I've been waiting to write this post since January. For the past five months or so, I've been working out at a telemarketing firm out in Coralville- I took the job because it paid better than Wal-Mart, and despite the fact that it was telemarketing I had a pretty good sense of humor about it all. After all, I'd done factory work, I'd done security work, so yeah, I should probably end up doing telemarketing work as well. To me, it seemed like one of those jobs everyone has at least once and then moves on to bigger and better things, looking back and laughing on the crappy job they once had.
Plus- and this was a benefit- I lucked out. I wasn't actually selling things- I was doing inbound customer service calls, or more specifically, Financial Aid Servicing for Kaplan University Online. At first, it felt good. I was helping people out- ranging in ages from 18 to 81, many of whom had little to no experience using a computer or going to college. But the more I learned about Kaplan, the more disillusioned I became.
A quick Google Search and a check of some consumer reports sites (RipoffReport.com, The Better Business Bureau) reveals that Kaplan has helped a few students succeed while leaving behind a trail of indebted, embittered students, all of whom were enrolled and then left to hang out to dry. So, if you want the low-down on 'the future of higher education', don't buy into the crappy television ad with Uncle Phil from The Fresh Prince, buy into this:
First of all, the price. An Associates Degree from Kaplan costs $40,000 and a four year Bachelor's Degree? $70,000. Yep, I shit you not. If that's not reason enough to run screaming to your local community college as fast as possible- don't worry, I'll give you some more. Kaplan charges outrageous prices for a degree that won't get you very far. From all the stories I've seen online, a degree from Kaplan might get some places, but a large majority of places will laugh you out of the room when you tell them that you got a degree from Kaplan. (Plus one of Kaplan's most popular degrees is the Associates of Medical Transcription-- you get to pay $40 grand for a job that if you're very lucky will make you $18 an hour but could make you as little as $9. Doesn't seem like a very good deal.)
Second of all, the system: Kaplan will be your best friend in the world and roll out the red carpet, champagne and all the trimmings to get you enrolled. Once you're enrolled however, good luck. All the complaints I've seen have a very familiar ring to them- students just happily working their way through school until suddenly, a semester before graduation, they get a bill for $6,000 because nobody bothered to tell them that those extra classes they took weren't covered by their financial aid. This is because when you're getting enrolled, you could have talked to people like me- Financial Aid Counselors. But after you're enrolled, you get your very own Financial Aid Officer who is supposed to take care of you while you're going to school. But good luck getting them on the phone. On average, I spoke to at least 3 enrolled students a day all of whom were varying degrees of pissed off and frustrated because they couldn't get their FAO on the phone after sometimes weeks and months of trying. Some people might say that students have an inherent responsibility to make sure their financial aid covers the classes they take- and it's true, they do- and I talked to enrolled students every single day who were trying to do just that, but they were never given the information- which comes down to incompetence on the part of Kaplan more than anything else.
Kaplan makes no bones about the fact that it is a 'for-profit' school-- this should be a major red-flag to any potential students. They could give a damn about the success of their students because all they want is your money. Admissions Advisers are told that if 75% of their enrollments just pay the deposit and log into classes at least once in the first week, they've done a good job. No emphasis on getting graduation rates, no emphasis on student success- just the bottom line, plain and simple.
This for-profit mentality causes problems for the corporate structure of Kaplan as well. Admissions is perceived as a revenue source, while Financial Aid Servicing is seen as a drag on the bottom line. Admissions people are expected to take the time to work with the students and get their money, while Financial Aid Counselors are expected to work as quickly as possible, because the more students they handle, the more money Kaplan gets. While I agree with that latter statement to a point, a recent change in attitude emphasizing quantity over quality work in the Financial Aid Department has led to more problems than solutions- since new management was put in charge of Financial Aid, I saw an increase in students whose accounts had not been properly handled at all. Not only did I end up speaking to more angry enrolled students, I ended speaking to students whose accounts were total messes because management wanted speed and not quality- the old maxim 'haste makes waste' put into practice. The whole structure and attitude is sloppy and Admissions and Financial Aid don't work as a team to get enrollments for Kaplan, they're kept at cross purposes and denied information about how things work in the other department which creates an inefficient and ineffective means of providing students services they need to be successful.
But it provides Kaplan with money, so they don't care.
Kaplan University claims it is a quality school, it claims that it is providing good education, but nothing could be further from the truth. They charge outrageous prices for sub-par degrees which will get students nowhere. A degree from a piss-poor community college would serve you better- a degree from anywhere else will service you better. All the stories of bad experiences with Kaplan have a familiar ring to them: they'll do anything to suck you in, but once you're in, you're totally screwed. Expect little or no support from anyone- and even if you are trying to be a responsible student and find out if your classes are covered by Financial Aid, good luck in getting your Financial Aid Officer on the phone. (Another filthy little secret: it's not entirely the fault of the FAO's. Kaplan has them on salary, so that means they're too cheap to hire more, which they badly need to do. So 32,000 students get spread out between at best, 100 FAO's. That's 320 students per FAO. The workload is not within driving distance of being reasonable.)
I cannot emphasize enough the importance of doing your research! This is your education, your future and your dreams! Know everything about what you want to do and compare prices and quality between schools before you just sign up for one. Yes, online schools may lure you in because they seem like they may fit your busy lifestyle, but community colleges offer night classes and a lot of them are offering online options as well- there's a way to get this done without being sucked into a degree mill like Kaplan.
Higher education is heading for a big change, there's no doubt- to me an ideal university of the future is a lean, mean organization that offers excellent campus based and wide-spread online options for students- and more to the point, gives students options to help make education fit into their lives better. (More night classes, Saturday classes, online classes, etc.) But if the 'future' of higher education is for-profit institutions like Kaplan, then higher education is in a great deal of trouble.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Thursday, May 21, 2009
I Don't Care About American Idol
...just thought I would let everyone know. I never watch it regularly, think the music ranges from god-awful to excremental and just don't care. (To be fair, they've gotten a lot more musically diverse in recent years, but still, I don't care.)
However, last night Kris Allen was crowned instead of Adam Lambert. Certain parts of America are shocked, shocked I say to find out that a contest that's dependent on the public liking you is entirely like voting for Homecoming Queen. It's not about the music, sillies, it's about popularity- and apparently people liked Kris Allen more.
Now, this insipid reality show has become all about the country expressing its homophobia and denying Lambert the crown that was 'rightfully' his. To whit:
Ah, so apparently, we, the American people are a bunch of drooling morons who can't be trusted to pick the right American Idol. I honestly don't know whether to laugh, cry or scream over the above statement, because it's very typical of a lot of people who reside in the 'I Wear Tin Foil Hats And Think Sean Hannity and/or DailyKos Are The Sources For Absolute Truth In America Today' sectors of the political spectrum. I can't stand people who work from the default assumption that the majority of Americans are two steps short of being mentally retarded and therefore should do what their told and that other, smarter people know best.
Screw you people and listen up: a. take a deep knee bend everyone. It's American Idol. Who gives a damn? b. It's not about Lambert's sexuality- because as far as I know, he hasn't said a thing about it, his sexuality, rightly being, you know, none of our business- instead, it's about inevitability. The show's producers spun this beautifully- Lambert was going to sweep all before him, destroying his opponents and being crowned the most talented, kick-ass Idol of all time... take a deep breath and consider this: the Producers set Lambert up to be taken down, not because he may or may not be gay, but because David slaying Goliath is going to draw better ratings, better publicity and even a little bit of controversy- all of which is going to translate into what? Oh yes, that's right- more money for them.
The lesson: reality shows are SO totally rigged. Go figure. (Hey, did you know professional wrestling is fake too? Or do we need a lesson on the WWE?)
However, last night Kris Allen was crowned instead of Adam Lambert. Certain parts of America are shocked, shocked I say to find out that a contest that's dependent on the public liking you is entirely like voting for Homecoming Queen. It's not about the music, sillies, it's about popularity- and apparently people liked Kris Allen more.
Now, this insipid reality show has become all about the country expressing its homophobia and denying Lambert the crown that was 'rightfully' his. To whit:
It's a real shame that Idol is decided by the public and not just music professionals, because let's face it, the voting public is not that bright. The public voted George W. Bush twice as president. The public thinks Halliburton is Liz Taylor and Richard Burton's daughter. The public votes on who they want to 'hang out' with.
