What can I say about the band Metallica? Well, a whole lot, but depending on your taste in music, much or little or nothing might interest you about the band Metallica. If you really don’t know about them, Metallica is a band most commonly associated with the heavy metal brand of music. Heavy metal nowadays is actually a diverse multitude of sounds, so labels like heavy metal often fall short or incomplete when describing a band like Metallica. I am going to write with the assumption (hope, really) you know enough of Metallica that you can follow along even though some of the information will be quite esoteric and particular to people who follow heavy metal. But that’s really not that different than how I usually write when discussing my topics of interest.
Not everybody is into heavy metal, but most people have heard of Metallica. Even if you think you’ve never listened to Metallica (trust me, you have but may have not known it) or cannot stand their music, most people have come across the name. A lot of people who pride themselves as being heavy metal (or as it is commonly referred to as just ‘metal’) fans view their music as largely non-mainstream or underground music, but Metallica is a band who routinely sells multi-platinum records and easily sell out all of their live shows. In fact, their popularity has caused many metal fans to question the credibility of Metallica as a true and great heavy metal band. All that kind of talk is a bunch of irrelevant bullshit as it’s obvious Metallica don’t care if somebody doesn’t agree with their direction with their band, and in my opinion, that’s fucking metal. Okay, if Metallica sounds like The Backstreet Boys then I will say they are not metal, but for now, I’m going to write as if Metallica are one of the greatest heavy metal bands ever, which they are.
This is pretty much basic knowledge, but just for introductory purposes, Metallica is comprised of the following band members: James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich, Kirk Hammet, and Robert Trujillo. James Hetfiled is the main vocalist and plays rhythm guitar, Lars Ulrich play drums, Kirk Hammet plays lead guitar, and Robert Trujillo plays bass guitar. Metallica was formed in the 1980′s, and though theband has had some line-up changes over the years, they have been a fairly stable band in terms of members given how long they have existed. The two focal and founding members are Hetfield and Ulrich, though Hammet has been in Metallica ever since the short tenure of Dave Mustaine. Mustaine went on to be successful with his own band Megadeth, which became involved in a rivalry with Metallica, especially in the hey day of thrash metal. Trujillo has been with Metallica since 2003 and is the third bassist who has been in Metallica for a lengthy period of time. Some say nobody has ever replaced Cliff Burton, the first major bassist in Metallica. The history surrounding Cliff Burton has left anybody playing bass in Metallica in a somewhat strange position, though both Trujillo and the bassist before him, Jason Newstead, have filled in quite nicely. The mentioning of Newstead brings about other noteworthy stories of his joining and departure from Metallica, but I’m going to concentrate on writing about Metallica’s legacy and significance as a band.
As I mentioned before, Metallica has been around since the early 80′s (1981 to be exact). Just about every one of their albums would require extensive detail to fully explain and describe their respective importance and style, but I will try to be pithy with their discography. Metallica’s self-titled album (commonly, though unimaginatively, called “The Black Album”) was responsible for their success in obtaining mainstream recognition, though many, many, metal fans would argue against “The Black Album” being the most important or personally favorite album. Now, there is good reason for this even though I think the “The Black Album” is a fine album. Many people, especially young men in the early 1990′s, remember their most recognized single Enter Sandman. The funny thing to me is I find Enter Sandman to be a decent song (it’s actually hard to evaluate with all the overplay), but I am more attune to other singles like the moving and haunting “The Unforgiven” and the great traveling song “Whenever I May Roam”. Actually some of more obscure tracks of “Of Wolf and Man” and “The Struggle Within” also appeal to me more than “Enter Sandman”, but “Enter Sandman” is pretty much their most well-known song.
