Ben Folds Five reunites to perform "The Unauthorized Biography of Reinhold Messner" from front to back. It happens to be one of my all-time favourite albums. BFF happens to be one of my all-time favourite bands. What a wonderful coincidence.
Let us all enjoy this fantastic professionally shot video of the performance:
27 October, 2008
Ted Leo & The Pharmacists - 2 December 2008
The Free Press
2 December 2008
Just before the season’s first big snowstorm, Ted Leo & The Pharmacists delivered a knock-out performance at the SPACE Gallery in Portland, Maine on December 2nd.
The 18+ venue began filling nearly to capacity as two sub-par opening bands had their turn on the stage. When Ted Leo finally strapped on his axe, he began chatting with the crowd rather than ripping into a song. Mr. Leo is occasionally chatty behind the mic, but he certainly had a lot to say in Portland. It was cool to hear what was on Ted’s mind, but I can’t help but to feel that his discussions inadvertently cut a few songs from his setlist. However, it definitely set the stage for a loose & carefree atmosphere.
“Me & Mia” was played relatively early in the set, as was “Counting Down The Hours.” Both songs are two of Ted’s best-known tunes, and they resulted in giant sing-alongs. Spread throughout the set were songs from Ted’s newest release, Living With The Living. The highlight of the show was an extremely energetic version of “Little Dawn.” The trance-inducing repitition of the lyric “it’s alright” led to a tense built-up. At the peak, the band launched into a snippet of Daft Punk’s “One More Time,” much to the crowd’s delight.
Ted’s legendary stage presence was in full force, which meant for a rough night for the drumset. Ted plowed it over twice over the course of the show (which, if I might add, was so totally cool). After the second offense, Ted’s drummer looked rather pissed. He confirmed this suspicion by walking off-stage when the song had finished, ending the Pharmacists’ set. Despite the potential crisis, Ted came back onstage and treated the crowd to what appeared to be a solo version of “Timorous Me.” Towards the end of the song, however, the band re-joined him and they all finished the show together.
After the show, Ted took a break from packing up his gear to say hello, preserving his status as “Nicest Guy In Rock & Roll.”
Many thanks to Joe Bearor and Hayley Adams for their help with this article and interview with Mr. Leo.
2 December 2008
Just before the season’s first big snowstorm, Ted Leo & The Pharmacists delivered a knock-out performance at the SPACE Gallery in Portland, Maine on December 2nd.
The 18+ venue began filling nearly to capacity as two sub-par opening bands had their turn on the stage. When Ted Leo finally strapped on his axe, he began chatting with the crowd rather than ripping into a song. Mr. Leo is occasionally chatty behind the mic, but he certainly had a lot to say in Portland. It was cool to hear what was on Ted’s mind, but I can’t help but to feel that his discussions inadvertently cut a few songs from his setlist. However, it definitely set the stage for a loose & carefree atmosphere.
“Me & Mia” was played relatively early in the set, as was “Counting Down The Hours.” Both songs are two of Ted’s best-known tunes, and they resulted in giant sing-alongs. Spread throughout the set were songs from Ted’s newest release, Living With The Living. The highlight of the show was an extremely energetic version of “Little Dawn.” The trance-inducing repitition of the lyric “it’s alright” led to a tense built-up. At the peak, the band launched into a snippet of Daft Punk’s “One More Time,” much to the crowd’s delight.
Ted’s legendary stage presence was in full force, which meant for a rough night for the drumset. Ted plowed it over twice over the course of the show (which, if I might add, was so totally cool). After the second offense, Ted’s drummer looked rather pissed. He confirmed this suspicion by walking off-stage when the song had finished, ending the Pharmacists’ set. Despite the potential crisis, Ted came back onstage and treated the crowd to what appeared to be a solo version of “Timorous Me.” Towards the end of the song, however, the band re-joined him and they all finished the show together.
After the show, Ted took a break from packing up his gear to say hello, preserving his status as “Nicest Guy In Rock & Roll.”
Many thanks to Joe Bearor and Hayley Adams for their help with this article and interview with Mr. Leo.
Portland Aches For A Venue
The Free Press
3 April 2008
The city of Portland is hurting for a medium-sized music venue. Hurting badly.
The State Theatre formerly provided the service of bringing quality entertainment to Portland. It wasn’t as big as the Civic Center, but bigger than any club or bar. The kind of bands that played the State Theatre were usually up & coming acts on their first tour, or bands whose creative boundaries stretch further than mainstream radio. A number of highly popular acts have also graced the stage, including Jimmy Eat World, the Foo Fighters, and Ray Davies of The Kinks. The venue was also a great chance for local acts to play for a larger audience than usual.
Sadly, the State Theatre closed in 2007. I had previously thought it closed due to violating fire codes, but the State Office of Fire Marshal told me otherwise, citing a management dispute. Whatever the reason, the State Theatre is sorely missed.
Since the closing, the number of concerts in Portland dropped off immediately. Bands had no choice of venues - they either had to cram their national tour into a small club, or have to fill a 9,000 seat civic center. It was difficult enough to get concerts in Portland, seeing that Maine isn’t between any two points of heavy travel. People that come to Maine aren’t on their way to anywhere else. Once you’re done in Maine, you turn around and go back to wherever you came from.
I’m here to proclaim Portland’s extreme need for a medium-sized music venue. I don’t care if we reopen the State Theatre or built a brand new place, we just need it to exist. This action would sharply boost the Maine music scene, increase state revenue, and create an overall heightened sense of excitement in the city. I hope the city realizes such a venue is essential, or I hope someone steps up to the plate and whips the State Theatre back into shape. I heard a rumor that Kevin Spacey considered buying the State Theatre, but eventually passed.
To think that Kevin Spacey almost saved us all.
3 April 2008
The city of Portland is hurting for a medium-sized music venue. Hurting badly.
The State Theatre formerly provided the service of bringing quality entertainment to Portland. It wasn’t as big as the Civic Center, but bigger than any club or bar. The kind of bands that played the State Theatre were usually up & coming acts on their first tour, or bands whose creative boundaries stretch further than mainstream radio. A number of highly popular acts have also graced the stage, including Jimmy Eat World, the Foo Fighters, and Ray Davies of The Kinks. The venue was also a great chance for local acts to play for a larger audience than usual.
