Thursday, June 28, 2007
Socialized Medicine: A "Sicko" Idea
Michael Moore has been making waves with his new movie Sicko, coming to a theater near you. The verdict from the media sycophants is that Moore is striking a less partisan tone in favor of raising awareness about America's allegedly-broken health care system.
I cannot honestly say that America's health care system is perfect; indeed, there are millions of Americans who are not served well by it, some of whom are not served at all. At the same time, I will say that America's health care system is plenty good for the majority of Americans, and that socialized medicine will be a disaster.
I base my opinions on personal experiences. Ten years ago, I belonged to one of those "Evil HMO's" and wound up in the hospital. By the time I was finally discharged, the bill was in six figures due to expensive treatments which utilized intravenous immunoglobulin. The HMO never forced me out of the hospital. It never forced me to settle for anything short of the necessary treatment. The "Evil HMO" paid for everything but than the telephone charges.
Today, I belong to America's closest equivalent to a Canadian-style socialized medicine system: the military health care system. Rest assured that I would not have joined this God-forsaken excuse for a health care plan if I had any choice in the matter. I have to wait a month just to schedule a fricking physical. When I go to take a mandatory chicken pox test (because they won't accept my documentation of past chicken pox exposure,) I get poked in both arms by a 19-year-old kid fresh out of tech school in an unsuccessful attempt to get a blood sample. In short, the military health care system blows chunks, and there's no reason why it should be applied to the rest of America.
I don't find it funny that an irreverent movie director is being treated as an expert on health care. If anybody truly believes in Michael Moore's stunt, that the quality of treatment given to 9/11 clean-up workers would be the same that's given to the average Cuban citizen under Cuba's health care system, I have some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you.
The truth is that Americans need some level of buy-in for their health care plans. If the true costs of health care are hidden from them, there's no incentive to deter abuses of the system. Americans also need choices, so they can abandon doctors and health care providers that fail to meet standards. Finally, the US military health care system should be cast to the winds and shredded. The Defense Department and the Department of Veterans affairs should drop their requirements to provide routine health care, and provide real insurance plans for these military members and retirees to see civilian doctors. The military health care system should only concern itself with functions that the civilian sector does not specialize in, like the treatment of severe battle-related wounds and flight physiology.
I cannot honestly say that America's health care system is perfect; indeed, there are millions of Americans who are not served well by it, some of whom are not served at all. At the same time, I will say that America's health care system is plenty good for the majority of Americans, and that socialized medicine will be a disaster.
I base my opinions on personal experiences. Ten years ago, I belonged to one of those "Evil HMO's" and wound up in the hospital. By the time I was finally discharged, the bill was in six figures due to expensive treatments which utilized intravenous immunoglobulin. The HMO never forced me out of the hospital. It never forced me to settle for anything short of the necessary treatment. The "Evil HMO" paid for everything but than the telephone charges.
Today, I belong to America's closest equivalent to a Canadian-style socialized medicine system: the military health care system. Rest assured that I would not have joined this God-forsaken excuse for a health care plan if I had any choice in the matter. I have to wait a month just to schedule a fricking physical. When I go to take a mandatory chicken pox test (because they won't accept my documentation of past chicken pox exposure,) I get poked in both arms by a 19-year-old kid fresh out of tech school in an unsuccessful attempt to get a blood sample. In short, the military health care system blows chunks, and there's no reason why it should be applied to the rest of America.
I don't find it funny that an irreverent movie director is being treated as an expert on health care. If anybody truly believes in Michael Moore's stunt, that the quality of treatment given to 9/11 clean-up workers would be the same that's given to the average Cuban citizen under Cuba's health care system, I have some swamp land in Florida I'd like to sell you.
The truth is that Americans need some level of buy-in for their health care plans. If the true costs of health care are hidden from them, there's no incentive to deter abuses of the system. Americans also need choices, so they can abandon doctors and health care providers that fail to meet standards. Finally, the US military health care system should be cast to the winds and shredded. The Defense Department and the Department of Veterans affairs should drop their requirements to provide routine health care, and provide real insurance plans for these military members and retirees to see civilian doctors. The military health care system should only concern itself with functions that the civilian sector does not specialize in, like the treatment of severe battle-related wounds and flight physiology.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
Blood and Feathers
The state of New Mexico recently enacted its ban on cockfighting, making it the 49th state to ban the "sport" once enjoyed by our founding fathers.