Everybody has their favorite album and my favorite album is …And Justice for All,which was released in 1988. A lot of people consider Metallica’s best album to be the classic Master of Puppets, the last album featuring Cliff Burton. Of course this type of thing is purely subjective, but every album has some special significance. Kill ’em All is their first and most raw album (Kill ’em All is also a classic album, but it’s a little too unrefined for me). Ride the Lightening is their second album, which supplied hits like “Fade to Black” and “Creeping Death”, which made them more prolific in the metal scene. After “The Black Album” Metallica’s major releases include Load, Reload, St. Anger, and Death Magnetic. Many consider Load to be a turning point in the history of Metallica, given the less heavy and divergent stylings in the album in comparison to previous albums. I also draw a fine line between “The Black Album” and Load, but I am less critical than many other fans in regards to their change in sound (and image for all those who really care about that sort of thing). I think their last four releases are good, but probably won’t ever be considered classic “Tallica. It’s kind of a shame since Load and Reload are pretty good albums with their creative directions, but they are not as brutally heavy or loud as their predecessors, though one can argue “The Black Album” is not too heavy. I can understand their change in direction because nobody should beholden to a sound other people expect if you want to do something different and, let’s face it, they are not real young or have been real young for quite some time.
I could talk about their live shows, but alas, I have not seen them live. Yeah, that’s how big of a fan I am, but have you seen their ticket prices lately? Jesus. I almost saw them when they toured with Korn, Mudvayne, and Linkin Park, but it was just too much money. I sort of regret not going, but you have to draw the line somewhere. Anyway, based on live clips, they kick ass, but I would have been surprised otherwise. Their sound and intensity are incredible. Metallica have left a large imprint on the heavy metal scene, and their legacy is already intact. So now that I’ve spent a whole lot of time on their albums, you might ask what is their legacy? (Or in other words, why are they so fucking important to the metal scene?) It’s almost too much to try to explain why they are such an important band, which is why I probably talked more about essential data concerning the band and their albums, but here goes.
Metallica was the biggest thrash band coming out of the 80′s. Before thrash metal, heavy metal was still loud and found by many to be too obnoxious, dark, and even depressing (which I find funny since metal livens life up for me), but it was not as brutal or fast as previously inspired metal such as Black Sabbath (though they still kick major ass) or the New Wave of British Heavy metal bands like Iron Maiden and Judas Priest. Oh, and for all those Led Zepplin fans, I consider that band to be hard rock, and that’s all I’m going to say about that. Interestingly, Metallica is really the United State’s first major and influential heavy metal band. Not that that is anything more than trivia, but it is notable the four major thrash metal bands of Metallica, Anthrax, Slayer, and Megadeth are all American bands. Thrash metal did borrow much of the sound from previous metal bands, but thrash metal became faster, more brutal, and intense. Part of the reason for this evolution in heavy metal was due to influence of early punk rock and hardcore and their faster, more urgent sound, but also because Metallica and other thrash bands just wanted…more. In fact, James Hetfield has stated that “more” was found in Motorhead, a band that seamlessly fit into both heavy metal and punk rock scenes.
In any event, much of the slower sludge-like sound of bands like Black Sabbath, and showy, if not theatrical, bands like Iron Maiden, Judas Priest, and Kiss (Oh yeah, I better not forget Kiss, who, by the way, I have seen live, and while not my favorite band, they kick ass live) somewhat gave way to this new sound of thrash, which contained less thrills and more of a take-it-or-leave-it attitude like you would see in a punk rock act. Thrash bands members also looked more like just regular guys in black T-shirts and jeans than other heavy metal groups who really looked like they could have been in Spinal Tap. Though the look and sound was more raw and toned-down in the pompous rock star kind of way (though don’t let anyone fool you, a lot of all heavy metal and rock bands are all about the decadent pleasures and rock god status), the sound was more brutal and lyrical themes were darker and more grim. And Metallica was at the forefront of the thrash metal explosion and are still are a major heavy metal group after years of being around.
So what made Metallica so great? This is so debatable, I’m just going to tell you why I think they are great, and won’t even try to go about it in a sense I could explain it objectively and completely. The band is pretty much Hetifield’s and Ulrich’s, but musically speaking, Metallica is pretty much James Hetfield. Ulrich is almost like their business manager who just happens to play drums for them. That sounds kind of disparaging, but Ulrich has helped them become and stay a viable and marketable force, which is important to the vitality of the band. I will admit, as much as I like Metallica, I find Ulrich to be pretty much a prick, so I have bias against him, but pricks often make people who can handle the business side of things. But, Metallica is pretty much James Hetfield. Other people write music and obviously play in the band, but the heart and soul of the music of Metallica comes from Hetfield.
