• May 17, 2009 /  Mass Media, Musings After Midnight

    I was listening to the BBC World Service tonight while reading. They ran a little segment on the very popular Eurovision song contest. One of the great things about modern life is that I can quickly see most of the videos, thanks to Youtube. So I took a gander. I’ll include a few links. As a warning, none of the songs are lewd, but some of the Youtube comments are. Such is unmoderated life.

    Eurovision songs tend towards high energy pop numbers. For instance, the third and fourth place songs, from Azerbaijan and Turkey, are clear pop songs with light lyrics, female dancers, and a very attractive female singer. Not that I mind, but these aren’t that memorable.

    Another interesting fact is that English is the most common language. 19 of the 25 songs in the final included some English, including the top 5. The Internet and economics have made a difference. There can even be controversy about lyrics, as with the Georgian selection, We Don’t Wanna Put In. A little accent work makes that Russian czar Vladimir Putin. Russia, as host, was not happy, and the Georgians got tossed.

    A little more interesting are the other three Top 5 songs. After finishing last in 2008, the UK went with an Andrew Lloyd Webber creation, sung by Jade. She sings well. I wonder what musical can use this song. Maybe a Disney animated feature? It’s nice.

    More remarkable are the two victors. Second place went to Is It True? by the youthful songstress Yohanna. Her first album was at age 10, and her experience shows. It’s different. To American ears, this is a country-pop ballad that could immediately play on CMTV. I thought of Carrie Underwood as I listened. Look at these lyrics, from the chorus and bridge. They’re sad. Ouch!

    Falling out of a perfect dream, coming out of the blue
    Is it true? Is it over?
    Did I throw it away?
    Was it you?
    Did you tell me you would never leave me this way?

    Did I dream it?
    Will I wake from this pain
    Is it true? Is it over?
    Baby did I throw it away?

    The winner, in almost a rout, was Fairytale by the Norwegian Alexander Rybak. It’s a very good song from the 23 year old. He was born in the USSR, and moved to Norway with his musician parents at the age of 4. Yes, 1990, as the USSR broke apart. His violin skills and folk knowledge are both on display here. Admittedly, this is a pop song, but the dancers are male folk dancers, and it’s a little different. The lyrics are a little sadder. It adapts traditional folk songs to the 21st century pop world. I could see myself singing this at karaoke night.

    I’m in love with a fairytale,
    even though it hurts
    ‘Cause I don’t care if I lose my mind
    I’m already cursed.

    I’m not going to claim that the world will be changed by any of these songs. There’s no political meaning like We Shall Overcome. And there’s no repeated kicking like Hurt by Johnny Cash. There’s not supposed to be. That doesn’t take away from what it is; Eurovision 2009 isn’t going to solve Somalia or Kosovo. Not everything is.

  • May 3, 2009 /  Mass Media

    I’ve wanted to see the generally well regarded film Enchanted basically since it came out in 2007. It has had decent but not great reviews. I wondered why. Was it really a great film that critics could not appreciate? Was it a good film, justly rated? Or was it a mediocre film brought higher by people looking for any anti-cynicism?

    The movie has finally reached Encore, one of the seemingly billions of digital cable channels that I get. Per usual, TiVo assisted me by recording a showing while I prepare exams for my students. As part of my post-grading funk reduction, I watched it last night. Overall, I agree with the reviews, as Enchanted is a good, not great, movie. Parts, like That’s How You Know, are great. The whole movie could be great. The fact that it fails is, I think, a reflection on our current culture.

    I don’t want to be overly harsh here, because this movie gets a lot of things right. It begins at the beginning, with glorious 2D hand drawn animation. Sure, Pixar makes wonderful films; WALL-E might have been the best feature shown in theatres last year. They’re great at computer animation, which is different. Computer animation is the realm of imaginary fantasy. It’s not appropriate for fairy tales, which come from storybooks. Traditional animation was needed here, and I’m glad that Disney reversed its crazy decision to abandon cells for this film.