My feelings on the ban are mixed. Cockfighting is undoubtedly cruel, vulgar and distasteful. At the same time, what gives the government the authority to ban it? The libertarian view is that if people are opposed to cockfighting, they won't take part in it.
Does cockfighting harm society, and does that give the government the authority to ban it? If an overwhelming majority of citizens feel that something is so distasteful that it brings great shame to our society, should they ban it? In other words, does a democracy cede its rights to the mob?
The arguments for banning cockfighting can easily be applied to the abortion debate. (Sadly, far more people are far more amenable to the banning of chicken-murder than they are to the banning of unborn-human-murder.) As the bumper sticker says, "If you don't like abortion, don't have one." But I don't think the problem is that easy. If society finds abortion to be a shame upon the character of our nation, as cockfighting is, should it be banned by popular referendum? The issue is further complicated by questions of legal rights. If the unborn are entitled to the same rights as other humans, their right to life should be protected. Unfortunately, our Supreme Court and our state governments have weaseled out of adopting a legal definition of when life and personhood begin.
While I see myself as being pretty libertarian, I'm searching for a definition of where I draw that line where the government does have a duty to step in. I find cockfighting disgusting. I am resolute in my belief that abortion is heinously wrong, unless the alternative places the mother in mortal danger. But I can't say for sure what role the government should play in either of these areas. There is no doubt that government intervention will have little impact. Cockfighting will always exist in the criminal underground, or move south of the border to Mexico. Abortion will never be eradicated, although the "back alley butchers" will never achieve the same level of activity as Planned Parenthood. When society finds these things distasteful, society will boycott them. And that's the most effective way of making sure these social ills never rear their ugly heads.
My feelings on the ban are mixed. Cockfighting is undoubtedly cruel, vulgar and distasteful. At the same time, what gives the government the authority to ban it? The libertarian view is that if people are opposed to cockfighting, they won't take part in it.
Does cockfighting harm society, and does that give the government the authority to ban it? If an overwhelming majority of citizens feel that something is so distasteful that it brings great shame to our society, should they ban it? In other words, does a democracy cede its rights to the mob?
The arguments for banning cockfighting can easily be applied to the abortion debate. (Sadly, far more people are far more amenable to the banning of chicken-murder than they are to the banning of unborn-human-murder.) As the bumper sticker says, "If you don't like abortion, don't have one." But I don't think the problem is that easy. If society finds abortion to be a shame upon the character of our nation, as cockfighting is, should it be banned by popular referendum? The issue is further complicated by questions of legal rights. If the unborn are entitled to the same rights as other humans, their right to life should be protected. Unfortunately, our Supreme Court and our state governments have weaseled out of adopting a legal definition of when life and personhood begin.
While I see myself as being pretty libertarian, I'm searching for a definition of where I draw that line where the government does have a duty to step in. I find cockfighting disgusting. I am resolute in my belief that abortion is heinously wrong, unless the alternative places the mother in mortal danger. But I can't say for sure what role the government should play in either of these areas. There is no doubt that government intervention will have little impact. Cockfighting will always exist in the criminal underground, or move south of the border to Mexico. Abortion will never be eradicated, although the "back alley butchers" will never achieve the same level of activity as Planned Parenthood. When society finds these things distasteful, society will boycott them. And that's the most effective way of making sure these social ills never rear their ugly heads.
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
Never has failure been so eagerly anticipated...
Once again, Congressional Democrats are calling the troop surge in Iraq a failure. The pronouncement, by Lieutenant General Harry Reid and Major General Nancy Pelosi, comes as congressional Democrats prepare a new offensive of measures to end American involvement in the Iraq War.
For their own part, I don't think the Congressional Republicans are much more patient. They're eagerly awaiting General Petraeus's testimony in September, so they can make a declaration of "Hey, we tried, so you can't blame us" before they withdraw their support for an increasingly-unpopular war.
When General Petraeus stands before Congress in September, he'll be able to say what we've been observing since the surge began its gradual start in February. The Shiite militias have laid low, deterred by Americans fanning through the streets of Baghdad. Sunni militants have encouragingly turned against al Qaeda in growing numbers, due more to al Qaeda's indiscriminate bloodlust rather than an increased American presence. But the downside is that al Qaeda has seized on America's fracturing willpower, and they've mounted a sustained terrorist offensive aimed at increased American casualties and stoking the flames of sectarian war.