I will unabashedly tell you James Hetfield is my music idol, and I am not typically into idol worship or even being a fanboy. For me, Hetfield makes music I totally get, which blows my mind since Metallica is loved by millions of people. I find little to no (really no) pretension in the music, the feel is authentic because Metallica does not come off like they are over doing it in an attempt to appear serious and real in a gritty sense, they just are and Hetfield exemplifies this. As much as I defend some of their newer stuff, the older stuff (especially …And Justice for All, the album which led to the music video for “One” and my musical epiphany) is the perfect expression of teenage and young adult angst. Hetfield vocals on …And Justice for All contain the rare blend of brutality and melody that have yet to be bested. He screams pretty much the entire time, but not unnaturally like with death and black metal vocals. His vocals also clearly allow you to understand the lyrics; often with bands who make it difficult to follow the lyrics, I often feel they are hiding something. If you want people to know what you are saying, speak clearly, and for me, the same rule applies to vocalists in heavy metal.
I also think the lyrical content is brilliant. The lyrics are in part why I think “The Unforgiven” is such an awesome song, as it deals with the theme of alienation in such a riveting way and with remarkable substance. After listening to “The Unforgiven,” you know the song was not made with the attempt of trying to sound like a song about alienation, you know it is a song about alienation and the importance of staying true to yourself. The musical sound, big shocker, is also tremendous. Hetfield’s rhythm guitar pieces are what’s shredding is all about. It’s actually very mature music and avoids the silly obnoxiousness wannabe heavy metal bands produce. Funny thing about Metallia is though they are all very talented musicians, their music is fairly simple (at least what I was told by my ex-roomate who was a music major). Though my untrained ear thinks some of their stuff is fairly complex, I almost agree with the ex-roommate in I never get the sense Metallica is playing music just to show off their music ability, other than the old solos, though even these sound like they belong in a song and are not just Eddie Van Halens exhibitions that sound like they could either belong on any Van Halen song or “Beat It”.
The music gives me the feel somebody is talking and saying something very real and profound, but is not overly verbose just powerfully taut. As much as I like Hetfield, I don’t want to overlook the musical contributions of Kirk Hammet, who is one of the best lead guitarists and plays those wonderful solos. Ulrich is a decent drummer as far as I can tell, though I can talk more about his business skills (actually, I am reminded of the Napster controversy, which didn’t make him seem as savvy as he likes to think). Metallica historically has solid bassists, with the exception of Cliff Burton, who is often thought of in an idealized manner. I must say, from what I’ve heard from him, you can tell Burton was a skilled musician (with training in classical music), who made you take notice. All in all, I think they are a great band and have a legacy which could never be adqueately covered in one of my posts, but here’s to my attempt at showing my apprecation to the band who opened my eyes to the wonder and greatness in music.
Okay, time to comment on the movie Braveheart. Braveheart is one of my favorite films and is an obvious movie for me to go on about. I also want to write about Braveheart because I want to compare it as a movie to postmodern movies in the 1990′s like Pulp Fiction. I think it would be fair to review a movie I like which is anything but postmodern and point out why I like it over postmodern films. So here goes.
Braveheart is a classic film. That is saying something since Braveheart is not nearly old enough to thought as a classic film, but it’s so good it’s classic in an iconic way. When you watch Braveheart you know absolutely what you are getting. It is a heroic story about Scottish rebels fighting against an oppressive king. It has a huge underdog theme and clearly delves into the theme of idealism. It is a movie containing graphic scenes and is not exactly a feel-good movie, but if are the type of person who wants to be inspired by movie, Braveheart is your type of movie. Braveheart won a lot of awards and was generally well-received by critics, but this could have easily been a movie lampooned (actually it has been lampooned by things like South Park) and thought of an over-the-top and shamelessly unrealistic movie that critics usually roll their eyes at. The thing is Braveheart was that type of movie, but it got it totally right. When it could have been too smoltzy and romantic in the classical sense, Braveheart was just the right kind of movie that dared to go against the trend of movies in the 90′s in that it had heroic (and dastardly) characters, a story which was smart done instead of trying look smart, and an obvious message summed up with the following statement. “Everyman dies, not every man truly lives.” This was movie was actually daring unlike a lot of movies in the 90′s, because it was made during a time when movies with heroes were thought to be antiquated at best. It is a movie which dares to inspire dreams and showed you could still make a classic movie in a time era that considers what is classic to be overly conventional instead of realizing classic means it stands the test regardless of the era.