    Another nice touch is the use of last names. Animated characters, like Giselle, don’t have any. The father and daughter, who interact heavily, do get a surname, but it’s Philip, another first name. Only the fully real character of Nancy Tremaine has a typical second name, but that is the family name of Cinderella’s stepmother. It retains a fantasy connection, as does much of the movie. For instance, the pigeons bring Giselle her towel after the magical shower.

    Then, there’s Giselle. She carries the movie. Yes, Amy Adams is very pretty, but there are lots of pretty actresses. Ms. Adams does well because she understands the princess role. She needs to be naive, but not stupid. Inexperienced and trusting are the right way to play the character. She understands trouble, like the troll, and evil; she’s seen them, and had to escape. But for her, goodness is the natural state of affairs, so these are anomalies; she’s the anti-Leviathan. Any note of cynicism from her would poison the movie, worse than a poisoned apple. I’m glad that Giselle has none of that.

    On the other hand, the writers want to make sure we know that the real world is Hobbesian. Apparently, the original draft of this movie had Giselle landing at a bachelor party. While the writers came to their senses, eventually, there are still unneeded crass moments. One is when leading man Robert’s current girlfriend of five years enters one morning. Thanks to slapstick, towel wearing Giselle has fallen onto Robert. As part of her reaction, the girlfriend rants “how I never stay the night, because Morgan is here and you have to maintain some boundries … ” Does she have to say that? Imply more than kissing? No. Sight would have been sufficient. By doing so, the writers felt a need to be cynical. There are a few other needless cynical words.

    The biggest statement about the modern era is made through Giselle’s dresses. As Giselle progresses throughout the film, her dresses change. The first is the wedding dress, which is monstrous. As she goes through, supposedly apparel makes her more realistic. So, in the key scene, the Kings and Queens Ball, what does she wear? A gorgeous queen dress? No. A formfitting purple halter gown.

    It’s not the worst dress in the movie – the wedding dress is viciously over the top – but there are five better ones. In particular, the second dress, the blue curtain dress, is much prettier than the purple ball dress. Online voters agree. Also, why would she purchase that dress? It’s out of place at a classic ball. Having Morgan, the daughter, help her in the emergency is completely appropriate. It’s sweet. Then, for some reason they buy and buy and buy. The emphasis on shopping, bags, hair, and makeup is not necessary. Was Giselle not gorgeous before “the real world fashion” took hold? (She was; caring for others is beautiful.) This scene serves just to funnel us from Andalasia to Sex and the City.

    The ending, well, has some holes. Like moments before, it feels like it was written by people who don’t understand joy. They are trapped in the cynical, sly modern age of Carrie and Samantha. They’re afraid to pull the trigger, to be fully committed to the transformative power of love. That’s a shame. I’m don’t agree with the quote about true love’s kiss – “it’s the most powerful thing in the world”. (Right now, one could argue for H1N1 influenza.) Still, it has more power than is shown here. It seems our society has lost that power. As I finished this movie, I wondered if Snow White could have been made today. Given that the feature awarded Best Picture of 2008, Slumdog Millionaire, began with a scene where a young boy falls into fecal matter, and some in the audience laughed, I worry about that.

    Maybe those that are married know about the power. Or maybe, more likely, divorce rates indicate that it’s lost. We need more Giselles in the world. Where is that portal to Andalacia, anyway?

  • February 1, 2009 /  Book Reviews, Mass Media

    I’m watching the Super Bowl, with a team with history and pride against a bunch of transients in the desert. The NFL understands today’s America, blue and red parts, as the numbers suggest. For instance, they had a smart promotion with Samsung, offering online gift cards for purchasing new HDTVs. First, they were smart enough to partner with a high quality manufacturer. Second, they allowed any store to benefit. Third, they advertised well. While I was going to purchase a Samsung anyway, the promotion encouraged me to select a slightly larger model.
    I talk about this not because I want to praise the NFL, or brag about my Samsung HDTV. Though, the TV is really nice, and watching Super Bowl HD is like watching a little movie. I mention this plan because it shows that logical thought has results. Another example of that involves the person the NFL chose to flip the coin. He gots lots of applause, this man, who showed logical thought and results. I mean General David Petraeus. One of his books is on my bookshelf, the US Army Counterinsurgency Field Manual. It’s one of my more unusual purchases, which by the standards of my bookcase is saying something. (I bought a copy, but it’s available online for free via the link. I paid because I think it’s a cool title to have on a bookshelf.) Rating it is hard, because there are parts that don’t matter to the general population. I’m going to award it a 3 out of 5, a quality book. I recommend it to people interested in studying leadership and duty.

