There are many sport teams out there that simply have badly named teams. I am not saying all are bad, but some simply do not fit in, and some are just look like the owners spent 5 minutes selecting the name or selected a name that needs to be upgraded. And then there are teams that need to change because they are offensive, but I will save that for a separate post.
The NFL is pretty good, almost all of teams have solid names that relate to the city or area. Though there are far too many bird teams, I mean birds are just not cool, Eagles are ok, Falcons (never saw one in Georgia by the way) could upgrade, Ravens (kind of scary if you think about the poem), Cardinals (I bet there are a lot in Arizona's desert), but realistically the names are not that bad. The Browns could upgrade, but that will not happen. I mean the name of the team is a color, the fans dress up as dogs, so is brown the color of the dog and if so, just call the team the wolves or foxes or something other canine. But, seriously, the NFL has done a good job of making the teams have good names.
The NHL is next. Almost all of the teams in Canada could upgrade.
Montreal Canadiens, Vancouver Canucks: Montreal and Vancouver both need to change because the team names are lazy, it would be like if New York had a team called the "Americans", and Canuck is a slur that non-Canadians use, so really they are making fun of themselves.
Ottawa Senators: where to begin? Well, the logo is a picture of a Spartan warrior or Greek warrior. What does that have to with Ottawa, nothing. The term Senator is a term for a representative in a democratic government, what does this have to do with hockey and this warrior guy? Solution, change the team name to warriors.
Calgary Flames: Why would you make the team name after something that ruins the surface you play on? Fire melts ice, what a bad name. Plus Calgary is cold, though they have nice summers, but hockey is a winter sport. The team moved from Atlanta 35+ years ago, so maybe it is time for a change.
Anaheim Ducks: The duck is quite possibly the least scary bird, well except for the robin. Where are these ducks by the way? Is Anaheim the duck capital of California or something. I think the name is a result of Disney owning the team, but still this is bad name. Ducks are not tough, they are cute. And why are there so many hockey teams in California, I love the San Jose Sharks, but even I am like it is too warm for hockey.
San Jose Sharks - Hate to do this to my favorite hockey team, but San Jose is pretty landlocked. The bay is north of the city, but not very close. Oh, and there are not many sharks in the bay, so they could have done a much better job in selecting the mascot.
The NBA
Well, most of the issues in the NBA result of moving teams.
The Utah Jazz: There are so many great jazz musicians from the state of Utah, no, the team moved from New Orleans and never changed the name. This is a terrible name, there is no association between Jazz and Salt Lake City, maybe a jazz club or two, but really this is just laziness.
Los Angeles Lakers: Originally in Minnesota, the land of a ten thousand lakes, the name made sense. But there are no lakes in Los Angeles, well maybe there are some, but the city is not known for their lakes. Maybe the LA Smog?
New York Knicks: Still not sure what Knickerbocker is and it is still technically the official name. Just change it already, no knows what this word means.
Memphis Grizzlies: Again, team moved from Canada to Memphis. It worked in Canada, but Memphis is not known for their beers, maybe they change it to the kings for Elvis and Sacramento change their name to something better since everyone outside of California thinks of the kings as the hockey team in LA. Wow, that was two-for-one deal.
Miami Heat: We all know Miami is hot, it is 85 degrees 10 months of the year. Please don't remind everyone of that. This is laziness on the ownership, you named your team after a descriptive term for the weather, and not even a creative one like the Phoenix Suns,
MLB
Philadelphia Phillies - Problem here is the laziness of the owners, though I will be nice since they named the team 120 years ago, so they probably thought it was catchy. Basically it is the name of the city a second time, like the Cleveland Cleves, or the Portland Ports. It must have been a very quick meeting when they thought this name up.
Cincinnati Reds - Similar to the Browns in the NFL, this team is simply a color, an adjective. Teams need to have nouns, not adjectives, adjectives modify, in this case, modifying the city of Cincinnati. Again, the was founded 100+ years ago, so maybe this was the best they could work with.
Kansas City Royals - I have no idea what royalty has to do with Kansas City, I guess this like the Reds, they simply took a color and made it the team name. Or maybe the name is for royalty, I don't know and it is confusing. If it is for royalty, than this team is unAmerican because this country was founded to protest the ideas of royalty and monarchs.
