I can understand people's fascination with the lives of the famous. In unguarded moments, I sometimes feel the voyeuristic impulse to look at photos of the glitterati. I expect that these reactions are pretty wide-spread, and that there isn't anything particularly wrong with them--at least as long to they mostly kept in check. But they often aren't kept in check. That in and of itself, isn't particularly surprising. What I do find disappointing and even somewhat unexpected is the way that the mainstream media have decided that pandering to our rubber-necking instincts is acceptable journalistic behavior. For example, one might hope that CNN would be committed to bringing us serious news stories. But their website frequently has "top stories" about the reported pregnancy of a starlett or the couch-jumping confessions of a former ersatz top gun. Fox and MSNBC are no better on this score.
What I would dearly love to see is a network that would decide that the private lives of the famous are, well, private (and mostly uninteresting--at least to our higher natures) and which would steadfastly ignore the gossip and celebrity worship that infects the other news networks. I'd pay extra, I think, for the uncompromised integrity.
Any takers?
Saturday, June 17, 2006
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
A Light [Beer] in the Darkness
I'm sometimes tempted to think that this world is controlled by dark, malevolent forces. But not right now. MSN.com reports that 17 beers a day is good for a guy (well, at least with respect to prostate cancer) and that for those who drink lots of coffee, the potential negative side effects of all that booze are largely negated (well, at least with respect to cirrhosis of the liver).
What a wonderful world.
What a wonderful world.
Thursday, June 01, 2006
Paste Magazine's Best Living Songwriter Survey
The latest issue of Paste Magazine (a really fine music and film rag) includes a list of the Paste music critics top one hundred living songwriters. There are some surprises of both commission and omission. Before I get to those, though, let me give you the top twenty, in count-down order:
20. Van Morrison
19. Patty Griffin
18. U2
17. Holland-Dozier-Holland [writers of many 60s r&b hits]
16. David Bowie
15. Willie Nelson
14. Stevie Wonder
13. Paul Simon
12. Jagger/Richards
11. Randy Newman
10. Prince
9. Joni Mitchell
8. Elvis Costello
7. Brian Wilson
6. Leonard Cohen
5. Paul McCartney
4. Tom Waits
3. Bruce Springsteen
2. Neil Young
1. Bob Dylan
Keep in mind that this is not a "best songwriters of the past 50 years" list, but rather the best of those still alive. (This strikes me as a curious restriction, but then it's not my magazine.) In addition to the critics poll, there was also a readers' poll, the top twenty of which is:
20. Carole King
19. Ryan Adams
18. James Taylor
17. John Prine
16. Willie Nelson
15. David Bowie
14. Jagger/Richards
13. Brian Wilson
12. R.E.M.
11. Jeff Tweedy
10. Van Morrison
9. Tom Waits
8. U2
7. Joni Mitchell
6. Elvis Costello
5. Paul Simon
4. Bruce Springsteen
3. Paul McCartney
2. Neil Young
1. Bob Dylan
One problem I had when I tried to contribute to the readers' poll is that I couldn't decide whether I was supposed to list the living songwriters who have the best body of work or those who are currently writing the best songs. These would be very different lists. Dylan is a no-brainer top five (at least) pick for the first kind of list, but he'd be nowhere near the top twenty of the latter kind.
Okay, so I guess my biggest complaint is that Paul Simon ends up so low on the critics poll. Can we really take seriously the thought that Prince is a better songwriter than Mr. Bridge Over Troubled Water? No, I don't think we can. I also want to complain about the derth of folk songwriters on the list. Bill Morrissey is a wonderful songwriter who doesn't even make the top 100. Ditto Pierce Pettis and Ellis Paul. And one of the best pop songwriters working, Michael Penn, is also given the shaft.
Who else should have made the list?
20. Van Morrison
19. Patty Griffin
18. U2
17. Holland-Dozier-Holland [writers of many 60s r&b hits]
16. David Bowie
15. Willie Nelson
14. Stevie Wonder
13. Paul Simon
12. Jagger/Richards
11. Randy Newman
10. Prince
9. Joni Mitchell
8. Elvis Costello
7. Brian Wilson
6. Leonard Cohen
5. Paul McCartney
4. Tom Waits
3. Bruce Springsteen
2. Neil Young
1. Bob Dylan
Keep in mind that this is not a "best songwriters of the past 50 years" list, but rather the best of those still alive. (This strikes me as a curious restriction, but then it's not my magazine.) In addition to the critics poll, there was also a readers' poll, the top twenty of which is:
20. Carole King
19. Ryan Adams
18. James Taylor
17. John Prine
16. Willie Nelson
15. David Bowie
14. Jagger/Richards
13. Brian Wilson
12. R.E.M.
11. Jeff Tweedy
10. Van Morrison
9. Tom Waits
8. U2
7. Joni Mitchell
6. Elvis Costello
5. Paul Simon
4. Bruce Springsteen
3. Paul McCartney
2. Neil Young
1. Bob Dylan
One problem I had when I tried to contribute to the readers' poll is that I couldn't decide whether I was supposed to list the living songwriters who have the best body of work or those who are currently writing the best songs. These would be very different lists. Dylan is a no-brainer top five (at least) pick for the first kind of list, but he'd be nowhere near the top twenty of the latter kind.
Okay, so I guess my biggest complaint is that Paul Simon ends up so low on the critics poll. Can we really take seriously the thought that Prince is a better songwriter than Mr. Bridge Over Troubled Water? No, I don't think we can. I also want to complain about the derth of folk songwriters on the list. Bill Morrissey is a wonderful songwriter who doesn't even make the top 100. Ditto Pierce Pettis and Ellis Paul. And one of the best pop songwriters working, Michael Penn, is also given the shaft.
Who else should have made the list?
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
The Politics of Jesus?
Last Tuesday, Republican State Senator Jim Holt won his party's nomination for Lieutenant Governor of Arkansas. Holt never misses a chance to note his faith in Jesus. When it was clear that he would not only get more votes than his competitors but also win a majority and thereby avoid a run-off, Holt said, "First off, of course, we want to give all the glory to Jesus Christ." His campaign signs prominently feature the Christian fish, and he speaks to religious groups whenever he can. His campaign, he tells us, is a values campaign. There is little doubt that Holt's faith is sincere; he has done nothing to indicate that he is a typical "say what will get you elected" politician. Even his detractors grant that he is true to his convictions.
As a Christian, I might be expected to think it a good thing that Holt has thrown his hat into the political ring. After all, how could a fellow believer object to a Christian candidate who is true to his convictions?
Easy enough, when the values of the politician are about as far removed from the Christ of the Gospels as one can imagine. Here is the primary platform on which Senator Holt is running: immigration reform (he wants our state to adopt a law that would make it illegal for for emergency room staff to perform even life-saving treatment for immigrants who don't have papers showing that they are in the country legally; Holt realizes that this would violate already existing federal law but he favors such a state restriction anyway because of the, ahem, moral message it would send), restricting the rights of gays, and the protection of property and gun possession rights. Oh, and when it comes to capital punishment, well, Holt's all for it even when the person to be killed is not mentally competent (http://www.jimholt.us/capitalpunishment.htm).
So, Mr. Holt's perspective is that true Christian values involve the rejection of all undocumented aliens (and their children) even unto death, the execution of the mentally incompetent, and the protection of firearms and citizens to do whatever they please with their property.
Maybe I'm naive but I don't see these values as fundamentally Christian. I'd expect a politician who believes in Jesus to value helping the underprivileged. I'd expect that even if the Christian politician believed that homosexual relationships are wrong, he or she would think that there are greater social issues that Christians should be concerned with, particularly in the state of Arkansas where there are so many who need so much. Holt's public values are those of the Pharisees--there is the sheen of faith on their surface that thinly disguises a soul-corrupting essence that is very far removed from the politics of Jesus.
As a Christian, I might be expected to think it a good thing that Holt has thrown his hat into the political ring. After all, how could a fellow believer object to a Christian candidate who is true to his convictions?
Easy enough, when the values of the politician are about as far removed from the Christ of the Gospels as one can imagine. Here is the primary platform on which Senator Holt is running: immigration reform (he wants our state to adopt a law that would make it illegal for for emergency room staff to perform even life-saving treatment for immigrants who don't have papers showing that they are in the country legally; Holt realizes that this would violate already existing federal law but he favors such a state restriction anyway because of the, ahem, moral message it would send), restricting the rights of gays, and the protection of property and gun possession rights. Oh, and when it comes to capital punishment, well, Holt's all for it even when the person to be killed is not mentally competent (http://www.jimholt.us/capitalpunishment.htm).
So, Mr. Holt's perspective is that true Christian values involve the rejection of all undocumented aliens (and their children) even unto death, the execution of the mentally incompetent, and the protection of firearms and citizens to do whatever they please with their property.