Ah, so apparently, we, the American people are a bunch of drooling morons who can't be trusted to pick the right American Idol. I honestly don't know whether to laugh, cry or scream over the above statement, because it's very typical of a lot of people who reside in the 'I Wear Tin Foil Hats And Think Sean Hannity and/or DailyKos Are The Sources For Absolute Truth In America Today' sectors of the political spectrum. I can't stand people who work from the default assumption that the majority of Americans are two steps short of being mentally retarded and therefore should do what their told and that other, smarter people know best.
Screw you people and listen up: a. take a deep knee bend everyone. It's American Idol. Who gives a damn? b. It's not about Lambert's sexuality- because as far as I know, he hasn't said a thing about it, his sexuality, rightly being, you know, none of our business- instead, it's about inevitability. The show's producers spun this beautifully- Lambert was going to sweep all before him, destroying his opponents and being crowned the most talented, kick-ass Idol of all time... take a deep breath and consider this: the Producers set Lambert up to be taken down, not because he may or may not be gay, but because David slaying Goliath is going to draw better ratings, better publicity and even a little bit of controversy- all of which is going to translate into what? Oh yes, that's right- more money for them.
The lesson: reality shows are SO totally rigged. Go figure. (Hey, did you know professional wrestling is fake too? Or do we need a lesson on the WWE?)
Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home
This movie opens after the events of Star Trek III, where we find the crew exiled on Vulcan awaiting their fate (they did, after all steal and blow up a starship in Star Trek III. Starfleet command has a problem with that, put it that way.) Spock is retraining his mind and eventually, naturally, the crew decides to go home and face the music. On the way, a big giant cylinder with a rotating ball thinger on the end of it shows up and starts sucking the life out of Earth's oceans (leaving powerless starships, spacedocks and planets in its wake.) Not able to go home, the crew figures out that the big giant cylinder with a rotating ball thinger on the end (hereafter known as the BGCWRBTONE) is dying to talk to some humpback whales.
Unfortunately, in the 23rd Century, they're extinct. So this means our heroes have to go back in time and find some. What follows is a classic entry in the Trek canon that, until the present film was probably the most accessible Trek film to the public at large, even though it's inevitably known as 'the one with the whales.' Dropping the crew of the Enterprise into the middle of the 80s proves to be an inspired choice, as Leonard Nimoy (the director of the film) mines the obvious 'fish out of water' situations for some great moments of humor. (Chekov's 'nuclear wessels', Kirk telling Hicks that Spock did a little too much LDS in the 60s.)
All in all, this movie has something for everyone-- and, naturally, our heroes find their whales and get them back to the future in time to save the world. Because of the whole 'saving the world thing' Starfleet decides to overlook the fact that Kirk and Company stole and blew up an entire starship, demotes Kirk to Captain and, hey, surprise, surprise, gives him a whole new starship along with a stern lecture telling him to have the new Enterprise home by midnight and not to wrap it around a lamppost ('Now Kirk, if you go drinking, you don't drive home-- you pick up the phone and call.') or blow it up anything. And then they warp out to further adventures.
This is, perhaps, one of the greater entries in the Trek canon. Everyone is on top form here- and interestingly enough, Star Trek IV provides us with the second Seventh Heaven connection in the Trek movie series- Catherine Hicks, the Mom from Seventh Heaven proves an able foil/flirting partner for Captain Kirk who eventually hitches a ride back to the future so someone can take care of the hijacked whales.
And you know what, you've probably seen this already- it's like the one Trek movie people have seen outside of Star Trek II and hardcore Trekkers (who have, of course, seen them all- multiple times.) So I'll spare you the detailed analysis- needless to say, this is the most fun you'll ever have with a Star Trek movie.
My Grade: *** out of 4
Overall: Pure fun, but nothing mind-blowing.
Unfortunately, in the 23rd Century, they're extinct. So this means our heroes have to go back in time and find some. What follows is a classic entry in the Trek canon that, until the present film was probably the most accessible Trek film to the public at large, even though it's inevitably known as 'the one with the whales.' Dropping the crew of the Enterprise into the middle of the 80s proves to be an inspired choice, as Leonard Nimoy (the director of the film) mines the obvious 'fish out of water' situations for some great moments of humor. (Chekov's 'nuclear wessels', Kirk telling Hicks that Spock did a little too much LDS in the 60s.)
All in all, this movie has something for everyone-- and, naturally, our heroes find their whales and get them back to the future in time to save the world. Because of the whole 'saving the world thing' Starfleet decides to overlook the fact that Kirk and Company stole and blew up an entire starship, demotes Kirk to Captain and, hey, surprise, surprise, gives him a whole new starship along with a stern lecture telling him to have the new Enterprise home by midnight and not to wrap it around a lamppost ('Now Kirk, if you go drinking, you don't drive home-- you pick up the phone and call.') or blow it up anything. And then they warp out to further adventures.
This is, perhaps, one of the greater entries in the Trek canon. Everyone is on top form here- and interestingly enough, Star Trek IV provides us with the second Seventh Heaven connection in the Trek movie series- Catherine Hicks, the Mom from Seventh Heaven proves an able foil/flirting partner for Captain Kirk who eventually hitches a ride back to the future so someone can take care of the hijacked whales.
And you know what, you've probably seen this already- it's like the one Trek movie people have seen outside of Star Trek II and hardcore Trekkers (who have, of course, seen them all- multiple times.) So I'll spare you the detailed analysis- needless to say, this is the most fun you'll ever have with a Star Trek movie.
My Grade: *** out of 4
Overall: Pure fun, but nothing mind-blowing.
Minnesot-ah Round-Up
There's a lot going on up North:
A young New Ulm boy whose parents resisted getting chemo on his cancer is on the run from court-ordered chemo with his mother. According to authorities, they were seen in California and are believed to be heading to Mexico.
The Twins lost. Go figure.
Coleman should just give up already and let Franken be seated, according to a poll.
A showdown looms over the Budget: the legislature wanted to preserve services- and do so by raising taxes, Governor Pawlenty said no- the legislature sent him a budget raising taxes and left town and now Pawlenty is going to balance the budget. All by himself. (Which has some potential risks and gains- he risks pissing people off, especially if he cuts too many services but he could be a Republican hero by refusing to raise taxes, which might pay off should he run in 2012).
The Lakeville School Board has declined to ban a Confederate flag decal that a student had displayed in the back window of his pick-up truck. The student says it's not a racial thing, but rather a love of the whole 'redneck life-style.' I think the Principal made the right call- and this is a teachable moment. In a country where free speech is a highly prized Constitutional right, students have to learn how to confront things they find offensive without infringing on the rights of others.
Before they left town, the legislature also passed a bill approving the use of medicinal marijuana for the terminally ill. It faces a likely veto by Governor Pawlenty and his budget slicing pen of doom.
A young New Ulm boy whose parents resisted getting chemo on his cancer is on the run from court-ordered chemo with his mother. According to authorities, they were seen in California and are believed to be heading to Mexico.
The Twins lost. Go figure.
Coleman should just give up already and let Franken be seated, according to a poll.
A showdown looms over the Budget: the legislature wanted to preserve services- and do so by raising taxes, Governor Pawlenty said no- the legislature sent him a budget raising taxes and left town and now Pawlenty is going to balance the budget. All by himself. (Which has some potential risks and gains- he risks pissing people off, especially if he cuts too many services but he could be a Republican hero by refusing to raise taxes, which might pay off should he run in 2012).
The Lakeville School Board has declined to ban a Confederate flag decal that a student had displayed in the back window of his pick-up truck. The student says it's not a racial thing, but rather a love of the whole 'redneck life-style.' I think the Principal made the right call- and this is a teachable moment. In a country where free speech is a highly prized Constitutional right, students have to learn how to confront things they find offensive without infringing on the rights of others.
Before they left town, the legislature also passed a bill approving the use of medicinal marijuana for the terminally ill. It faces a likely veto by Governor Pawlenty and his budget slicing pen of doom.
Monday, May 18, 2009
Suu Kyi On Trial
Burmese Leader Aung San Suu Kyi is being put on trial for violating the terms of her house arrest after an American man apparently swam out to her house and ended up on her back lawn somehow. The move is being widely derided as a sham move, designed to keep Suu Kyi in prison in the run up to the (likely rigged) 2010 elections in Burma. There's been a huge international outcry against this of course, but India and China haven't said much yet, which is going to be key in getting anything meaningful done in Burma.