Oakland Athletics - Again, an old team with an old name. The problem is that the A's is much more popular than the full name and the shorter A's, makes no sense. The team is a letter? And athletic is not better, obviously they are athletes.
So, basically we have several poorly named teams between the four major sports. There must be better choices out there, or at least more creative ones (Columbus Blue Jackets, Arizona Diamondbacks)
Well, that wraps it up for this entry.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Oh, that Zeppelin Song...
Recently, it came to my attention and now focus, that Led Zeppelin has many songs that simply do not have the title of the song in the lyrics of the song. Here is a list out of their 8 studio albums (Led Zeppelin to In Through the Out Door)
Immigrant Song, The Lemon Song, Out on the Tiles, Black Dog, The Battle of Evermore, Four Sticks, Misty Mountain Hop, Hats Off to (Roy) Harper, Trampled Underfoot, Bron-Y-Aur Stomp, Over the Hills and Far Away, The Crunge, D'Yer Mak'er, The Rover, Night Flight, The Wanton Song, Boogie With Stu, Black Country Woman, Sick Again, Achilles' Last Stand, Royal Orleans, Candy Store Rock, Hots On For Nowhere, Tea For One, South Bound Saurez, Hot Dog, Carouselambra. This list totals 27 songs.
Then there are bunch of songs that make a mention of the song title once; Kashmir, Going to California, What It is And Should Never Be, Friends, Celebration Day (the word celebration appears), Heartbreaker, the song remains the same, The Rain Song (the word 'rain' appears), In My time of Dying, Down by the seaside, In The Evening, and Fool In The Rain (again, the word 'Rain' at some point in the song). This list totals 12.
So between these two lists, 39 out of a possible 73 songs either have one mention of the title or no mention of the title. And then there are 3 instrumentals that I did not include, so now there are only 70 songs. So out seventy, more than half lack having the title of the song in the lyrics.
So this brings me to why I am writing on this very random thing. I find it just odd that an artist would do this, why would you make songs that people can't remember the name? Are they simply suppose to go into a record store and ask, "Can I get the Zeppelin album with the song that goes ...." or "That song, it is about ...". It would be confusing to the record buying public to do this. Also, how were radio stations suppose to play the song, if some calls into the station and asks for "That Zeppelin song" there are many to choose from.
Led Zeppelin is one of the most important in influential rock bands over the past 40 years. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of bands exist simply because of the impact that Zeppelin had and for opening up the door for bands to play a heavier, harder, and louder, form of music. Zeppelin still is important today, even if the band has ceased to exist for nearly 30 years. But, it still puzzles me that they would make so many of their songs without the title in the lyrics. Maybe it is another part of the entire mystique of Led Zeppelin, the songs speak for themselves. Black Dog for example, the lyrics have nothing to do with dogs, but the title just sounds dark, but also quite cool. So, I was not able to solve the mystery in this phenomena, but I can conclude that Zeppelin may have done this move on purpose in order to further their own mystery and demonstrate that their songs were/are so well composed and supported by such talented musicians, that titling the songs in a traditional manner would have been just uncool, and un-Zeppelin.
Immigrant Song, The Lemon Song, Out on the Tiles, Black Dog, The Battle of Evermore, Four Sticks, Misty Mountain Hop, Hats Off to (Roy) Harper, Trampled Underfoot, Bron-Y-Aur Stomp, Over the Hills and Far Away, The Crunge, D'Yer Mak'er, The Rover, Night Flight, The Wanton Song, Boogie With Stu, Black Country Woman, Sick Again, Achilles' Last Stand, Royal Orleans, Candy Store Rock, Hots On For Nowhere, Tea For One, South Bound Saurez, Hot Dog, Carouselambra. This list totals 27 songs.
Then there are bunch of songs that make a mention of the song title once; Kashmir, Going to California, What It is And Should Never Be, Friends, Celebration Day (the word celebration appears), Heartbreaker, the song remains the same, The Rain Song (the word 'rain' appears), In My time of Dying, Down by the seaside, In The Evening, and Fool In The Rain (again, the word 'Rain' at some point in the song). This list totals 12.