Sadly, the State Theatre closed in 2007. I had previously thought it closed due to violating fire codes, but the State Office of Fire Marshal told me otherwise, citing a management dispute. Whatever the reason, the State Theatre is sorely missed.
Since the closing, the number of concerts in Portland dropped off immediately. Bands had no choice of venues - they either had to cram their national tour into a small club, or have to fill a 9,000 seat civic center. It was difficult enough to get concerts in Portland, seeing that Maine isn’t between any two points of heavy travel. People that come to Maine aren’t on their way to anywhere else. Once you’re done in Maine, you turn around and go back to wherever you came from.
I’m here to proclaim Portland’s extreme need for a medium-sized music venue. I don’t care if we reopen the State Theatre or built a brand new place, we just need it to exist. This action would sharply boost the Maine music scene, increase state revenue, and create an overall heightened sense of excitement in the city. I hope the city realizes such a venue is essential, or I hope someone steps up to the plate and whips the State Theatre back into shape. I heard a rumor that Kevin Spacey considered buying the State Theatre, but eventually passed.
To think that Kevin Spacey almost saved us all.
"In Rainbows" Initial Response
The Free Press
11 October 2007
If you want to know where popular music will be in five years, just pay attention what Radiohead is doing right now.
The quintet of trailblazers from Oxford, England have done it again. The band that signaled the blend of electronic music with alternative rock have now made the first move towards an entirely system of marketing music. Radiohead released their new album, In Rainbows, on October 10th. But the band presented only one option - the only way to obtain the album is via download from the band’s website. Buyers’ options become nearly unlimited with the next step, however ... you get to name your own price to purchase In Rainbows. That’s right, it’s your call. Being the broke college student that I am, I paid the bare minimum the website would allow ($3, or £1, plus a very small handling charge). I didn’t feel too bad about being cheap, seeing that I paid $125 for a single ticket to see Radiohead in 2006. It also doesn’t hurt that they’re one of the richest and most popular bands in the world.
For those of you who want something more, fear not: Radiohead is releasing In Rainbows as a box-set of sorts in December; for $82 (or £40) you can purchase an extravagant packaged deal including a CD copy of the album, a bonus disc featuring 8 bonus tracks, a copy of the album on heavyweight vinyl, a hardcover book, and a plethora of lyrics and photographs. For those of you who don’t have $82 but still want something tangible, don’t fret: it’s been rumored that Radiohead is considering a January 2008 proper release of the CD, available at regular music stores.
(Legally) downloading In Rainbows was like tearing open the biggest present under the Christmas tree. Even though it’s only 10 songs, I’m not even going to attempt to review the album after only a few listens. While the instrumentation is much more sparse and minimal compared to past Radiohead albums, In Rainbows is a very complex piece of art. It may take a while for the full effect of the album to sink in, but I’ll note a few of my first impressions:
The Willie Roys, Joe Bearors, and other famously huge Radiohead fans of the world may recognize the song “Nude.” Formerly known as “Big Ideas,” this song has been around over 10 years, and it finally finds it place on an official release. “Nude” has gone through several changes before being heard as it is today. I had the pleasure of hearing “Nude” and a handful of other new songs in concert a year ago, including “Arpeggi”, “Videotape”, and “15 Step,” the album’s funky opener. “Faust ARP” and “Bodysnatchers” were two obvious stand-outs to me upon a first few listens. Thom Yorke’s voice is in top form, and it’s also apparent that drummer Phil Selway is much more prominently featured that in the past. He’s as steady as a metronome but as explosive as a car bomb, and he holds the album together.
This is an important album in the history of popular music. Time will tell whether or not Radiohead’s drastically new approach to selling music will become the standard process, but it’s important for listeners to realize that this may be an amazingly innovative idea, the download method might be a rarity. The only reason Radiohead is able to take such a risk is because a) they’re one of the most popular bands in the world, b) they’re free of a record deal and can do what they please, and c) even if this album is a commercial flop and fails to generate a profit, Radiohead is rich enough to afford a slight decrease in revenue. It would be nearly impossible for most independent bands to release music in such a manner, but that’s just one reason why Radiohead towers above the rest.
11 October 2007
If you want to know where popular music will be in five years, just pay attention what Radiohead is doing right now.
The quintet of trailblazers from Oxford, England have done it again. The band that signaled the blend of electronic music with alternative rock have now made the first move towards an entirely system of marketing music. Radiohead released their new album, In Rainbows, on October 10th. But the band presented only one option - the only way to obtain the album is via download from the band’s website. Buyers’ options become nearly unlimited with the next step, however ... you get to name your own price to purchase In Rainbows. That’s right, it’s your call. Being the broke college student that I am, I paid the bare minimum the website would allow ($3, or £1, plus a very small handling charge). I didn’t feel too bad about being cheap, seeing that I paid $125 for a single ticket to see Radiohead in 2006. It also doesn’t hurt that they’re one of the richest and most popular bands in the world.
For those of you who want something more, fear not: Radiohead is releasing In Rainbows as a box-set of sorts in December; for $82 (or £40) you can purchase an extravagant packaged deal including a CD copy of the album, a bonus disc featuring 8 bonus tracks, a copy of the album on heavyweight vinyl, a hardcover book, and a plethora of lyrics and photographs. For those of you who don’t have $82 but still want something tangible, don’t fret: it’s been rumored that Radiohead is considering a January 2008 proper release of the CD, available at regular music stores.
(Legally) downloading In Rainbows was like tearing open the biggest present under the Christmas tree. Even though it’s only 10 songs, I’m not even going to attempt to review the album after only a few listens. While the instrumentation is much more sparse and minimal compared to past Radiohead albums, In Rainbows is a very complex piece of art. It may take a while for the full effect of the album to sink in, but I’ll note a few of my first impressions:
The Willie Roys, Joe Bearors, and other famously huge Radiohead fans of the world may recognize the song “Nude.” Formerly known as “Big Ideas,” this song has been around over 10 years, and it finally finds it place on an official release. “Nude” has gone through several changes before being heard as it is today. I had the pleasure of hearing “Nude” and a handful of other new songs in concert a year ago, including “Arpeggi”, “Videotape”, and “15 Step,” the album’s funky opener. “Faust ARP” and “Bodysnatchers” were two obvious stand-outs to me upon a first few listens. Thom Yorke’s voice is in top form, and it’s also apparent that drummer Phil Selway is much more prominently featured that in the past. He’s as steady as a metronome but as explosive as a car bomb, and he holds the album together.