As for the guy who swam out to see her, well, there's a profile on him here- and I just don't know what to make of this. I mean, I admire Aung San Suu Kyi and if I could interview anyone in the world, I'd dearly love to sit down and have a long conversation with her, because I know it would be incredibly fascinating. Would I sneak into Burma and swim out to her house? Probably not- and apparently this guy tried to do it last November and was sent packing right away, but this time, he crashed at her place for 2 days and now look what's happening! More harm than good, which is a shame.
Want to help? (Not just with Burma, but for human rights in general--) check out...
Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
As for the guy who swam out to see her, well, there's a profile on him here- and I just don't know what to make of this. I mean, I admire Aung San Suu Kyi and if I could interview anyone in the world, I'd dearly love to sit down and have a long conversation with her, because I know it would be incredibly fascinating. Would I sneak into Burma and swim out to her house? Probably not- and apparently this guy tried to do it last November and was sent packing right away, but this time, he crashed at her place for 2 days and now look what's happening! More harm than good, which is a shame.
Want to help? (Not just with Burma, but for human rights in general--) check out...
Amnesty International
Human Rights Watch
Victory in Sri Lanka
Sri Lanka's Civil War is finally over. The government had pushed rebel Tamil Tiger forces into a tiny, one and half square mile patch of jungle in northeast Sri Lanka and was slowly squeezing them dry. This morning brings word that rebel leader Prabhakaran has been killed by the government- and if rebel forces haven't surrendered yet, then they're about to be overrun or just mowed under.
It's been thirty years since the Civil War began and it's killed at least 70,000 people. If there were mistakes made by the LTTE, the worst was probably their involvement in the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, which cost them critical support in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu and amongst Tamil communities abroad. The assassination was in response to India placing peace-keeping troops in the north of the island, but the LTTE made a huge blunder by assassinating Gandhi and an even bigger one by not taking advantage of their tactical advantage in the early 90s to force a settlement on their terms.
Prabhakaran, however, had other ideas: pushing for a completely independent homeland for the Tamils-- which effectively put the kybosh on any negotiated settlement and eventually, the LTTE paid the price for it.
As the dust clears, we have to reflect on a couple of things: first, the death of Prabhakaran is something that took the Sri Lankan government thirty years to do. At one point in time this man was one of the most feared terrorists on the face of the planet- even today, one could have easily slipped him in behind Osama Bin Laden as one of the most wanted men on Earth- yet he was never taken alive. This, to me, underlines the shortcomings of a conventional military approach in dealing with insurgencies. Sometimes, sending in the troops is the best way, other times you might get more mileage by getting an agent into the LTTE and getting close to the guy with a gun. (I'm sure the Sri Lankan government did have a covert effort underway, but it obviously wasn't as successful as the conventional military approach eventually turned out to be.)
Secondly, that even with the Civil War being over, the proximate causes have yet to be resolved. The Tamils are still going to be pissed off, oppressed minorities that resent the Sinhalese majority- in order for this victory to be meaningful at all, the Sri Lankan government needs to be magnanimous in victory. You killed them with your soldiers, now win by killing them with kindness. That's going to be the true test of this victory- can it produce a lasting peace?
It's been thirty years since the Civil War began and it's killed at least 70,000 people. If there were mistakes made by the LTTE, the worst was probably their involvement in the assassination of Indian Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi, which cost them critical support in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu and amongst Tamil communities abroad. The assassination was in response to India placing peace-keeping troops in the north of the island, but the LTTE made a huge blunder by assassinating Gandhi and an even bigger one by not taking advantage of their tactical advantage in the early 90s to force a settlement on their terms.
Prabhakaran, however, had other ideas: pushing for a completely independent homeland for the Tamils-- which effectively put the kybosh on any negotiated settlement and eventually, the LTTE paid the price for it.
As the dust clears, we have to reflect on a couple of things: first, the death of Prabhakaran is something that took the Sri Lankan government thirty years to do. At one point in time this man was one of the most feared terrorists on the face of the planet- even today, one could have easily slipped him in behind Osama Bin Laden as one of the most wanted men on Earth- yet he was never taken alive. This, to me, underlines the shortcomings of a conventional military approach in dealing with insurgencies. Sometimes, sending in the troops is the best way, other times you might get more mileage by getting an agent into the LTTE and getting close to the guy with a gun. (I'm sure the Sri Lankan government did have a covert effort underway, but it obviously wasn't as successful as the conventional military approach eventually turned out to be.)
Secondly, that even with the Civil War being over, the proximate causes have yet to be resolved. The Tamils are still going to be pissed off, oppressed minorities that resent the Sinhalese majority- in order for this victory to be meaningful at all, the Sri Lankan government needs to be magnanimous in victory. You killed them with your soldiers, now win by killing them with kindness. That's going to be the true test of this victory- can it produce a lasting peace?
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Democracy's Dance '09: The Results Are In
Wow... it's taken a month, but the final tallies are coming in from the Indian Parliamentary Elections and it's a big win for Congress, who is heading back to power. A month ago, forecasts were ranging from hung parliament, narrow coalitions and maybe a surprise electoral victory from the collection of 'Left Parties' known as the Third Front-- Congress' victory isn't entirely unexpected, but the size of the mandate is somewhat of a surprise.
Latest count from the Beeb has the breakdown as follows:
United Progressive Alliance: 139 seats
--Indian National Congress (Congress): 112 seats
National Democratic Alliance: 92 seats
--Bharatiya Janata Party: 92 seats
Third Front: 39 seats
--Bahujan Samaj Party: 11 seats
I think this is a tentatively good result. A hung parliament would have been dicey for India, but a solid coalition and a stable government means that India will be able to legislate with greater ease and effectiveness. And certainly no one can argue that the big national parties are losing relevance and dying out- not after this result.
Latest count from the Beeb has the breakdown as follows:
United Progressive Alliance: 139 seats
--Indian National Congress (Congress): 112 seats
National Democratic Alliance: 92 seats
--Bharatiya Janata Party: 92 seats
Third Front: 39 seats
--Bahujan Samaj Party: 11 seats
I think this is a tentatively good result. A hung parliament would have been dicey for India, but a solid coalition and a stable government means that India will be able to legislate with greater ease and effectiveness. And certainly no one can argue that the big national parties are losing relevance and dying out- not after this result.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Outrage
There's a new documentary hitting theaters soon called 'Outrage', which examines the inherent hypocrisy of politicians who campaign against gay rights while being closeted and gay themselves. Most of the politicians are, surprise, surprise, Republicans.
What are the ethics of this? I'm being serious with this question- personally, I view one's sexuality and whether or not to announce it to the world as an incredibly private thing, which is why the whole premise of Outrage rubs me the wrong way. Who are these filmmakers to out these people, Republican or not, anti-gay or not? (I've never been in the closet before, being straight- but I would imagine the fumes from mothballs alone would make anyone do and say pretty crazy, weird stuff.) The debate gets trickier, because I've never really had to do any serious wrestling with sexual identity. I like boobs and am completely unapologetic for it... picture might be different if I'd been raised in a hardcore religious household that believes homosexuality to be an abomination. How does one overcome that? Is it possible?
So these politicians are closeted- and that's another facet of this movie: sure, you can be in the closet, but if you're in the closet, does that give you the right to legislate against gay rights?
I don't know... but I want to watch this movie. It may annoy me, but at least it will be thought-provoking.
What are the ethics of this? I'm being serious with this question- personally, I view one's sexuality and whether or not to announce it to the world as an incredibly private thing, which is why the whole premise of Outrage rubs me the wrong way. Who are these filmmakers to out these people, Republican or not, anti-gay or not? (I've never been in the closet before, being straight- but I would imagine the fumes from mothballs alone would make anyone do and say pretty crazy, weird stuff.) The debate gets trickier, because I've never really had to do any serious wrestling with sexual identity. I like boobs and am completely unapologetic for it... picture might be different if I'd been raised in a hardcore religious household that believes homosexuality to be an abomination. How does one overcome that? Is it possible?
So these politicians are closeted- and that's another facet of this movie: sure, you can be in the closet, but if you're in the closet, does that give you the right to legislate against gay rights?
I don't know... but I want to watch this movie. It may annoy me, but at least it will be thought-provoking.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Future GOP
What's the matter with Republicans these days? In the wake of the electoral win by Obama last year and with Democrats controlling the legislative branch and the executive branch, they're on the back foot and they're flailing around just as much as Obama. There are those (Cheney, Gingrich and Company) who think that the GOP should NOT moderate at all, but instead stick to its guns and the American people will come back to the pack and send them all back to Washington- and there are some cautious voices of moderation out there urging change.
