I have spent around twenty hours in the last week or so playing games - tabletops and RPGs., without computers. I played these games with friends and family of various ages. I have been the DM and a player, played competitive and cooperative. I have robbed trains, fought Gondarks, settled worlds, talked in at least three different ridiculous accents, rolled countless dice and played endless cards. I have stretched my brain and imagination, been confused and frustrated, won and lost and laughed my ass off. In short, I have been in the special kind of heaven that is gaming. If you claim to not be "a game player", I really encourage you to get over it. Some reasons why:
- you get to think and engage. Instead of just being given and passively consuming input, you process and respond, hopefully in a thoughtful way. I swear I use more of my brain playing certain games than most areas of my life.
- you get to use your imagination. Making things up, picturing based on basic description, creating characters and their personalities, inventing.
- you get to socialize. Playing games with people engages them in a totally different way, one that in my experience often reveals different sides. And, hey wow, you do it in person with real words and expressions and everything. Go figure!
- it is cross-generational. I got to play in an RPG my son was running, DM a game that my daughter had organized for her friends and get into two tabletops with both peers and kids. With what seems to be an ever-widening generation gap, this is priceless.
- it is fun. All along the spectrum - from simple to complex, basic to strategic, competitive to cooperative, "Sorry" to "Settlers of Catan" - you get to kibbitz and joke and laugh. And laughing is good for you! Actually literally good for your health. And certainly good for the soul.
So put down the phones, turn off the TV and pull out a game or two! I highly recommend it.
Stay tuned for some personal favorites.
Saturday, December 30, 2017
Friday, December 22, 2017
Live list
Time for a list! Long intended and delayed partly because it feels like bragging, let's go with Top Five Live Performances.
I have been extremely fortunate in my opportunities to see live music over the years, getting to see many great acts, big and small and probably have some permanent hearing loss as a result. Since my brother and I got into a mild contest over who had seen more, I actually know who and how many, if not always when and where. It is fitting that I mention Brother Tim in this post as he is heavily responsible for my music tastes, and I will always be thankful for him rescuing me, as a middle schooler, from Captain and Tennille and KC and the Sunshine Band with judicious application of Joni Mitchell and David Bowie. Thanks, bro. Anyway, since we got into it I have at my disposal a list of the shows I've seen and am startled and gratified to see it stands currently at 57 different acts. There is some question as to whether to count acts seen only at festivals or as opening acts, but as I have had to concede defeat with either counting, I am counting everybody. So there. The list covers a fairly eclectic group - from Pat Metheny to Kiss - and runs the range from merely mediocre, Genesis, to the sublime that are listed below. I must say, however, that since I on some level don't really like big concerts - they are just too much work, not to mention heinously expensive - I was fairly picky about who I saw and as a result have very few acts on my list that I didn't enjoy. Before getting to the top five, let's have some honorable mentions.
Loudest: Neil Young and Crazy Horse in the LA Sports Arena. This beats Kiss and Nugent in the Garden (both seen in the summer of '77 by myself no less). My ears rang for a week.
Incongruous: X and The Blasters at Disneyland. Who let "Johnny Hit and Run Pauline and "Sugarlight" be played in Mouseland?
Virtuoso: Toss up between Buddy Rich (in Barnum Hall on the Samohi campus!) and The Dixie Dregs at the Ventura County Theatre.
Venue: The Wiltern Theatre in L.A. - it helped that I saw Robert Palmer from the front freaking row - thanks, Tara!
Festival: toss up between WOMAD (World of Music, Art and Dance, thank you Peter Gabriel) and Foo Fighters 4th of July celebration in 2015.
Weirdest overall experience: Bow Wow Wow at the Palace in Hollywood. Too much to tell.
Standout song: an extended and astonishing "Porch" by Pearl Jam.
Showing Range: Los Lobos as Mexipunk rockers at the Roxy in LA in '90, to a genre defying oldster virtuoso combo at the Bardavon (vintage theatre in Poughkeepsie, runner-up in the venue list) in 2010, to an astonishing collaboration with Ballet Folklorico in 2016.
Amazing opener: Chrissy Hynde for Neil Young. Right? Runner-up Living Colour and Guns n Roses for the Rolling Stones in the LA Coliseum c. 1989.
Delayed Gratification: Police at Saratoga Performing Arts Center in 2008, having surrendered my tickets to what turned out to be their last performance before breaking up in 1984. Whew! Could almost be virtuoso as well thanks to Stewart Copeland.
Best guest spot: during Elton John at the Hollywood Bowl, Eric Clapton showed up. I had seen him a few nights before - also great - but seeing them together was nuts.
Top regrets for missing: Bowie, Zeppelin, the Dead (I know, I know), Prince and Audioslave
Top hoping to still see: Rage and Bruce
But I started this to list my Top 5 Concerts, so without further ado:
U2, Gillette Stadium, 2009 - My wife had seen the lads multiple times, but I was a late convert to them (thank you Pete Townshend for overcoming my allergy to hype) and they had been on my must see list for quite a while when we got the cheapest tickets available - determined despite being hesitant about the huge venue and potential for horrible seats. Then, lo and behold I won a random lottery for a major upgrade complete with pre-show party. Woo-hoo! Now I'm not talking VIP seats here, no first ten rows stuff, but I am actually glad because you needed to be far enough away to take in the multimedia spectacle that was this show. Cutting edge - no pun intended - digital video technology allowed for a screen, if that is even what it could be called, that really was spectacular. It grew, it broke into pieces, it shaded, it . . . I don't even know what half of what it did was. You know how sufficiently advanced technology starts to feel like magic? It was like that. And yet, as is sometime the case with such things, it never quite overshadowed the music and the band. It remained a support and an enhancer, partly due to masterful direction, but mostly due to the prowess and power of the four badasses on stage. But that needs qualifying. Mullen was way better than I ever realized from listening them, Clayton was rock solid and everything a stud bassist needs to be and both were definitely firmly in badass territory, but the show belongs to Bono and The Edge. I find much to be annoyed with Bono about - a lot of people do - but as a front man, a performer, a ringmaster, a singer, a leader? I gotta say he is absolutely the real deal. I've seen some of the greats - Jagger, Daltrey, Vedder - and he belongs in the pantheon. Charismatic and compelling, he really connects and sets the tone, but for my money that band belongs Edge. God, what a presence! Unless he literally stops playing he is the heart, the drive, the mojo, the soul of what they produce. And not for nothing, I have no idea how he does a lot of it. There were multiple time I was convinced there had to be another guitar on stage, but it was just the Edge doing Edge. He is, as described by Townshend, "a giant".
Peter Gabriel, Madison Square Garden, c.2003 - I have already mentioned his prowess as a frontman in a post on this space, but that referenced seeing him at WOMAD - see above - in 1993. And to be fair, part of my putting him in the Top 5 stems from the cumulative effect of seeing him more than once, but this show was special. It was in the round, which allowed all sorts of perspective shifts and creative staging, especially since the ring of the deck spun. The set list was from all over his catalog, and I think he went after every type of visual approach there is. During "Solsbury Hill" the band - featuring the incomparable Tony Levin - the band was placed around numerous set pieces to evoke the feel of a rural British village and Pete rode a bicycle around town while singing. An inverted cone of TV monitors dropped from the ceiling to back-up "The Barry Williams Show". He came out in one of those giant, bouncy hamster balls and performed from inside it, managing to bounce on the beat during "Big Time". And that is just a taste of the intense creativity that went in to the production. I had never seen most of it before and haven't seen any of it since. And the music was even better. "Red Rain" was haunting, "Digging in the Dirt" disturbing, "Blood of Eden" chilling, "Sledgehammer" hysterical, "Kiss That Frog" silly and both "Don't Give Up" and "In Your Eyes" achingly beautiful. He opened and closed solo at the piano, "San Jacinto" and "Here Comes the Flood", and was equally compelling despite the insanely different tones and contexts. I laughed out loud, gaped in wonder, jumped in surprise, sang along and cried my heart out. Gabriel puts his passion on display and you can't help but respond.
Santana, Bardavon Opera House, 2016 - I was very lucky to get these tickets, as the Bardavon only seats about 1,500 but it was their fundraising gala event so as a member was able to get what felt like some of the last ones. This show stands in stark contrast to the Gabriel show as it achieved so much with so little. The lighting was borderline minimalist, the backing video was beautiful but sparse and the band just basically plays. But in the name of all that is sacred, do they play. Oh, and there was this guy on stage named Carlos. I almost hesitate to write about that night because it really feels like trying to express what it was like is just futile. There were so many elements that combined and careened and complemented over and around and through each other that there is no way to explain it. The precision and skill of the musicians, the amazing variety of the songs, the hypnotic rhythms (the rhythm section was insane), the ebb and flow of their extended jams ("Jin-go-bo-la" must have gone 10-12 minutes and never faltered), the reimagining of old standards, the fascinating exchange between the players as they improvised and shared space, just the beauty and majesty of it all. And benevolently present and powerful through it all - sometimes towering above, others seeming to slide inside or following along - but always there and always magic, was Santana. He actually leads the virtuoso list of people I've seen but I didn't mention him above because it would have been so inadequate. People joke about Bowie and Prince being from other planets, but I swear the best way to describe Santana's playing is otherworldly. Itis at the very least transcendent. It reeks of mastery but is somehow still inviting and accessible. The whole experience so flooded me with emotion that I literally didn't want to leave the venue because I knew when I did it would actually be over and the moment lost, and that made me ineffably sad. But the sadness was eventually outweighed by the joy of having experienced it and the feeling that sharing the planet with someone who could do that was enough to bolster my faith in humanity. Crazy, I know but it was that good and that's how I felt.
Neil Young, Anywhere, Ever - I am stretching here a but because I am including Neil on this list despite it not being one specific show but rather a body of work. I have him seen three times if you include the aforementioned ear-splitting set with the Horse. That show had its own charms - and horrors - but for my money the solo stuff is where he really shines. Now by solo I mean both the actual solo show in Wallingford, MA in 2010 - just Neil on stage with like eight instruments - and the band backed set I saw at Hartford meadows in 2000. They had much in common: the reliance on the great music and incredible musicianship rather than production or staging; a spectrum of interpretations of songs ranging from straightforward reproductions to complete reimaginings; and thorough engagement with the audience. But two things really stand out from these shows. The first is the scope of Neil's catalog. In 2000 the show focused much more on his more folk/country/mellow songs in his repertoire (much to the hysterical dismay of the drunken buffoons in front of me expecting the Godfather of grunge) but even at that got all over the place with straight rockers, exploratory jams, country stompers and ballads, and of course the usual and wonderful genre-defiers so characteristic to Neil. "Powderfinger" was amazing, "Harvest Moon" gorgeous and I was so stoked to hear "Tonight's the Night" I nearly fainted. The 2010 true solo (the promotional materials originally billed it as "solo acoustic" but Neil put that to rest quickly - "I said solo, they said acoustic" before busting into a blistering "My My, Hey Hey" on Old Black) show leaned much more on more mainstream, or at least known, stuff, but was no less eclectic for it. This was evident in no small way by Neil moving around the stage from electric guitar to organ, to acoustic, to piano, to steel and back, throwing in harp throughout. "After the Gold Rush" was sweet and sad while "Cortez the Killer" (one of my all time favorites) soared. So the range of what he produces is on display, and amazing, but one of the reasons I put him on this list for body of work is that only one song appeared in both shows. It was "I Believe in You" if you're interested. The other thing that sets him and his performing apart is his passion. I honestly don't understand how he can do it night after night, year after year, with such fervor and intensity. It feels like he is pouring his heart and soul into every song. It produces music that is so powerful, with such force of emotion, that it is sometimes so compelling as to be overwhelming. I find it at various times discomfiting, inspiring, joyful, painful and awesome, but it all springs from his amazing commitment to his music and passion in playing it. And he has been doing it for fifty freaking years. Thanks, Neil.