    [Completely non-live Super Bowl update: Wow! Things looked bad for Pittsburgh at the end of the first half, after the tipped interception. Then, the defense had a good setup and made a play. If you watch Pittsburgh's interception, you can see Mr. Harrison make a logical decision. He looks in at the running back, notices him blocking, then retreats into coverage. Also, as to be expected from a state that elects men who promote quasi-legal prisoner abuse, the Arizona receivers attempted a quasi-legal pick on the play. Plus the Cardinals got called for a personal foul. During the halftime show, Mr. Springsteen finished his set with Glory Days, which sort of critiques sports halcyonity. I like his style.]

    Why do I want to talk about leadership and duty using this book? Well, the military knows about this. Really, they know much, much more than non-military people in general, and the last government in particular. There’s an entire chapter on leadership and ethics, and and appendix on a Guide for Action. Even if you, gentle reader, are not planning to lead counterinsurgency operations (and I suspect everyone reading is not planning this), I recommend this section. It begins with the first sentence of Section 7-1, “Army and Marine Corps leaders are expected to act ethically and in accordance with shared national values and Constitutional principles, which are reflected in the law and military oaths of service.” There’s not a lot of ambiguity there; it’s an expectation.

    Furthermore, leaders must work to establish ethical culture. They educate and train. They must maintain the moral high ground. This quote from Section 7-11 is extremely powerful: “Army and Marine Corps leaders emphasize on the battlefield the principles of honor and morality are inextricably linked.” Wow.

    There’s a lot of this book that does not cover honor, leadership, or ethics, and I can’t recommend. That’s not for most people. Even for those interested, I’d suggest the free version, in general, unless you think it’s good on a bookshelf like me. Either way, it’s nice to see people have smart plans.

    Oh yeah – the good guys in black and gold won, too. I reset the time clock on this to when most of the post was written, during the game.

  • November 22, 2008 /  Mass Media, Politics and News

    I’m at home, working on many things this Saturday. To my joy, it turns out that I can watch the football game betwen the source of goodness, Harvard, versus the embodiment of evil known as Yale. Before I go on, I should mention that the preceding link does take you to Yale’s website. I don’t hate Yale at all; it’s just a rival. Just remember that Yale sucks.

    Instead of repeating more episodes of WEC WrekCage and North American Hunter, the Versus network has decided to double their per viewer income by showing the contest. I have it on TiVo and will make a semi-live blog today as I work. For those of you who are going to go back and watch the game again, and would like to match the comments to actual times in the game, I’ll include the time that things happened live.