So between these two lists, 39 out of a possible 73 songs either have one mention of the title or no mention of the title. And then there are 3 instrumentals that I did not include, so now there are only 70 songs. So out seventy, more than half lack having the title of the song in the lyrics.
So this brings me to why I am writing on this very random thing. I find it just odd that an artist would do this, why would you make songs that people can't remember the name? Are they simply suppose to go into a record store and ask, "Can I get the Zeppelin album with the song that goes ...." or "That song, it is about ...". It would be confusing to the record buying public to do this. Also, how were radio stations suppose to play the song, if some calls into the station and asks for "That Zeppelin song" there are many to choose from.
Led Zeppelin is one of the most important in influential rock bands over the past 40 years. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of bands exist simply because of the impact that Zeppelin had and for opening up the door for bands to play a heavier, harder, and louder, form of music. Zeppelin still is important today, even if the band has ceased to exist for nearly 30 years. But, it still puzzles me that they would make so many of their songs without the title in the lyrics. Maybe it is another part of the entire mystique of Led Zeppelin, the songs speak for themselves. Black Dog for example, the lyrics have nothing to do with dogs, but the title just sounds dark, but also quite cool. So, I was not able to solve the mystery in this phenomena, but I can conclude that Zeppelin may have done this move on purpose in order to further their own mystery and demonstrate that their songs were/are so well composed and supported by such talented musicians, that titling the songs in a traditional manner would have been just uncool, and un-Zeppelin.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
Pearl Jam's Backspacer: Quick, catchy, and still going strong
I got an advanced, actually leaked, copy of the new Pearl Jam album, Backspacer. After nearly 20 years in the business and millions of records sold, Pearl Jam continues to make music and good music at that. For many casual listeners. they know the songs from their debut, "Jeremy", "Black", "Alive", and "Evenflow", and after that they don't feel a need to find out the rest of the band's catalog. After their debut, they skyrocketed into fame and released 7 albums between 1993 and 2006. The latest, number 9 overall, is a strong effort. The album is short album, about 33 and a half minutes. This was the first surprise to me, usually they are clocking in around 50 minutes. The songs are short, with only 2 of them over 4 minutes. Now, some might find this as a positive and some see it as a negative. The positive is that they have a bunch of songs that are radio ready, no need to make an radio edit that cuts parts out. The negative is that some might feel ripped off to only get 33 minutes for a CD that costs $17. I at first was hesitant to this idea, but after listening to the whole album, I saw it is as a positive, there are no long drawn out guitar parts that sometimes hinder their albums and if you have gotten any of their live shows on CD, there are almost always one disc that features 8 songs that clock in at 65 minutes.
Sonically, not much is different than previous works. Obviously, this albums alot like their last album, Eddie's voice sounds strong, the rest of the band is strong as well. The first single 'The Fixer' is pretty pop sounding, not the traditional Pearl Jam sound. Many of the songs are like this, no heavy riffs, no grunge. After thinking of which album it sounds like, I concluded that "Yield" may be close, along with the last album. There is not much of the experimental sound that was present on No Code, Vitalogy, and it is not slow like Riot Act. It is not 'Ten' Part II, and it is not the aggression that was present on Vs. I compare it to 'Yield' because that album had many songs that were somewhat 70s rock in feel 'In Hiding' and 'Given to Fly', they remind some of Led Zeppelin, and I think that 'Brain of J." is somewhat Ramones, as several of their album openers are, loud and fast. This album starts off with "Gonna See My Friend", fast and punchy, probably the meanest on the album, similar to 'Last Exit'. "Got Some' another strong song, as is 'Johnny Guitar', then the band slows down with 'Just Breathe', a nice balladesque song. "Amongst the Waves' starts slow then picks up, like 'Pilate' on Yield. "Unthought Known' is pretty good, "Supersonic" is quite enjoyable, very fast, sounds like Pearl Jam attempting to do Ramones. "Speed of Sound" slows things down again, sounds like something off of 'Pearl Jam'. "Force of Nature" is alright, faster pace than its predecessor. "The End" is a very interesting final track, somewhat like 'Just Breathe", bare bones, and shows the great voice of Eddie Vedder. Overall, the album is strong in my opinion, Pearl Jam has spent every album after 'Ten' trying to make music that is not mainstream, they make music they want to make. The album is probably not the best place to start one's Pearl Jam's collection, but it is overall a strong album, it is a quick, catchy, and shows that this band can continue to make new and different music long into their career.