This is an important album in the history of popular music. Time will tell whether or not Radiohead’s drastically new approach to selling music will become the standard process, but it’s important for listeners to realize that this may be an amazingly innovative idea, the download method might be a rarity. The only reason Radiohead is able to take such a risk is because a) they’re one of the most popular bands in the world, b) they’re free of a record deal and can do what they please, and c) even if this album is a commercial flop and fails to generate a profit, Radiohead is rich enough to afford a slight decrease in revenue. It would be nearly impossible for most independent bands to release music in such a manner, but that’s just one reason why Radiohead towers above the rest.
THE SLIP - 2007.02.24
From "The Free Press"
24 February 2007
Rarely do I ever go see a band without listening to them first. But the buzz around The Slip was so positive that I decided to take the chance. The Bonnaroo-bound blissful Boston trio barged into Portland riding the success of their most recent album, Eisenhower. The band also gained fame when their song “Even Rats” was included on the popular video game Guitar Hero. That was enough to pack The SPACE on Congress Street to full capacity.
Phonograph, a five-piece folk rock group from Brooklyn, opened the show. The intricate use of a pedal-steel guitar immediately caught my attention. Despite the lead singer’s Kermit-esque quality, the band gave off a very-Wilco vibe and put on an enjoyable performance. Next up was Wintersleep, a quintet of proud Canadians. The lead singer was a direct cross between Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder and the Counting Crows’ Adam Duritz, resulting in a interesting combination.
The Slip took the stage to a smorgasbord of instruments and musical toys, which would account for their epic space-rock sound. It was hard to believe only three people would be using so much equipment. After beginning the set with two non-album tracks, The Slip plowed into “Even Rats,” and the Guitar Hero fans came out from the woodwork. It’s hard to tell if the immense applause was because the song was on Guitar Hero, or just because it’s a damn good song. But either way, it got results.
The Slip rarely spoke to the crowd, but they didn’t have to. Their music said everything it needed to. Though their lineup consisted mainly of the drums/bass/guitar combination, they often ventured into other territories, with exceptional use of a harmonica, a synthesizer, a steel drum, a xylophone, and countless random noise machines. The Slip even had a way to play the bass through a series of pedals, leaving bassist Marc Friedman free to jump on a 2nd guitar. Never have I seen so few people make so much noise.
They then debuted a pair of impressive new songs; it sold me to avidly look for the release of their next album. The song “Airplane/Primitive” was next, and it proved to be one of the highlights of the evening. The crowd again roared with approval as The Slip launched into “Children of December,” the title track of their most recent album. The audience was right on cue when lead singer Brad Barr sang the line “make a little noise.”
The band closed their set with the last two songs on Eisenhower, “The Original Blue Air” and “Paper Birds.” The dramatic conclusion sparked a lengthy ovation, resulting in a brief encore. The Slip sent the crowd home with a brilliant cover of Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Have You Ever Seen The Rain?”
The Slip is one of the most original bands I’ve seen in a long time. Combining the likes of Built To Spill and The Flaming Lips while still appreciating the classics like The Beatles and Led Zeppelin, the trio created a sound like no other - powerfully dreamy, vintagely futuristic, and majestically solid.
24 February 2007
Rarely do I ever go see a band without listening to them first. But the buzz around The Slip was so positive that I decided to take the chance. The Bonnaroo-bound blissful Boston trio barged into Portland riding the success of their most recent album, Eisenhower. The band also gained fame when their song “Even Rats” was included on the popular video game Guitar Hero. That was enough to pack The SPACE on Congress Street to full capacity.
Phonograph, a five-piece folk rock group from Brooklyn, opened the show. The intricate use of a pedal-steel guitar immediately caught my attention. Despite the lead singer’s Kermit-esque quality, the band gave off a very-Wilco vibe and put on an enjoyable performance. Next up was Wintersleep, a quintet of proud Canadians. The lead singer was a direct cross between Pearl Jam’s Eddie Vedder and the Counting Crows’ Adam Duritz, resulting in a interesting combination.
The Slip took the stage to a smorgasbord of instruments and musical toys, which would account for their epic space-rock sound. It was hard to believe only three people would be using so much equipment. After beginning the set with two non-album tracks, The Slip plowed into “Even Rats,” and the Guitar Hero fans came out from the woodwork. It’s hard to tell if the immense applause was because the song was on Guitar Hero, or just because it’s a damn good song. But either way, it got results.
The Slip rarely spoke to the crowd, but they didn’t have to. Their music said everything it needed to. Though their lineup consisted mainly of the drums/bass/guitar combination, they often ventured into other territories, with exceptional use of a harmonica, a synthesizer, a steel drum, a xylophone, and countless random noise machines. The Slip even had a way to play the bass through a series of pedals, leaving bassist Marc Friedman free to jump on a 2nd guitar. Never have I seen so few people make so much noise.
They then debuted a pair of impressive new songs; it sold me to avidly look for the release of their next album. The song “Airplane/Primitive” was next, and it proved to be one of the highlights of the evening. The crowd again roared with approval as The Slip launched into “Children of December,” the title track of their most recent album. The audience was right on cue when lead singer Brad Barr sang the line “make a little noise.”
The band closed their set with the last two songs on Eisenhower, “The Original Blue Air” and “Paper Birds.” The dramatic conclusion sparked a lengthy ovation, resulting in a brief encore. The Slip sent the crowd home with a brilliant cover of Creedence Clearwater Revival’s “Have You Ever Seen The Rain?”
The Slip is one of the most original bands I’ve seen in a long time. Combining the likes of Built To Spill and The Flaming Lips while still appreciating the classics like The Beatles and Led Zeppelin, the trio created a sound like no other - powerfully dreamy, vintagely futuristic, and majestically solid.