    • 12:06 PM Eastern: It’s the 125th time that Yale and Harvard have met for football. In this opening shot, I think Mather House, my undergraduate residence and horrible Brutalist architecture, in the picture. It doesn’t have a cute bell tower.
    • 12:11: One fun thing about Ivy League football is that because the players are not as good as minor league football (excuse me, BCS “college” football), random events can occur. For instance, on the opening kickoff, the two Harvard return men run into each other and the ballcarrier falls down at the 4 yard line. The refrain here is that it’s the Ivy League. You’ll see this often.
    • 12:20: Harvard drives but has to punt. The punt hits a Yale Bulldog on the back foot and Harvard recovers. It’s the Ivy League. I am embarrassed, however, that the TV shows a shot of a Harvard fan with a profane statement involving Yale for about three seconds. That’s not what a Harvard gentleman should ever say. Besides, one would likely get an STI if one tried that.
    • 12:22: From the turnover, Harvard scores the first of what will likely be many touchdowns. The Yale cheerleaders turn quiet. Did you know that George W. Bush was a cheerleader at Andover and Yale? The head football cheerleader, according to the Washington Post. Maybe less confusion about his “manliness” would have meant no stupid war in Iraq, or Mission Accomplished banner, or … who knows?
    • 12:26: Showing superior intelligence, as we all know, Harvard surprises Yale with an onside kick. Harvard gets another offensive possession.
    • 12:33: The Harvard kicker misses a 33 yard field goal attempt. Harvard Stadium is very close to the Charles River, and the winds can get nasty in November. Playing Ultimate Frisbee in November next to the stadium was often an wind festival. Still, that’s not good.
    • 12:48: Harvard throws a short pass, but the receiver fumbles the ball. It flies 11 yards backwards before going out of bounds. It’s the Ivy League.
    • 13:01: Yale misses a 19 yard field goal. That was ugly. The wind is just nasty.
    • 13:03: The TIAA-CREF student athlete of the game is a real student, Casey Gerald from Yale. He had his Rhodes Scholarship interview yesterday, and made it back in time for the game. This is good. Also, I’m very pleased by the amount of coverage Myron Rolle of Florida State is receiving about his Rhodes finalist interview. At times like these, in my heart, I can pretend that academics matters to the NCAA and college sports folks.
    • 13:17: Harvard gets stopped on a third down with about 45 seconds to go, and will have to attempt a field goal. Showing their intelligence, Yale does not call timeout to get another possession after the kick. (This is a bad move, by the way.) That attempt was hideous. The kicker planted far too far forward and hooked it badly. Wind played no role. At the half, the commentator says “it has been exciting, it has been unpredictable.” Of course, it’s the Ivy League. Harvard leads 7-0.
    • 13:25: The Harvard Sports commercial is on, the public service bit. Most of these commercials feature an announcer and fast moving pictures. Here, let’s look at who Harvard uses: A Harvard women’s basketball player talking about the 16 over 1, a football player talking about 29-29, and a women’s hockey player about 1989 men’s hockey. Every word is spoken by a student. How innovative. How interesting. Players can speak full sentences. I feel smart. Then, the next commercial has guys about jumping into jeans. There went that.
    • 13:31: Yale’s commercial uses a narrator, no real people, and shots of the campus. Showing Harvard superiority is like shooting fish in a barrel, really.
    • 13:50: The officials make a mistake and rule a Harvard fumble, even though the quarterback’s knee was down. Yale recovers. It’s just another Yale nefarious technique, to be expected.
    • 13:53: Yale does not score after its trick. It then has a 12 yard punt. Justice is restored.
    • 14:00: One of the displays refers to the 1894 Harvard-Yale game as the Springfield Massacre. I found this description online. It was brutal, with a broken leg, major concussion, broken collarbone, crushed nose, 2 eye pokes, head injury, and fight. One player wound up in a coma. The article is adapted from The Only Game that Matters, a book on the history of the rivalry. I don’t own a copy, sadly. Hmm.
    • 14:18: Some Yale undergraduates show “genius bordering on insanity” by going briefly shirtless on TV. No, this is basically full insanity. And just shirtless is going halfway. Chicago’s Polar Bear Run is the real deal.
    • 14:21: Harvard’s kicker manages to make a field goal, leading to a likely insurmountable 10-0 lead for the Crimson.
    • 14:38: Yale’s best play is the punt, getting the ball inside the Harvard 1. At this point, it’s 15:03 in real life, as I’ve been pausing. My mom calls me with the final result. I thank her for ruining the surprise. For you, well, we’ll see.
    • 14:48: Yale’s best play occurs again, this time a return inside the Harvard 10. On fourth down at the Harvard 4, Yale shows its true intentions by committing a false start penalty. The fourth down pass is incomplete, but the officials call a pass interference penalty on Harvard. This is a correct call, and I’m saddened that the Harvard back would attempt to cheat. Likely it was just accidental. Of course, I’m not as sad as the spectator with profanity on his shirt. With new life, Yale attempts to pass, but there’s a fumble! The quarterback got hammered from behind and drops the ball. Harvard recovers.
    • 14:58: Harvard makes a first down, which allows them to run out the clock. The victory formation ends the game. The final score is Forces of Good 10, Forces of Evil 0. So, in this month, Obama wins and Harvard wins. Things are looking up. The hills are alive with the sound of music. Too bad that final score isn’t in real life.
    • 14:59: The teams line up for handshakes after the game. According to the commentators, this happens all the time in the Ivy League. The players have respect and class, of course. That fan in the stands is just an anomaly. After the game, fans and players mingle on the field. It’s an orderly storming.