Sonically, not much is different than previous works. Obviously, this albums alot like their last album, Eddie's voice sounds strong, the rest of the band is strong as well. The first single 'The Fixer' is pretty pop sounding, not the traditional Pearl Jam sound. Many of the songs are like this, no heavy riffs, no grunge. After thinking of which album it sounds like, I concluded that "Yield" may be close, along with the last album. There is not much of the experimental sound that was present on No Code, Vitalogy, and it is not slow like Riot Act. It is not 'Ten' Part II, and it is not the aggression that was present on Vs. I compare it to 'Yield' because that album had many songs that were somewhat 70s rock in feel 'In Hiding' and 'Given to Fly', they remind some of Led Zeppelin, and I think that 'Brain of J." is somewhat Ramones, as several of their album openers are, loud and fast. This album starts off with "Gonna See My Friend", fast and punchy, probably the meanest on the album, similar to 'Last Exit'. "Got Some' another strong song, as is 'Johnny Guitar', then the band slows down with 'Just Breathe', a nice balladesque song. "Amongst the Waves' starts slow then picks up, like 'Pilate' on Yield. "Unthought Known' is pretty good, "Supersonic" is quite enjoyable, very fast, sounds like Pearl Jam attempting to do Ramones. "Speed of Sound" slows things down again, sounds like something off of 'Pearl Jam'. "Force of Nature" is alright, faster pace than its predecessor. "The End" is a very interesting final track, somewhat like 'Just Breathe", bare bones, and shows the great voice of Eddie Vedder. Overall, the album is strong in my opinion, Pearl Jam has spent every album after 'Ten' trying to make music that is not mainstream, they make music they want to make. The album is probably not the best place to start one's Pearl Jam's collection, but it is overall a strong album, it is a quick, catchy, and shows that this band can continue to make new and different music long into their career.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
NFL Divisions: What the ??
Yesterday I was looking at the divisions in the NFL (National Football League) and realized that there are several teams that are simply in divisions that simply do not make sense.
So here are the current divisions and I have highlighted (with a *) the teams that I feel are out of place.
AFC East AFC North AFC South AFC West
Buffalo Baltimore Houston Oakland
NY Jets Cincinnati Indianapolis * Kansas City *
Miami * Cleveland Jacksonville Denver
New England Pittsburgh Tennessee San Diego
NFC East NFC North NFC South NFC West
Dallas* Chicago Atlanta Seattle
NY Giants Minnesota Tampa Bay St Louis *
Philadelphia Green Bay New Orleans Arizona
Washington Detroit Carolina San Francisco
So there are 5 of the 32 teams that are in the "wrong division". I understand that there are geographical limits to the NFL's divisions, they are to be taken literally, but they should at least be a little more accurate. And I am sure that these divisions have to also keep some rivalries in tact, why else would one Texas team been in the East and the other in the South, when on the map, Dallas is pretty much north and a little east of Houston. And I am sure that when the NFL redid the divisions they had to make them fair for the teams within the division, hence why Indy is not in the East, it would be a powerhouse division. So, now to why I selected the teams that I did.
1. Dallas - Dallas is in the East, why? It is in the Central time zone, St Louis is further east on the map than Dallas and its in the West division. Really, this one got me started on this post, I mean why is Dallas in the East? South would be better, or West. It is further south then half of the NFC South and Tennessee.
2. St Louis - Why is this team in the West? It is a several hour plane ride to Arizona, California, and Washington, all places the team has to go each season. This team use to be the LA Rams and I guess they never changed their division when the team moved, but it is about time.
3. Miami - This team is in the East, but it needs to be in the South. Tampa Bay is in the South for the NFC and Miami is actually further south than Tampa! Why should they play in a division with the other three teams that play in snow or at least freezing cold temperatures most of the season?
4. Kansas City - This is similar to the St Louis argument, again in the same state as St Louis, but plays in a division where every other team is in another time zone.