Obama-Rama
15 September 2008
If you know anything about me, you probably know that I'm completely bonkers for Barack Obama. It's not just because he's the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, but because of who he is, what he represents, and what it means for our country.
I sincerely and truly believe that this might be the most important election of our nation’s history.
The United States is at a heavy crossroads, as we have been for the past few years. But I feel that we're now at the tipping point. It's easy: Obama wins, the United States' respect and leadership is internationally restored; John McCain wins, and I only shudder to think what will happen. I honestly don't think it's conceivable to believe that McCain will lead America to a brighter tomorrow. I don't think he's the right leader for our country at this time.
I was first drawn to Obama because of his age. I have nothing against old people, but I'd rather have someone with youth in the Oval Office. I want someone who is going to be young enough to understand the changes that this nation needs to embrace. For example, Obama has a well-thought out plan in regards to alternative and/or renewable energies, as well as curing America of our foreign oil addiction. Climate and environment change is a serious and perhaps terminal problem facing America, as well as the rest of the world. The fact that Obama has already laid out such an extensive plan shows me that his mind is in the right place, and that he's able to foresee what's on the horizon. McCain has recently thrown his support behind off-shore drilling; the same answer as every other stale, white, old conservative.
Another hot issue is Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. While I believe that social issues (or even just one issue, for that matter) shouldn't shape an election, that doesn't stop me from thinking less of McCain when he opposes abortions. In an era where social progressivism is on the steady rise, it would be utterly foolish to return to the Dark Ages of pro-life boundaries. I won't elaborate on the subject, but it's important to know that John McCain opposes abortions, while Barack Obama fully supports the right for all women to make their own choice.
Is John McCain a doctor? No. No he is not. Then why, in his non-professional medical opinion, does he oppose the use of medical marijuana? By not supporting, or even being willing to discuss the possibilities of medical marijuana, he's asserting that he knows more about the topic than our nation's top doctors. If countless medical professionals around the globe say that it works for certain illnesses, and they have proof to back it up, then I'm sure not going to dispute them. If doctors could prove that horse manure cured cancer, then I guarantee we'd all be running to the nearest pasture. When asked, Barack Obama has been quoted as being open to the potential for the use of medical marijuana, showing his overall open-mindedness. I don't want a president who will always talk and tell us what's right, I want a president who will sit down and listen.
Today, Merrill Lynch was bought out and Lehman Brothers filed for bankrupcy. This is obviously not good for our struggling economy, and yet John McCain was quoted today by saying that he thought the United States' economy was still strong. The fact is, our economy is rapidly failing, and John McCain fails to properly address this fact. I'm not sure if he doesn't understand what's going on, or if he's in denial, but he's simply wrong. Our economy is in trouble, it can't be tip-toed around any more. Today's quote alone is proof enough that John McCain is not in-touch with America's needs.
If we appreciate our rights as Americans, then why do we deny the same rights to others? In the Senate, John McCain voted against preserving habeas corpus to prisoners held at Guantanamo. Obama voted to grant these prisoners that right. They may be terrorists, but they deserve the same unalienable rights as everyone else in this world. Plus, what if they were wrongly imprisoned? Being a former prisoner of war himself, John McCain of all people should understand the severity of the situation. Hypocrisy at its highest level.
Above all, I think Barack Obama represents change like no other politician before. When stacked up directly against his opponent, the differences are glaring. John McCain's stances and policies aren't very different from that of President George W. Bush, and we all know where that administration got us. It's an undisputed fact that the Bush Administration ran our country into the ground, so we need a brand new direction. Given this choice, are we going to vote for another stale old white guy with eerily similar policies as the previous (failed) administration? Or are we "ready" to elect a youthful, charismatic black man? It would be obtuse of me to state that race isn't playing a large role in this election, and it will be "ready" to vote for a black man. My feeling is that if we aren't ready now, we never will be. Further more, electing a black man would send a clear message to the rest of the world that the United States is ready to change. The colour of one's skin should never matter, and electing Barack Obama would be a mammoth step towards eliminating inequality.
What does this all mean for our country? I truly believe that our country is at a tipping point. We're in an age where the rest of the world is finally catching up to our level of production and consumption. Other nations have eclipsed our best technology, and the world is now a much more level playing field, economically speaking. Citizens of the United States should be concerned as to whether or not they will be able to compete in the global market of the future. These are scenarios that Barack Obama has identified, and will addequitly address as president. As of now, the United States is still #1. We're barely holding on to our status in the world, though our reputation has suffered greatly over the past eight years. Though with our tarnished image, we're not hated, as one man pointed out:
"The one thing I always remind people, because they get discouraged, they say 'People around the world are expressing hatred towards America,' I know, people outside this country are expressing disappointment because they've got high expectations for America. And they want America to lead. They America to lead through our values, and our ideals, and our example, but they have high expectations of us because I think that this country is still the last best hope on earth."
- Barack Obama
Until John McCain says anything with half the insight of Mr. Obama's words, then I'll continue to write him off as just another putrid politician.
And think of this: McCain is 72 years old, and while I hope he continues to live a long & prosperous life, being beaten within an inch of your life for five years in Vietnam can’t help that goal. If you vote for John McCain, you're probably voting for Sarah Palin, and she's an absolute moron. She doesn't deserve me writing even a paragraph about why she shouldn't be elected, at least John McCain was once an honourable man. All I'll say is that Sarah Palin is severely unqualified and unintelligent to be running this country.
But back to my point. The tipping point of America. I hate make it sound so simple and so dramatic, but I sincerely believe that electing John McCain would be a potentially terminal blow to the United States of America, one from which I'm not sure we could rebound. It would be extremely difficult to convince the world that we're ready to lead again if we elect a clone of our last leader. So please, vote for Barack Obama this November. Not as a Democrat, not as a Republican, but as an American. And respectfully get your friends and family to do the same. It's your future, but we're all in this together. Think about it.