    So, that’s that. According to the studio, Yale had only 90 yards of offense. Harvard had 370. The margin was appropriate. More good events, eh?

  • May 20, 2008 /  Mass Media

    Thankfully, the three best dancers made the final this season. As I did once before, I’ve decided to Tivo-blog the end of the show. One thing I should note is that I prefer ballroom to Latin. Latin styles tend to involve quick leg and hip action. Fairly tall people, like me at 6 foot 1, have trouble physically keeping the beat. It’s not coincidental that the better Latin dancers are shorter. On the other hand, the long flowing lines of ballroom are easier with height and stature. Plus, the ballroom dances have more elegance.

    In the group cha-cha, each couple plays to their strengths. Christian and Cheryl stay mostly open, focusing on hips and slides. According to my estimate, they’re hand-in-hand facing each other for only about 20 seconds of their minute. For comparison, Jason and Edyta work in typical ballroom positions, hand-to-hand facing, for over 40 seconds. Instead of hip sway, they dance with a back sway and Jason’s athleticism. Kristi and Mark focus on Kristi, who is at least as athletic as Cheryl and Edyta; they’re hand-in-hand facing for about 30 seconds. Their show moves are spins, because an ice skater can spin like crazy.

    After the individual minutes, the couples dance as a group. Jason misses a step, which Bruno catches, and he makes a little cringing smile. Christian has better musicality than Jason. Then again, even with two arms, Christian couldn’t make the final lift seem so simple. The word “Wow” came out of my mouth. Sure, you have two world-class athletes involved, but that doesn’t make it less gorgeous. At the end, they celebrate as a group. That’s one of the great things about this show. Because the judges serve as the foils, and because the contestants understand the purpose of competition, they are often happy for each other.

    What is that purpose? Competition and athletics drive us to be better people. We learn strategy, discipline, practice, and teamwork. After the training, however, too many people think of winning as the goal, and self-improvement as the side effect. This is wrong. When playing card games, I used to say that my goal was to play a flawless game, and winning would be a side effect. Card games have random chance. Against someone of equal talent and preparation, my play can guarantee I don’t lose the game, but it will never guarantee victory. Sometimes good players lose. That’s not the point. It’s about what I can control. That difference, playing for effort and not result, made me a better player. And I did pretty well. Similarly, if I were dancing against Kristi, I would lose. She’s got more skill and experience. That doesn’t mean I shouldn’t try, or gain a great deal from the experience. Besides bringing partner dancing back, for which I am highly grateful, DwtS also puts competition in the proper context. No wonder I like it so much.

    Anyway, it’s time for judge commentary. Len mentions Christian’s hips and Jason’s elegance (and agrees with me that he’s better in ballroom dances like the foxtrot), but calls Kristi the total package. Carrie Ann declares Kristi as the winner, hands down. I agree. She is both an athlete and an entertainer, while the two gentlemen are one but not the other. The judges give Christian 8, 9, and 9, for 26; Jason 8, 8, and 8, for 24; and Kristi 10, 10, and 10, for 30. That’s about right.The second half of the show is time for freestyle. Kristi and Mark do a highly technical motown dance, mambo and hip-hop. To give you some idea of the difficulty, Mark does an assisted backflip as the third or fourth toughest trick. There were a few minor timing errors; I noticed two on Kristi’s part. The judges award 10, 10, and 10, for another 30. I’m a little surprised; I thought Len would score a 9, because of the minor awkward moments.

    Jason and Edyta dance to Will Smith’s Miami, which is a mistake. It’s a hip-hop song, not a ballroom number. Jason is a ballroom dancer. He can’t win with this, because Kristi is much better in open position dancing. A cabaret number would have been a better choice. They still could have the lifts, full overhead spinning lifts which were at least as good as Kristi and Mark’s. They still could have removed some clothes; as Bruno mentioned, it is like watching centerfolds. Overall, 9, 9, 9 is about right here. It wasn’t as good as the first pair on the ground.