As usual, they're missing the point and both sides are equally as right. I'm an independent myself and far from being comfortable with the idea of the Republican Party as it stands now, but what I don't like is laziness. It's endemic in our crappy two party system: no one has to work for anything, because the opposition party knows that eventually the hamster wheel will come back around and they'll be back in charge. It's why the Democrats keep parroting talking points from 1964 and 1932 and why Republicans keep parroting talking points from 1980. It's why the Democrats have no ideological depth to speak of, why liberalism is so moribund and conservatism is so tired. No has to work for it. No one has to have the vicious, idea generating ideological debates anymore.
Which is why both sides are equally as right: for the GOP, moderation is needed, but at the same time, radicalization is needed. Standing up and running on the same, tired platform of small government and low taxes will not cut the mustard anymore. The American people brought into that from 1994 to 2006 and Republicans failed to deliver- if the GOP starts talking the same old talk, they won't buy. They need a game changer- something big, something different and something they will actually deliver on. My suggestions:
1. Fair Tax.
2. Downsize government. (My old man had an interesting idea- how about outsourcing government departments- does the USDA need to be in D.C.? How much corn do they grow there?)
3. Legalize marijuana. This could pay huge dividends. Kids can get it way too easily and sticking it behind a shelf and requiring an ID would do wonders for keeping it off the playgrounds. Plus, everyone smokes it anyway and there are real drugs like X, Meth, Coke, Heroin that are worth spending some money on interdicting. Taking weed off the table would let us do that. Plus, GOPers win points on all fronts- fiscal responsibility especially.
4. Break-Up the Unions. This would probably require a serious amendment of the NLRA and Taft-Hartley, but to me breaking up the big, humongous unions in this country can only be a good thing. My main opposition to the EFCA stems from the fact that if it's a bill that's supposed to help out workers, then it should actually help out workers. The EFCA is essentially going to give union bosses lots of power and workers not so much. Done right, this could pay dividends for organized labor and business.
These are just some basic ideas- but you see where I'm going with this? The traditional small government thing ain't working anymore. You gotta go big, you gotta get radical, you gotta shoot the moon and then you gotta deliver.
The other side of the equation is are social issues. This is where the 'lets moderate' crowd is on firmer ground. There's an approaching generational gap that could do serious damage to the Republican Party if they don't change their tune on social issues in a big way. Meghan McCain has been making good points all across the board where this is concerned- and the polling seems to back her and me up on this. Gay marriage, abortion- all the big vote-getters for the GOP swing against them if you look at people under 30. People my age couldn't care less about gay marriage and we may not like abortion, but we don't want it banned either.
The Republicans are stumbling towards coherence on gay marriage- not on opposing it, but on the larger point: the Left can't castigate the Right for having beliefs against gay marriage when there are plenty of chicken-ass Democrats who hold the exact same view (namely our President for one. And I don't see Perez Hilton calling him a dumb bitch. Which is a load of horseshit in my book.) The message should be that there's room at the table for all points of view. If marriage equality is for all, then it has to be for all. But people have a right to disapprove of that. People of faith and churches have a right to dictate what their churches believe, not the government- and they have just as much of a right to freedom of conscience as the latte drinking ex-hippies in Seattle. In fact, let's go with that: Freedom of Conscience (an amendment more explicit than the one against that of an established religion. I like that. Throw in the Federalism thing they've got going at the state level and we could have a ball game.)
Right now, the ratio is this: 80% social conservatism, 20% small government. The Republicans need to flip this ratio. Go big, radical and head for the moonshot with the small government stuff and follow through on it. And get wise and smart on the social issues to maybe get some of us young folks on board. (And push that Federalism Amendment and start debating the idea of a Freedom of Conscience thing as well. Freedom of Religion means that we can't favor one over the other- it doesn't, at least from what I know, protect the beliefs of believers and non-believers alike. And they should be protected from the government. At the very least, it's a debate worth having.)
That's what I think. Whether or not the Republicans will listen (they won't- pretty sure Michael Steele doesn't read my blog, but it'd be awesome if he did) is an open question- hopefully it doesn't take them too long to retrench and learn.
As usual, they're missing the point and both sides are equally as right. I'm an independent myself and far from being comfortable with the idea of the Republican Party as it stands now, but what I don't like is laziness. It's endemic in our crappy two party system: no one has to work for anything, because the opposition party knows that eventually the hamster wheel will come back around and they'll be back in charge. It's why the Democrats keep parroting talking points from 1964 and 1932 and why Republicans keep parroting talking points from 1980. It's why the Democrats have no ideological depth to speak of, why liberalism is so moribund and conservatism is so tired. No has to work for it. No one has to have the vicious, idea generating ideological debates anymore.
Which is why both sides are equally as right: for the GOP, moderation is needed, but at the same time, radicalization is needed. Standing up and running on the same, tired platform of small government and low taxes will not cut the mustard anymore. The American people brought into that from 1994 to 2006 and Republicans failed to deliver- if the GOP starts talking the same old talk, they won't buy. They need a game changer- something big, something different and something they will actually deliver on. My suggestions:
1. Fair Tax.
2. Downsize government. (My old man had an interesting idea- how about outsourcing government departments- does the USDA need to be in D.C.? How much corn do they grow there?)
3. Legalize marijuana. This could pay huge dividends. Kids can get it way too easily and sticking it behind a shelf and requiring an ID would do wonders for keeping it off the playgrounds. Plus, everyone smokes it anyway and there are real drugs like X, Meth, Coke, Heroin that are worth spending some money on interdicting. Taking weed off the table would let us do that. Plus, GOPers win points on all fronts- fiscal responsibility especially.
4. Break-Up the Unions. This would probably require a serious amendment of the NLRA and Taft-Hartley, but to me breaking up the big, humongous unions in this country can only be a good thing. My main opposition to the EFCA stems from the fact that if it's a bill that's supposed to help out workers, then it should actually help out workers. The EFCA is essentially going to give union bosses lots of power and workers not so much. Done right, this could pay dividends for organized labor and business.
These are just some basic ideas- but you see where I'm going with this? The traditional small government thing ain't working anymore. You gotta go big, you gotta get radical, you gotta shoot the moon and then you gotta deliver.
The other side of the equation is are social issues. This is where the 'lets moderate' crowd is on firmer ground. There's an approaching generational gap that could do serious damage to the Republican Party if they don't change their tune on social issues in a big way. Meghan McCain has been making good points all across the board where this is concerned- and the polling seems to back her and me up on this. Gay marriage, abortion- all the big vote-getters for the GOP swing against them if you look at people under 30. People my age couldn't care less about gay marriage and we may not like abortion, but we don't want it banned either.
The Republicans are stumbling towards coherence on gay marriage- not on opposing it, but on the larger point: the Left can't castigate the Right for having beliefs against gay marriage when there are plenty of chicken-ass Democrats who hold the exact same view (namely our President for one. And I don't see Perez Hilton calling him a dumb bitch. Which is a load of horseshit in my book.) The message should be that there's room at the table for all points of view. If marriage equality is for all, then it has to be for all. But people have a right to disapprove of that. People of faith and churches have a right to dictate what their churches believe, not the government- and they have just as much of a right to freedom of conscience as the latte drinking ex-hippies in Seattle. In fact, let's go with that: Freedom of Conscience (an amendment more explicit than the one against that of an established religion. I like that. Throw in the Federalism thing they've got going at the state level and we could have a ball game.)
Right now, the ratio is this: 80% social conservatism, 20% small government. The Republicans need to flip this ratio. Go big, radical and head for the moonshot with the small government stuff and follow through on it. And get wise and smart on the social issues to maybe get some of us young folks on board. (And push that Federalism Amendment and start debating the idea of a Freedom of Conscience thing as well. Freedom of Religion means that we can't favor one over the other- it doesn't, at least from what I know, protect the beliefs of believers and non-believers alike. And they should be protected from the government. At the very least, it's a debate worth having.)
That's what I think. Whether or not the Republicans will listen (they won't- pretty sure Michael Steele doesn't read my blog, but it'd be awesome if he did) is an open question- hopefully it doesn't take them too long to retrench and learn.
Sunday, May 10, 2009
Press Bacchanal
The White House Correspondent's Dinner was last night. Here's the President's Speech, the MC of the Dinner Wanda Sykes also had her turn at the mike, and Frank Rich wrote a pretty good column on the state of American journalism.
I'm not sure I like the WHCD. It seems like a big, self-congratulatory waste of time, when the press and the politicians get together to revel in the shared realization of just how awesome they consider themselves to be. It comes across a little more than ego-stroking to me and it's irritating.