If you are in any way offended or pissed off by what you just read, then I don't want to hear about it. That means you were already going to vote for John McCain, and so what I wrote was not intended for you to read. I wrote this for voters undecided on for whom to vote, or potential voters undecided on whether or not to cast their ballot. I don't want to get into a debate, I don't want to hear your side. I'm educated and informed enough to know both sides of the coin, and if you'd like to defend Mr. McCain, then do it on your own time and in your own space. I've already spent enough time writing about a decision that I already thought was a no-brainer.
If you know anything about me, you probably know that I'm completely bonkers for Barack Obama. It's not just because he's the Democratic Party's presidential nominee, but because of who he is, what he represents, and what it means for our country.
I sincerely and truly believe that this might be the most important election of our nation’s history.
The United States is at a heavy crossroads, as we have been for the past few years. But I feel that we're now at the tipping point. It's easy: Obama wins, the United States' respect and leadership is internationally restored; John McCain wins, and I only shudder to think what will happen. I honestly don't think it's conceivable to believe that McCain will lead America to a brighter tomorrow. I don't think he's the right leader for our country at this time.
I was first drawn to Obama because of his age. I have nothing against old people, but I'd rather have someone with youth in the Oval Office. I want someone who is going to be young enough to understand the changes that this nation needs to embrace. For example, Obama has a well-thought out plan in regards to alternative and/or renewable energies, as well as curing America of our foreign oil addiction. Climate and environment change is a serious and perhaps terminal problem facing America, as well as the rest of the world. The fact that Obama has already laid out such an extensive plan shows me that his mind is in the right place, and that he's able to foresee what's on the horizon. McCain has recently thrown his support behind off-shore drilling; the same answer as every other stale, white, old conservative.
Another hot issue is Pro-Life vs. Pro-Choice. While I believe that social issues (or even just one issue, for that matter) shouldn't shape an election, that doesn't stop me from thinking less of McCain when he opposes abortions. In an era where social progressivism is on the steady rise, it would be utterly foolish to return to the Dark Ages of pro-life boundaries. I won't elaborate on the subject, but it's important to know that John McCain opposes abortions, while Barack Obama fully supports the right for all women to make their own choice.
Is John McCain a doctor? No. No he is not. Then why, in his non-professional medical opinion, does he oppose the use of medical marijuana? By not supporting, or even being willing to discuss the possibilities of medical marijuana, he's asserting that he knows more about the topic than our nation's top doctors. If countless medical professionals around the globe say that it works for certain illnesses, and they have proof to back it up, then I'm sure not going to dispute them. If doctors could prove that horse manure cured cancer, then I guarantee we'd all be running to the nearest pasture. When asked, Barack Obama has been quoted as being open to the potential for the use of medical marijuana, showing his overall open-mindedness. I don't want a president who will always talk and tell us what's right, I want a president who will sit down and listen.
Today, Merrill Lynch was bought out and Lehman Brothers filed for bankrupcy. This is obviously not good for our struggling economy, and yet John McCain was quoted today by saying that he thought the United States' economy was still strong. The fact is, our economy is rapidly failing, and John McCain fails to properly address this fact. I'm not sure if he doesn't understand what's going on, or if he's in denial, but he's simply wrong. Our economy is in trouble, it can't be tip-toed around any more. Today's quote alone is proof enough that John McCain is not in-touch with America's needs.
If we appreciate our rights as Americans, then why do we deny the same rights to others? In the Senate, John McCain voted against preserving habeas corpus to prisoners held at Guantanamo. Obama voted to grant these prisoners that right. They may be terrorists, but they deserve the same unalienable rights as everyone else in this world. Plus, what if they were wrongly imprisoned? Being a former prisoner of war himself, John McCain of all people should understand the severity of the situation. Hypocrisy at its highest level.
Above all, I think Barack Obama represents change like no other politician before. When stacked up directly against his opponent, the differences are glaring. John McCain's stances and policies aren't very different from that of President George W. Bush, and we all know where that administration got us. It's an undisputed fact that the Bush Administration ran our country into the ground, so we need a brand new direction. Given this choice, are we going to vote for another stale old white guy with eerily similar policies as the previous (failed) administration? Or are we "ready" to elect a youthful, charismatic black man? It would be obtuse of me to state that race isn't playing a large role in this election, and it will be "ready" to vote for a black man. My feeling is that if we aren't ready now, we never will be. Further more, electing a black man would send a clear message to the rest of the world that the United States is ready to change. The colour of one's skin should never matter, and electing Barack Obama would be a mammoth step towards eliminating inequality.
What does this all mean for our country? I truly believe that our country is at a tipping point. We're in an age where the rest of the world is finally catching up to our level of production and consumption. Other nations have eclipsed our best technology, and the world is now a much more level playing field, economically speaking. Citizens of the United States should be concerned as to whether or not they will be able to compete in the global market of the future. These are scenarios that Barack Obama has identified, and will addequitly address as president. As of now, the United States is still #1. We're barely holding on to our status in the world, though our reputation has suffered greatly over the past eight years. Though with our tarnished image, we're not hated, as one man pointed out:
"The one thing I always remind people, because they get discouraged, they say 'People around the world are expressing hatred towards America,' I know, people outside this country are expressing disappointment because they've got high expectations for America. And they want America to lead. They America to lead through our values, and our ideals, and our example, but they have high expectations of us because I think that this country is still the last best hope on earth."
- Barack Obama
Until John McCain says anything with half the insight of Mr. Obama's words, then I'll continue to write him off as just another putrid politician.
And think of this: McCain is 72 years old, and while I hope he continues to live a long & prosperous life, being beaten within an inch of your life for five years in Vietnam can’t help that goal. If you vote for John McCain, you're probably voting for Sarah Palin, and she's an absolute moron. She doesn't deserve me writing even a paragraph about why she shouldn't be elected, at least John McCain was once an honourable man. All I'll say is that Sarah Palin is severely unqualified and unintelligent to be running this country.
But back to my point. The tipping point of America. I hate make it sound so simple and so dramatic, but I sincerely believe that electing John McCain would be a potentially terminal blow to the United States of America, one from which I'm not sure we could rebound. It would be extremely difficult to convince the world that we're ready to lead again if we elect a clone of our last leader. So please, vote for Barack Obama this November. Not as a Democrat, not as a Republican, but as an American. And respectfully get your friends and family to do the same. It's your future, but we're all in this together. Think about it.