5. Indianapolis - What is this team doing in the south? There is nothing southern about this team except Payton Manning. They are actually north of Cincinnati, which plays in the AFC North.
I propose this new NFL division map.
AFC East AFC North AFC South AFC West
Buffalo Indianapolis Houston Oakland
NY Jets Cincinnati Miami Kansas City *
Baltimore Cleveland Jacksonville Denver
New England Pittsburgh Tennessee San Diego
NFC East NFC North NFC South NFC West
Carolina Chicago Atlanta Seattle
NY Giants Minnesota Tampa Bay St. Louis*
Philadelphia Green Bay New Orleans Arizona
Washington Detroit Dallas San Francisco
Unfortunately, St. Louis and Kansas City are stuck in their current divisions due to the fact that moving them would mess up all of the other divisions. Dallas in the South works, same for Miami in the AFC. Baltimore in the AFC East works too, and Indy up north is good too. Carolina in the NFC East is getting the team closer, though it could stay in the south, but Carolina is pretty far east and is 5 hours from the nearest rival in the South, Atlanta. With these modified divisions it would create the possibility of new rivalries. Also, since good teams come and go, it is difficult to argue that some divisions are stronger than others, AFC East for example. And as for St Louis and Kansas City, maybe it is time for them to relocate, I can't figure out a logical way to move them into another division, I was thinking of switching Minnesota and St. Louis, but it would not work and there is really nowhere to move Kansas in the AFC. The NFL has done a good job with this realignment, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Carolina are finally out of the West and Arizona is in and out of the East, but there is still some work to do.
So here are the current divisions and I have highlighted (with a *) the teams that I feel are out of place.
AFC East AFC North AFC South AFC West
Buffalo Baltimore Houston Oakland
NY Jets Cincinnati Indianapolis * Kansas City *
Miami * Cleveland Jacksonville Denver
New England Pittsburgh Tennessee San Diego
NFC East NFC North NFC South NFC West
Dallas* Chicago Atlanta Seattle
NY Giants Minnesota Tampa Bay St Louis *
Philadelphia Green Bay New Orleans Arizona
Washington Detroit Carolina San Francisco
So there are 5 of the 32 teams that are in the "wrong division". I understand that there are geographical limits to the NFL's divisions, they are to be taken literally, but they should at least be a little more accurate. And I am sure that these divisions have to also keep some rivalries in tact, why else would one Texas team been in the East and the other in the South, when on the map, Dallas is pretty much north and a little east of Houston. And I am sure that when the NFL redid the divisions they had to make them fair for the teams within the division, hence why Indy is not in the East, it would be a powerhouse division. So, now to why I selected the teams that I did.
1. Dallas - Dallas is in the East, why? It is in the Central time zone, St Louis is further east on the map than Dallas and its in the West division. Really, this one got me started on this post, I mean why is Dallas in the East? South would be better, or West. It is further south then half of the NFC South and Tennessee.
2. St Louis - Why is this team in the West? It is a several hour plane ride to Arizona, California, and Washington, all places the team has to go each season. This team use to be the LA Rams and I guess they never changed their division when the team moved, but it is about time.
3. Miami - This team is in the East, but it needs to be in the South. Tampa Bay is in the South for the NFC and Miami is actually further south than Tampa! Why should they play in a division with the other three teams that play in snow or at least freezing cold temperatures most of the season?
4. Kansas City - This is similar to the St Louis argument, again in the same state as St Louis, but plays in a division where every other team is in another time zone.
5. Indianapolis - What is this team doing in the south? There is nothing southern about this team except Payton Manning. They are actually north of Cincinnati, which plays in the AFC North.
I propose this new NFL division map.