But it can be funny. I'll grudgingly admit that.
I'm not sure I like the WHCD. It seems like a big, self-congratulatory waste of time, when the press and the politicians get together to revel in the shared realization of just how awesome they consider themselves to be. It comes across a little more than ego-stroking to me and it's irritating.
But it can be funny. I'll grudgingly admit that.
Saturday, May 9, 2009
Star Trek: Nemesis
Oh wow. The late, unlamented Star Trek: Nemesis. This is when we all knew that Star Trek was so done... dead, gone. Consigned to the trash heap of the past. (I mean if Enterprise wasn't a good enough clue, they cough this up as well, just to drive the point home.)
To be fair, it's not horrible. Well, no, let's not be fair. This was horrible. This was pretty much Patrick Stewart and company going through the motions, YET AGAIN! The plot was predictable, rote and almost formulaic. The Romulans certainly deserved a better big-screen debut-- but, let's get this over with:
The Enterprise is called to Romulus, because apparently there's been a coup d'etat of some kind and some weird Remans have come crawling out of the woodwork and taken over. It's all very convoluted and Romulan, but needless to say- the Romulan Senate gets dissolved by a weird green terrorist ray shooter thingy-ma-jigger. The Enterprise arrives, sits around and then meets the New Boss and his Reman buddies. His name is Shinzon and surprise, surprise, he's a clone of Picard.
(Oh, before this, the Enterprise crew randomly and mysteriously finds an early prototype of Data on a planet that 'just so happened to be near the Romulan Neutral zone'-- but more on this later.)
Anyway, so Shinzon. He's all kinds of messed, has all kinds of issues and surprise, surprise is batshit crazy and wants to kill everyone with his larger weird green terrorist ray shooter thingy-ma-jigger (new, improved version can kill all PLANETS. Call NOW!) The usual shenanigans ensue. Danger, death, near death, space battles that are so familiar it's almost nauseating, but guess who wins? Shinzon does. (No, I'm kidding. OF COURSE, the good guys win. They always do.)
Data, in what would have been an incredible poignant moment sacrifices himself to destroy the larger weird green terrorist ray shooter thingy-ma-jigger, but instead of letting the characters absorb this news and grow as a result of it, they just cheat a little and turn Data's slow-witted prototype they found (remember that?) into the new Data. Thus combining the best part about Star Trek II (Spock's sacrifice for his friends) and pretty much the entire concept of Star Trek III (bringing back Spock) in about twenty minutes of the movie.
Oh and by the way, Riker finally decides to actually advance his career by accepting a promotion and getting his own ship- and he gets married- to Troi! Worf is grumpy, Crusher just says short, necessary, plot-advancing sentences every now and again and Geordi is a lot less cool without his VISOR thing.
What did we learn from this? Well JJ Abrams and Company learned all the right lessons and decided to take a risk or two. Nemesis is just another Star Trek movie- there's no attempt to take a risk or make it bigger, badder or look like anything remotely different from any prior Trek movie. None at all. This was an incredibly lazy movie that if someone willing to take a risk once in a while would have written actually had the potential to be good. At this point, the sad truth became clear to Trekkers everywhere: the franchise had degenerated into rote, formulaic movies designed more as love letters to the fans than anything else.
Growth of a franchise and just in general, growth of a story require risk-taking. That magic leaked out of Trek a long time before Nemesis and it shows. Plus, the inability just to kill someone for once pissed me off greatly- (why did we have to waste all this time getting Data a crappy prototype? Why can't he just make a noble sacrifice and die for once?)
Overall: Not painful, but generally bad.
My Grade: * out of 4. The air was all the way out of the balloon with this one.
To be fair, it's not horrible. Well, no, let's not be fair. This was horrible. This was pretty much Patrick Stewart and company going through the motions, YET AGAIN! The plot was predictable, rote and almost formulaic. The Romulans certainly deserved a better big-screen debut-- but, let's get this over with:
The Enterprise is called to Romulus, because apparently there's been a coup d'etat of some kind and some weird Remans have come crawling out of the woodwork and taken over. It's all very convoluted and Romulan, but needless to say- the Romulan Senate gets dissolved by a weird green terrorist ray shooter thingy-ma-jigger. The Enterprise arrives, sits around and then meets the New Boss and his Reman buddies. His name is Shinzon and surprise, surprise, he's a clone of Picard.
(Oh, before this, the Enterprise crew randomly and mysteriously finds an early prototype of Data on a planet that 'just so happened to be near the Romulan Neutral zone'-- but more on this later.)
Anyway, so Shinzon. He's all kinds of messed, has all kinds of issues and surprise, surprise is batshit crazy and wants to kill everyone with his larger weird green terrorist ray shooter thingy-ma-jigger (new, improved version can kill all PLANETS. Call NOW!) The usual shenanigans ensue. Danger, death, near death, space battles that are so familiar it's almost nauseating, but guess who wins? Shinzon does. (No, I'm kidding. OF COURSE, the good guys win. They always do.)
Data, in what would have been an incredible poignant moment sacrifices himself to destroy the larger weird green terrorist ray shooter thingy-ma-jigger, but instead of letting the characters absorb this news and grow as a result of it, they just cheat a little and turn Data's slow-witted prototype they found (remember that?) into the new Data. Thus combining the best part about Star Trek II (Spock's sacrifice for his friends) and pretty much the entire concept of Star Trek III (bringing back Spock) in about twenty minutes of the movie.
Oh and by the way, Riker finally decides to actually advance his career by accepting a promotion and getting his own ship- and he gets married- to Troi! Worf is grumpy, Crusher just says short, necessary, plot-advancing sentences every now and again and Geordi is a lot less cool without his VISOR thing.
What did we learn from this? Well JJ Abrams and Company learned all the right lessons and decided to take a risk or two. Nemesis is just another Star Trek movie- there's no attempt to take a risk or make it bigger, badder or look like anything remotely different from any prior Trek movie. None at all. This was an incredibly lazy movie that if someone willing to take a risk once in a while would have written actually had the potential to be good. At this point, the sad truth became clear to Trekkers everywhere: the franchise had degenerated into rote, formulaic movies designed more as love letters to the fans than anything else.
Growth of a franchise and just in general, growth of a story require risk-taking. That magic leaked out of Trek a long time before Nemesis and it shows. Plus, the inability just to kill someone for once pissed me off greatly- (why did we have to waste all this time getting Data a crappy prototype? Why can't he just make a noble sacrifice and die for once?)
Overall: Not painful, but generally bad.
My Grade: * out of 4. The air was all the way out of the balloon with this one.
Star Trek
There's really very little I can say about this movie except this:
Wow.
Cast: Perfect. Every single one. (Big Kudos to Karl Urban and Eric Bana, who took what's a pretty shallow role and fleshed it out and made it his own. All by himself- and did so brilliantly.)
Plot: I'm not going to tell you anything, but it all works- and it frees Trek from the baggage of its past and opens the story up to all kinds of possibilities.
What I Liked: Finally, someone is taking risks with Star Trek. As witness by the last, hapless movie that failed to impress, Nemesis, Star Trek got way too comfortable in its own skin. The movies essentially became love letters to the fans, which is all right- but it made Star Trek static and eventually boring. It got to the point where we weren't seeing anything new. A reboot and refresher was long overdue and Abrams and Company did everything they set out to do and more: this doesn't look like any Star Trek you've ever seen. The story grabs you from the first minute and never lets you go. The ships look different, the effects are different-- it all looks so real. It's not uber-futuristic and sci-fi schlock, you can honestly imagine a future looking like this and that's what makes this movie so goddamn good!
What's Annoyed Me: This, this and this. I can't stand it when people attempt to politicize movies. Is Star Trek really just a big love letter to socialism? (Add THIS to the list, as well.) Let's all take a deep knee bend here, people. It's an achievement just to make a Star Trek movie that people actually want to watch.
Overall: Freakin' Perfect.
My Grade: **** out of 4. What are you doing still reading this? GO!
Wow.
Cast: Perfect. Every single one. (Big Kudos to Karl Urban and Eric Bana, who took what's a pretty shallow role and fleshed it out and made it his own. All by himself- and did so brilliantly.)
Plot: I'm not going to tell you anything, but it all works- and it frees Trek from the baggage of its past and opens the story up to all kinds of possibilities.