The story surrounding of Braveheart is quite simple. The setting is in medieval Scottland and England (I think 12th century) during a time when Scotland was seeking independence from England. We follow the life of William Wallace, a Scot whose dreams of a relatively peaceful life with his beloved wife are shattered when English soldiers kill her. The man who sought peace turned into a rebel with an indomitable will and desire to see his homeland free of the oppressive English rule. William Wallace fights British forces with army of Scottish volunteers, and, dare I say, patriots with little to no support of Scottish nobles. There really is not that much more to the main part of the story without going into particular or revealing details, but there is much more to the movie. A part which does not get as much celebration, but is more thought-provoking is the story of Robert the Bruce, a Scottish noble who stands a good chance of becoming the king of Scottland and must choose what kind of person and (okay, I’ll give this away) ruler he wants to be. He is actually the character who goes through the most development and may be the most heroic person of all in the movie because he overcomes betraying his self and values because of polictical neccessity.
The story is relatively simple, but the movie does a profound job of making it interesting and exceptional. This is done largely because of the themes involved. One might think the promotion of idealism and the notion living your life on your own terms regardless of the cost to be overdone and painfully obvious, but the theme is actually deeply explored and not as obvious as one might think. Sure, lots of people loved this movie because of the uncompromising and kick-ass nature of William Wallace and the Scottish rebels who wielded huge swords and mooned their enemies, but there is more to movie. Braveheart actually anaylzes the pros and cons of the heroic idealism portrayed by William Wallace and even questions the main character’s ambitions.
At one point of the movie, his childhood friend questions Wallace’s judgment and states he doesn’t want to die a martyr for a “dream”. And as I mentioned before, the character who does the most profound soul-searching is Robert the Bruce because though he wishes to “fight as Wallace does” or whatever Robert the Bruce said to the effect he wants to believe in things like Wallace, though he has the responsibility of being a Scottish noble who goes on to be a king. Funny enough, I actually get the sense what Wallace does is actually easier because Wallace is so set in fighting for the ideals he believes in (but probably mainly for his deceased wife, as his childhood friend correctly points out) and has no other responsibilities other than the self-appointed quest to bring England down to preserve Scotland, that he really doesn’t ever struggle in an intrapsychic way like Robert the Bruce. Interestingly enough, it seems the real important purpose of William Wallace is to inspire other people around him, but that is not to take away from the actual heroism portrayed by Gibson’s character.
Though not substantially developed, there are also depictions of romantic love which add some balance to an obviously testosterone-filled movie. It’s interesting that the love story between Wallace and his wife was hardly mentioned in comparison to the romantic pinings of the French princess who is married to her husband, an English prince (and son of the ruthless English King), who has no interest in her. The French princess, played by Sophie Marceau, falls for William Wallace who she sees as a paragon of the heroicly masculine romantic. Again, we see a more developed plot-line with a character who is barely mentioned in the description of the movie cover than with the love that inspires William Wallace. I don’t think this and development of William the Bruce is accidental and allows the audience the choice of being absorbed into deeper themes if they want to while the obvious and main of story William Wallace unfolds. Part of the brilliance attributed to Shakespeare is his stories had different levels of depth that made the story interesting to audiences with disparate tastes and interests; one person could be drawn in to the obvious graphic and sensational events of the story while another person could appreciate the innuendo and more thought-provoking elements of the story, and these two people could do this at the same time. I think Braveheart also does this with the more subtle and crictcially developed elements in comparison to the epic battle scenes and displays of heroism. Oh yeah, did I almost forget there is a lot of violence in this movie? There most certainly is and it is most certainly epic.
