Bands Who I Don't Get

Now, the following list isn't bands I think are bad. It's a list of bands that other people rave about and I just can't get into. I might end up liking them at some point. For instance, in college I would have put Tom Waits in this category, but now I love him. I think there is some play between hype and expectations here. I couldn't see what the big deal was about Tom Waits and even began to hate him a bit to spite his worshipful fans. But then one day I unsuspectingly heard Early Years and now have jumped permanantly on his bandwagon. Then there's bands I didn't get at the time, but as time passed they seemed to lose the du jour status. Making me feel like history vindicated my opinion. Like Rush, I couldn't see why all my guitar-playing friends liked them so much in high school. But when was the last time anyone even mentioned Rush?

So, without further ado, a list of musicians/bands who I don't get

Neil Young: Am I the only one ever who liked CSN better than their Y?

Flaming Lips: I want to like this band. I really do. I'm hoping to one day get them.

Yes: That video still haunts me, but never really liked their other stuff. History may have vindicated me on them as well.

Radiohead: Dangerous to list them since I haven't properly listened to them. But in my limited attempts, I just feel like this is a good band who seems to think they are way more important than they are.

Santana: Will he ever go away?

Crash Test Dummies: Since when did these guys become the indie superstars of yesteryear?

Debatable Question #1: Should Dubya Be Impeached?

Since being the worst president ever does not directly translate to a "high crime or misdeameanor", I think we first need to decide which transgression we would impeach him for. I think going to Iraq would not count. Yes he mislead the public and had an obvious neoconservative ulterior motive from the minute after September 11th happened, but I'm not sure this would be enough. It is easy to forget that the pre-invasion argument was not whether or not Saddam had WMDs, but how we should handle the fact that he did. If Bush had been forthcoming with intelligence the public might have questioned this more, but Saddam was acting very guilty. Colin Powell's Uranium speech might have pushed the limits on misleading versus lying, but Saddam's bait and switch game with the inspector's had everyone pretty much convinced (wrongly) anyway.

Which leads us to the transgression most often cited for impeachment, the wire tapping. This was a direct violation of laws put into place after Nixon and an extension of this administration's attitude that they are above the law. I would be totally up for impeaching Bush over this, but oddly, this is the lone thing he's done in his second term that is popular. Go figure. I'm not sure why this has been so unquestioned by the general public. I had a first-hand experience of this in my classroom (Bush has made it really easy to connect The Bill of Rights to current events). In talking about aspects of the Patriot Act the class was, overall, freaked out and angry. But when I brought up the wiretapping, they collectively shrugged their shoulders.

So, as of right now, I do not think we should impeach Dubya. The main offence he'd be accused of would not be supported by most people, and forcing it down their throats could turn the whole affair into a bipartisan Clinton impeachment process that alienates the public. How about we follow Feingold's lead (Mr. 1 in the 99-1 Senate vote to pass the Patriot Act) and censure him? Not sure what that means, but sounds nice and humiliating.

*** Trivia question. Impeach comes from the middle english word empechen. What did empechen mean?

The Fashion Issue #2: The Butt Crack Epidemic

+

In this week's Fasion Issue, we will be turning our spotlight onto a current trend in women's fashion, rocking the butt crack. Now, maybe I'm alone here and I have been accused of being a bit of prude. But shouldn't the butt crack be saved for the bedroom (or the bathroom)? Showing more stomach more back more cleavage... Great. Maybe even the top of your butt. But once the crack comes into play, I think you've gone too far. I hate to be a Bill O'Reilly, but if our youth grows up thinking the butt crack is a socially acceptable fashion accumen, what's next? An entire cheek? The full ass? Hell maybe we should just crawl around with our naked butts raised high in the air like chimpanzees. Is this what we really want???

NCAA Meets NBA: An Interesting Idea

Read about an intriguing way to change the NBA playoff format. Give the top seven guaranteed spots and decide the 8th spot with a single-game elimination tournament for the rest. For example, right now in the East Detroit, Miami, NJ, Cleveland, WA, IND, and MIL would all make the playoffs. And PHI, BO, TOR, NY, CHI, OR, ATL, and CHA would play a mini 3-game tournament to decide who gets the 8th seed.

Now I don't really see anything wrong with the current format, but I think this is a great idea. No team would ever be statistically out of it and that can do a lot for a fan's psyche. When following a bad team, sometimes the only time you feel even part of the NBA is during the draft lottery. Other than that, it's all development and next year. I think this would also motivate teams to play better basketball throughout the entire season. If you finally got it together at the end, it could be rewarded by more than a rosier predictions for next year. Maybe teams would alos be less likely to sit out players for the remainder of a season gone bad.

I can't really see any reason not to. It's not as if the 8th seed is really all so deserving. Presently, the East's entry would be Philadelphia, who is 5 games under .500. Not a a whole lot of entitlement there. And, even if the winner of the loser tournament got swept, you don't think that team wouldn't be totally psyched about getting to feel the playoffs for a year? I think it would be fun to watch, motivating for the teams, and more interesting. Win-win-win situation.

Sopranos #2

Spoiler! Don't read unless you are up to date on the Sopranos this season.

I just wanted to see if other people were as disappointed in the second episode as I was. After the premiere I thought, how does The Sopranos continue to never dip in its awesomeness. Not so after the boring #2. Perhaps it was just the bad episode of the year or a necessary coma chill episode. But here are my reasons for concern:

1. I do not care about Tony's alternate reality life. I have a hard enough time keeping track of his mob/real family life.
2. I am not in suspense about Tony dying. As great as I thought the surprise of him being shot was, I cannot suspend my disbelief to the point of even considering him passing with a season and a half left. I am intrigued by the power struggle without him and what's going to happen to Junior, but I am not able to feel any nervousness or sadness with him in the hospital.
3. Are they going to bring in terrorism angle? Please say no. But they've been hinting at it with Christopher and the cops.