Queen, The Forum, c.1982 - Then there is Queen. The previous four aren't really ranked, apples and oranges and all that, but this is indisputably number one. Holy hell, what an amazing show! It hadn't really occurred to me until I started this list that this show in many ways combined the best elements of the other shows on this list, but aha! The Queen show had the giant production of U2, the creativity and flamboyance of Peter Gabriel, the prodigal prowess of Santana and the range and passion of Neil. No shit. From a production standpoint you have to put it in the context of 1982 - flashpots, timed lighting effects and a slide show than digital wizardry - but no less mind blowing for its practical nature. I will try to describe the opening number, "Fat Bottomed Girls". The lights dim and the opening harmonies are heard in total darkness. A spot hits Brian May as he spins out the opening guitar part, the rest of the stage still dark and Freddie singing offstage. They reach the first break, the light snaps off, and when they start again a spot on John Deacon is added as the bass part kicks in. Still no Freddie, still no drum kit visible. The lights on Roger Taylor finally come up as he starts the first fill, but you have only a few seconds to process as that fill leads to a huge explosion - figuratively of light but literally of fire - as Freddie Mercury burts strutting on to the stage. It was thirty-five years ago and I still see it in my mind's eye every time I hear that song. That's production. The creativity and range can both be addressed by looking at how their eclectic setlist springs form their insanely diverse catalog. One of the things you have to recognize about Queen is that they have more great songs that you've never heard on the radio than any popular band ever. They were huge - only the Beatles have more Brit top tens han Queen, and their biggest hits were downright gigantic. Everybody knows a lot of Queen songs - "We Will Rock You", "Another One Bites the Dust", "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" but many of those same people have never heard "Year of '39", "I'm in Love with My Car" or "Sweet Lady". And all those songs from all over the map are the songs that allowed to them to rock, swing, serenade, dance, bounce, croon, even headbang in concert. They went nuts. Freddie changed clothes more times than I can remember - the floor length white fur cape over red and white striped leather hotpants does stick in one's memory however - and the band changed gears more than a Grand Prix driver. As for virtuosity, well I maintain that Queen is maybe the most underrated set of musicians in popular music. It has been gratifying to see these guys start to be recognized on various "best ever" lists but I am hear to tell you each one of them can just flat out play. They all got to show off at various points in the show and all more than impressed, but their individual prowess was matched by their tight, tight sound and were just great together. But like Santana, one ruled them all, and this show was all about Freddie Mercury. I obviously haven't seen all the big frontmen and missed some of the oft-considered greats - Plant, Cobain, Morrison, Bruce - but I will always maintain that Freddie is the hands down, no better, show-stopping greatest of all time. Yep, he's the GOAT and am profoundly grateful to have seen him. I can't possibly hope to convey his magnificence or presence or enormity of talent, but also can't imagine anyone surpassing it. To borrow from the man himself, "it's a kind of magic". All hail Freddie and Queen.
I have been extremely fortunate in my opportunities to see live music over the years, getting to see many great acts, big and small and probably have some permanent hearing loss as a result. Since my brother and I got into a mild contest over who had seen more, I actually know who and how many, if not always when and where. It is fitting that I mention Brother Tim in this post as he is heavily responsible for my music tastes, and I will always be thankful for him rescuing me, as a middle schooler, from Captain and Tennille and KC and the Sunshine Band with judicious application of Joni Mitchell and David Bowie. Thanks, bro. Anyway, since we got into it I have at my disposal a list of the shows I've seen and am startled and gratified to see it stands currently at 57 different acts. There is some question as to whether to count acts seen only at festivals or as opening acts, but as I have had to concede defeat with either counting, I am counting everybody. So there. The list covers a fairly eclectic group - from Pat Metheny to Kiss - and runs the range from merely mediocre, Genesis, to the sublime that are listed below. I must say, however, that since I on some level don't really like big concerts - they are just too much work, not to mention heinously expensive - I was fairly picky about who I saw and as a result have very few acts on my list that I didn't enjoy. Before getting to the top five, let's have some honorable mentions.
Loudest: Neil Young and Crazy Horse in the LA Sports Arena. This beats Kiss and Nugent in the Garden (both seen in the summer of '77 by myself no less). My ears rang for a week.
Incongruous: X and The Blasters at Disneyland. Who let "Johnny Hit and Run Pauline and "Sugarlight" be played in Mouseland?
Virtuoso: Toss up between Buddy Rich (in Barnum Hall on the Samohi campus!) and The Dixie Dregs at the Ventura County Theatre.
Venue: The Wiltern Theatre in L.A. - it helped that I saw Robert Palmer from the front freaking row - thanks, Tara!
Festival: toss up between WOMAD (World of Music, Art and Dance, thank you Peter Gabriel) and Foo Fighters 4th of July celebration in 2015.
Weirdest overall experience: Bow Wow Wow at the Palace in Hollywood. Too much to tell.
Standout song: an extended and astonishing "Porch" by Pearl Jam.
Showing Range: Los Lobos as Mexipunk rockers at the Roxy in LA in '90, to a genre defying oldster virtuoso combo at the Bardavon (vintage theatre in Poughkeepsie, runner-up in the venue list) in 2010, to an astonishing collaboration with Ballet Folklorico in 2016.
Amazing opener: Chrissy Hynde for Neil Young. Right? Runner-up Living Colour and Guns n Roses for the Rolling Stones in the LA Coliseum c. 1989.
Delayed Gratification: Police at Saratoga Performing Arts Center in 2008, having surrendered my tickets to what turned out to be their last performance before breaking up in 1984. Whew! Could almost be virtuoso as well thanks to Stewart Copeland.
Best guest spot: during Elton John at the Hollywood Bowl, Eric Clapton showed up. I had seen him a few nights before - also great - but seeing them together was nuts.
Top regrets for missing: Bowie, Zeppelin, the Dead (I know, I know), Prince and Audioslave
Top hoping to still see: Rage and Bruce
But I started this to list my Top 5 Concerts, so without further ado:
U2, Gillette Stadium, 2009 - My wife had seen the lads multiple times, but I was a late convert to them (thank you Pete Townshend for overcoming my allergy to hype) and they had been on my must see list for quite a while when we got the cheapest tickets available - determined despite being hesitant about the huge venue and potential for horrible seats. Then, lo and behold I won a random lottery for a major upgrade complete with pre-show party. Woo-hoo! Now I'm not talking VIP seats here, no first ten rows stuff, but I am actually glad because you needed to be far enough away to take in the multimedia spectacle that was this show. Cutting edge - no pun intended - digital video technology allowed for a screen, if that is even what it could be called, that really was spectacular. It grew, it broke into pieces, it shaded, it . . . I don't even know what half of what it did was. You know how sufficiently advanced technology starts to feel like magic? It was like that. And yet, as is sometime the case with such things, it never quite overshadowed the music and the band. It remained a support and an enhancer, partly due to masterful direction, but mostly due to the prowess and power of the four badasses on stage. But that needs qualifying. Mullen was way better than I ever realized from listening them, Clayton was rock solid and everything a stud bassist needs to be and both were definitely firmly in badass territory, but the show belongs to Bono and The Edge. I find much to be annoyed with Bono about - a lot of people do - but as a front man, a performer, a ringmaster, a singer, a leader? I gotta say he is absolutely the real deal. I've seen some of the greats - Jagger, Daltrey, Vedder - and he belongs in the pantheon. Charismatic and compelling, he really connects and sets the tone, but for my money that band belongs Edge. God, what a presence! Unless he literally stops playing he is the heart, the drive, the mojo, the soul of what they produce. And not for nothing, I have no idea how he does a lot of it. There were multiple time I was convinced there had to be another guitar on stage, but it was just the Edge doing Edge. He is, as described by Townshend, "a giant".
Peter Gabriel, Madison Square Garden, c.2003 - I have already mentioned his prowess as a frontman in a post on this space, but that referenced seeing him at WOMAD - see above - in 1993. And to be fair, part of my putting him in the Top 5 stems from the cumulative effect of seeing him more than once, but this show was special. It was in the round, which allowed all sorts of perspective shifts and creative staging, especially since the ring of the deck spun. The set list was from all over his catalog, and I think he went after every type of visual approach there is. During "Solsbury Hill" the band - featuring the incomparable Tony Levin - the band was placed around numerous set pieces to evoke the feel of a rural British village and Pete rode a bicycle around town while singing. An inverted cone of TV monitors dropped from the ceiling to back-up "The Barry Williams Show". He came out in one of those giant, bouncy hamster balls and performed from inside it, managing to bounce on the beat during "Big Time". And that is just a taste of the intense creativity that went in to the production. I had never seen most of it before and haven't seen any of it since. And the music was even better. "Red Rain" was haunting, "Digging in the Dirt" disturbing, "Blood of Eden" chilling, "Sledgehammer" hysterical, "Kiss That Frog" silly and both "Don't Give Up" and "In Your Eyes" achingly beautiful. He opened and closed solo at the piano, "San Jacinto" and "Here Comes the Flood", and was equally compelling despite the insanely different tones and contexts. I laughed out loud, gaped in wonder, jumped in surprise, sang along and cried my heart out. Gabriel puts his passion on display and you can't help but respond.