AFC East AFC North AFC South AFC West
Buffalo Indianapolis Houston Oakland
NY Jets Cincinnati Miami Kansas City *
Baltimore Cleveland Jacksonville Denver
New England Pittsburgh Tennessee San Diego
NFC East NFC North NFC South NFC West
Carolina Chicago Atlanta Seattle
NY Giants Minnesota Tampa Bay St. Louis*
Philadelphia Green Bay New Orleans Arizona
Washington Detroit Dallas San Francisco
Unfortunately, St. Louis and Kansas City are stuck in their current divisions due to the fact that moving them would mess up all of the other divisions. Dallas in the South works, same for Miami in the AFC. Baltimore in the AFC East works too, and Indy up north is good too. Carolina in the NFC East is getting the team closer, though it could stay in the south, but Carolina is pretty far east and is 5 hours from the nearest rival in the South, Atlanta. With these modified divisions it would create the possibility of new rivalries. Also, since good teams come and go, it is difficult to argue that some divisions are stronger than others, AFC East for example. And as for St Louis and Kansas City, maybe it is time for them to relocate, I can't figure out a logical way to move them into another division, I was thinking of switching Minnesota and St. Louis, but it would not work and there is really nowhere to move Kansas in the AFC. The NFL has done a good job with this realignment, Atlanta, New Orleans, and Carolina are finally out of the West and Arizona is in and out of the East, but there is still some work to do.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Obama's speech to students: What's the big deal?
Over the past few days I feel like I have been inundated with news stories about President's Obama's speech to students. The speech aired today, after the speech was made available last night. Since I am not in school, I didn't see it, but did catch some news bits afterwords. The main fear before the speech was made was that Obama was going to indoctrinate America's youth with liberal ideals and was making a direct appeal for change to a segment of the population that is more easily persuaded.
Now, I probably shouldn't be writing on a speech that I didn't see, but I am because the actual words are only partly important in this case. The bigger issue, as I see it, is the power/influence that media has. There was interesting note in one article about this speech, stating how Reagan and George H.W. Bush both made similar addresses to American students, Reagan actually made a direct appeal stating how taxes were bad (which I am sure really resonated to elementary age kids). I doubt that there was as big a reaction to their speeches as there was to Obama's. Now, I did not vote for Obama and thus am not seeing any real changes that he promised, I only mention this because if someone who did not even vote for him can feel comfortable with his speech, than maybe Obama's speech is not so damaging.
I think there are much more effective means for Obama/Democratic party to indoctrinate their ideals into the American public. I have seen dozens of Obama products; T-shirts, coins, posters, comic books, plates, and even children's books. These are not as powerful as one speech, but they are more accessible to more people. It is much easier to go buy a piece of Obama-Mania than to sit and watch a speech. I remember reading a children's book about President Clinton when I was young and then becoming a 'supporter' of Clinton, though in my later years I changed my opinion and now disregard ever supporting him. And it has been shown that one of the most influential aspect of child's political views is that of their parents. In so far as, that if a child is raised by two republican parents, than that child will most likely be a republican. So, really, Obama's rhetoric is not what we need to worry about for our children, what we need to worry is about is Obama as a product.
Now, I probably shouldn't be writing on a speech that I didn't see, but I am because the actual words are only partly important in this case. The bigger issue, as I see it, is the power/influence that media has. There was interesting note in one article about this speech, stating how Reagan and George H.W. Bush both made similar addresses to American students, Reagan actually made a direct appeal stating how taxes were bad (which I am sure really resonated to elementary age kids). I doubt that there was as big a reaction to their speeches as there was to Obama's. Now, I did not vote for Obama and thus am not seeing any real changes that he promised, I only mention this because if someone who did not even vote for him can feel comfortable with his speech, than maybe Obama's speech is not so damaging.
I think there are much more effective means for Obama/Democratic party to indoctrinate their ideals into the American public. I have seen dozens of Obama products; T-shirts, coins, posters, comic books, plates, and even children's books. These are not as powerful as one speech, but they are more accessible to more people. It is much easier to go buy a piece of Obama-Mania than to sit and watch a speech. I remember reading a children's book about President Clinton when I was young and then becoming a 'supporter' of Clinton, though in my later years I changed my opinion and now disregard ever supporting him. And it has been shown that one of the most influential aspect of child's political views is that of their parents. In so far as, that if a child is raised by two republican parents, than that child will most likely be a republican. So, really, Obama's rhetoric is not what we need to worry about for our children, what we need to worry is about is Obama as a product.
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Is the use of torture good or bad as a form of interogation? What makes something an act of toture?