What I Liked: Finally, someone is taking risks with Star Trek. As witness by the last, hapless movie that failed to impress, Nemesis, Star Trek got way too comfortable in its own skin. The movies essentially became love letters to the fans, which is all right- but it made Star Trek static and eventually boring. It got to the point where we weren't seeing anything new. A reboot and refresher was long overdue and Abrams and Company did everything they set out to do and more: this doesn't look like any Star Trek you've ever seen. The story grabs you from the first minute and never lets you go. The ships look different, the effects are different-- it all looks so real. It's not uber-futuristic and sci-fi schlock, you can honestly imagine a future looking like this and that's what makes this movie so goddamn good!
What's Annoyed Me: This, this and this. I can't stand it when people attempt to politicize movies. Is Star Trek really just a big love letter to socialism? (Add THIS to the list, as well.) Let's all take a deep knee bend here, people. It's an achievement just to make a Star Trek movie that people actually want to watch.
Overall: Freakin' Perfect.
My Grade: **** out of 4. What are you doing still reading this? GO!
Star Trek: Insurrection
I kind of failed to follow through on my vow to view all ten Star Trek movies before watching the eleventh- which I'm going to do tonight at 8 PM. There will be a review of that later tonight or tomorrow, I'd imagine- but as the Missus has snuck up north to visit her Mother for Mother's Day, I thought I'd take advantage of the situation to shuffle the order of our Netflix cue to knock off two more Trek movies as part of a general celebration of all things Trek related in honor of the new movie.
So, I decided to take on 'Star Trek: Insurrection.' I did this because I think Insurrection is the only Trek movie that I haven't watched multiple times. As the follow up to 'Star Trek: First Contact' it had a lot to live up too, and it did not deliver the goods, but re-watching it today, I was pleasantly surprised at how genuinely decent it was. Nothing special, nothing amazing- but far from being bad. I would say that it even dodged the dreaded curse of the odd numbered 'Trek' movies- it's only sin is that it doesn't jump out at you at all.
The themes are strong: what to do if the Federation itself is doing wrong? Can the Federation do wrong? Is the future all shiny and happy? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or not? Insurrection explores the morality of playing God and the ghosts of Earth's history with a story of a pastoral, peaceful people being forcibly relocated because their planet has rings that possess astonishing regenerative properties. In other words: the Federation found the Fountain of Youth and naturally wants it. This radiation could benefit billions, cures for aging and disease.
The catch: these people live there. And they like living there- and harvesting the radiation from the rings of the planet would render their planet uninhabitable. The moral conundrum for Captain Picard and Company: what to do? Star Trek II had us thinking that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Insurrection turns that notion on its head-- Picard and company refuse to participate in the destruction of a society to benefit the Federation at large-- in fact, they stop it in the end. (Good always winning and all...)
Thought provoking, but not overly cerebral, where Insurrection runs into trouble is with its choice of villain. I think it might just be a desperate thing for anyone trying to make a Star Trek movie, but Ricardo Montablan ruined it for all the other bad guys. Try as they might, they can never quite measure up and be that truly insane, evil bad guy that Khan was. (Christopher Plummer as General Chang came very close... the Borg would round out the top 3.) Try as he might though, F. Murray Abraham comes off more as a reject from Nip/Tuck gone wrong than a truly evil man. Screaming that god-awful, hammy scream of his and getting his face stretch, his Ru'afo truly is one of the more uninspired villains I've seen in Trek.
Of course, the story demands him. The pastoral, peaceful people expelled the angry, young people that wanted to drive fast cars- or, well spaceships and experience all the joys of modern life. Ru'afo and company are, of course, the expelled students wanting to take back the 'immortality' they lost by being expelled from the colony. It ties the story up in a nice, neat bow, but Insurrection missed an opportunity. By pairing the Federation with one of the more villainous races (Romulans, Cardassians or even the Dominion) they could have mined the themes of the movie even more. (Is it right for the Federation to be working with people who don't adhere to the same ethical standards as they do? Doesn't that compromise the Federation's principles...?) I think such a move would have made the story of Insurrection a little more compelling and maybe have made it a little more memorable.
Overall: Uninspiring, but far from bad.
My Grade: ** out of 4. Perfectly average in every way.
So, I decided to take on 'Star Trek: Insurrection.' I did this because I think Insurrection is the only Trek movie that I haven't watched multiple times. As the follow up to 'Star Trek: First Contact' it had a lot to live up too, and it did not deliver the goods, but re-watching it today, I was pleasantly surprised at how genuinely decent it was. Nothing special, nothing amazing- but far from being bad. I would say that it even dodged the dreaded curse of the odd numbered 'Trek' movies- it's only sin is that it doesn't jump out at you at all.
The themes are strong: what to do if the Federation itself is doing wrong? Can the Federation do wrong? Is the future all shiny and happy? Do the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or not? Insurrection explores the morality of playing God and the ghosts of Earth's history with a story of a pastoral, peaceful people being forcibly relocated because their planet has rings that possess astonishing regenerative properties. In other words: the Federation found the Fountain of Youth and naturally wants it. This radiation could benefit billions, cures for aging and disease.
The catch: these people live there. And they like living there- and harvesting the radiation from the rings of the planet would render their planet uninhabitable. The moral conundrum for Captain Picard and Company: what to do? Star Trek II had us thinking that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. Insurrection turns that notion on its head-- Picard and company refuse to participate in the destruction of a society to benefit the Federation at large-- in fact, they stop it in the end. (Good always winning and all...)
Thought provoking, but not overly cerebral, where Insurrection runs into trouble is with its choice of villain. I think it might just be a desperate thing for anyone trying to make a Star Trek movie, but Ricardo Montablan ruined it for all the other bad guys. Try as they might, they can never quite measure up and be that truly insane, evil bad guy that Khan was. (Christopher Plummer as General Chang came very close... the Borg would round out the top 3.) Try as he might though, F. Murray Abraham comes off more as a reject from Nip/Tuck gone wrong than a truly evil man. Screaming that god-awful, hammy scream of his and getting his face stretch, his Ru'afo truly is one of the more uninspired villains I've seen in Trek.
Of course, the story demands him. The pastoral, peaceful people expelled the angry, young people that wanted to drive fast cars- or, well spaceships and experience all the joys of modern life. Ru'afo and company are, of course, the expelled students wanting to take back the 'immortality' they lost by being expelled from the colony. It ties the story up in a nice, neat bow, but Insurrection missed an opportunity. By pairing the Federation with one of the more villainous races (Romulans, Cardassians or even the Dominion) they could have mined the themes of the movie even more. (Is it right for the Federation to be working with people who don't adhere to the same ethical standards as they do? Doesn't that compromise the Federation's principles...?) I think such a move would have made the story of Insurrection a little more compelling and maybe have made it a little more memorable.
Overall: Uninspiring, but far from bad.
My Grade: ** out of 4. Perfectly average in every way.
Oh Wow.
This would be quite literally THE COOLEST THING EVER if it happened... the World Cup, live from Kinnick?
Is such an incredible, kick-ass, cool thing even possible??
Is such an incredible, kick-ass, cool thing even possible??
Pakistan To Implode?
Told you so. (If people aren't paying attention to the situation in Pakistan they should be. Don't be worried about North Korea- China can turn the lights off whenever it wants. Don't be worried about Iran- they just want nukes, but don't have them quite yet. Be very, very worried about Pakistan. Because they DO have nukes. And things aren't going well.)
Exit, Stage Left
Famed Opera Tenor and member of The Three Tenors Jose Carreras announced his retirement from opera yesterday-- and it truly is the end of an era. Carreras is probably my Mother's favorite tenor- so I got to hear lots of him growing up. Somehow, none of us kids managed to catch the opera bug from my mother, which is minor miracle as she's got like 30 operas laying around the place. And more on VHS buried somewhere downstairs... the woman, bless her, is an opera nut. When Dad took her along on a conference he went to in Florence (I got a beautiful, hand made Italian leather wallet for my troubles which lasted quite well up until a couple of years ago when it fell apart), he got her tickets to the opera in La Scala. And that got Dad some serious brownie points.
For those unfamiliar with the wonderful world of Opera, tickets to La Scala is like tickets to the Super Bowl if you're a football fan or game 7 of the World Series if you're a baseball fan. The place is the holy grail of Opera and she may scoff a little when you ask her about and claim 'it wasn't that impressive'- but she's lying.
Anyway, Carreras was by far her favorite tenor- and there's a reason why:
If you listen (and this is where my Mom's obsession comes to the forefront because I've picked up on these things after a lifetime of being spoon-fed opera)-- there's a purity and smoothness to his voice that is just beautiful. It's what makes Carreras distinctive. Pavarotti had power, Domingo has the resonance-- but Carreras has the smooth purity which makes his so damn easy to listen to. I'm not a huge fan of classical music, but I know enough to give props when mad props are deserved. And Carreras, I'm sorry to you fans of Pavarotti out there, is the man.