Maybe I'm naive but I don't see these values as fundamentally Christian. I'd expect a politician who believes in Jesus to value helping the underprivileged. I'd expect that even if the Christian politician believed that homosexual relationships are wrong, he or she would think that there are greater social issues that Christians should be concerned with, particularly in the state of Arkansas where there are so many who need so much. Holt's public values are those of the Pharisees--there is the sheen of faith on their surface that thinly disguises a soul-corrupting essence that is very far removed from the politics of Jesus.
Monday, May 29, 2006
One Cheer for Barry (and that of the Bronx variety)
Yesterday, it finally happened: Barry Bonds crawled (slithered?) past Babe Ruth into sole possession of second place on the all-time career home run list. If you don't live in the Bay Area, you're probably not very happy about this. No one who knows baseball denies Bonds' amazing natural gifts: for many years with the Pittsburgh Pirates and a few more with the San Francisco Giants, Bonds was the consummate 5-tool player: great glove, cannon for an arm, blazing speed on the basepaths, serious power, and good contact hitter. It's not hard to imagine that had he not made The Decision in the late summer of '98, he might have been remembered as the best all-around player to ever play the game. But having decided during summer of McGwire & Sosa to begin taking all manner of performance-enhancing substances (steroids were but the tip of the hypodermic), Bonds has become the poster boy for the decade of cheating in baseball that ran from the early-mid 90s to the early-mid 00s.
While I have no desire to be an apologist for Bonds, I do think that there's room on that poster for a bunch of other boys. Put a picture of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig doing what he does best (nothing) right smack in the center, twice as large as any of the other images. Selig is the single person most responsible for the chemical mess baseball finds itself in. I daresay that were he not a former owner himself, he would have never sat on his hands while the signs and rumors of juicing were abundant. But fans were filling the stands, and owners and players were both getting rich. His lack of moral leadership has cost the game its integrity, and that will prove to be harder to get back than the fans were after the strike of '94.
Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, and (probably) Sammy Sosa are also more to blame for MLB's present deplorable condition than Bonds is. For Bonds at least has the excuse of five-year olds everywhere: "But they did it first!" Assuming that the account in Game of Shadows is accurate (and there is no reason not to), Bonds decided to juice after seeing the success on the field and adoration in the stands that the cheaters who came before him had achieved (sic). Bonds figured that if these lesser talents could make themselves into ersatz super heroes while the Commissioner, Players Union, press, and fans looked the other way, then why shouldn't he? This is not, of course, the reasoning of the morally upright, but the temptation to keep up with the Joneses is one most of us are familiar with.
So by all means, put an asterisk by all of Barry Bonds numbers earned after the 1998 season. Just don't forget to do the same for McGwire's numbers from possibly as far back at the late 80's; those of Canseco,Palmeiro, and Sosa should get them too. And while Selig has no numbers to put an asterisk by, perhaps we could make sure the explanation of the asterisk at the bottom of the page reads: "these numbers are likely inflated as there is evidence that this player was juicing during the Selig-Steroid era."
While I have no desire to be an apologist for Bonds, I do think that there's room on that poster for a bunch of other boys. Put a picture of MLB Commissioner Bud Selig doing what he does best (nothing) right smack in the center, twice as large as any of the other images. Selig is the single person most responsible for the chemical mess baseball finds itself in. I daresay that were he not a former owner himself, he would have never sat on his hands while the signs and rumors of juicing were abundant. But fans were filling the stands, and owners and players were both getting rich. His lack of moral leadership has cost the game its integrity, and that will prove to be harder to get back than the fans were after the strike of '94.
Jose Canseco, Mark McGwire, and (probably) Sammy Sosa are also more to blame for MLB's present deplorable condition than Bonds is. For Bonds at least has the excuse of five-year olds everywhere: "But they did it first!" Assuming that the account in Game of Shadows is accurate (and there is no reason not to), Bonds decided to juice after seeing the success on the field and adoration in the stands that the cheaters who came before him had achieved (sic). Bonds figured that if these lesser talents could make themselves into ersatz super heroes while the Commissioner, Players Union, press, and fans looked the other way, then why shouldn't he? This is not, of course, the reasoning of the morally upright, but the temptation to keep up with the Joneses is one most of us are familiar with.
So by all means, put an asterisk by all of Barry Bonds numbers earned after the 1998 season. Just don't forget to do the same for McGwire's numbers from possibly as far back at the late 80's; those of Canseco,Palmeiro, and Sosa should get them too. And while Selig has no numbers to put an asterisk by, perhaps we could make sure the explanation of the asterisk at the bottom of the page reads: "these numbers are likely inflated as there is evidence that this player was juicing during the Selig-Steroid era."
Welcome
In time (should I find it), this will be a blog about music, books, politics, and God. Oh, and baseball.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)