Check out the article below it is about the government's posibble investigation into the interrogation techniques used by the CIA, thanks in part to the good people at the ACLU. I wanted to write a brief blog on this topic, because this is pretty interesting to me.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/08/24/us.terror.interrogations/index.html?iref=newssearch
The article discusses some of the acts used as interrogation, which to me do not seem to be forms of torture. Example, interrogators shot a gun off in a room next to the room in which they conducted an interrogation, telling the suspect that the victim of the shot was the suspect's friend. Now, they did not actually kill said person, they simply shot the gun off, the only victim was the concrete wall. How is this torturing a person? No one was hurt, it is a technique to get the suspect to give up information, information that can be used to save lives. The article mentions how investigators said that they (the investigators) made threats, really more exaggerations, that they would find the suspect's family and bring haul them in, which again they did not do. The techniques are not hurting anyone. Torture involves bodily harm, which these techniques are not doing. There may be mental damage, but I don't know how since what they said they would do didn't happen. So to answer the second part of the title's question, no, I don't think what occured is torture.
So onto the more difficult question of good or bad/right or wrong. Our nation has never been one to utilize torture, it is something other nations do, not us. In the case of terrorism though we have a much more difficult question. Terrorists are not going to be reasonable, President Obama is not going to be able to have a nice chat with Bin Laden in the White House, terrorists are not operating under the normal rules. In spite of this, I am still not sure if it right for our government to use torture. It breaks international law and it is going to make us appear to the world as barbaric. So unfortunately, I can't decide on this topic. But, I am sure that what this cnn article discussed about the techniques is not torture, If the government wants to launch an investigation, which they probably won't find anything. It will only result in wasting millions and millions of dollars that could go to better use in helping the economy and this nation's citizens.
In closing, read the article and decide for yourself.
Lady Gaga: A respresentation for a period of music and giving hope in trying times
I got Lady Gaga' Poker Face stuck in my head a couple of weeks back. I have really not been a fan of the mainstream pop music, I have always been a rocker, ever since I got my first CD when I was 13, Blink 182 - Enema Of the State, which in retrospect was not the best was to start a music collection, but the musical tastes of a 13 year old never are.
So back to Lady Gaga. I am not sure where this woman came from, I found some stuff on her on wikipedia, but I have not the slightest idea how accurate it may or may not be. She is from New York and was born in 1986, which means she has already done more in her life than I have and is only a year older than me. She really came out of nowhere last year, her first two singles both made it to Number 1 on the Billboard charts, which is pretty significant since she is like the first or second female artist to do this in the 50 year history of billboard's tracking of pop singles.
I find her character fascinating. She considers herself a fashion icon, but I think we can all agree that she is not going to be influencing anyone with her outrageous outfits. Her voice is average, at best, her voice sounds as if she sung the lyrics and then the producer took it and messed with it with some electronics, her voice sounds at time robotic. The lyrics to the song are weak, as in simple and quite dirty. Example of the simplicity the chorus to Poker Face "Can't read my, Can't read my No he can't read my poker face P-p-p-poker face, p-p-poker face(Mum mum mum mah" really that is the best you come up with? As for the explicit nature "I'll get him hot, show him what I've got", again poker face. Now Love Game "I wanna take a ride on your disco stick", subtle, and what makes this better is that your target audience is female, great message to send to them, have sex with guys and they will love you. There is some metaphor in Poker Face, but Just Dance and Love Game are direct, not complex at all
But, there is a positive to Lady Gaga. Her music is sub par, but catchy. And this past year has been very tough for our country, a recession, record job loss, the loss of lives for the troops fighting for our freedom, just to name a few. What Gaga then does is creates an escape of sorts, a message of go out and have fun, dance the night away and be happy. Now, will she go down in music history as a legend like Madonna, Michael Jackson, or Bruce Springsteen? I doubt it, but she has only released one album, while each of the above mentioned have released a dozen plus. Who knows if she will even remain popular after this album. Gaga is also important because with her mammoth success, she can come to represent and encapsulate a period in music history. Think of it this way, there were dozens of southern rock bands in the 1970s, but if asked to name one, or their favorite one, most people would say Lynyrd Skynyrd. Now, Skynyrd was great and probably the most well known, but what about 38 Special, Allman Brothers, Mollie Hatchet, just to name a few, all were popular, all had hits, but who do most people remember? Skynyrd,
I am not saying Lynyrd Skynyrd and Lady Gaga are equally important, but more to the point that both come to represent a period in time in music in a certain genre. Gaga, represents the music from 2007 to 2009 (or later) , simplistic and laden with computer effects. Think about other songs topping the Billboard charts Crank That Soulja Boy, Umbrella (somewhat), Low, I Kissed a girl, Whatever You Like (heavy on the synth), Womanizer, I Gotta Feeling, Boom Boom Pow, Right Round. There have been other hits, but these come to mind because if you listen to them, you are hearing alot of effects, and lyrics that don't have any meaning.