Although I wince a little to use 'Nessun Dorma' as an example, but you can hear it. 'Nessun Dorma' is perhaps the most overplayed aria in the history of the world- and that's a shame, because to me- it's a beautiful piece of music. And if you bother to dig up a translation and discover just what they're bellowing about, the meaning because even more beautiful. But it is incredible, painfully overplayed. Every time they want to get people shouting and cheering they whip it out and it always works. I don't know why. People stopped thinking 3 Doors Down was a good band after they had heard 'Kryptonite' for what was literally the one millionth time. But people are funny like that I guess...
Anyway, Carreras has taken his final curtain. Just for kicks, I'll leave you with a little bit of the Three Tenors from way back in 1990. There is a nice moment of humor about 5 minutes- you can see that Carreras and Domingo liked to poke fun at Pavarotti's tendency to be a just wee bit too powerful at times.
For those unfamiliar with the wonderful world of Opera, tickets to La Scala is like tickets to the Super Bowl if you're a football fan or game 7 of the World Series if you're a baseball fan. The place is the holy grail of Opera and she may scoff a little when you ask her about and claim 'it wasn't that impressive'- but she's lying.
Anyway, Carreras was by far her favorite tenor- and there's a reason why:
If you listen (and this is where my Mom's obsession comes to the forefront because I've picked up on these things after a lifetime of being spoon-fed opera)-- there's a purity and smoothness to his voice that is just beautiful. It's what makes Carreras distinctive. Pavarotti had power, Domingo has the resonance-- but Carreras has the smooth purity which makes his so damn easy to listen to. I'm not a huge fan of classical music, but I know enough to give props when mad props are deserved. And Carreras, I'm sorry to you fans of Pavarotti out there, is the man.
Although I wince a little to use 'Nessun Dorma' as an example, but you can hear it. 'Nessun Dorma' is perhaps the most overplayed aria in the history of the world- and that's a shame, because to me- it's a beautiful piece of music. And if you bother to dig up a translation and discover just what they're bellowing about, the meaning because even more beautiful. But it is incredible, painfully overplayed. Every time they want to get people shouting and cheering they whip it out and it always works. I don't know why. People stopped thinking 3 Doors Down was a good band after they had heard 'Kryptonite' for what was literally the one millionth time. But people are funny like that I guess...
Anyway, Carreras has taken his final curtain. Just for kicks, I'll leave you with a little bit of the Three Tenors from way back in 1990. There is a nice moment of humor about 5 minutes- you can see that Carreras and Domingo liked to poke fun at Pavarotti's tendency to be a just wee bit too powerful at times.
Rap With A Capital 'C'
Eminem has lost it. His grip, his mind, his hard edge and ability. I don't know what... like Brett Favre, it'd be nice if he came back full force like the Eminem of old, but at the same time, it's probably better if he stays retired. Why do I say this? Well, a couple of days ago, I heard his newest single 'We Made You' on the radio and was honestly surprised how god-awful it was.
Don't get me wrong-- I was never a huge fan of Eminem. I thought he personified the worst parts of rap in the 90s: the misogyny, the virulent anti-gay lyrics, the objectification of women... yet at the same time, there was a deep anger to his work that I could appreciate. You really felt, despite the lyrics of some of his songs that this was a genuine artist at work. A man with, well, some issues that were expressed through his chosen art form, namely rap. Despite the fact I found a lot of his lyrics very objectionable, I respected that.
His latest effort is just bad. Controversy is not something that should be avoided in art, I think- but at the same time, there is a fine line between being controversial and deliberately trying to be controversial. Eminem was at his best when was just being controversial-- 'We Made You' is deliberately trying to controversial- and doing so in a particularly un-intelligent way, which makes it even more annoying.
Then, to be fair- I watched the video. Which is another mess-- I'm honestly confused now, having seen it. I don't know what he's trying to say. Is this a commentary on the cheapness of Hollywood culture and how celebrities are largely given their celebrity through an adoring public, which makes a lot of what they throw down with (the arrogance, etc) total bullshit? I'm stretching for meaning here, because I think that's what he's trying to say. But the video doesn't come across as a spoof or satire of Hollywood culture- it comes across as something Weird Al would probably do.
Not very gangsta.
There's room for improvement is all I'm saying. This is the first single off the album- I'm sure Eminem's pissed off about something worth rapping about. I just expected something a little more hardcore from his reappearance, you know? Not something so... pop.
Don't get me wrong-- I was never a huge fan of Eminem. I thought he personified the worst parts of rap in the 90s: the misogyny, the virulent anti-gay lyrics, the objectification of women... yet at the same time, there was a deep anger to his work that I could appreciate. You really felt, despite the lyrics of some of his songs that this was a genuine artist at work. A man with, well, some issues that were expressed through his chosen art form, namely rap. Despite the fact I found a lot of his lyrics very objectionable, I respected that.
His latest effort is just bad. Controversy is not something that should be avoided in art, I think- but at the same time, there is a fine line between being controversial and deliberately trying to be controversial. Eminem was at his best when was just being controversial-- 'We Made You' is deliberately trying to controversial- and doing so in a particularly un-intelligent way, which makes it even more annoying.
Then, to be fair- I watched the video. Which is another mess-- I'm honestly confused now, having seen it. I don't know what he's trying to say. Is this a commentary on the cheapness of Hollywood culture and how celebrities are largely given their celebrity through an adoring public, which makes a lot of what they throw down with (the arrogance, etc) total bullshit? I'm stretching for meaning here, because I think that's what he's trying to say. But the video doesn't come across as a spoof or satire of Hollywood culture- it comes across as something Weird Al would probably do.
Not very gangsta.
There's room for improvement is all I'm saying. This is the first single off the album- I'm sure Eminem's pissed off about something worth rapping about. I just expected something a little more hardcore from his reappearance, you know? Not something so... pop.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
Bars Not Welcome
This isn't going to help. Bravo for the Iowa City City Council trying once again to tackle a problem and completely missing the point. First of all, we live in a college town. There needs to be a pragmatic recognition that college kids drink and we all need to grow up a little and deal with that. Instead of wasting time trying to get college kids not to drink, how about we spend some time trying to promote responsible drinking?
There's a shocker of a concept. It's not that all the college kids drinking are bad- it's just that until they pass a certain age (usually 21, when the allure of doing sake bombs and shots of Jaeger until the point of vomiting profusely usually wears off) college kids are idiots. One only has to pass the core collection of freshman bars in Iowa City to see evidence of that every weekend. (The Filthy Four: Third Base, SpoCo, Jakes and the Summit). Drinking is something that every adult learns to do responsibly and it's usually a process that takes time (with age comes wisdom, supposedly) and experience (too much tequila one night does not a fun hangover make.) But by and large it does happen...
When it comes to binge drinking in this town, the problem is that no one has seriously thought of a way to lessen the idiot drinking and promote the smart drinking. That's the real problem- and its a problem that's entirely self-made. When City Council members say things like this:
It seriously pisses me off. For twenty years now, the City Council has been selling out to big name developers because somewhere along the way, they got it into their heads that downtown Iowa City needed to be swanky and have a 'big city' feel to it, whatever that means. Sensible businesses that brought the entire community downtown are now a thing of the past. Anyone remember Pizza Hut? Hardees? Great Midwestern? The movie theater? Hell, even Bushnell's Turtle and Barbara's Bakery? The City Council wants families to move back downtown, but who in their right minds would want to live downtown when in order to buy decent groceries, you have to drive somewhere else? And what business owner is going to want to pay exorbitant rates to move downtown?
In order for Iowa City to succeed at tackling this problem, the community at large needs a reason to come back downtown again. The Council can pass every ordinance in the books, but until we diversify the business base downtown and make it more than just bars, restaurants and overpriced boutiques, the problems will continue. Binge drinking isn't the biggest problem in this town: it's reversing twenty years of the City Council slowly but surely gentrifying our downtown and making it a playground for the wealthy folks and the drunk college kids instead of making it a place where the entire community can come to shop, eat, and participate in community events with their families.
How do we do this? I don't know- but I know for sure that passing this silly-ass law isn't going to solve the problem.