Santana, Bardavon Opera House, 2016 - I was very lucky to get these tickets, as the Bardavon only seats about 1,500 but it was their fundraising gala event so as a member was able to get what felt like some of the last ones. This show stands in stark contrast to the Gabriel show as it achieved so much with so little. The lighting was borderline minimalist, the backing video was beautiful but sparse and the band just basically plays. But in the name of all that is sacred, do they play. Oh, and there was this guy on stage named Carlos. I almost hesitate to write about that night because it really feels like trying to express what it was like is just futile. There were so many elements that combined and careened and complemented over and around and through each other that there is no way to explain it. The precision and skill of the musicians, the amazing variety of the songs, the hypnotic rhythms (the rhythm section was insane), the ebb and flow of their extended jams ("Jin-go-bo-la" must have gone 10-12 minutes and never faltered), the reimagining of old standards, the fascinating exchange between the players as they improvised and shared space, just the beauty and majesty of it all. And benevolently present and powerful through it all - sometimes towering above, others seeming to slide inside or following along - but always there and always magic, was Santana. He actually leads the virtuoso list of people I've seen but I didn't mention him above because it would have been so inadequate. People joke about Bowie and Prince being from other planets, but I swear the best way to describe Santana's playing is otherworldly. Itis at the very least transcendent. It reeks of mastery but is somehow still inviting and accessible. The whole experience so flooded me with emotion that I literally didn't want to leave the venue because I knew when I did it would actually be over and the moment lost, and that made me ineffably sad. But the sadness was eventually outweighed by the joy of having experienced it and the feeling that sharing the planet with someone who could do that was enough to bolster my faith in humanity. Crazy, I know but it was that good and that's how I felt.
Neil Young, Anywhere, Ever - I am stretching here a but because I am including Neil on this list despite it not being one specific show but rather a body of work. I have him seen three times if you include the aforementioned ear-splitting set with the Horse. That show had its own charms - and horrors - but for my money the solo stuff is where he really shines. Now by solo I mean both the actual solo show in Wallingford, MA in 2010 - just Neil on stage with like eight instruments - and the band backed set I saw at Hartford meadows in 2000. They had much in common: the reliance on the great music and incredible musicianship rather than production or staging; a spectrum of interpretations of songs ranging from straightforward reproductions to complete reimaginings; and thorough engagement with the audience. But two things really stand out from these shows. The first is the scope of Neil's catalog. In 2000 the show focused much more on his more folk/country/mellow songs in his repertoire (much to the hysterical dismay of the drunken buffoons in front of me expecting the Godfather of grunge) but even at that got all over the place with straight rockers, exploratory jams, country stompers and ballads, and of course the usual and wonderful genre-defiers so characteristic to Neil. "Powderfinger" was amazing, "Harvest Moon" gorgeous and I was so stoked to hear "Tonight's the Night" I nearly fainted. The 2010 true solo (the promotional materials originally billed it as "solo acoustic" but Neil put that to rest quickly - "I said solo, they said acoustic" before busting into a blistering "My My, Hey Hey" on Old Black) show leaned much more on more mainstream, or at least known, stuff, but was no less eclectic for it. This was evident in no small way by Neil moving around the stage from electric guitar to organ, to acoustic, to piano, to steel and back, throwing in harp throughout. "After the Gold Rush" was sweet and sad while "Cortez the Killer" (one of my all time favorites) soared. So the range of what he produces is on display, and amazing, but one of the reasons I put him on this list for body of work is that only one song appeared in both shows. It was "I Believe in You" if you're interested. The other thing that sets him and his performing apart is his passion. I honestly don't understand how he can do it night after night, year after year, with such fervor and intensity. It feels like he is pouring his heart and soul into every song. It produces music that is so powerful, with such force of emotion, that it is sometimes so compelling as to be overwhelming. I find it at various times discomfiting, inspiring, joyful, painful and awesome, but it all springs from his amazing commitment to his music and passion in playing it. And he has been doing it for fifty freaking years. Thanks, Neil.
Queen, The Forum, c.1982 - Then there is Queen. The previous four aren't really ranked, apples and oranges and all that, but this is indisputably number one. Holy hell, what an amazing show! It hadn't really occurred to me until I started this list that this show in many ways combined the best elements of the other shows on this list, but aha! The Queen show had the giant production of U2, the creativity and flamboyance of Peter Gabriel, the prodigal prowess of Santana and the range and passion of Neil. No shit. From a production standpoint you have to put it in the context of 1982 - flashpots, timed lighting effects and a slide show than digital wizardry - but no less mind blowing for its practical nature. I will try to describe the opening number, "Fat Bottomed Girls". The lights dim and the opening harmonies are heard in total darkness. A spot hits Brian May as he spins out the opening guitar part, the rest of the stage still dark and Freddie singing offstage. They reach the first break, the light snaps off, and when they start again a spot on John Deacon is added as the bass part kicks in. Still no Freddie, still no drum kit visible. The lights on Roger Taylor finally come up as he starts the first fill, but you have only a few seconds to process as that fill leads to a huge explosion - figuratively of light but literally of fire - as Freddie Mercury burts strutting on to the stage. It was thirty-five years ago and I still see it in my mind's eye every time I hear that song. That's production. The creativity and range can both be addressed by looking at how their eclectic setlist springs form their insanely diverse catalog. One of the things you have to recognize about Queen is that they have more great songs that you've never heard on the radio than any popular band ever. They were huge - only the Beatles have more Brit top tens han Queen, and their biggest hits were downright gigantic. Everybody knows a lot of Queen songs - "We Will Rock You", "Another One Bites the Dust", "Crazy Little Thing Called Love" but many of those same people have never heard "Year of '39", "I'm in Love with My Car" or "Sweet Lady". And all those songs from all over the map are the songs that allowed to them to rock, swing, serenade, dance, bounce, croon, even headbang in concert. They went nuts. Freddie changed clothes more times than I can remember - the floor length white fur cape over red and white striped leather hotpants does stick in one's memory however - and the band changed gears more than a Grand Prix driver. As for virtuosity, well I maintain that Queen is maybe the most underrated set of musicians in popular music. It has been gratifying to see these guys start to be recognized on various "best ever" lists but I am hear to tell you each one of them can just flat out play. They all got to show off at various points in the show and all more than impressed, but their individual prowess was matched by their tight, tight sound and were just great together. But like Santana, one ruled them all, and this show was all about Freddie Mercury. I obviously haven't seen all the big frontmen and missed some of the oft-considered greats - Plant, Cobain, Morrison, Bruce - but I will always maintain that Freddie is the hands down, no better, show-stopping greatest of all time. Yep, he's the GOAT and am profoundly grateful to have seen him. I can't possibly hope to convey his magnificence or presence or enormity of talent, but also can't imagine anyone surpassing it. To borrow from the man himself, "it's a kind of magic". All hail Freddie and Queen.
Wednesday, December 20, 2017
Regression for the meanest
Looks like they pulled it off. Congratulations, Republicans, you got a significant piece of legislation passed! It only took a little over a year and it is wildly unpopular, but good for you, you fuckers. And now Trumpty Dumpty can crow over how great he is and how much he is accomplishing. Oh, wait, he was doing that already. Let's celebrate with the greatest hits of the "Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017".
- I already mentioned the wildly unpopular part, but it actually set a record of sorts - the least popular bill of the last 30 years, with only 26% of Americans supported - so more kudos to you GOP. It has been unpopular for months, but get this: they actually made it worse in response to polling. The version that gave only 65% of the breaks to the richest .1 percent had 39% support. That wasn't bad enough so they managed to get that 65% up to 83% so even more people could be unhappy. Impressive.
- they are passing it in the face of public dissent because . . . well, we don't really know why. Don't care? Are actively trying to hurt the working class? They're mean? They're greedy? Probably all of the above and more, but it is impressive that they are not only flying in the face of public opinion but quickly and recklessly before they can be stopped. They know it is awful, they know people hate it, so better hurry! No one knows what is in it or just how bad it is, but that is for certain is that the people who will benefit from poorly constructed and confusing are those who can pay people to find the loopholes.
- one reason they are passing it, and quickly, is as a ransom payment to their donors. Most Republicans get the bulk of their funding from big ticket donors and those donors made it clear that if they didn't get the tax breaks they were promised those donations would dry up. So stop to consider this little loop: you make sure we make more money or we won't give you more of the money you made sure we got to make more of . . . my head hurts. They need that money coming in for the midterms.
- despite their claims that this horror show of a bill is intended to benefit the middle class - an out and out lie, remember the 85% - it isn't about the middle class at all, or the lower class or upper class for that matter, but the donor class. You know the donor class, the richest of the very rich (even among the super wealthy there is class distinction with the top three families being worth more than the next 20 combined) who are the biggest donors. They are the ones who benefit the most, which means, follow the breadcrumbs here, that this tax plan is being stuffed down our throats for literally seven or eight families. They're the families you love to hate like the Kochs and Waltons.
- the so-called deficit hawks, some of whom literally vowed they would "never support a bill that added even a penny" to the deficit - I'm looking at you Bob Corker - are now perfectly okay with the projections of adding at least 1.5 trillion dollars (some are over 2 trillion) to very same deficit. That's a looooooot of pennies, Bob.
- much of this deficit will come from having lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 to 24 per cent, the largest cut ever (another record!), but there are some nice specific tidbits that serve specific people with lots of money. The real estate provision that lets rich property owners (like Prima Donald) pay less tax is a pretty small piece by some standards, but is responsible for $450 million of that $1.5T. How do they justify this? By claiming that those corporations and "job creators" will pass those benefits on to their workers - good ol' trickle down economics - even as said corporations publicly state they they aren't gonna do that. Oh, and unlike the things that do actually benefit the middle class that expire in five or ten years, those cuts are permanent.
- which reminds me, the projections say that after all the piddly shit like the child credit and SALT revisions go away (sorry, those pieces are significant for many and I shouldn't dismiss them, but when you compare them to the six-figure breaks it means for the wealthy piddly shit is about right) a whopping 62% of American will experience an overall tax increase. And guess which 62? The evil genius of this is that since a bunch of folks who need it really badly will see a little bit of money (or a least a smaller bite of the paycheck) in the next couple of years they will think it is great. But only because we are poorly informed and have short attention spans.
- and for the list within a list, how about the heinous shit that is also in the bill that has fuck all to do with taxes: the removal of the ACA's individual mandate, which will in fact help pay for the tax breaks (the rich literally benefiting from the suffering of the poor) but end with 13 million people losing their health insurance; opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration, this one helping pay for tax breaks by sacrificing natural resources; changing language that describes the uses of tax-free college savings accounts, going for "child in utero" to "unborn child", so while you save money for your future children - you always could - you can support the anti-abortion crowd as well; and just so the religious right doesn't feel left out, a repeal of the Johnson amendment, prohibiting non-profit groups like churches from engaging in political activism. Now your megachurches - guess who they support? - can use their untaxed money to support candidates and preach for the party. Should these things have been examined and debated and voted on as stand-alone issues? Sure, but then people might object and we know how that works out. Or not, since they have displayed a staggering disregard for what we think.
- it is also worth stopping to consider that, despite our poor recent voting record indicating the opposite, conventional wisdom dictates that they are dooming themselves to massive backlash in coming elections by passing stuff people hate. So they're mean and stupid. But they're doing it!
And maybe that is the proverbial silver lining. They don't listen to our input, they act in direct opposition to our best interests and do it blatantly - you almost have to admire such shamelessness - and they pat each other on the back for screwing us. But they might just act reprehensibly enough that we will get off our asses to hand them theirs. Here's hoping. But they're still fuckers.