The preview for next week looked good and I think it will return to its greatness. But I am a little nervous...

Da Bomb

Just read a review of book about the Haymarket Riot. Can't say much about James Green's actually book ("Death in the Haymarket") since the reviewer forgot to say whether he liked it or not, but I learned some interesting things about an event I had heard of, but was unclear on the specifics.

The Haymarket Riot occurred in Chicago on May 4th, 1886. The meeting was intended to be a protest about a striker who had been shot by the police the day before. Things were tame until a speaker's language became more incendiary. 180 police descended on the rally to break it up and were met with a bomb, killing 7 police and 4 citizens. 8 anarchist's were tried, 7 receiving death sentences and 1 life.

2 aspects of this event really stood out to me. The first was just how revolutionary the worker's movement was at the time. They spoke about violence often and were very intrigued by the potential of the latest invention, dynamite. The words that instigated police action were Fielden saying, "'The law is your enemy. Keep your eye on it, throttle it, kill it, stab it, do everything you can to wound it.'" These were men who grew up in the aftermath to the Civil War and many foresaw a next epic battle coming, between labor and capitol. They even had agreed on a secret code word (Ruhe) whose placement in their newspaper's letter page signaled it was time to seize the city.

But what really stood out to me was how preposterous the sentences were. Only 2 of the 8 were even at Haymarket when the bomb was thrown and none were actually thought to be the bomber, who would never be caught. Instead they were given death sentences solely for their rhetoric and its potential to cause a riot. As the Judge of the case later said, "They incited, advised, encouraged the throwing of the bomb that killed the policemen, not by addressing the bomb-thrower specially... But by general addresses to readers and hearers.'" Inciting a write generally? It seems that it was the sign of the times, as the St. Louis Globe-Democrat wrote, "The only good anarchist is a dead anarchist."

The Governor would reduce 2 of the sentences to life (making 3 total) and those 3 would later be pardoned. And, 1 of the Haymarket 8 would get a jump on things by blowing himself up in jail. But on November 11th 1887 Parsons, Spies, Fischer, and Engel sang the "The Workers' Marseillaise" together and then were hung.

The Fashion Issue

Now, this might surprise some of my fans, but the chuckdaddy, for all of his hipness, is not exactly known for his fashion sense. Now, if the fashion world would just stop at rumpled button downs and khakis I'd be doing just fine. But it always has to change at some point. And there are two new styles my eye has spotted that I am not happy with.

1. Tighter clothes for guys
Alright, you could say fair is fair. As girls clothes continue to disappear, I guess the least we guys could do rein in our sagginess. But did we have to? Not that I was ever rocking the "my entire butt is hanging out of my jeans look", but I appreciated that the general direction was towards the loose. But not anymore. Lady Lumps the other day bought me a pair of jeans that I've been endlessly complimented about (more like in-shock compliments - "did you buy those?") that are totally tight around the chuckbilly. Guys. Come on now. Haven't we always prided ourselves on fashion trends that benefit us?

2. No Front Pockets On Button-Down Shirts
Look, it's not like I'm missing a place to put a pocket-protector, but that little depository came in handy (for the cell phone while driving, putting random pieces of paper, good for Napoleon imitations). And I'd gotten used to it. So now I find myself trying to stick things in there in vain and being blocked by its nothingness like an idiot. And what harm did it ever do? I don't want 8 pockets, I just want two. Would you even notices if it's there? Well I definitely notice it being gone.

Education Issue

Wow, well EMHO asked me to read an article about education and what I thought. Getting on a soapblog to rant about education? Don't have to ask me that twice. My audience is usually my lump, my lovely lady hump, but my espousals usually only succeed in helping her get to sleep.

So the article in question says that instead of blaming teachers, pedagogy, or funding for our education ills, perhaps we should look at the students. The author, a teacher, has observed that immigrant students work extremely hard while his upper-middle class students expect to be given A's or B's. I certainly don't agree with the general gist of the article. There are multiple quotes longing for the good old days when parents held their children accountable. Not that I haven't had a parent at my school bitch at me for their kid's failings, but the great majority respect the job we do and blame their kids for not doing their part. There is also the unsaid assumption throughout the article that school are continuously getting worse. Although politicians and media push this view, I have read nothing to support that schools have gotten worse over the last 25 years (and the othe constant concerns- crime, drug use, and divorce- are actually lower).

But that doesn't mean he doesn't have a point. Our scores might not be dropping, but we certainly do not do well when compared internationally. And, I do feel like I spend much of energy as an 8th grade teacher just trying to get students to hand stuff in. So what is it? I read recently that Japan was fretting over their student's skills decreasing (although I'm sure they're still kick our asses). Is their just a general malaise that just kicks in from being on top? Do middle-class children instinctually know that things will probably work out just fine? Whereas immigrant children are pushed to excel partly by their parents' worries over their collective futures, could many American children maybe sense that we've continued to dominate the world's economy while ranking 26h out of 27 countries in math skills (made-up stat)?

I've heard that grades have actually very little correlation to future success. And judging from 4 of my friends who landed in the 600's out of 670 in our high school class and our doing well, this has been true in my experience. Maybe presently how you do in school doesn't have much to do with your future. Perhaps it isn't funding, teachers, pedagogy, or the students. We just need our empire to come crashing down to size. And then everyone will be a bit more motivated...

Optional Blog

For today's entry, you get to choose.

I. Bitch and complain (or defend) the academy ruining a solid night with Crash taking the Oscar.

II. In the spirit of the numerous babies being born around me (including CTrain and Aaron The Conqueror's new 14 inched head baby boy), you can reflect on the preciousness of life.