Three months from now, little will have changed. The "surge" is a misnomer, because the increased troop levels and distributed security stations will have to be sustained for years, rather than months, to truly quell the violence. In fairness to General Petraeus, his deadline should at least be extended to the end of December, which will give the full surge (which won't be in place until this month) six months to show signs of progress.
When General Petraeus addresses Congress, they owe him a fair assessment of his findings. If he reports that the momentum is shifting in our favor, will Congress still try to cut and run? If he asks for more time, will Congress grant it to him?
By this point, my cynicism has set in. I believe that General Petraeus's testimony will be a show-trial of sorts, serving as window dressing so Congress can claim that they did everything they could for our military before squandering the gains our military has made towards an admittedly-herculean goal: a peaceful, democratic Iraq. When this insurgency started, everybody dispelled any grand illusions of the surrender aboard the USS Missouri. Congress will then be faced with the task of avoiding a scene like the evacuation and fall of Saigon. For Congressional Democrats (who have been big on criticism and short on substance) and for Congressional Republicans (who, until recently, have been the president's cheerleaders with little constructive insights of their own,) I doubt that they will have the wisdom, insight, or willpower to de-scope the American mission in a way that will lead to a constructive outcome.
For their own part, I don't think the Congressional Republicans are much more patient. They're eagerly awaiting General Petraeus's testimony in September, so they can make a declaration of "Hey, we tried, so you can't blame us" before they withdraw their support for an increasingly-unpopular war.
When General Petraeus stands before Congress in September, he'll be able to say what we've been observing since the surge began its gradual start in February. The Shiite militias have laid low, deterred by Americans fanning through the streets of Baghdad. Sunni militants have encouragingly turned against al Qaeda in growing numbers, due more to al Qaeda's indiscriminate bloodlust rather than an increased American presence. But the downside is that al Qaeda has seized on America's fracturing willpower, and they've mounted a sustained terrorist offensive aimed at increased American casualties and stoking the flames of sectarian war.
Three months from now, little will have changed. The "surge" is a misnomer, because the increased troop levels and distributed security stations will have to be sustained for years, rather than months, to truly quell the violence. In fairness to General Petraeus, his deadline should at least be extended to the end of December, which will give the full surge (which won't be in place until this month) six months to show signs of progress.
When General Petraeus addresses Congress, they owe him a fair assessment of his findings. If he reports that the momentum is shifting in our favor, will Congress still try to cut and run? If he asks for more time, will Congress grant it to him?
By this point, my cynicism has set in. I believe that General Petraeus's testimony will be a show-trial of sorts, serving as window dressing so Congress can claim that they did everything they could for our military before squandering the gains our military has made towards an admittedly-herculean goal: a peaceful, democratic Iraq. When this insurgency started, everybody dispelled any grand illusions of the surrender aboard the USS Missouri. Congress will then be faced with the task of avoiding a scene like the evacuation and fall of Saigon. For Congressional Democrats (who have been big on criticism and short on substance) and for Congressional Republicans (who, until recently, have been the president's cheerleaders with little constructive insights of their own,) I doubt that they will have the wisdom, insight, or willpower to de-scope the American mission in a way that will lead to a constructive outcome.
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
No Mo Gitmo?
This past weekend, the supporters of closing the Guantanamo Bay prison gained an important supporter: Colin Powell.
I've maintained for a long time that the problem with the Guantanamo Prison is one of perception. Over 90% of the claims of abuse and torture are fabrications, and the justice system created by the Military Commissions Act isn't inherently unfair. Unfortunately, perception is reality, and battling these perceptions is the only way that America can defeat Islamic fundamentalism.
Guantanamo Bay is not the ideal place to put captured enemy combatants. Since the prison's inception, the Castro regime has been a driving force behind the "Guantanamo torture" meme by releasing photographs and planting stories about the goings-on at the prison. It's about time to take away Fidel's propaganda ploy. I propose that a new prison camp for captured terrorists be built, on the most God-forsaken strip of federal land in the American southwest. The presence of enemy combatants in special camps on American soil isn't new; during World War II, captured Axis soldiers were taken to prisons at military installations in the US.