    Christian and Cheryl are the last pair; they choose meringue. Here, Christian’s arm injury is a severe disadvantage, because they’re limited to one handed lifts and moves. It’s not that their aerial action isn’t good; it is, but the other two couple are well, well ahead. A bigger problem is that they can’t perform any two-handed dance moves, which means that they’re limited in their turns and even their dancing positions. It’s a very good dance, and Cheryl choreographed it well. That said, in terms of dancing talent and aerial talent, Christian is nowhere near Kristi. He’s not even Jason, even though his scores of 9, 8, and 9 give him a total of 26 for this dance and 52 for the evening.

    Going into the final, Kristi has 60, well ahead of the other two stars. She’s been the best and should win. Overall, Jason’s been better than Christian, particularly in the ballroom dances, so I think he should finish second. We shall see.

  • May 20, 2008 /  Mass Media

    I fast-forward through the recap, so I started watching with Usher’s Love in This Club. Usher doesn’t get partner dance. His “partner” does the splits, and promenades around. They do a couple turns, but then he just watches. It’s almost predatory. She jumps into his arms. Later, the dancers do a side-by-side choreographed routine, without touching. Parts easily could have been hand-in-hand.

    The third place couple is … Christian and Cheryl. As it should be. They receive a group hug and standing ovation. In what sport do semifinal losers get that kind of respect? Why don’t they? On Sunday, Pittsburgh defeated Philadelphia to advance to hockey’s Stanley Cup finals. Say after the handshake, the Philadelphia Flyers received applause from the crowd before the presentation of the conference trophy. It would be the talk of the nation. I’ve seen this happen at a Super 14 rugby final in the Southern Hemisphere. It was so classy. I wish Americans did that. Back on the show, the couple still gets to do their favorite dance, a paso doble to awesome paso music I want.

    The recaps begin, with previously eliminated contestants. American Idol is on during the first hour, so there’s much filler here. As Adam Corolla states, this is why the Terrorists hate us. In the juniors, the best couple wins, the 13-and-unders. The boy Brandon gets his wish, as three Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders present the small mirror ball. After all the losers dance, Usher comes out for another group dance number. I like this one better, because he his song “Yeah” and made it a blues club number. He wears a classic white suit, and a couple dancers have fedoras. It’s appropriate for this show.

    Finally, in the last half hour, the competition restarts. Kristi and Mark picked their jive. The jive bounces and spins, making it a smart choice. To no one’s surprise, it’s excellent. Kristi even recovers from getting her shoe caught in her pouffy skirt. They receive a deserved 10, 10, 10. Jason and Edyta chose the quickstep, a ballroom dance. Closed position and long leg movements are Jason’s strength. He’s also got good facial expressions here. It is their best dance of the season, in my opinion better than Kristi and Mark’s tonight. Anything less than their first 10, 10, 10 would be morally wrong. Fortunately, the show’s got a good heart. Jason is outwardly happy.

    Overall, Kristi and Mark have been the best couple. They are the highest scoring team ever, and should win. After some more plugs, and another commercial break, it’s time for the mirror ball. The new champions are Kristi and Mark! Fireworks explode. Jason and Edyta are appropriately gracious. Confetti rains down. The champions are hoisted into the air. Now, if I could just get the hosts to end the show with “Keep On Dancing”… .

  • April 30, 2008 /  Mass Media, Politics and News

    Back in February, I received a personal invitation to view the rehearsal of a controversial event. No, I don’t mean the 2008 KYMAA math festival. I mean an event on Bellarmine’s campus that was held around 14 February. The stated purpose of the event is to raise funds and interest to fight violence against women, as stated on the web site. That particular link has no potentially offensive or vulgar terms, but other pages on that site do. I’m talking about something called V-Day, with V not for Violence or Valentine. Know what? I’d like to use actual terms, which are considered impolite, so I’ll send this beyond the more link. Click away if you wish.
    Read the rest of this entry »