The acting in the movie is great and bringing the subject of acting allows me write more about the ruthless English king. I don’t know his name (some old English dude), but I love how he portrayed the dastardly king with wit. Otherwise the English king is pretty much a heinous individual with no likeable traits, but he is fun to watch. Gibson is great in portraying William Wallace, or at least a person who represents the heroic ideal. Gibson is especially good in the sense almost anybody else who would have tried to play this kind of character would have given an underwhelming depiction, adn in this case, would have failed to make us believe such a character ever existed. Braveheart is roughly based off the story of a real person named William Wallace who many Scotts deem a Scottish patriot. It is probably questionable whether there has ever anybody in real life who was similar to the larger than life profile of Braveheart’s William Wallace, but like him or not, you have to give Gibson credit for making his depiction believeable in the movies. I also enjoyed watching the guy who played William the Bruce, as you can probably tell from my prior mentioning. I also like Sophie Marceau and though she gave a strong performance in addition to the bit characters who help round off this epic movie.
That’s really about it for my review. I didn’t make much mention of comparisons to Pulp Fiction and other postmodern movies of the 90′s, but I think the differences are obvious. Being that, I don’t fell like going into a comparative analysis of the two movies since if you read this and my Pulp Fiction review you will get the idea. However, I will end this review by stating I can understand why some people like Pulp Fiction and have grown tired of movies like Braveheart. Braveheart, in my opinion, actually has a tougher job of making an interesting movie because it uses many of old conventions of movie-making which audiences have seen hundreds of times. You can argue Pulp Fiction was a more original and groundbreaking movie than Braveheart, but in the end, Braveheart is the movie that stands out for me.
One of the age-old questions is whether human beings have free will (i.e. the power and responsibility to make choices that determine one’s state) or humanity is beholden to fate and everything has already been predetermined. I want to reply to this question without making this topic framed by religious concepts. It can be very difficult bringing religion into this discussion because religous beliefs often dictate the thinking of a religious devotee to point it makes it difficult to converse with somebody who is not religious and vice-versa. In other words, it makes such a dialogue difficult because people are often coming from completely different places which makes such philosophical conversations difficult. That is not to exclude or diminish the importance religion has had on this topic , but for now, I am going to exclude supernatural phenomen from this topic (for the most part), though others can freely use their religious beliefs in any future responses or rebuttals.
Human beings have waxed over the notion whether their lives are their own or their state is the product of things beyond their control. That’s really where I want to take this topic, because I think we are all most concerned about this when we think deeply about where we are in life and wonder at the end of the day what role we played in our successes or failures. This issue may seem a bit on the pedantic side and besides the point, but it has major implications on how we view ourselves as individuals. Interestingly, when things go poorly for us, we often attribute our state to outside forces, and when things go good for people, we attribute our success to, well, us as individuals. I think we can see the psychological benefits from this, but as any 8-year-old would conclude, you can’t have it both ways. Or can you? In your mind you can have it anyway you like, but objectively speaking (if you believe in anything objective), you might be inclined to agree with the simple wisdom of the eight-year-old. I’m not saying this topic is clear-cut and has a conclusive answer, but I will attempt to look at this topic in realistic manner.
That being said, I take this pretty seriously. In fact, I am currently feeling somewhat heavy from thinking about what is responsible for my life. This is mainly because I take the position a lot of things we think we are responsible for are pretty much predetermined without any choice made by us as individuals. I believe it is our inclination to think (hope) we are masters of our state and are responsible for where we are in life, because if that is so, we have the power to change our life and ourselves. Two more bits of information: supposedly well-adjusted and psychologically healthy individuals often assume more responsibility for their state than is reasonable and people who think they can change are more likely to do so than people who do not think they have the power to change. From this, many people might think we have the power to change things, even when the possibility for doing so is not realistic, because the belief itself will help us better our lot in life. I have to say I can’t argue against the notion if you have hope it help you complete whatever goal you have, but I question if hope is created from a choice to believe we can change versus the scenario people become hopeful and more likely to change because something outside of pure volition is prompting us to be hopeful.