The other part of Colin Powell's argument is that captured terrorists should be subject to the same legal code as US citizens. First, I do not believe that illegal combatants, who take up arms in foreign lands in violation of the Geneva Conventions, deserve the same legal rights as US citizens. Second, I think that the military commission system is fair, as evidenced by the first three cases being thrown out because the judges didn't feel the government established whether the defendants belonged in that court. With that being said, I don't think it's intolerable that we put suspected terrorists in the civilian court system. The important thing is that justice be done, and that these terrorist dildos receive life imprisonment or the death penalty for their crimes. My fear is that the terrorists will be set free by lenient judges, or that crucial evidence collected by the US armed forces would be dismissed from the trials because it was not obtained under a court-issued warrant. Further, I would request that convicted terrorists be placed in special prisons, and not be mixed in with the general prison population.
The Gitmo prison was a hasty solution improvised during the opening phases of our war against al Qaeda. Since the prison opened, it has been under constant assault as a place where America's virtues have come to be sacrificed. The only cure for this miasma of mistrust is with more transparency--close down Gitmo, and possibly put the captured terrorists in the hands of civilian courts.
The only question I have is one of who actually benefits from added transparency in the system for bringing terrorists to justice. The Islamic world views the actions of westerners as disingenuous, and colors western actions as a continual conspiracy against Muslims. The leftist Americans who hate America will continue to see America as the villain and the captured terrorists as victims. America's European critics will continue to view America as an arrogant aggressor. There are really no good options for America as it tries to subject terrorists to some sort of justice; the best that can be done is to limit the damage through more transparency.
I've maintained for a long time that the problem with the Guantanamo Prison is one of perception. Over 90% of the claims of abuse and torture are fabrications, and the justice system created by the Military Commissions Act isn't inherently unfair. Unfortunately, perception is reality, and battling these perceptions is the only way that America can defeat Islamic fundamentalism.
Guantanamo Bay is not the ideal place to put captured enemy combatants. Since the prison's inception, the Castro regime has been a driving force behind the "Guantanamo torture" meme by releasing photographs and planting stories about the goings-on at the prison. It's about time to take away Fidel's propaganda ploy. I propose that a new prison camp for captured terrorists be built, on the most God-forsaken strip of federal land in the American southwest. The presence of enemy combatants in special camps on American soil isn't new; during World War II, captured Axis soldiers were taken to prisons at military installations in the US.
The other part of Colin Powell's argument is that captured terrorists should be subject to the same legal code as US citizens. First, I do not believe that illegal combatants, who take up arms in foreign lands in violation of the Geneva Conventions, deserve the same legal rights as US citizens. Second, I think that the military commission system is fair, as evidenced by the first three cases being thrown out because the judges didn't feel the government established whether the defendants belonged in that court. With that being said, I don't think it's intolerable that we put suspected terrorists in the civilian court system. The important thing is that justice be done, and that these terrorist dildos receive life imprisonment or the death penalty for their crimes. My fear is that the terrorists will be set free by lenient judges, or that crucial evidence collected by the US armed forces would be dismissed from the trials because it was not obtained under a court-issued warrant. Further, I would request that convicted terrorists be placed in special prisons, and not be mixed in with the general prison population.
The Gitmo prison was a hasty solution improvised during the opening phases of our war against al Qaeda. Since the prison opened, it has been under constant assault as a place where America's virtues have come to be sacrificed. The only cure for this miasma of mistrust is with more transparency--close down Gitmo, and possibly put the captured terrorists in the hands of civilian courts.
The only question I have is one of who actually benefits from added transparency in the system for bringing terrorists to justice. The Islamic world views the actions of westerners as disingenuous, and colors western actions as a continual conspiracy against Muslims. The leftist Americans who hate America will continue to see America as the villain and the captured terrorists as victims. America's European critics will continue to view America as an arrogant aggressor. There are really no good options for America as it tries to subject terrorists to some sort of justice; the best that can be done is to limit the damage through more transparency.
Saturday, June 09, 2007
Spider-Man 4?
Immediately after "Spider-Man 3" came out, I immediately started wondering what ideas from the comics would still be a possibility for Spider-Man 4. I went through a few different iterations of a story idea and a villain, including the Hobgoblin, then Vulture, then the Spider-Slayers and the Scorpion. I also rejected ideas that have been floated on the internet before, such as Mysterio (played by Bruce Campbell) and The Lizard (because Curt Connors makes a much better supporting character and hasn't been built up to the point where he can take a villain turn.)