  • March 21, 2008 /  Book Reviews, Mass Media

    It’s rare to find a single thing that encapsulates both what I appreciate and what I disdain about a subject. The last minute and a half of this Colbert Report clip. In it, Philip Zimbardo tries to suggest that Lucifer was right, showing incomplete knowledge of theology. Stephen Colbert takes 30 seconds of national cable show time to provide proper perspective. And he gets cheered! When Dr. Zimbardo notes that the host learned well in Sunday School, the response is above: “I teach Sunday School, M—–F—–!” It’s funny. It’s also true, as Colbert notes in this Parade interview. There’s even a blog about Catholic Colbert, which contains clips and information on elements of faith in the show. I didn’t find the time where Colbert recited the Creed, but for an excellent example of Catholic social teaching, I recommend the segments on the 1969 South Carolina nurses’ strike.

    The problem, though, is that last word. The juxtaposition of gentle church instruction and a vicious profanity causes us to laugh. It’s strange and unexpected. But, somewhere, I know Mr. Colbert can do better. Lots of comics rely on profanity to get a reaction, beginning about as soon as a kid understands why certain words are uncommon. Like sesquipedalian. That’s incongruous and funny, right? Ultimately, though, we move towards better ideas of irony and atypical situations and strange events, and only the mediocre comedians rely on shock. Because he’s not mediocre, I get frustrated when Stephen drops to that level.

    That’s true about his show, and that’s true of his book, I Am America (and so can you!) Lots of parts are quite funny, like how all the figures are of him, and the fake Ordinary People, and the pre-annotated pages. That’s great. So why do he and his writers have to resort to vulgarity? They’re better than that. Without the f-bombs and bad innuendo, this book would be highly recommended. As it is, it drops to a 2 out of 5.

  • January 1, 2008 /  Book Reviews, Mass Media

    It should surprise almost nobody that I served as manager and statistician for my high school’s football team. Well, if you know me now, I’m reasonably sized, but I had a late puberty. At the beginning of tenth grade I was only 5′ 2″. As MTV Hits plays videos from my high school and college days – Cotton Eye Joe, Spice Girls, House of Pain – I’m reminded of those days. I’m also reminded of high school football through my Borders Book this fall, The Blind Side by Michael Lewis. Earlier this fall, I had reread Liar’s Poker, and a couple years ago I had purchased and read Moneyball. His latest work had received excellent reviews, so I wanted to read it eventually. I wasn’t that enthusiastic, though, so I read it in sessions over the fall at the bookstore. Borders is like my crack house. Every time I enter there, money disappears like an addiction. So I don’t go that often. I also try to browse something light. Over a few visits, where I generally purchase things, I also learn about something else. This fall, it was football.

    Effectively, there are two parts to this book. The smaller portion is a description of line play from the 1980s to today. As defensive players got better, particularly Lawrence Taylor, offensive lines had to adapt and improve. This led to better athletes (though steroids also likely helped), new strategies, and more money. Linemen used to make much less than the glamour positions of running back and cornerback. Now, at least in pro circles if not the public, the gap is zero. Left tackle, the most important position on the line, is second only to quarterback in salary. Lewis presents a well researched, interesting history. Yet it’s just football, a topic of much less importance than it gets. That’s nice, but I wouldn’t read a book for football strategy anymore.

    As the videos move to the “00′s Hits”, let’s also move to the other part of the book, an example of the new left tackle. That young man is Michael Oher, now through three seasons at the University of Mississippi, and barring injury, soon a high pick in the NFL Draft. Astonishingly, seven years ago he had never played football and was effectively homeless on the streets of Memphis. His parents, the school system, and the community had failed him. Somehow an elite Christian school accepts a black kid, even though he doesn’t immediately play sports. Mr. Oher gets noticed by a rich white family because he’s gigantic, sure, but also because he hung around the gym watching basketball practice because it was warm.

    The individual story is great, but the football part is not that exciting. Overall, this book gets an average score, 2 out of 5. Now, I want to consider the question that the adoptive family, the Tuohys, did something wrong because their adopted son went to their college. Mr. Oher’s life was set for failure. Now, he has the chance at millions of dollars in football. Yet, even if somehow he breaks his legs tomorrow, he’s better off. Instead of a having an IQ of 80, he’s achieved at least high school level literacy. He has a home, clothing, credentials, and a chance. Let’s take the most cynical view, and say the Tuohys helped him ONLY to develop a football prospect for their alma mater. Is Michael Oher worse off because of their decision?