There's a shocker of a concept. It's not that all the college kids drinking are bad- it's just that until they pass a certain age (usually 21, when the allure of doing sake bombs and shots of Jaeger until the point of vomiting profusely usually wears off) college kids are idiots. One only has to pass the core collection of freshman bars in Iowa City to see evidence of that every weekend. (The Filthy Four: Third Base, SpoCo, Jakes and the Summit). Drinking is something that every adult learns to do responsibly and it's usually a process that takes time (with age comes wisdom, supposedly) and experience (too much tequila one night does not a fun hangover make.) But by and large it does happen...
When it comes to binge drinking in this town, the problem is that no one has seriously thought of a way to lessen the idiot drinking and promote the smart drinking. That's the real problem- and its a problem that's entirely self-made. When City Council members say things like this:
"I'm tired of the drunk kids; I'm tired of the drunk adults," council member Connie Champion said.
It seriously pisses me off. For twenty years now, the City Council has been selling out to big name developers because somewhere along the way, they got it into their heads that downtown Iowa City needed to be swanky and have a 'big city' feel to it, whatever that means. Sensible businesses that brought the entire community downtown are now a thing of the past. Anyone remember Pizza Hut? Hardees? Great Midwestern? The movie theater? Hell, even Bushnell's Turtle and Barbara's Bakery? The City Council wants families to move back downtown, but who in their right minds would want to live downtown when in order to buy decent groceries, you have to drive somewhere else? And what business owner is going to want to pay exorbitant rates to move downtown?
In order for Iowa City to succeed at tackling this problem, the community at large needs a reason to come back downtown again. The Council can pass every ordinance in the books, but until we diversify the business base downtown and make it more than just bars, restaurants and overpriced boutiques, the problems will continue. Binge drinking isn't the biggest problem in this town: it's reversing twenty years of the City Council slowly but surely gentrifying our downtown and making it a playground for the wealthy folks and the drunk college kids instead of making it a place where the entire community can come to shop, eat, and participate in community events with their families.
How do we do this? I don't know- but I know for sure that passing this silly-ass law isn't going to solve the problem.
Razor Thin Tax
OK, so I'm cynical. Sometimes voting does matter... the sales tax yesterday? It's up by six votes in Iowa City, down by seven votes in Coralville. North Liberty and the unincorporated areas of Johnson County said 'no.' I believe University Heights said yes.
There are still outstanding absentee ballots out there (despite what the article in the Press-Citizen seems to suggest) and there's a petition for a likely recount already gaining steam.
For me, the implications of this result are pretty clear: there is a deep amount of populist anger at government spending out there- when hippy-dippy, uber-liberal Iowa City can't even pass a 1% sales tax it means that people are seriously pissed off. The wider implications should also be obvious: Lefties can no longer afford to make fun of the 'Tea Party' movement, because results like these show that populist anger isn't just for what the media likes to portray as right-wing cranks and nutjobs anymore.
People are pissed off. Democrats (at least the ones in Congress), need to wake up, pull their heads out of their butts and realize this as soon as possible.
If the Republicans were wise (and they won't be) they'd tone down the social conservatism and ratchet up the small government stuff- and they should be downright radical about it if they're going to do it. I'm no expert on the inner workings of the Republican Party, but it seems to me that right now, the split between social conservatism and small government is running about 60-40 in favor of social conservatism-- that ratio should be flipped- and to my mind it should be more like 80-20 in favor of small government. The smaller the government, the less interference you're going to see and you can promote your own values more easily from that point.
But still-- nail biting stuff.
There are still outstanding absentee ballots out there (despite what the article in the Press-Citizen seems to suggest) and there's a petition for a likely recount already gaining steam.
For me, the implications of this result are pretty clear: there is a deep amount of populist anger at government spending out there- when hippy-dippy, uber-liberal Iowa City can't even pass a 1% sales tax it means that people are seriously pissed off. The wider implications should also be obvious: Lefties can no longer afford to make fun of the 'Tea Party' movement, because results like these show that populist anger isn't just for what the media likes to portray as right-wing cranks and nutjobs anymore.
People are pissed off. Democrats (at least the ones in Congress), need to wake up, pull their heads out of their butts and realize this as soon as possible.
If the Republicans were wise (and they won't be) they'd tone down the social conservatism and ratchet up the small government stuff- and they should be downright radical about it if they're going to do it. I'm no expert on the inner workings of the Republican Party, but it seems to me that right now, the split between social conservatism and small government is running about 60-40 in favor of social conservatism-- that ratio should be flipped- and to my mind it should be more like 80-20 in favor of small government. The smaller the government, the less interference you're going to see and you can promote your own values more easily from that point.
But still-- nail biting stuff.
Tuesday, May 5, 2009
Coldplagiarism AGAIN?
First it was this guy:
Then it was Joe Satriani:
Now, Cat Stevens is joining an increasingly long list of people who claim that Coldplay's new song 'Viva La Vida' was in fact, ripped off from one of their songs.
This is nuts. Either Coldplay is truly shady and rips off EVERYONE- or people are hearing things that are similar, but not exactly identical to what they did. What continues to amaze me is that 3 people have now accused them of ripping off the exact same song.
Could Vanilla Ice be next?
Then it was Joe Satriani:
Now, Cat Stevens is joining an increasingly long list of people who claim that Coldplay's new song 'Viva La Vida' was in fact, ripped off from one of their songs.
This is nuts. Either Coldplay is truly shady and rips off EVERYONE- or people are hearing things that are similar, but not exactly identical to what they did. What continues to amaze me is that 3 people have now accused them of ripping off the exact same song.
Could Vanilla Ice be next?
I Voted Yes
...I know, I know... I struggled with it mightily, but despite my objection to giving the government any more of what little money I have, I am forced to concede that these folks have a point: Dubuque Street needs to be raised- and if the Park Avenue Bridge was so low it was acting a dam and increasing flooding upstream last summer, then it should be raised as well. Can't deny that.
So I trundled on over to City High and voted Yes on the 1% local option sales tax for Johnson County. Don't judge me.
So I trundled on over to City High and voted Yes on the 1% local option sales tax for Johnson County. Don't judge me.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Souter Out
Supreme Court Justice David Souter surprised everyone (a little bit, anyway) by announcing his retirement after the end of the current session of the Supreme Court. It's not been a secret that Souter hates Washington and wants to get back to a quiet life in New Hampshire, but commentators appear to have been caught flat-footed: Justice Stevens is currently the oldest serving member of the Court, I believe- at 89- and Justice Ginsberg, is in recovery from cancer surgery obviously as some health issues.
But Souter wanted out first. And the guessing games have already begun... Personally, I don't think there should be a lot of noise about this one. Souter leans left and he's a Bush the Elder appointee who turned out to be a grave disappointment for the Conservative movement by swinging left. A Democratic President is going to replace a liberal with a liberal and thus the balance of the court won't be hugely upset. But this is a Supreme Court nomination- people tend to froth at the mouth whenever there's an opening, no matter what the implications.
As always, keep an eye on the SCOTUSblog in the coming weeks for updates.
But Souter wanted out first. And the guessing games have already begun... Personally, I don't think there should be a lot of noise about this one. Souter leans left and he's a Bush the Elder appointee who turned out to be a grave disappointment for the Conservative movement by swinging left. A Democratic President is going to replace a liberal with a liberal and thus the balance of the court won't be hugely upset. But this is a Supreme Court nomination- people tend to froth at the mouth whenever there's an opening, no matter what the implications.
As always, keep an eye on the SCOTUSblog in the coming weeks for updates.
May Day
Dug up some stuff on the origins of May Day, here... nothing very spectacular I'm afraid. I do like the fact that while we here in America usually celebrate May Day by leaving each other baskets of candy on doorsteps, ringing the bell and running like hell before someone sees us, pretty much every other worker in the world gets a day off.
Usually to go protest or march, mind you- but they still get a day off. And here's the punch line: the rest of the world (at least the countries that recognize May 1st as International Workers Day) gets a day off to commemorate something that happened here. (Namely, the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago in 1886.)
I want a day off, thank you. I work hard and deserve to celebrate with my fellow workers... but alas, no. I'll trudge to work and continue my demeaning and morally questionable job, just like I always do.
Usually to go protest or march, mind you- but they still get a day off. And here's the punch line: the rest of the world (at least the countries that recognize May 1st as International Workers Day) gets a day off to commemorate something that happened here. (Namely, the Haymarket Massacre in Chicago in 1886.)
I want a day off, thank you. I work hard and deserve to celebrate with my fellow workers... but alas, no. I'll trudge to work and continue my demeaning and morally questionable job, just like I always do.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)