My final idea for "Spider-Man 4," the one I consider to be my final fan-fiction story treatment, takes elements from several important Spider-Man stories in the comics, including:
--The Death of George Stacy
--The Night Gwen Stacy Died
--The Original Clone Saga
--Web of Carnage
Four major characters in the Spidey-verse are introduced: reporter Ned Leeds, Herman Schultz (who will later become The Shocker,) Cletus Kasady, and Miles Warren (played by none other than Christopher Walken in my treatment.)
The story would begin with Peter and Mary Jane "deciding to see other people" in the wake of Harry Osborn's death in "Spider-Man 3." Peter and Mary Jane share a last dance to a familiar song before ending their relationship. Peter begins seeing Gwen Stacy, beginning a relationship that blossoms into love by the end of the movie. At the same time, Mary Jane begins to regret her decision and realizes how much she really loves Peter.
Gwen is also the object of Miles Warren's obsession. He's Peter and Gwen's biology professor, and he also takes possession of the "Venom" remnants that Curt Connors harvested in "Spider-Man 3." Warren begins an extreme body-building program in order to win Gwen's affection, and makes his jealous resentment towards Peter Parker known.
By accident, Miles Warren creates the Carnage symbiote by feeding the Venom sybiote a sample of Peter Parker's blood. The new symbiote bonds with Cletus Kasady, a janitor who is really a sociopath who preys on young women at universities across the country. Kasady, in the form of Carnage, starts a killing spree throughout New York that claims the life of police captain George Stacy, among many others. Spider-Man is only able to defeat Carnage by using a prototype of the Shocker suit, designed by Herman Schultz.
Miles Warren discovers that Peter Parker is Spider-Man based on analysis of his blood sample. It all makes sense to him now: he has to kill Parker to suppress his involvement in the Carnage debacle and keep Gwen Stacy to himself. He becomes the costumed villain "Jackal" and attacks Parker with his poisoned claws. Parker is able to escape, but can't prevent Gwen Stacy (still grieving for her father) from being kidnapped. Jackal also captures Ned Leeds, who had been investigating Cletus Kasady but soon shifted his investigation to Warren and his illicit experiments.
Peter receives a cryptic note to meet Warren at Shea Stadium at midnight. After a brief battle with the Jackal in the stadium, Spider-Man awakens to see Gwen Stacy and Ned Leeds strapped to a time-bomb. He throws the bomb into the stands just before it detonates, but shrapnel kills Gwen and wounds Parker and Leeds. Spider-Man escapes before the police arrive, leading many to believe that Spider-Man killed Gwen Stacy. It's not until Ned Leeds regains consciousness that Spider-Man is exonerated.
Filled with rage, Spider-Man breaks into Ravencroft asylum where the Carnage symbiote is being contained. He merges with the symbiote to become Spider-Carnage. Then Spider-Carnage begins a one-man manhunt for The Jackal, leaving a path of destruction behind him.
When Spider-Carnage finally finds the Jackal in his hideout, the villain is no match for Spider-Carnage. Just as Spider-Carnage is about to kill the Jackal, police surround the hideout and try using sound to separate Spider-Man from the symbiote. The sound is enough to spare Jackal's life, but Spider-Man refuses to give up the symbiote. Finally, Curt Connors summons Mary Jane, who picks up a megaphone and sings the song that she and Peter danced to on their last night together. Spider-Man finally rids himself of the Carnage symbiote as the police storm in and arrest Miles Warren. The movie concludes with Peter and Mary Jane reaffirming their love, Mary Jane consoling Peter in the wake of Gwen's death, and Mary Jane's acceptance of the sacrifice that accompanies Peter's responsibility to be Spider-Man.
My final idea for "Spider-Man 4," the one I consider to be my final fan-fiction story treatment, takes elements from several important Spider-Man stories in the comics, including:
--The Death of George Stacy
--The Night Gwen Stacy Died
--The Original Clone Saga
--Web of Carnage
Four major characters in the Spidey-verse are introduced: reporter Ned Leeds, Herman Schultz (who will later become The Shocker,) Cletus Kasady, and Miles Warren (played by none other than Christopher Walken in my treatment.)
The story would begin with Peter and Mary Jane "deciding to see other people" in the wake of Harry Osborn's death in "Spider-Man 3." Peter and Mary Jane share a last dance to a familiar song before ending their relationship. Peter begins seeing Gwen Stacy, beginning a relationship that blossoms into love by the end of the movie. At the same time, Mary Jane begins to regret her decision and realizes how much she really loves Peter.