If you are in any way offended or pissed off by what you just read, then I don't want to hear about it. That means you were already going to vote for John McCain, and so what I wrote was not intended for you to read. I wrote this for voters undecided on for whom to vote, or potential voters undecided on whether or not to cast their ballot. I don't want to get into a debate, I don't want to hear your side. I'm educated and informed enough to know both sides of the coin, and if you'd like to defend Mr. McCain, then do it on your own time and in your own space. I've already spent enough time writing about a decision that I already thought was a no-brainer.
"The Government Is Selling, But The People Aren't Buying"
Here's an essay I wrote for my final in political science at USM last year. I was very proud of it and for once thought I would get the grade that reflected the amount of effort invested. I was wrong, the paper sucked in the eyes of my professor. But here it is, in all its (boring) ragged glory.
The United States of America was once known as the ultimate land of freedom and opportunity. It became a nation of immigrants, all coming in search of a better life than that of their current situation overseas. The U.S. sailed on this reputation through the 1950’s, when America was in peak form. Fresh off an uplifting victory in World War II, the U.S. battled for the title of sole superpower of the world and was perceived as nearly invincible.
But that all came crashing to a halt in the 1960’s. A series of unfortunate but preventable events led to the American people to doubt their government for the very first time, all while the country lost ground in the global arena for respect and power. The primary contributors to these events were the Vietnam War and the subsequent release of the “Pentagon Papers.” The joint impact of these two bombshells robbed a nation of its innocence and trust in their government and overwhelmingly corrupted the American democratic culture.
America was once a much stronger nation. We were respected both globally and domestically. We were perceived as “the good guys” of the world after swooping in and saving the day in both World War I and World War II, though especially in the latter of the two. We saved the human race from the wrath of the Nazis and immediately set up the Western-rooted United Nations, an international organization intent on keeping peace worldwide. The victory in the war had lifted America out of a vicious economic depression and boosted the country to the top of the global ranks.
In 1961, sixteen years after declaring victory in World War II, the United States launched an attack on Cuba, now known as the Bay of Pigs Invasion. The attack came in the midst of the Cold War, and was one of the country’s first attempts at crushing communism. The invasion was unsuccessful, and it created an early blotch on the record of recently-elected John F. Kennedy. Whether Kennedy knew of the attack or not, it left his administration embarrassed, and the country had suffered its first dose of international failure. It also exposed the fact that the public was not always privy to what was happening within their government. It was a grim sign of things to come.
The U.S. further tried to thwart communism with a military campaign in Southeast Asia. This conflict is now commonly referred to as the Vietnam War, and it remains one of the darkest chapters in American history. Though the U.S. first became seriously involved in 1959, the number of troops in Vietnam shot from just over 900 in 1961 to nearly 8,500 in 1962. [ ] The war lasted until 1975, when the U.S. evacuated all military personnel. Communism prevailed, and America was once again embarrassed on the international stage. It forever tarnished the once-impeccable image that the nation formerly possessed.
The Vietnam War was the cause of much unrest and protest in the United States. It was a famously unpopular war, as the majority of U.S. citizens opposed our involvement, escalation, and continuation of the military campaign. Despite this, both Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon attempted to sway the American people to support the war effort.
In 1971, the New York Times began publishing classified government documents detailing the decision-making process leading up to and during the Vietnam War. The documents stemmed from a government commission led by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. The commission covered a timeline that started in the World War II-era and continued up to 1968. [ ] After an unsuccessful attempt from the White House to block the publication of the classified documents, the full 7,000-page report was published in book-form, and it became a best-seller.
The damning revelation stemming from these documents, which were named “The Pentagon Papers,” proved that not only was the Vietnam War severely miscalculated and poorly planned, but the papers showed that the American people were directly and deliberately misled. As Hannah Arendt puts it in Lying In Politics, “most readers have by now agreed that the basic issue raised by the papers is deception.” (p. 3) It showed that many top-ranking government officials believed that the war was unwinnable, and that their focus soon shifted from convincing the American people that the United States would be victorious to simply stating that the Vietcong enemy would not prevail. Arendt captures this perfectly by writing that the government “lied not so much for their country … as for its ‘image.’” (p. 11)
Arendt continues: “From 1965 on, the notion of a clear-cut victory receded into the background and the objective became ‘to convince the enemy that he could not win.’ Since the enemy remained unconvinced, the next goal appeared: ‘to avoid humiliating defeat.’” Additionally, Arendt points out that “what the Pentagon Papers report is the haunting fear of the impact of defeat, not on the welfare of the nation, but ‘on the reputation of the United States and its President.’” (p. 15) From these statements, it would appear that the United States was not truly committed to fighting communism, but rather to merely boost its brawny image in the global spectrum.
This is extremely important, as it was the first major instance of deliberate political deception towards the American people by the American government. Though it’s surely feasible that such an act occurred in the past, it was never documented quite so boldly as with The Pentagon Papers. The classified documents gave the already growingly skeptical American public a true reason to mistrust the government, backed up by solid evidence. The papers rigorously discredited President Johnson, whom was a member of the Democratic Party. President Nixon, a republican, faced the actual repercussions of the leaked papers; the documents indirectly limited his executive powers, as by now the American people were quite wary of the U.S. government in general.
The direct and deliberate misleading of the American public is a corruption of American democratic culture. While it’s important to continuously question authority, the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations respectively pushed the level of public suspicion to unhealthy levels. One should always be suspicious of his or her own government, but they should be able to safely trust their government at the same time. Questioning authority and rejecting it completely are two different things; the United States in the 1960’s and 1970’s dangerously walked this line and paid a hefty price for doing so. The total number of U.S. casualties in the Vietnam War amassed to 58,193, [ ] and the nation lost its innocence towards trusting their government.
These events, namely The Pentagon Papers fiasco, corrupted the American democratic culture through their motives. The American people learned that their government had a stronger interest in preserving the image of the U.S. rather than upholding the country’s ideals, values, and beliefs. In fact, by going to such great lengths to protect the image, these ideals, values, and beliefs were compromised in the process, and ultimately left behind. In the end, the government appeared to be doing the complete opposite of the mission that our founding fathers had envisioned.