12/21 Update - I touched in but should have spent more time talking about the rush to pass this POS - only seven weeks and things literally being scribbled in the margins after it left committee - but as more and more comes out about just how bad it is I found a piece in the NYT today especially apropos. It is very dense and if you start clicking on links you might never come out, but I highly recommend reading it here. This is beyond any measure of irresponsible or reprehensible and should be labeled as a crime against the American people.
- I already mentioned the wildly unpopular part, but it actually set a record of sorts - the least popular bill of the last 30 years, with only 26% of Americans supported - so more kudos to you GOP. It has been unpopular for months, but get this: they actually made it worse in response to polling. The version that gave only 65% of the breaks to the richest .1 percent had 39% support. That wasn't bad enough so they managed to get that 65% up to 83% so even more people could be unhappy. Impressive.
- they are passing it in the face of public dissent because . . . well, we don't really know why. Don't care? Are actively trying to hurt the working class? They're mean? They're greedy? Probably all of the above and more, but it is impressive that they are not only flying in the face of public opinion but quickly and recklessly before they can be stopped. They know it is awful, they know people hate it, so better hurry! No one knows what is in it or just how bad it is, but that is for certain is that the people who will benefit from poorly constructed and confusing are those who can pay people to find the loopholes.
- one reason they are passing it, and quickly, is as a ransom payment to their donors. Most Republicans get the bulk of their funding from big ticket donors and those donors made it clear that if they didn't get the tax breaks they were promised those donations would dry up. So stop to consider this little loop: you make sure we make more money or we won't give you more of the money you made sure we got to make more of . . . my head hurts. They need that money coming in for the midterms.
- despite their claims that this horror show of a bill is intended to benefit the middle class - an out and out lie, remember the 85% - it isn't about the middle class at all, or the lower class or upper class for that matter, but the donor class. You know the donor class, the richest of the very rich (even among the super wealthy there is class distinction with the top three families being worth more than the next 20 combined) who are the biggest donors. They are the ones who benefit the most, which means, follow the breadcrumbs here, that this tax plan is being stuffed down our throats for literally seven or eight families. They're the families you love to hate like the Kochs and Waltons.
- the so-called deficit hawks, some of whom literally vowed they would "never support a bill that added even a penny" to the deficit - I'm looking at you Bob Corker - are now perfectly okay with the projections of adding at least 1.5 trillion dollars (some are over 2 trillion) to very same deficit. That's a looooooot of pennies, Bob.
- much of this deficit will come from having lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 to 24 per cent, the largest cut ever (another record!), but there are some nice specific tidbits that serve specific people with lots of money. The real estate provision that lets rich property owners (like Prima Donald) pay less tax is a pretty small piece by some standards, but is responsible for $450 million of that $1.5T. How do they justify this? By claiming that those corporations and "job creators" will pass those benefits on to their workers - good ol' trickle down economics - even as said corporations publicly state they they aren't gonna do that. Oh, and unlike the things that do actually benefit the middle class that expire in five or ten years, those cuts are permanent.
- which reminds me, the projections say that after all the piddly shit like the child credit and SALT revisions go away (sorry, those pieces are significant for many and I shouldn't dismiss them, but when you compare them to the six-figure breaks it means for the wealthy piddly shit is about right) a whopping 62% of American will experience an overall tax increase. And guess which 62? The evil genius of this is that since a bunch of folks who need it really badly will see a little bit of money (or a least a smaller bite of the paycheck) in the next couple of years they will think it is great. But only because we are poorly informed and have short attention spans.
- and for the list within a list, how about the heinous shit that is also in the bill that has fuck all to do with taxes: the removal of the ACA's individual mandate, which will in fact help pay for the tax breaks (the rich literally benefiting from the suffering of the poor) but end with 13 million people losing their health insurance; opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration, this one helping pay for tax breaks by sacrificing natural resources; changing language that describes the uses of tax-free college savings accounts, going for "child in utero" to "unborn child", so while you save money for your future children - you always could - you can support the anti-abortion crowd as well; and just so the religious right doesn't feel left out, a repeal of the Johnson amendment, prohibiting non-profit groups like churches from engaging in political activism. Now your megachurches - guess who they support? - can use their untaxed money to support candidates and preach for the party. Should these things have been examined and debated and voted on as stand-alone issues? Sure, but then people might object and we know how that works out. Or not, since they have displayed a staggering disregard for what we think.
- it is also worth stopping to consider that, despite our poor recent voting record indicating the opposite, conventional wisdom dictates that they are dooming themselves to massive backlash in coming elections by passing stuff people hate. So they're mean and stupid. But they're doing it!
And maybe that is the proverbial silver lining. They don't listen to our input, they act in direct opposition to our best interests and do it blatantly - you almost have to admire such shamelessness - and they pat each other on the back for screwing us. But they might just act reprehensibly enough that we will get off our asses to hand them theirs. Here's hoping. But they're still fuckers.
12/21 Update - I touched in but should have spent more time talking about the rush to pass this POS - only seven weeks and things literally being scribbled in the margins after it left committee - but as more and more comes out about just how bad it is I found a piece in the NYT today especially apropos. It is very dense and if you start clicking on links you might never come out, but I highly recommend reading it here. This is beyond any measure of irresponsible or reprehensible and should be labeled as a crime against the American people.
Tuesday, December 19, 2017
For the Love of Hamilton, Act I
"I'm past patiently waitin'. I'm passionately
smashing every expectation,
Every action's an act of creation!
I'm laughin' in the face of casualties and sorrow,
For the first time I'm thinkin' past tomorrow."
Those are the words that shook off the vestiges of my resistance and led to what became a probably unhealthy obsession with "Hamilton". There has been a predictably massive amount of coverage of this phenomenon of American musical theatre, much of it from people way more knowledgeable than me, so this will be less review than love letter.
My kids, being both smarter and more clued in to new stuff than I am, had been listening to and raving about the new "hip hop Broadway show" for months but I defaulted to my aversion to hype and actively ignored. They are also hard-core theatre geeks and knew what Lin-Manuel Miranda was capable of thanks to "In the Heights" so had been playing it pretty constantly, while encouraging me - pleading with me - to give it a listen. I had heard bits and pieces of it of course, not being completely clueless, but it hadn't grabbed me as I have to pay fairly close attention to hip hop and rap to separate what feels like small amounts of wheat from immense amounts of chaff. It's not a judgement thing, I just don't have a discerning ear because I haven't heard enough. In what had by this time become an almost constant onslaught, I began to tune in almost despite myself and started hearing things that caught my attention: the quick, sharp one-off laugh lines; the incredibly beautiful voices and harmonies of the Schuyler sisters; the exuberance of Hercules and Lafayette; and the myriad mix of styles and sounds somehow fitting together. So I started to listen and finally actually heard.
The third number of the show, "My Shot" is many, many things. It covers a staggering amount of exposition, introduces three important characters and establishes tone while also teeing up Hamilton for his first big moment. The lines above come at the end of a fast, dense and complicated rap whose structure and technical precision is outdone only by its passion and beauty. Those lines got through in and knocked me over and when I finally fell I went over the brink of obsession into the abyss.
I listened to it a lot, and by a lot I mean all the time. It was the only thing that came out of the speakers of my car for probably three months, but since I don't often spend more than 15-20 minutes in my car, that wasn't cutiin' it. If I had 90 minutes free, I'd listen to act one, only an hour, act two. If I didn't have chunks that big I would cherry pick the songs I was trying to learn. Yes, because thanks to the Hamiltome (a great book about the history and development of the show and most of the people involved that also included all the lyrics with many footnotes from Lin) and Genius I was dissecting the words. I sought out analysis, criticism and commentary and clung to every word from any of the principles. I became what I thought at the time was a hardcore (turns out not even close) "Hamilton" geek by basically doing what I usually do when something spins my beanie, just to an rarely seen extreme. And I flat-out just fucking loved it!
Wow, wow, wowie wow! The more I dug the more I was blown away, and on so many levels. I was fascinated by the its intense intellectuality, packing history and biography into a remarkably economical format. I was overwhelmed by the great variety of its inspiration, influences and references. I was astonished by its poetry, beautiful use of language and spectacular range of emotion. I was flabbergasted by its accomplished and polished musical prowess. And I was moved. The passion and emotion that is packed into this show is truly extraordinary. Laugh, cringe, reel, wonder and weep - it will make you feel. It all combined to convince me I found myself in the presence of true greatness.
There are many elements to examine in the contemplation of any great piece of musical theatre: music, book, choreography, design and impact to name only some. So since I firmly and deeply believe that "Hamilton" belongs among the all-time greats, and should be mentioned in the same breath as "West Side Story" and "A Chorus Line", I want to take the time to explore those elements with a thoroughness to justify my opinion and to pay it the homage it so richly deserves. This is a labor of love that I do not want to rush. Stay tuned.
Monday, December 18, 2017
Representation
"Taxation without representation". We all know the phrase, or did, as we were taught it as one of the cornerstones of the American revolution. I find it semi-ironic that one of the things that got everyone fired up was an economic gripe when we so many of our current problems are directly related to inequality and the insane policies being enacted in the name of unfettered immoral greed, the all-holy capitalism. But that is a post for another day.
But how about "representation without representation"? As in elected officials, namely Congress, that just flat-out refuse to act on behalf of the people that they were actually and literally put there to defend the interests of. Hell, for most of them it is in their job title, for fuck's sake. (Okay, so technically they do represent someone's interest, but it usually a select few that will somehow profit. There's that capitalism thing again! Damn, it really is hard to get around, but still not what I'm talking about.) And yet they frequently act in direct opposition to their constituents' wishes. I am carefully drawing distinction between wishes and best interests here since said constituents so often vote against said best interests and thus deserve what they get. Hmm, it is really proving difficult to get to my point here, which is point out very specific instances of our elected officials giving us the middle finger by enacting legislation that is in direct opposition to what we say we want. Which is actually partially our fault because we say we want x, but are too stupid to recognize that we are actually actively promoting and supporting y. Gaaaah! Distracted and confused again! My point, in escalating examples:
- the Republican tax plan about to probably be passed - aside from being a horrorshow designed (if anything so haphazardly constructed can be said to have been designed) to actually increase inequality, is highly unpopular with only 29% in favor and 53% "actively opposed". This is predictably skewed along party lines (only 6% of Democrats approve vs 67% of Republicans) but those pesky independents only support at a pretty dismal 25%. Will this tip the scales against the giant money and pressure being brought to bear the by those (corporations and the wealthy) who stand to benefit the most from the plan? How say you Representative Chris Collins (R-NY): "My donors are basically saying 'Get it done or don't ever call me again'".