Gwen is also the object of Miles Warren's obsession. He's Peter and Gwen's biology professor, and he also takes possession of the "Venom" remnants that Curt Connors harvested in "Spider-Man 3." Warren begins an extreme body-building program in order to win Gwen's affection, and makes his jealous resentment towards Peter Parker known.
By accident, Miles Warren creates the Carnage symbiote by feeding the Venom sybiote a sample of Peter Parker's blood. The new symbiote bonds with Cletus Kasady, a janitor who is really a sociopath who preys on young women at universities across the country. Kasady, in the form of Carnage, starts a killing spree throughout New York that claims the life of police captain George Stacy, among many others. Spider-Man is only able to defeat Carnage by using a prototype of the Shocker suit, designed by Herman Schultz.
Miles Warren discovers that Peter Parker is Spider-Man based on analysis of his blood sample. It all makes sense to him now: he has to kill Parker to suppress his involvement in the Carnage debacle and keep Gwen Stacy to himself. He becomes the costumed villain "Jackal" and attacks Parker with his poisoned claws. Parker is able to escape, but can't prevent Gwen Stacy (still grieving for her father) from being kidnapped. Jackal also captures Ned Leeds, who had been investigating Cletus Kasady but soon shifted his investigation to Warren and his illicit experiments.
Peter receives a cryptic note to meet Warren at Shea Stadium at midnight. After a brief battle with the Jackal in the stadium, Spider-Man awakens to see Gwen Stacy and Ned Leeds strapped to a time-bomb. He throws the bomb into the stands just before it detonates, but shrapnel kills Gwen and wounds Parker and Leeds. Spider-Man escapes before the police arrive, leading many to believe that Spider-Man killed Gwen Stacy. It's not until Ned Leeds regains consciousness that Spider-Man is exonerated.
Filled with rage, Spider-Man breaks into Ravencroft asylum where the Carnage symbiote is being contained. He merges with the symbiote to become Spider-Carnage. Then Spider-Carnage begins a one-man manhunt for The Jackal, leaving a path of destruction behind him.
When Spider-Carnage finally finds the Jackal in his hideout, the villain is no match for Spider-Carnage. Just as Spider-Carnage is about to kill the Jackal, police surround the hideout and try using sound to separate Spider-Man from the symbiote. The sound is enough to spare Jackal's life, but Spider-Man refuses to give up the symbiote. Finally, Curt Connors summons Mary Jane, who picks up a megaphone and sings the song that she and Peter danced to on their last night together. Spider-Man finally rids himself of the Carnage symbiote as the police storm in and arrest Miles Warren. The movie concludes with Peter and Mary Jane reaffirming their love, Mary Jane consoling Peter in the wake of Gwen's death, and Mary Jane's acceptance of the sacrifice that accompanies Peter's responsibility to be Spider-Man.
This Week in Music
Over the past few months, I've been building up my music collection. This week, I indulged in two of the week's new releases. The first was "Memory Almost Full" by Paul McCartney, while the other was "Carry On" by Chris Cornell.
I'm very familiar with McCartney, not only from his Beatles days, but from the wonderful songs he did as a solo artist and with Wings (Maybe I'm Amazed, Band on the Run, Jet and many others.) I never got into Soundgarden or Audioslave, so my only prior exposure to Chris Cornell was from You Know My Name, the theme from last November's Casino Royale.
The verdict? Well, I'm trying to listen to "Memory Almost Full" and like it, but I'm having a hard time. The only song that really stands out as being remotely good is Only Mama Knows, although Ever Present Past is growing on me. Most of the songwriting is quite simplistic, which is what we expect from many of McCartney's post-Beatles songs, but tunes like Dance Tonight delve into the depths of vapidness. The album has been well-reviewed critically, and compared to McCartney's work with Wings. I really won't compare it to Wings; as much as I thought the "Band on the Run" album was uneven and too slow and tiresome in certain parts, it's still much better than "Memory Almost Full."
Chris Cornell, on the other hand, fares much better. I knew this was a great album on my first listen. I didn't care much for the opening track (and lead single) No Such Thing, but the album quickly picks up from there. Poison Eye is up-tempo and catchy, while Arms Around Your Love sinks its hooks right into you and never lets go. Cornell's rendition of Billie Jean deserves major points for originality and really redefines the meaning of the song. Other songs like Silence have a cryptic poeticism that gives the imaginations of listeners plenty of fodder to play with.