    To answer this question, I’m reminded of one of the best episodes of a TV show. In The Left Wing, the first season Christmas episode had a great story. (It won an Emmy, deservedly.) One of the staffers donated a coat, which went to a homeless man who died. The staffer’s card was still in one pocket, so he got a phone call. He used the resources of the White House to get the homeless man, a Korean War veteran, an honor guard. In doing so, he exceeds his bounds, and the President gently chastises him by asking “if we start pulling strings like this, you don’t think every homeless veteran would come out of the woodworks?”

    BCS football is a cesspool of sewage and rottenness. What would happen if instead of showering coaches with multi-million dollar contracts, renovating locker rooms for multi-millions of dollars, spending hundreds of thousands of dollars for hotels before HOME games, and building multi-million dollar all-weather practice facilities, the old white men who run the system searched out promising talent? Then got them appropriate clothing, a safe environment, and personal tutors?

    I can only hope, sir.

  • November 23, 2007 /  Mass Media

    Particuarly with the Daily Show and Colbert Report off the air, my TV and TiVo work as an expensive stereo. In my home wireless network, I’ve connected my TiVo box. With a couple little legal hacks, it can play any music from iTunes. Thus, instead of buying a stereo, when I want to listen to the Chrono Trigger soundtrack, I can fire up the TiVo. Sometimes, when I want to keep track of today’s hits, I’ll tune up one of the many channels on the digital music tier: 5 MTV brands, 3 VH1, 2 BET, 3 country, and two other. Of course, of those fifteen channels, only about two are playing music videos at any given time (and the count is going down), but I will see videos eventually.

    One interesting remix is Kiss Me, by New Found Glory, a 21st century boy band. It’s number 1 on the pop countdown on Fuse this week. New Found Glory doesn’t call themselves a boy band, but there are young men, high pitched singing, no depth, and simple melodies. Same thing, different instruments. However, because this boy band isn’t hot, they got mostly actors for their video. In it, shirtless shaved teenagers run around a giant mattress-covered treehouse, engaging in random carousing, jumping, and kissing. There’s very little subtlety, romance, or permanence. It’s a scene, a feeling, for a day. That’s hedonistic, but doesn’t rise to the level of offensive. The original, sung by Christian band Sixpence None the Richer, is just much better. That song was sweet and charming. This new version is basically forgettable.

    It doesn’t take long to find something offensive and non-forgettable, though. This month’s example is Soulja Boy and the single Crank That. It’s gotten a lot of airplay, reaching number one on the Hot 100, video charts, and Billboard ringtone charts. I heard undergraduates playing the video at Bellarmine. It’s popular. And it’s offensive. The chorus involves the phrase “Superman that Ho.” My street lingo, well, is practically nonexistant. I shouldn’t have had good expectations given the last word of that phrase, but I decided to look it up anyway. Then I felt sick. I try to keep PG-13, so I have to wordsmith a little here. A male climaxes on a woman’s back. Then, he puts a sheet on her back. When she stands up, the sheet sticks, making it look like Superman’s cape. Often this is performed after a woman is asleep, having refused an offer of sex. I heard that, and I’m sick.

    Because it’s catchy, this tune gets played in some college arenas. Would it still be if the DJs checked as I did? Sports Illustrated at least noticed that the act couldn’t be described in their magazine. My thesaurus has trouble finding words. degrading? mortifying? wretched? Here’s a commentary from the paper of the school I knew as wustl, Washington University in St Louis. Somehow, two of the four comments are against the article.

    In general, I detest the people who feel that Catholics should remove themselves from society, with special music, special TV, special books, and special activities. There’s still plenty of place available, and retreat is surrender. I’d rather try to create and support positive culture. Sixpence None the Richer can and will win over New Found Glory, a winsome tune over mediocrity. But what do I do when arenas dance to a song about physically degrading a woman? Really, what do I do?