- 83% of people disagree with the FCC revocation of net neutrality. Okay, so this was done by a committee of appointees, so maybe doesn't belong here, but they were appointed by elected folks so I think it still qualifies. In any event, if 4 out of 5 people are saying "please don't do this, I think it is a bad idea" why is it still going down? Maybe it had something to do with the millions of false comments that were used to post support during the public comment period. I wonder who paid for that? There is hope on this one, however faint, as something like 19 attorneys general are suing the FCC - take that, Ajit Pai, you $#*&@ - but again, I digress.
- after one of our recent mass shootings (if I stop to consider with any depth how horrific that statement is and that it is even possible I will curl up in a ball and never get anything done, so let's just move on) public polling, all of it, indicated that the vast and overwhelming and majority of Americans favored enacting stricter gun control measures, with usually around ninety freaking per cent in favor of universal background checks. 90%! Yet when such a piece of legislation was put forth, it never even got out of committee. This, of course, saved our distinguished representatives from actually having to cast any votes against something that essentially everyone wants, which raises spinelessness to new levels. Wishes, best interests or whatever, we ain't being served.
These are only a few of the endless examples of this disturbing trend. Maybe is is time update more of the ideals from our revolutionary roots. "Join or Die" is a little dark. "We the People" is pithy but kind of passe. We could update "Don't Tread on Me" to "Don't Fuck With Us", but that would probably appeal to the Dolt45's minions. I personally like "Take Notice".
But how about "representation without representation"? As in elected officials, namely Congress, that just flat-out refuse to act on behalf of the people that they were actually and literally put there to defend the interests of. Hell, for most of them it is in their job title, for fuck's sake. (Okay, so technically they do represent someone's interest, but it usually a select few that will somehow profit. There's that capitalism thing again! Damn, it really is hard to get around, but still not what I'm talking about.) And yet they frequently act in direct opposition to their constituents' wishes. I am carefully drawing distinction between wishes and best interests here since said constituents so often vote against said best interests and thus deserve what they get. Hmm, it is really proving difficult to get to my point here, which is point out very specific instances of our elected officials giving us the middle finger by enacting legislation that is in direct opposition to what we say we want. Which is actually partially our fault because we say we want x, but are too stupid to recognize that we are actually actively promoting and supporting y. Gaaaah! Distracted and confused again! My point, in escalating examples:
- the Republican tax plan about to probably be passed - aside from being a horrorshow designed (if anything so haphazardly constructed can be said to have been designed) to actually increase inequality, is highly unpopular with only 29% in favor and 53% "actively opposed". This is predictably skewed along party lines (only 6% of Democrats approve vs 67% of Republicans) but those pesky independents only support at a pretty dismal 25%. Will this tip the scales against the giant money and pressure being brought to bear the by those (corporations and the wealthy) who stand to benefit the most from the plan? How say you Representative Chris Collins (R-NY): "My donors are basically saying 'Get it done or don't ever call me again'".
- 83% of people disagree with the FCC revocation of net neutrality. Okay, so this was done by a committee of appointees, so maybe doesn't belong here, but they were appointed by elected folks so I think it still qualifies. In any event, if 4 out of 5 people are saying "please don't do this, I think it is a bad idea" why is it still going down? Maybe it had something to do with the millions of false comments that were used to post support during the public comment period. I wonder who paid for that? There is hope on this one, however faint, as something like 19 attorneys general are suing the FCC - take that, Ajit Pai, you $#*&@ - but again, I digress.
- after one of our recent mass shootings (if I stop to consider with any depth how horrific that statement is and that it is even possible I will curl up in a ball and never get anything done, so let's just move on) public polling, all of it, indicated that the vast and overwhelming and majority of Americans favored enacting stricter gun control measures, with usually around ninety freaking per cent in favor of universal background checks. 90%! Yet when such a piece of legislation was put forth, it never even got out of committee. This, of course, saved our distinguished representatives from actually having to cast any votes against something that essentially everyone wants, which raises spinelessness to new levels. Wishes, best interests or whatever, we ain't being served.
These are only a few of the endless examples of this disturbing trend. Maybe is is time update more of the ideals from our revolutionary roots. "Join or Die" is a little dark. "We the People" is pithy but kind of passe. We could update "Don't Tread on Me" to "Don't Fuck With Us", but that would probably appeal to the Dolt45's minions. I personally like "Take Notice".
Saturday, December 16, 2017
So many movies
It is readily apparent from previous posts that I really like movies. I think we are in a remarkable period of filmmaking based only on the idea that I feel like there are waaay more movies I want to see than it is even remotely possible to see. Critics are apparently feeling the same way as no one seems to be able to do any kind of "best of" list that can be managed. Speaking of lists, it seemed like a good time to play a little catchup. I've seen a bunch of movies during my time away from this space, so why not make a list? This was interesting for me as it underlined how, without any kind of parameters or categories, hard it is to curate such a massive list. But that becomes a parameter of its own: the ones that stuck out, without any particular rhyme or reason as to why. There is certainly some commonality in their selection, but also randomness. Some of these are unheralded gems, others critically acclaimed or box office smashes so won't be surprises. I did group them by year - I had to have some way of reminding myself what I had seen and loved beside just my own faulty memory - but beyond that it is just me likey. A caveat: all criticism boils down in the end to opinion, and mine is no more informed than many others. I know just enough about cinema to know that I don't know shit. But I know what I like - and after some thousands of movies, a fascination with their creation and a semi-serious attempt at understanding them - am starting to know why. Which just makes me want to see more! Did I mention I really like movies?
2013
The Way Way Back - Charming and fun but with surprising heft, featuring the always great Sam Rockwell, this coming-of-age is lovely.
Under the Skin - Jonathan Glazer (who also did the insanely good Sexy Beast) directs Scarlett Johansson in one of the most fucked-up movies I've seen in a long time, in the best possible way. My wife and daughter came home during the last five minutes of this movie and I made them leave me alone while I sat on the edge of the couch basically freaking out. Unreal and amazing with some outlandish techniques, it blew my mind. If you know what it means, let me know
Locke - A one man film with an astounding Tom Hardy (I think one of the very best working right now) talking on his car phone for 80 minutes, it is more theatre than film while using film to great advantage. If you like it look up how they shot it. Wow.
Fruitvale Station - Speaking of astounding, Michael B. Jordan gives a tour de force in this small, heartbreaking and amazing film. Not for nothing Jordan and the director, Ryan Coogler, reunited for Creed and the upcoming Black Panther. I am going to pat myself on the back for remarking that Jordan was a rockstar and one to watch back in 2009, even though others spotted him as a teen phenom in The Wire. This move is a must-see.
Others: Gravity, 12 Years a Slave, American Hustle, Dallas Buyers Club
2014 - I apparently didn't work as hard to get out the mainstream this year as many of my faves were big and popular. Slacker. In any event . . .
Inherent Vice - Paul Thomas Anderson meets Thomas Pynchon - what can you do? Make a twisted but compelling movie that kind of sticks to your feet as you leave the theatre. Sharp Joaquin Phoenix and unexpected Josh Brolin.
Snowpiercer - A wonderful entrant in the new golden age of science fiction filmmaking, this movie has such visual impact it can be easy to miss a great premise, taut script and tidy performances. Very cool. Haven't gotten to director Joon-ho Bong's Okja yet but am desperate to.
Whiplash - This got so much buzz, and an Oscar for the great J.K. Simmons, that it is no surprise here but I had to include it because it had such a profound effect on me. As an educator this film disturbs and provokes me, but I tend to love that. It also, maybe unfortunately, is on the "Great Movies You Only See Once Because They're Too Hard To Watch" list.
Big Hero 6 - I know, Best Animated Feature, who the hell am I, etc. See disclaimer above. I just freakin' LOVED this movie and think it is one of the better non-Pixar efforts from The Mouse in quite a while. And hilarious!
Others: Birdman, Guardians, Interstellar and Imitation Game
2015
Sicario - This film is just loaded. Denis Villeneuve directs a Taylor Sheridan script with Josh Brolin and Emily Blunt doing work. Add one of my very favorite actors in one of those small-but-huge roles - Benicio Del Toro as Alejandro - and you get a tight, tight film with great punch and nice moral ambiguity. Yum.
Ex Machina - Hooray for more sci-fi, this one is by turns simple and obscure, subtle and broad, silly and psycho, but always beautiful and ultimately very satisfying. This one is fun to talk about after - lots of room for "but, but . . .".
Creed - Honestly probably would have bothered if not for Jordan and Coogler. Kinda done, ya know? But yay! Injected with new life and a weirdly - as it was so predictable - satisfying turn of story, I enjoyed the hell out of this flick. And what the hell, Sly?! I've always admired him as a great self-made and -aware success story, but I didn't expect to admire and enjoy a performance so much.
Mad Max: Fury Road - This was probably my favorite movie of the year. I ranted about tis movie to anyone who would listen for weeks, did an offensive amount of finger-wagging and I-told-you-soing when it got its best Picture nom, and still insist on its inclusion on any list of greatest action films - ever. Things that blew my mind: the vast majority of the action in the film is practical! (apparently when George Miller found out what was now possible with mounted camera rigs - I'm told they took him out in the desert and blew his mind - he re-worked the whole script); the level of madness and mayhem produced without resorting to digital fakery is off the bloody charts and at times defies belief; the choreography of the action - and the great Max v. Furiosa fight scene - is so insane it should overwhelming but is somehow not thanks to extraordinary editing (apparently they distilled over a thousand hours of action footage); it is beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, the palette at once minimalist and shocking; and the push and pull of the pace and tempo is masterful. And then here are the performances. Charlize Theron demands attention, somehow having motivation without backstory, and electrifies with her presence and physicality. Hardy (see above) does more with less than any performance I've seen in a long time. Max obviously has a well-established history, but Hardy gets him to another place with almost no dialogue and a degree of subtlety that stands in contrast to the setting and arc of the film. But for me the standout is Nicholas Hoult as Nux. Different and powerful, his performance is manic but meaningful, terrifying and tender. It is so good it is easy to miss. Hmm. I. Loved. This. Movie. Can you tell?
Others: Straight Outta Compton, Ant-Man, Martian
2016
Kubo and the Two Strings - This film moved me in many ways, driven by a great story that doesn't follow predictable patterns and some interesting and lovable characters. It is sweet and sad, but more than anything is just stunningly, achingly beautiful. Some of the frames are Fantasia-level gorgeous and it is evocative without being derivative, no mean feat.
The Nice Guys - Shane Black has been cranking out big scripts for a long time - he wrote Lethal Weapon 30 years ago for heaven's sake - but I think this one stands out and since he directed as well, props to Mr. Black. Dark but hysterical (comic-noir?) is a tough tightrope, but this movie walks it deftly, sometimes blatantly - pairing Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling is surprising only until you see it - and sometimes very sneakily. I laughed out loud repeatedly and found myself way more invested than I ever would have anticipated.