At the end of the day, "Carry On" stands out as an exemplary album of alternative rock with stand-out songs and a smooth progression from start to finish. "Memory Almost Full" probably isn't worth the price of admission unless you're a McCartney die-hard. Casual McCartney fans would be better off revisiting "Band on the Run," "Flaming Pie," or "Driving Rain."
I'm very familiar with McCartney, not only from his Beatles days, but from the wonderful songs he did as a solo artist and with Wings (Maybe I'm Amazed, Band on the Run, Jet and many others.) I never got into Soundgarden or Audioslave, so my only prior exposure to Chris Cornell was from You Know My Name, the theme from last November's Casino Royale.
The verdict? Well, I'm trying to listen to "Memory Almost Full" and like it, but I'm having a hard time. The only song that really stands out as being remotely good is Only Mama Knows, although Ever Present Past is growing on me. Most of the songwriting is quite simplistic, which is what we expect from many of McCartney's post-Beatles songs, but tunes like Dance Tonight delve into the depths of vapidness. The album has been well-reviewed critically, and compared to McCartney's work with Wings. I really won't compare it to Wings; as much as I thought the "Band on the Run" album was uneven and too slow and tiresome in certain parts, it's still much better than "Memory Almost Full."
Chris Cornell, on the other hand, fares much better. I knew this was a great album on my first listen. I didn't care much for the opening track (and lead single) No Such Thing, but the album quickly picks up from there. Poison Eye is up-tempo and catchy, while Arms Around Your Love sinks its hooks right into you and never lets go. Cornell's rendition of Billie Jean deserves major points for originality and really redefines the meaning of the song. Other songs like Silence have a cryptic poeticism that gives the imaginations of listeners plenty of fodder to play with.
At the end of the day, "Carry On" stands out as an exemplary album of alternative rock with stand-out songs and a smooth progression from start to finish. "Memory Almost Full" probably isn't worth the price of admission unless you're a McCartney die-hard. Casual McCartney fans would be better off revisiting "Band on the Run," "Flaming Pie," or "Driving Rain."
Sunday, June 03, 2007
Forty Years of Sergeant Pepper
This weekend, audiophiles and Beatle-Maniacs celebrated the fortieth anniversary of the ground breaking album "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." The album is frequently cited as the greatest album of all time. Although I'm a Beatle-fan, I can't agree that "Sergeant Pepper" is the greatest album, or even the Beatles' best work.
Beginning with the release of "Rubber Soul" in December 1965, the Beatles moved away from the simplistic pop that characterized "The Boys for Liverpool" and moved in bold new artistic directions. "Rubber Soul" gave us one of the finest songs ever written (In My Life,) plenty of great singles (Drive My Car, Nowhere Man, Norwegian Wood,) and even several memorable filler songs (The Word, I'm Looking Through You, You Won't See Me.)
"Revolver," released in August 1966, brought the Beatles up to a whole new level with songs like Eleanor Rigby, Good Day Sunshine, Taxman, Got to Get You Into My Life, and the under-appreciated And Your Bird Can Sing. Songs like Eleanor Rigby and And Your Bird Can Sing were brave musical experiments that worked well. At the same time, a few of the band's experiments weren't so successful, like Doctor Robert and the hashish-inspired Tomorrow Never Knows.
"Sergeant Pepper" began with the concept that the Beatles were performing in disguise as "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," but the concept of disguise wasn't really carried beyond the opening and closing songs. Plenty of memorable songs fit within that space, like Good Morning Good Morning, Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, With a Little Help From My Friends, and When I'm Sixty-Four. Within the album, the theme of disguise is overshadowed (at least in my view) by the stronger theme of death and rebirth. Perhaps this fueled the infamous "Paul is Dead" rumors.
Much like "Revolver," "Sergeant Pepper" marks a time of high experimentation (with both music and drugs) by The Beatles. Most of the experiments succeeded marvelously and broke new ground, while a few fell flat. On "Sergeant Pepper," there are a few duds, like Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite.
Where does "Sergeant Pepper" stack up among albums? I'd probably put it in the top ten of all albums ever published, but the top spot will remain with "Pet Sounds" by The Beach Boys. For me, "Pet Sounds" is a divinely-inspired work that takes the theme of "paradise" and links the physical paradise of previous Beach Boys songs (the beach,) to the emotional paradise (love, as embodied in Wouldn't it be Nice) to the spiritual paradise (exemplified in God Only Knows, one of the finest songs ever written.)