Now, I could go off on a tangent about how this music is a reflection of the failure of our society, but I am not going to do that. Even if Lady Gaga makes music I don't like, I will give her this. She has had more hits than most of the music I listen too, she has even sold more records than some of the artists I listen to. She may not be the best singer, she may not be the best lyricist, she may not even be a lady, but I am going to give her this, she can make a catchy song and can make an uplifting message even if it is simple.
So back to Lady Gaga. I am not sure where this woman came from, I found some stuff on her on wikipedia, but I have not the slightest idea how accurate it may or may not be. She is from New York and was born in 1986, which means she has already done more in her life than I have and is only a year older than me. She really came out of nowhere last year, her first two singles both made it to Number 1 on the Billboard charts, which is pretty significant since she is like the first or second female artist to do this in the 50 year history of billboard's tracking of pop singles.
I find her character fascinating. She considers herself a fashion icon, but I think we can all agree that she is not going to be influencing anyone with her outrageous outfits. Her voice is average, at best, her voice sounds as if she sung the lyrics and then the producer took it and messed with it with some electronics, her voice sounds at time robotic. The lyrics to the song are weak, as in simple and quite dirty. Example of the simplicity the chorus to Poker Face "Can't read my, Can't read my No he can't read my poker face P-p-p-poker face, p-p-poker face(Mum mum mum mah" really that is the best you come up with? As for the explicit nature "I'll get him hot, show him what I've got", again poker face. Now Love Game "I wanna take a ride on your disco stick", subtle, and what makes this better is that your target audience is female, great message to send to them, have sex with guys and they will love you. There is some metaphor in Poker Face, but Just Dance and Love Game are direct, not complex at all
But, there is a positive to Lady Gaga. Her music is sub par, but catchy. And this past year has been very tough for our country, a recession, record job loss, the loss of lives for the troops fighting for our freedom, just to name a few. What Gaga then does is creates an escape of sorts, a message of go out and have fun, dance the night away and be happy. Now, will she go down in music history as a legend like Madonna, Michael Jackson, or Bruce Springsteen? I doubt it, but she has only released one album, while each of the above mentioned have released a dozen plus. Who knows if she will even remain popular after this album. Gaga is also important because with her mammoth success, she can come to represent and encapsulate a period in music history. Think of it this way, there were dozens of southern rock bands in the 1970s, but if asked to name one, or their favorite one, most people would say Lynyrd Skynyrd. Now, Skynyrd was great and probably the most well known, but what about 38 Special, Allman Brothers, Mollie Hatchet, just to name a few, all were popular, all had hits, but who do most people remember? Skynyrd,
I am not saying Lynyrd Skynyrd and Lady Gaga are equally important, but more to the point that both come to represent a period in time in music in a certain genre. Gaga, represents the music from 2007 to 2009 (or later) , simplistic and laden with computer effects. Think about other songs topping the Billboard charts Crank That Soulja Boy, Umbrella (somewhat), Low, I Kissed a girl, Whatever You Like (heavy on the synth), Womanizer, I Gotta Feeling, Boom Boom Pow, Right Round. There have been other hits, but these come to mind because if you listen to them, you are hearing alot of effects, and lyrics that don't have any meaning.
Now, I could go off on a tangent about how this music is a reflection of the failure of our society, but I am not going to do that. Even if Lady Gaga makes music I don't like, I will give her this. She has had more hits than most of the music I listen too, she has even sold more records than some of the artists I listen to. She may not be the best singer, she may not be the best lyricist, she may not even be a lady, but I am going to give her this, she can make a catchy song and can make an uplifting message even if it is simple.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