A common perception is that politicians have a general attribute of being crooked or dishonest. This was almost certainly not the goal of our government’s founding fathers, but rather indirectly encouraged by the system in which our founding fathers established. Over time, politicians found a way to manipulate the political system. As Machiavelli notes in his book The Discourses, “all republics and monarchies must have some good in them at the start … But as time goes by, their original goodness becomes corrupted, and, unless something happens that brings them back to first principles, corruptions inevitably destroys the organization.” (p. 190)
After having read this, it’s clear that we should learn from our mistakes. It would seem that such cases of presidential deception (including Nixon’s Watergate Scandal) has molded the public to stronger scrutinize the executive branch. Ronald Reagan was ruthlessly grilled at press conferences in regards to the Iran-Contra Affair, and Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice by the House of Representatives.
However, it would also appear that the public has since almost accepted that lying and politics truly come hand-in-hand. Upon learning of a dishonest politician’s actions, the element of surprise is long gone, and replaced with the notion that politicians are bound to lie. It’s been suggested that current President George W. Bush purposely misled the American people into originally supporting the War in Iraq, and though much of the general public now strongly disapproves of these proceedings, there has been no action in attempt to correct the damage or punish the perpetrator. Time will tell if future action will arise.
Presidential deception has certainly corrupted not only American democratic culture, but also what we used to know as “United States of America”-ness. We went from being nearly universally respected to being strongly affronted at home and abroad. The government may have tried to preserve a perfect image of the United States, but in the end, they sent the country’s image into deep suspicion and skepticism. The 1960’s and 1970’s brought to light the true colors of the American government for all the world to see.
"The Government Is Selling, But The People Aren't Buying"
6 May 2008The United States of America was once known as the ultimate land of freedom and opportunity. It became a nation of immigrants, all coming in search of a better life than that of their current situation overseas. The U.S. sailed on this reputation through the 1950’s, when America was in peak form. Fresh off an uplifting victory in World War II, the U.S. battled for the title of sole superpower of the world and was perceived as nearly invincible.
But that all came crashing to a halt in the 1960’s. A series of unfortunate but preventable events led to the American people to doubt their government for the very first time, all while the country lost ground in the global arena for respect and power. The primary contributors to these events were the Vietnam War and the subsequent release of the “Pentagon Papers.” The joint impact of these two bombshells robbed a nation of its innocence and trust in their government and overwhelmingly corrupted the American democratic culture.
America was once a much stronger nation. We were respected both globally and domestically. We were perceived as “the good guys” of the world after swooping in and saving the day in both World War I and World War II, though especially in the latter of the two. We saved the human race from the wrath of the Nazis and immediately set up the Western-rooted United Nations, an international organization intent on keeping peace worldwide. The victory in the war had lifted America out of a vicious economic depression and boosted the country to the top of the global ranks.
In 1961, sixteen years after declaring victory in World War II, the United States launched an attack on Cuba, now known as the Bay of Pigs Invasion. The attack came in the midst of the Cold War, and was one of the country’s first attempts at crushing communism. The invasion was unsuccessful, and it created an early blotch on the record of recently-elected John F. Kennedy. Whether Kennedy knew of the attack or not, it left his administration embarrassed, and the country had suffered its first dose of international failure. It also exposed the fact that the public was not always privy to what was happening within their government. It was a grim sign of things to come.
The U.S. further tried to thwart communism with a military campaign in Southeast Asia. This conflict is now commonly referred to as the Vietnam War, and it remains one of the darkest chapters in American history. Though the U.S. first became seriously involved in 1959, the number of troops in Vietnam shot from just over 900 in 1961 to nearly 8,500 in 1962. [ ] The war lasted until 1975, when the U.S. evacuated all military personnel. Communism prevailed, and America was once again embarrassed on the international stage. It forever tarnished the once-impeccable image that the nation formerly possessed.
The Vietnam War was the cause of much unrest and protest in the United States. It was a famously unpopular war, as the majority of U.S. citizens opposed our involvement, escalation, and continuation of the military campaign. Despite this, both Presidents Lyndon B. Johnson and Richard M. Nixon attempted to sway the American people to support the war effort.
In 1971, the New York Times began publishing classified government documents detailing the decision-making process leading up to and during the Vietnam War. The documents stemmed from a government commission led by Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara. The commission covered a timeline that started in the World War II-era and continued up to 1968. [ ] After an unsuccessful attempt from the White House to block the publication of the classified documents, the full 7,000-page report was published in book-form, and it became a best-seller.
The damning revelation stemming from these documents, which were named “The Pentagon Papers,” proved that not only was the Vietnam War severely miscalculated and poorly planned, but the papers showed that the American people were directly and deliberately misled. As Hannah Arendt puts it in Lying In Politics, “most readers have by now agreed that the basic issue raised by the papers is deception.” (p. 3) It showed that many top-ranking government officials believed that the war was unwinnable, and that their focus soon shifted from convincing the American people that the United States would be victorious to simply stating that the Vietcong enemy would not prevail. Arendt captures this perfectly by writing that the government “lied not so much for their country … as for its ‘image.’” (p. 11)
Arendt continues: “From 1965 on, the notion of a clear-cut victory receded into the background and the objective became ‘to convince the enemy that he could not win.’ Since the enemy remained unconvinced, the next goal appeared: ‘to avoid humiliating defeat.’” Additionally, Arendt points out that “what the Pentagon Papers report is the haunting fear of the impact of defeat, not on the welfare of the nation, but ‘on the reputation of the United States and its President.’” (p. 15) From these statements, it would appear that the United States was not truly committed to fighting communism, but rather to merely boost its brawny image in the global spectrum.
This is extremely important, as it was the first major instance of deliberate political deception towards the American people by the American government. Though it’s surely feasible that such an act occurred in the past, it was never documented quite so boldly as with The Pentagon Papers. The classified documents gave the already growingly skeptical American public a true reason to mistrust the government, backed up by solid evidence. The papers rigorously discredited President Johnson, whom was a member of the Democratic Party. President Nixon, a republican, faced the actual repercussions of the leaked papers; the documents indirectly limited his executive powers, as by now the American people were quite wary of the U.S. government in general.