In some ways, "Sergeant Pepper" doesn't even stack up to another one of my top-ten albums, Boston's self-titled debut album. That disc opens with More Than a Feeling (like God Only Knows and In My Life, one of the greatest songs ever written,) and follows with seven excellent songs that are all memorable, if not all classics. I think that "Boston" only falls short with a lack of a unifying theme (which the band would eventually devise for 1986's Third Stage.)
It's hard to rank the Beatles albums, as they're all good (I even loved "Magical Mystery Tour.") I would say that "Please Please Me" was the most consistent, but certainly not the best, album from the Fab Four. "Rubber Soul" was quite consistent and had fairly high quality songs (by the standards of the band.) I want to say that "Revolver" is the best based on several of the songs, but it's ruined by a few songs that, in my mind, were real duds. The strength of "Sergeant Pepper" is that it brings a little bit of everything that the Beatles were known for: simple and lighthearted songs, trippy, drug-inspired songs, and bits of introspection. While I don't think "Sergeant Pepper" was the best Beatles album, it encompasses the Beatles experience more neatly than any other album they ever issued.
Beginning with the release of "Rubber Soul" in December 1965, the Beatles moved away from the simplistic pop that characterized "The Boys for Liverpool" and moved in bold new artistic directions. "Rubber Soul" gave us one of the finest songs ever written (In My Life,) plenty of great singles (Drive My Car, Nowhere Man, Norwegian Wood,) and even several memorable filler songs (The Word, I'm Looking Through You, You Won't See Me.)
"Revolver," released in August 1966, brought the Beatles up to a whole new level with songs like Eleanor Rigby, Good Day Sunshine, Taxman, Got to Get You Into My Life, and the under-appreciated And Your Bird Can Sing. Songs like Eleanor Rigby and And Your Bird Can Sing were brave musical experiments that worked well. At the same time, a few of the band's experiments weren't so successful, like Doctor Robert and the hashish-inspired Tomorrow Never Knows.
"Sergeant Pepper" began with the concept that the Beatles were performing in disguise as "Sergeant Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band," but the concept of disguise wasn't really carried beyond the opening and closing songs. Plenty of memorable songs fit within that space, like Good Morning Good Morning, Lucy in the Sky With Diamonds, With a Little Help From My Friends, and When I'm Sixty-Four. Within the album, the theme of disguise is overshadowed (at least in my view) by the stronger theme of death and rebirth. Perhaps this fueled the infamous "Paul is Dead" rumors.
Much like "Revolver," "Sergeant Pepper" marks a time of high experimentation (with both music and drugs) by The Beatles. Most of the experiments succeeded marvelously and broke new ground, while a few fell flat. On "Sergeant Pepper," there are a few duds, like Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite.
Where does "Sergeant Pepper" stack up among albums? I'd probably put it in the top ten of all albums ever published, but the top spot will remain with "Pet Sounds" by The Beach Boys. For me, "Pet Sounds" is a divinely-inspired work that takes the theme of "paradise" and links the physical paradise of previous Beach Boys songs (the beach,) to the emotional paradise (love, as embodied in Wouldn't it be Nice) to the spiritual paradise (exemplified in God Only Knows, one of the finest songs ever written.)
In some ways, "Sergeant Pepper" doesn't even stack up to another one of my top-ten albums, Boston's self-titled debut album. That disc opens with More Than a Feeling (like God Only Knows and In My Life, one of the greatest songs ever written,) and follows with seven excellent songs that are all memorable, if not all classics. I think that "Boston" only falls short with a lack of a unifying theme (which the band would eventually devise for 1986's Third Stage.)
It's hard to rank the Beatles albums, as they're all good (I even loved "Magical Mystery Tour.") I would say that "Please Please Me" was the most consistent, but certainly not the best, album from the Fab Four. "Rubber Soul" was quite consistent and had fairly high quality songs (by the standards of the band.) I want to say that "Revolver" is the best based on several of the songs, but it's ruined by a few songs that, in my mind, were real duds. The strength of "Sergeant Pepper" is that it brings a little bit of everything that the Beatles were known for: simple and lighthearted songs, trippy, drug-inspired songs, and bits of introspection. While I don't think "Sergeant Pepper" was the best Beatles album, it encompasses the Beatles experience more neatly than any other album they ever issued.
