, the parents of your students...all make snap judgments, whether they mean to or not, based on that score. So I feel that a lot of emphasis has to be placed on contest, even though the very idea of it runs contrary to my philosophy of teaching music. I want my students to excel, but within the context of their own experience. After each concert, we do a self-evaluation where the students assess their performance, how we've improved, and how we can continue to improve. That's how I want my students to be motivated, not by the fear of how someone they don't even know could rate them on one performance. It's not that I don't think judges can't offer some constructive criticism or enlighten me and my orchestra with some insight from their own perspective: it's the score I have a problem with. The stupid freakin' score.
So, here I am, eating dinner from Wendy's before a two-hour "night before contest" rehearsal, trying to care and not succeeding. I want to forget about contest, play some great literature, and get my students excited about music. Is that too much to ask?
Also, these fries are soggy.
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
Time to forgive Roy
As an avid KU basketball fan, I was obviously thrilled with the results of last night's game. Sinking back in my chair when Memphis was up by 9 with little time left, I felt disappointed. But things started going the Jayhawk's way, and soon I found myself on my feet again, then on my knees with my hands on my head. By the end of the game, Traci and I were jumping up and down, screaming and hugging each other. Traci wanted to drive to Lawrence after the game, but we both had work today, and we weren't really sure we wanted to stand out in the rain with a bunch of drunk college kids.
I've been a fan ever since 1988, when I didn't care about college basketball, but watched Danny and the miracles beat the heavily favored Sooner team to win the national title. Ever since then, I've been hooked. I attended the UMKC Conservatory for my undergrad and Masters (go Roos?), but they're not really a sports school, so my allegiance has stayed with the school down the road. I loved Roy Williams and what he did for the program, but he could never win the big one. When he left for North Carolina after saying he wouldn't, I, like many fans, was very upset and my love for Roy instantly turned sour. My least favorite team immediately went from Duke to North Carolina, with Roy's picture at the center of my dartboard (I don't really have a dartboard). When he won the National Championship with North Carolina the following year, something he could never do with KU, my contempt only grew.
Meanwhile, Bill Self was building his own program here. We suffered some disappointing first round tournament losses early on, sparking concern in some. But I really like Bill Self, and had faith that he would be "our guy." This year, of course, he proved it. And in the process, I've come to forgive Roy Williams.
First, we beat North Carolina (soundly) in the semi-final game (that's mainly a "Ha! Take that!" kind of bonus). Second, Bill brought us a national title, something Roy was unable to do during his tenure here and demonstrating that Bill Self is the the coach that belongs at Kansas. Finally, Roy showed a lot of class in showing up for the game in a prominently displayed Jayhawk sticker and stating that he was rooting for KU (despite the fact that they had just beat his Tarheels...soundly). So, with that, Roy is no longer on my "people I depise" list, and Duke will resume its role as the team I most enjoy seeing lose (which was also quite fun this year). Roy, you are forgiven. At least by me.
Now if Bill Self heads off to Oklahoma State, I'm gonna have to kick his butt.
I've been a fan ever since 1988, when I didn't care about college basketball, but watched Danny and the miracles beat the heavily favored Sooner team to win the national title. Ever since then, I've been hooked. I attended the UMKC Conservatory for my undergrad and Masters (go Roos?), but they're not really a sports school, so my allegiance has stayed with the school down the road. I loved Roy Williams and what he did for the program, but he could never win the big one. When he left for North Carolina after saying he wouldn't, I, like many fans, was very upset and my love for Roy instantly turned sour. My least favorite team immediately went from Duke to North Carolina, with Roy's picture at the center of my dartboard (I don't really have a dartboard). When he won the National Championship with North Carolina the following year, something he could never do with KU, my contempt only grew.
Meanwhile, Bill Self was building his own program here. We suffered some disappointing first round tournament losses early on, sparking concern in some. But I really like Bill Self, and had faith that he would be "our guy." This year, of course, he proved it. And in the process, I've come to forgive Roy Williams.
First, we beat North Carolina (soundly) in the semi-final game (that's mainly a "Ha! Take that!" kind of bonus). Second, Bill brought us a national title, something Roy was unable to do during his tenure here and demonstrating that Bill Self is the the coach that belongs at Kansas. Finally, Roy showed a lot of class in showing up for the game in a prominently displayed Jayhawk sticker and stating that he was rooting for KU (despite the fact that they had just beat his Tarheels...soundly). So, with that, Roy is no longer on my "people I depise" list, and Duke will resume its role as the team I most enjoy seeing lose (which was also quite fun this year). Roy, you are forgiven. At least by me.
Now if Bill Self heads off to Oklahoma State, I'm gonna have to kick his butt.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