The direct and deliberate misleading of the American public is a corruption of American democratic culture. While it’s important to continuously question authority, the Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon administrations respectively pushed the level of public suspicion to unhealthy levels. One should always be suspicious of his or her own government, but they should be able to safely trust their government at the same time. Questioning authority and rejecting it completely are two different things; the United States in the 1960’s and 1970’s dangerously walked this line and paid a hefty price for doing so. The total number of U.S. casualties in the Vietnam War amassed to 58,193, [ ] and the nation lost its innocence towards trusting their government.
These events, namely The Pentagon Papers fiasco, corrupted the American democratic culture through their motives. The American people learned that their government had a stronger interest in preserving the image of the U.S. rather than upholding the country’s ideals, values, and beliefs. In fact, by going to such great lengths to protect the image, these ideals, values, and beliefs were compromised in the process, and ultimately left behind. In the end, the government appeared to be doing the complete opposite of the mission that our founding fathers had envisioned.
A common perception is that politicians have a general attribute of being crooked or dishonest. This was almost certainly not the goal of our government’s founding fathers, but rather indirectly encouraged by the system in which our founding fathers established. Over time, politicians found a way to manipulate the political system. As Machiavelli notes in his book The Discourses, “all republics and monarchies must have some good in them at the start … But as time goes by, their original goodness becomes corrupted, and, unless something happens that brings them back to first principles, corruptions inevitably destroys the organization.” (p. 190)
After having read this, it’s clear that we should learn from our mistakes. It would seem that such cases of presidential deception (including Nixon’s Watergate Scandal) has molded the public to stronger scrutinize the executive branch. Ronald Reagan was ruthlessly grilled at press conferences in regards to the Iran-Contra Affair, and Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice by the House of Representatives.
However, it would also appear that the public has since almost accepted that lying and politics truly come hand-in-hand. Upon learning of a dishonest politician’s actions, the element of surprise is long gone, and replaced with the notion that politicians are bound to lie. It’s been suggested that current President George W. Bush purposely misled the American people into originally supporting the War in Iraq, and though much of the general public now strongly disapproves of these proceedings, there has been no action in attempt to correct the damage or punish the perpetrator. Time will tell if future action will arise.
Presidential deception has certainly corrupted not only American democratic culture, but also what we used to know as “United States of America”-ness. We went from being nearly universally respected to being strongly affronted at home and abroad. The government may have tried to preserve a perfect image of the United States, but in the end, they sent the country’s image into deep suspicion and skepticism. The 1960’s and 1970’s brought to light the true colors of the American government for all the world to see.
Brushing For Sport
7 July 2008
Have you ever wondered if you were good at brushing your teeth?
I think I'm really good at brushing my teeth.
If they had an award for "Best Teeth Brusher," I would have by now won that very award.
Think about it. How dedicated are you to each brushing session? Until recently, teeth brushing was just a monotonous routine that occasionally made me late for the bus to high school.
But now, after a few years of maturity under my belt, I feel inspired when brushing my teeth. I am by no means a health nut, or teeth nut, but shit, people - it's a battlefield! Germs and bacteria are trying to destroy your mouth and take it over! You gotta protect! Your mouth is your house, and the teeth are you beloved family members. I guess that would make the gums the clothing that the family members wear, and the tongue is just a big confusing thing that the family stands around.
BUT BACK TO MY POINT! Что трахание!
Have you ever wondered if you were good at brushing your teeth?
I think I'm really good at brushing my teeth.
If they had an award for "Best Teeth Brusher," I would have by now won that very award.
Think about it. How dedicated are you to each brushing session? Until recently, teeth brushing was just a monotonous routine that occasionally made me late for the bus to high school.
But now, after a few years of maturity under my belt, I feel inspired when brushing my teeth. I am by no means a health nut, or teeth nut, but shit, people - it's a battlefield! Germs and bacteria are trying to destroy your mouth and take it over! You gotta protect! Your mouth is your house, and the teeth are you beloved family members. I guess that would make the gums the clothing that the family members wear, and the tongue is just a big confusing thing that the family stands around.
BUT BACK TO MY POINT! Что трахание!
03 June, 2008
why hello
Hey,
It's me, Jeff Beam. My good friend William Roy inspired me to start this thing back up. I never actually posted here in the first place, though I did create it. I guess that doesn't count for really starting in at all. So here's the maiden voyage.
For now, I'm going to post back essays, articles, and random thoughts that I've written over the past year or so. The first:
"Photogenic"
Why do people make such a big deal about being "photogenic"?
In this day & age, being "photogenic" is overrated and almost obsolete.
"Photogenic" means that someone is able to look "good" in one particular millisecond while the flash goes off. People don't realize that you can look good in general, and just not hit the jackpot for that one millisecond.
While some people can pull off the millisecond miracle, many people simply look better in motion. One frame isn't enough to contain their raw beauty. These people deserve to be depicted in video rather than photography.
And with the boom of YouTube, all you folks who aren't "photogenic" can relax. You finally have a place you belong! So, don't shy away from the camera in fear. Simply tell the photog behind the lens to switch it to video mode, and shoot away!
It's me, Jeff Beam. My good friend William Roy inspired me to start this thing back up. I never actually posted here in the first place, though I did create it. I guess that doesn't count for really starting in at all. So here's the maiden voyage.
For now, I'm going to post back essays, articles, and random thoughts that I've written over the past year or so. The first:
"Photogenic"
Why do people make such a big deal about being "photogenic"?
In this day & age, being "photogenic" is overrated and almost obsolete.
"Photogenic" means that someone is able to look "good" in one particular millisecond while the flash goes off. People don't realize that you can look good in general, and just not hit the jackpot for that one millisecond.
While some people can pull off the millisecond miracle, many people simply look better in motion. One frame isn't enough to contain their raw beauty. These people deserve to be depicted in video rather than photography.
And with the boom of YouTube, all you folks who aren't "photogenic" can relax. You finally have a place you belong! So, don't shy away from the camera in fear. Simply tell the photog behind the lens to switch it to video mode, and shoot away!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