Rogue One - Some kind of commentary on all that has happened with the beloved-if-not-always-venerated Star Wars franchise is probably forthcoming so I won't get too nuts here, but I will say that this is hands down my favorite since the original trilogy. To say this movie is audacious is to say nothing. You're going to essentially do Episode 3.5, expand the original canon but with all new characters and not offend all the madly annoying and rabid purists? Good luck. But it worked! And was fun and funny, thrilling, and most shocking, even original. Serving the diehards and working as a legit standalone, it is quite an achievement. And yay for scif-fi! Huge spoiler alert, but this reaction to the ending rivals the ending itself.
Hell or High Water - Another wonderfully taut script, thanks again Taylor Sheridan, this movie unfolds with such restraint, even grace, that as much as I loved on first viewing it took additional looks to truly appreciate. The so-called "neo-western" so seldom actually works (it is usually either not actually a western or just an already-done western set contemporarily) I find it very gratifying when it does. And this film does, sometimes in ways that are even hard to accept, with moments that you kind of want to dismiss as hackneyed or obvious or too on the nose, but just can't because they are just so damned, bloody good! It is also meticulously performed. We've see Jeff Bridges do this before, but honestly, who cares? If you think Chris Pine is just a pretty movie star, think again. And Ben Foster damn near steals the movie from them both.
Others: Arrival, LaLa Land, Deadpool, Zootopia. Lots of movies I am very excited to see from 2016 but haven't yet.
Boy, did this one get away from. So much for shorter posts . . . so many movies!!!
2013
The Way Way Back - Charming and fun but with surprising heft, featuring the always great Sam Rockwell, this coming-of-age is lovely.
Under the Skin - Jonathan Glazer (who also did the insanely good Sexy Beast) directs Scarlett Johansson in one of the most fucked-up movies I've seen in a long time, in the best possible way. My wife and daughter came home during the last five minutes of this movie and I made them leave me alone while I sat on the edge of the couch basically freaking out. Unreal and amazing with some outlandish techniques, it blew my mind. If you know what it means, let me know
Locke - A one man film with an astounding Tom Hardy (I think one of the very best working right now) talking on his car phone for 80 minutes, it is more theatre than film while using film to great advantage. If you like it look up how they shot it. Wow.
Fruitvale Station - Speaking of astounding, Michael B. Jordan gives a tour de force in this small, heartbreaking and amazing film. Not for nothing Jordan and the director, Ryan Coogler, reunited for Creed and the upcoming Black Panther. I am going to pat myself on the back for remarking that Jordan was a rockstar and one to watch back in 2009, even though others spotted him as a teen phenom in The Wire. This move is a must-see.
Others: Gravity, 12 Years a Slave, American Hustle, Dallas Buyers Club
2014 - I apparently didn't work as hard to get out the mainstream this year as many of my faves were big and popular. Slacker. In any event . . .
Inherent Vice - Paul Thomas Anderson meets Thomas Pynchon - what can you do? Make a twisted but compelling movie that kind of sticks to your feet as you leave the theatre. Sharp Joaquin Phoenix and unexpected Josh Brolin.
Snowpiercer - A wonderful entrant in the new golden age of science fiction filmmaking, this movie has such visual impact it can be easy to miss a great premise, taut script and tidy performances. Very cool. Haven't gotten to director Joon-ho Bong's Okja yet but am desperate to.
Whiplash - This got so much buzz, and an Oscar for the great J.K. Simmons, that it is no surprise here but I had to include it because it had such a profound effect on me. As an educator this film disturbs and provokes me, but I tend to love that. It also, maybe unfortunately, is on the "Great Movies You Only See Once Because They're Too Hard To Watch" list.
Big Hero 6 - I know, Best Animated Feature, who the hell am I, etc. See disclaimer above. I just freakin' LOVED this movie and think it is one of the better non-Pixar efforts from The Mouse in quite a while. And hilarious!
Others: Birdman, Guardians, Interstellar and Imitation Game
2015
Sicario - This film is just loaded. Denis Villeneuve directs a Taylor Sheridan script with Josh Brolin and Emily Blunt doing work. Add one of my very favorite actors in one of those small-but-huge roles - Benicio Del Toro as Alejandro - and you get a tight, tight film with great punch and nice moral ambiguity. Yum.
Ex Machina - Hooray for more sci-fi, this one is by turns simple and obscure, subtle and broad, silly and psycho, but always beautiful and ultimately very satisfying. This one is fun to talk about after - lots of room for "but, but . . .".
Creed - Honestly probably would have bothered if not for Jordan and Coogler. Kinda done, ya know? But yay! Injected with new life and a weirdly - as it was so predictable - satisfying turn of story, I enjoyed the hell out of this flick. And what the hell, Sly?! I've always admired him as a great self-made and -aware success story, but I didn't expect to admire and enjoy a performance so much.
Mad Max: Fury Road - This was probably my favorite movie of the year. I ranted about tis movie to anyone who would listen for weeks, did an offensive amount of finger-wagging and I-told-you-soing when it got its best Picture nom, and still insist on its inclusion on any list of greatest action films - ever. Things that blew my mind: the vast majority of the action in the film is practical! (apparently when George Miller found out what was now possible with mounted camera rigs - I'm told they took him out in the desert and blew his mind - he re-worked the whole script); the level of madness and mayhem produced without resorting to digital fakery is off the bloody charts and at times defies belief; the choreography of the action - and the great Max v. Furiosa fight scene - is so insane it should overwhelming but is somehow not thanks to extraordinary editing (apparently they distilled over a thousand hours of action footage); it is beautiful, beautiful, beautiful, the palette at once minimalist and shocking; and the push and pull of the pace and tempo is masterful. And then here are the performances. Charlize Theron demands attention, somehow having motivation without backstory, and electrifies with her presence and physicality. Hardy (see above) does more with less than any performance I've seen in a long time. Max obviously has a well-established history, but Hardy gets him to another place with almost no dialogue and a degree of subtlety that stands in contrast to the setting and arc of the film. But for me the standout is Nicholas Hoult as Nux. Different and powerful, his performance is manic but meaningful, terrifying and tender. It is so good it is easy to miss. Hmm. I. Loved. This. Movie. Can you tell?
Others: Straight Outta Compton, Ant-Man, Martian
2016
Kubo and the Two Strings - This film moved me in many ways, driven by a great story that doesn't follow predictable patterns and some interesting and lovable characters. It is sweet and sad, but more than anything is just stunningly, achingly beautiful. Some of the frames are Fantasia-level gorgeous and it is evocative without being derivative, no mean feat.
The Nice Guys - Shane Black has been cranking out big scripts for a long time - he wrote Lethal Weapon 30 years ago for heaven's sake - but I think this one stands out and since he directed as well, props to Mr. Black. Dark but hysterical (comic-noir?) is a tough tightrope, but this movie walks it deftly, sometimes blatantly - pairing Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling is surprising only until you see it - and sometimes very sneakily. I laughed out loud repeatedly and found myself way more invested than I ever would have anticipated.
Rogue One - Some kind of commentary on all that has happened with the beloved-if-not-always-venerated Star Wars franchise is probably forthcoming so I won't get too nuts here, but I will say that this is hands down my favorite since the original trilogy. To say this movie is audacious is to say nothing. You're going to essentially do Episode 3.5, expand the original canon but with all new characters and not offend all the madly annoying and rabid purists? Good luck. But it worked! And was fun and funny, thrilling, and most shocking, even original. Serving the diehards and working as a legit standalone, it is quite an achievement. And yay for scif-fi! Huge spoiler alert, but this reaction to the ending rivals the ending itself.
Hell or High Water - Another wonderfully taut script, thanks again Taylor Sheridan, this movie unfolds with such restraint, even grace, that as much as I loved on first viewing it took additional looks to truly appreciate. The so-called "neo-western" so seldom actually works (it is usually either not actually a western or just an already-done western set contemporarily) I find it very gratifying when it does. And this film does, sometimes in ways that are even hard to accept, with moments that you kind of want to dismiss as hackneyed or obvious or too on the nose, but just can't because they are just so damned, bloody good! It is also meticulously performed. We've see Jeff Bridges do this before, but honestly, who cares? If you think Chris Pine is just a pretty movie star, think again. And Ben Foster damn near steals the movie from them both.
Others: Arrival, LaLa Land, Deadpool, Zootopia. Lots of movies I am very excited to see from 2016 but haven't yet.
Boy, did this one get away from. So much for shorter posts . . . so many movies!!!
Friday, December 15, 2017
Mornings with Japers
Not exactly "Tuesdays with Morrie", but since much of what I end up thinking and/or writing about is driven my daily media consumption, I thought I would share.
Armed with too much coffee (in a thermal carafe so I don't have to get up, sheesh), something tasty, faithful Shadow the Wonder Dog at my feet (looking for crumbs more than as loyal companion) I nest into the couch and fire up the TV and my laptop. Despite mounting evidence that it is probably not a good idea, I still multitask at this.
First and foremost comes "The Rachel Maddow Show". TRMS is on MSNBC and in many ways leads the liberal media charge, which is of course fraught with confirmation bias and as skewed to the left as Fox News is to the right. Granted. The difference for me is Rachel herself. She is unquestionably brilliant - academic credentials don't necessarily prove intelligence, but a Rhodes scholarship and doctorate in politics from Oxford certainly don't hurt - but also funny, genuinely curious, respectful even with those she disagrees with, insightful and, a biggie with me, undeniably passionate. Her show makes me mad, makes me laugh and most importantly, makes me think. Her show - and its blog, maintained and curated by the also great Steve Benen - are refuges of sanity and reason from the storms of madness.
As Rachel begins, in a nice little piece of juxtaposition and before starting on actual news, I check the Trumpsterfire's Twitter feed. Chalk it up to car-crash syndrome, but I take perverse satisfaction in having to look it up every day because I refuse to be a follower. My feelings about his tweeting merit a post of its own, so I'll move on. After the inevitable outrage-fueled wake-up (maybe the coffee is redundant) I head for the online New York Times as Rachel gets rolling.
You know, the oft-maligned and despised "failing NYT". If anything can be judged by its detractors, 45's feelings toward the Times serve as high praise. While I often grumble at it, I love the Times. They don't miss much, the Morning Briefing is handy when pressed for time, the Opinion section has a bunch of really good people and is wide-ranging (the comments section is illuminating to say the least) and it is still for the most part shockingly good journalism. And when anyone with a blog (ahem) can claim pretensions to journalism, that is hard to overvalue. Great thing in the times today.
Then it is on to The Week. Far more centrist, occasionally even right-leaning, than the Times this is my admittedly somewhat feeble attempt to not fall into the confirmation bias sinkhole and get some input with which I don't automatically agree. I will admit to spending more time on their "Speed Reads" than the longer pieces, but I still often find more info on things I might not have come to in the Times. I used to try harder to get to the "other side" but too much indignation and outrage isn't good for me, and, well, fuck 'em anyway. Great thing "The Week" led me to today.
Somewhere along here Rachel gives way to "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert". Not as outrageously wonderful as the "Colbert Report" was (what is?) it is still pretty good. His opening monologue is generally worth at least a couple of actual laughs (of note today was footage of Alex Jones arguing with Alexa about whether or not she is owned and directed by the CIA), he engages his guests well and seems to genuinely enjoy most of them, and some of the recurring bits are quite good. I am probably biased because I share many of his passions - LOTR, Star Wars, and musical theatre to name a few - but that seems like a pretty good reason. Oh and Jon Batiste and Stay Human rival The Roots for cool house band.
My online trek then proceeds to BoingBoing, easily my favorite place on the internet. Self described as "A Directory of Mostly Wonderful Things" it isn't anything in and of itself but just a collection of other stuff. Curated by a bunch of crazy-smart people - Cory Doctorow and Xeni Jardin are two of my favorites - the only thing I don't like about it is how dangerous it is as a time sink. It covers an outrageous amount of ground and can send you spinning down the internet rabbit hole with a vengeance. Running the gamut from highly frivolous to borderline disturbing, you can find police brutality next to Star Wars memes next to internet policy next to gaming reviews next to NASA video next to . . . you might get the idea but probably only partially. Go there, you won't be disappointed, but be cautious. Here is a random representative example from today that tickled me. (If you're not a King of the Hill fan, don't bother).
I wind up my odyssey with a stop by Doonesbury. Maintained by the Washington Post, it is free and seldom fails to get a laugh, making it an excellent place to visit after sometimes copious amounts of stuff about which to be sad/angry/worried. The "Mudline" is a hoot, "Say What" often jaw-dropping and "Today's Video" is eclectic as hell. I try to confine myself to these quickly consumable portions as the "Daily Briefing" and "Ask Duke" can be a time-sinks unto themselves, but I always at least stop by the "Flashbacks" (a pulldown item under "The Strip" to cherry pick from my favorite characters and stories available. Garry Trudeau has been producing genius hilarity for almost fifty freaking years and is a national treasure.
How do I have time for this morass of media, you ask? I don't. I also play too much sudoku and am dangerously addicted to Sporcle. Forgive me readers, I am lazy. I will take two Bloody Marys and an Ave Maria as my penance. But at least my morning routine stimulates me and keeps me somewhat informed. Selah.
Armed with too much coffee (in a thermal carafe so I don't have to get up, sheesh), something tasty, faithful Shadow the Wonder Dog at my feet (looking for crumbs more than as loyal companion) I nest into the couch and fire up the TV and my laptop. Despite mounting evidence that it is probably not a good idea, I still multitask at this.
First and foremost comes "The Rachel Maddow Show". TRMS is on MSNBC and in many ways leads the liberal media charge, which is of course fraught with confirmation bias and as skewed to the left as Fox News is to the right. Granted. The difference for me is Rachel herself. She is unquestionably brilliant - academic credentials don't necessarily prove intelligence, but a Rhodes scholarship and doctorate in politics from Oxford certainly don't hurt - but also funny, genuinely curious, respectful even with those she disagrees with, insightful and, a biggie with me, undeniably passionate. Her show makes me mad, makes me laugh and most importantly, makes me think. Her show - and its blog, maintained and curated by the also great Steve Benen - are refuges of sanity and reason from the storms of madness.
As Rachel begins, in a nice little piece of juxtaposition and before starting on actual news, I check the Trumpsterfire's Twitter feed. Chalk it up to car-crash syndrome, but I take perverse satisfaction in having to look it up every day because I refuse to be a follower. My feelings about his tweeting merit a post of its own, so I'll move on. After the inevitable outrage-fueled wake-up (maybe the coffee is redundant) I head for the online New York Times as Rachel gets rolling.
You know, the oft-maligned and despised "failing NYT". If anything can be judged by its detractors, 45's feelings toward the Times serve as high praise. While I often grumble at it, I love the Times. They don't miss much, the Morning Briefing is handy when pressed for time, the Opinion section has a bunch of really good people and is wide-ranging (the comments section is illuminating to say the least) and it is still for the most part shockingly good journalism. And when anyone with a blog (ahem) can claim pretensions to journalism, that is hard to overvalue. Great thing in the times today.
Then it is on to The Week. Far more centrist, occasionally even right-leaning, than the Times this is my admittedly somewhat feeble attempt to not fall into the confirmation bias sinkhole and get some input with which I don't automatically agree. I will admit to spending more time on their "Speed Reads" than the longer pieces, but I still often find more info on things I might not have come to in the Times. I used to try harder to get to the "other side" but too much indignation and outrage isn't good for me, and, well, fuck 'em anyway. Great thing "The Week" led me to today.
Somewhere along here Rachel gives way to "The Late Show with Stephen Colbert". Not as outrageously wonderful as the "Colbert Report" was (what is?) it is still pretty good. His opening monologue is generally worth at least a couple of actual laughs (of note today was footage of Alex Jones arguing with Alexa about whether or not she is owned and directed by the CIA), he engages his guests well and seems to genuinely enjoy most of them, and some of the recurring bits are quite good. I am probably biased because I share many of his passions - LOTR, Star Wars, and musical theatre to name a few - but that seems like a pretty good reason. Oh and Jon Batiste and Stay Human rival The Roots for cool house band.
My online trek then proceeds to BoingBoing, easily my favorite place on the internet. Self described as "A Directory of Mostly Wonderful Things" it isn't anything in and of itself but just a collection of other stuff. Curated by a bunch of crazy-smart people - Cory Doctorow and Xeni Jardin are two of my favorites - the only thing I don't like about it is how dangerous it is as a time sink. It covers an outrageous amount of ground and can send you spinning down the internet rabbit hole with a vengeance. Running the gamut from highly frivolous to borderline disturbing, you can find police brutality next to Star Wars memes next to internet policy next to gaming reviews next to NASA video next to . . . you might get the idea but probably only partially. Go there, you won't be disappointed, but be cautious. Here is a random representative example from today that tickled me. (If you're not a King of the Hill fan, don't bother).
I wind up my odyssey with a stop by Doonesbury. Maintained by the Washington Post, it is free and seldom fails to get a laugh, making it an excellent place to visit after sometimes copious amounts of stuff about which to be sad/angry/worried. The "Mudline" is a hoot, "Say What" often jaw-dropping and "Today's Video" is eclectic as hell. I try to confine myself to these quickly consumable portions as the "Daily Briefing" and "Ask Duke" can be a time-sinks unto themselves, but I always at least stop by the "Flashbacks" (a pulldown item under "The Strip" to cherry pick from my favorite characters and stories available. Garry Trudeau has been producing genius hilarity for almost fifty freaking years and is a national treasure.
How do I have time for this morass of media, you ask? I don't. I also play too much sudoku and am dangerously addicted to Sporcle. Forgive me readers, I am lazy. I will take two Bloody Marys and an Ave Maria as my penance. But at least my morning routine stimulates me and keeps me somewhat informed. Selah.
Thursday, December 14, 2017
Eyes on the ball
Just a few things that probably need more attention paid to them:
- The FCC is about to roll back net neutrality. These rules were put in place under Obama to ensure that broadband providers - good-hearted and benevolent companies like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T - aren't able to decide which services, sites, apps or customers get what speed of service. So let's say Verizon decides that Netflix, a direct competitor their FIOS service, should only be available to their customers at a slower speed than everything else. Hmm. That seems fair, you say, it is a free market, competition is good, blah, blah blah. One problem: there are a huge number of people if that don't have a choice is their broadband provider. So if that consumer wants Netflix - or anything else that Verizon decides they can charge more for, at either end, the consumer gets screwed. The alternative is that Netflix pay more so Verizon will put them in the "fast lane", but then they raise their fees and the consumer still gets screwed. So why should Verizon get to decide whether I want to watch "Stranger Things"? Part of the conservative deregulation movement - you know, the making more money is more important than anything movement - this hurts everybody except the giant telecoms. Oh, and Ajit Pai (FCC Chairman and rat-fucker driving this travesty) defends it by saying the providers will police themselves and do what's right for the consumer. Uh huh. This despite the three aforementioned companies already having been prosecuted for doing the exact opposite multiple times. I did a lousy job explaining this, so go here and read what the amazing and brilliant Cory Doctorow (a founder of Electronic Frontier Foundation, among many other things) has to say.
- The only gun control legislation to come out of congress in years is actually anti-gun-control legislation. The gist is that people with concealed carry permits issued by their state of residence can now carry the guns allowed by those permits across state lines and be legal. Now while this is insane just on first glance, it is even more so with further investigation. As of now, 42 states have some kind of law on the books regarding concealed carry (the other eight, which amazingly include Vermont and Maine, are just loony) but as you can imagine they vary wildly. There are "shall issue" states, "may issue" and "no discretion" just to name a few. So what you end up with is someone who lives in a state with highly liberal (in a wildly ironic use of the word) carry laws - Texas say - can now carry said deadly weapon into a state with highly restrictive laws - let's go with New York since I live there. Um. Considering how easy it is to get such a permit (this is illuminating) and even easier to get the gun itself I know if I go to Texas I know what to expect - see Hell or High Water for an instructive illustration, not that I plan to rob any banks. But if this legislation passes that person - the one with fantasies of being "the good guy with a gun" and packing heat - can come to New York with said heat and stroll Times Square with his Glock under his arm. What could go wrong? The NRA and company have introduced this type of legislation six times, it never getting out of committee, but this time has made it to the floor and passed. Not for nothing, if you find this troubling - or in my case, batshit crazy - you probably shouldn't give too much thought to the fact that 30 states allow OPEN carry without any permit or license. The mind reels.
- The position of Census Bureau director is currently vacant. Yawn. Wake up! The 2020 is probably more important than any election between now and then, because it is after the census that voting districts are redrawn and the data collected used to redraw them. You know gerrymandering, right? That's the thing that allows Republicans to win more seats despite receiving fewer votes. Here is a fabulous explanation of this horrific practice. Democrats do it, too, but Republicans are waaay better at it. With full warning of something truly scary go check out Project REDMAP. Shudder. So back to the census and the lack of director. When 45 came to nominate for this position he continued his amazing trend of going for the least qualified and most political appointment possible with Thomas Brunell, a man who has said "competitive elections are bad for America" and who was a moving force behind, you guessed it, REDMAP. But, oops, the director position requires senate confirmation and not even this pack would put this asshat in charge. Ah, but the assistant director has no such restriction and, lo and behold, acts as director in the absence of a confirmed appointee. Guess who?
Think there might be some motivation for the census to go south, or have crap data, or not happen, or whatever might best serve the gerrymandering plans of the GOP? Nah, that would be underhanded. At least an official nominee, maybe a hearing, would cast a little light in this direction. Sunshine anyone?
Maybe we should pay less attention to Lord Dampnut's idiot behavior and more to what is actually going on. Just a thought.
- The FCC is about to roll back net neutrality. These rules were put in place under Obama to ensure that broadband providers - good-hearted and benevolent companies like Verizon, Comcast and AT&T - aren't able to decide which services, sites, apps or customers get what speed of service. So let's say Verizon decides that Netflix, a direct competitor their FIOS service, should only be available to their customers at a slower speed than everything else. Hmm. That seems fair, you say, it is a free market, competition is good, blah, blah blah. One problem: there are a huge number of people if that don't have a choice is their broadband provider. So if that consumer wants Netflix - or anything else that Verizon decides they can charge more for, at either end, the consumer gets screwed. The alternative is that Netflix pay more so Verizon will put them in the "fast lane", but then they raise their fees and the consumer still gets screwed. So why should Verizon get to decide whether I want to watch "Stranger Things"? Part of the conservative deregulation movement - you know, the making more money is more important than anything movement - this hurts everybody except the giant telecoms. Oh, and Ajit Pai (FCC Chairman and rat-fucker driving this travesty) defends it by saying the providers will police themselves and do what's right for the consumer. Uh huh. This despite the three aforementioned companies already having been prosecuted for doing the exact opposite multiple times. I did a lousy job explaining this, so go here and read what the amazing and brilliant Cory Doctorow (a founder of Electronic Frontier Foundation, among many other things) has to say.
- The only gun control legislation to come out of congress in years is actually anti-gun-control legislation. The gist is that people with concealed carry permits issued by their state of residence can now carry the guns allowed by those permits across state lines and be legal. Now while this is insane just on first glance, it is even more so with further investigation. As of now, 42 states have some kind of law on the books regarding concealed carry (the other eight, which amazingly include Vermont and Maine, are just loony) but as you can imagine they vary wildly. There are "shall issue" states, "may issue" and "no discretion" just to name a few. So what you end up with is someone who lives in a state with highly liberal (in a wildly ironic use of the word) carry laws - Texas say - can now carry said deadly weapon into a state with highly restrictive laws - let's go with New York since I live there. Um. Considering how easy it is to get such a permit (this is illuminating) and even easier to get the gun itself I know if I go to Texas I know what to expect - see Hell or High Water for an instructive illustration, not that I plan to rob any banks. But if this legislation passes that person - the one with fantasies of being "the good guy with a gun" and packing heat - can come to New York with said heat and stroll Times Square with his Glock under his arm. What could go wrong? The NRA and company have introduced this type of legislation six times, it never getting out of committee, but this time has made it to the floor and passed. Not for nothing, if you find this troubling - or in my case, batshit crazy - you probably shouldn't give too much thought to the fact that 30 states allow OPEN carry without any permit or license. The mind reels.
- The position of Census Bureau director is currently vacant. Yawn. Wake up! The 2020 is probably more important than any election between now and then, because it is after the census that voting districts are redrawn and the data collected used to redraw them. You know gerrymandering, right? That's the thing that allows Republicans to win more seats despite receiving fewer votes. Here is a fabulous explanation of this horrific practice. Democrats do it, too, but Republicans are waaay better at it. With full warning of something truly scary go check out Project REDMAP. Shudder. So back to the census and the lack of director. When 45 came to nominate for this position he continued his amazing trend of going for the least qualified and most political appointment possible with Thomas Brunell, a man who has said "competitive elections are bad for America" and who was a moving force behind, you guessed it, REDMAP. But, oops, the director position requires senate confirmation and not even this pack would put this asshat in charge. Ah, but the assistant director has no such restriction and, lo and behold, acts as director in the absence of a confirmed appointee. Guess who?
Think there might be some motivation for the census to go south, or have crap data, or not happen, or whatever might best serve the gerrymandering plans of the GOP? Nah, that would be underhanded. At least an official nominee, maybe a hearing, would cast a little light in this direction. Sunshine anyone?
Maybe we should pay less attention to Lord Dampnut's idiot behavior and more to what is actually going on. Just a thought.
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
He almost won
Yay! No, seriously, fucking yay. Roy Moore was defeated last night. Just in case there is cause to read this after we've all forgotten this happened (probably sooner than is safe to consider) he was trying to be elected a U.S. senator for Alabama. He is also a racist, homophobe accused of child molestation and sexual assault. And I am very glad, nay ecstatic, that he was defeated by Doug Jones. The celebration is on amongst Democrats, liberals and well, right-minded people. Some phrases that keep popping up: "morality wins", "sanity reigns", "hope is restored" and my personal favorite display of meta-irony, "thank God". And, yes, by all means, let's celebrate. But.
Update: Fox and Friends said the election result was "not a referendum on Trump" but instead "a referendum on Harvey Weinstein". I shit you not. *Sigh*
And then there's this.
Where do we find ourselves when we are thrilled that this nightmare of a candidate receives 48.4% of the vote? How the in the name of all that is sane and right is it close? How could he possibly even be a candidate, much less narrowly defeated? Consider:
- he was dismissed from the Alabama supreme court for refusing a federal court order to remove a monument to the ten commandments he had installed after becoming chief justice
- he was dismissed again - skipping over the question of how the hell the got back to the bench - for telling Alabama judges to ignore another federal ruling, this time legalizing same-sex marriage
This means he ran for the senate after he was dismissed from the bench TWICE for pissing on the Constitution. How is this even possible? Is anything disqualifying? No. Not even things revealed in his own words:
"Homesexual behavior is a crime against nature, an inherent evil, and an act so heinous that it defies one's ability to describe it."
"There is no such thing as evolution."
"What's going to unite us? A president? A congress? No. It's going to be God."
The Sandy Hook shooting was "because we have forgotten the law of God."
"Transgender people don't have rights."
Now, I try to believe in a free democracy, and that candidates should be able to run on whatever they believe in. In fact, I wish we could get more honesty and transparency in campaigns, so while I actively despise this guy and wish he would shut up and disappear, he is not the problem. He isn't even the worst candidate you can look up and I haven't even gone into his batshit crazy attitudes towards other fraught topics like immigration, gun control and reproductive rights. The problem is that he could run and get half the vote. That is what terrifies and depresses me, and doesn't even take into account the recent allegations. Shouldn't this have been enough? He had the support of the RNC and the GOP and was going to win - probably decisively - before the allegations surfaced. He should've been reviled, ridiculed, dismissed and disqualified before the allegations surfaced. He has to be a child molestor and sexual predator before we can decide to rally the troops and keep him out of the senate??
The fact that the RNC pulled their support after the allegations came out was heartening, as were the conservative voices that called for his candidacy to be suspended. "We can't have this guy in the senate, he's a scumbag" to paraphrase. But then the realization dawns they might actually lose a senate seat and imperil their chance to enact all the soulless policies on the oligarch's wish list and any chance at sanity and rightness evaporates. The conservative media contort themselves into ever more amazing positions of justification, denial and defense of the indefensible, the RNC gets back on board, Lord Dampnut (thank you Colin Mochrie for one of the great all-time anagrams) endorses and now it takes the full weight of progressive social opinion, the (admittedly feeble) full strength of the Democrat machine and reliance on the very Republicans in Alabama who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for the unrepentant sack of shit that is Roy Moore. And the truly cynical among us have to wonder if the party support came about only because of an opportunity to gain a seat and not out of a sense of right or wrong, which makes them in some ways no better than their GOP counterparts. Moral or opportunistic? Yikes.
So while I am very glad, joyful even, that Roy Moore was defeated (and yes I am the pot accusing the kettle in not an inconsequential part of that joy rising from the gaining of a seat) and trying very hard to take heart in his victory - I want to have my faith bolstered, I do! - I cannot help but be horrified that he almost won. I am glad that being accused of child molestation and assault is enough to keep an evil man out of the senate, but appalled that it takes that much to keep an evil person out of the senate. Sorry for not popping celebratory champagne, gang, I'm sticking to palliative scotch. He almost won.
Update: Fox and Friends said the election result was "not a referendum on Trump" but instead "a referendum on Harvey Weinstein". I shit you not. *Sigh*
And then there's this.
I'm back?
Well, hey. It's only been three years. I fell off my blogcycle for lots of reasons, and couldn't really find any good ones to get back on. And while my own need to vent, express, create or just find some kind of catharsis is writing might not be the best reasons for coming back to it . . . as the emperor in Amadeus says (thank you Jeffrey Jones): "There it is".
I spend too much time being outraged and angry. I do. And not enough time doing things that might ease or combat such emotions. That is a failing, perhaps even character flaw, that I need to address, but, wow, do I not need to do that here. Scary. But writing has always been good for me. It allows me to process in a different way, it gives an outlet to things, and it just feels good. I maintained from the beginning that this blog was for me (not enough people read it for it to be anything else anyway) so those seem like good enough reasons.
I am going to try to do a number of things differently this time around:
- I am going to do less long-form essay-style writing. That was one of the reasons I fell off last time as it became time consuming and demanding.
- I am going to try to be less demanding of myself that everything be reasoned, researched and somehow justified. Maybe it is a byproduct of social media (short, unfounded, intransigent, transient) and the ongoing demise of responsible journalism, but if I can constantly be assaulted by random opinion and utter nonsense, maybe I should just join in. I'm as full of shit as anybody else, so I'm totally qualified.
- I am going to try and balance outraged diatribes with random fun - but for sure no promises on that one considering much of what drove me to pick this up again. But maybe it will drive to to seek out and extol things that don't suck.
So I'm back. If you are a returning fan, thanks for coming back. If you're a new reader, welcome and heads up. If you are here to gainsay, argue or just marvel at how misguided and wrong I am, um, okay.
Getting on with it now.
I spend too much time being outraged and angry. I do. And not enough time doing things that might ease or combat such emotions. That is a failing, perhaps even character flaw, that I need to address, but, wow, do I not need to do that here. Scary. But writing has always been good for me. It allows me to process in a different way, it gives an outlet to things, and it just feels good. I maintained from the beginning that this blog was for me (not enough people read it for it to be anything else anyway) so those seem like good enough reasons.
I am going to try to do a number of things differently this time around:
- I am going to do less long-form essay-style writing. That was one of the reasons I fell off last time as it became time consuming and demanding.
- I am going to try to be less demanding of myself that everything be reasoned, researched and somehow justified. Maybe it is a byproduct of social media (short, unfounded, intransigent, transient) and the ongoing demise of responsible journalism, but if I can constantly be assaulted by random opinion and utter nonsense, maybe I should just join in. I'm as full of shit as anybody else, so I'm totally qualified.
- I am going to try and balance outraged diatribes with random fun - but for sure no promises on that one considering much of what drove me to pick this up again. But maybe it will drive to to seek out and extol things that don't suck.
So I'm back. If you are a returning fan, thanks for coming back. If you're a new reader, welcome and heads up. If you are here to gainsay, argue or just marvel at how misguided and wrong I am, um, okay.
Getting on with it now.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)