For example, when something good happens to me, this naturally makes me optimistic and wanting to aspire to greater things. The event and circumstances prompt hope and the actions I take. Pretend you have good reason to suspect there is gold in your backyard. You would be pretty compelled to dig up that gold if you had a good reason to think there was gold there. Likewise, you’d be an idiot to dig up your back yard for gold if there wasn’t any good reason to do so. I find it funny the more concrete of a situation, the easier it is to see how well-founded hope has a more definitive basis. Interestingly, people who are depressed (and are thought to have an unrealistic pessimistic sense of the future by Dr. Aaron T. Beck and other mental health figures) are often more accurate and realistic in depicting things. I share this bit of information not to advocate we all become depressed in order to be more realistic or forgo striving for realistic attitudes in order to prevent depressed moods, but to simply point out some of the quirky phenomenons of human perception.
You might be wondering why I am referring to psychological studies for this topic. One might think the obvious response is I do so because I studied psychology, and that is reasonable speculation. I also want to point out that I reference psychological phenomenon because it illustrates the problems when we rely on examining our attitudes to determine whether we have free will or not since the human mind can pretty much make up whatever it wants often in an attempt to become more functional even when the functional attitude has little evidence or sound reasoning to support the attitude. I have to admit being a positive thinker, rationalizing your failures and emphasizing your successes, and accepting the world as it is even if you are inclined to despise parts of it will help you become a more functional person in society. Hell, you can play all the kind of tricks in the world to make yourself feel better if that’s really your goal in life. For example, people who force themselves to smile will feel better even if they have no reason to smile, probably because the brain is hard-wired to associate smiling with a good mood.
If you couldn’t tell by my writing, I hate these kind of strategies. They work, but in a way, you are kind of cheating. We are meant to feel good when something good happens. I assume this happens because good feelings helps us identify things that lead to our well-being and bad feelings tell us what to avoid. In a sense, you can make yourself happy if you put just about anything in the right perspective, which you think supports the idea we can choose to be happy. I dont’ doubt this phenomenon, but I question the value of happiness derived more from the manipulation of perceived reality than being happy for things which are more natural.
Here’s a personal example illustrating the drawbacks of creating a positive event when one is more interested in the outcome than acting authentically . Sometimes, I have a difficult time in social situations because I don’t overly act the part of appearing like I enjoy the social interactions. I use the labels of reserved and “neutral appearing” to describe myself when other people might think of me as aloof or distant. See how it all comes back to perception? However, most people take a lot of things on face value and I recognize the fact if I appear engaging and happy (even when I have no, the desire to talk) with most people, they respond in kind. This type of social behavior is generally “productive” and makes me more likely to be successful in social endeavors, which can lead to other positive things that you would otherwise think make me happy. However, I’m simply of the mindset which makes me inclined to feel funny, if not somewhat disgusted, from acting in such a way. So while I feel pretty good if I have fairly positive interactions with people, eventually my ill-feelings from over acting in a way that does not come naturally to me supersedes my ability to keep up a front. In contrast, when I actually do enjoy talking to somebody (largely because I feel comfortable acting a way suitable to me), the interaction naturally leads me to a positive feeling. I don’t feel phony, the feeling is not fleeting, and it reinforces the idea these types of interactions can be enjoyable.
Now, I recognize we all live in the real world and often compromises must be made in order to get by in contemporary society. We sometimes are not put into situations we want to be in and are probably better off trying to make the best of it. I am not saying we always have to be “real” with everybody all the time, just you can’t fake yourself into being happy. I believe happiness comes from an authentic place. I also believe you have to work at trying to achieve whatever you want from life in order to be satisfied, so it’s not like happiness should just come to you (because it won’t).
The reality is most of us fluctuate from feeling happy to sad and content to dissatisfied. Really, we do just about whatever we have to do in order to maintain a certain level of sanity. It is understandable if we change our perception to cope better even if the perception does not have a strong basis. But I’ve brought up the phenomenon of perception and other psychological constructs to point out human psychology is not only quirky, but murky. Is our ability to make choices to remain hopeful and motivated to better ourselves the difference between success and failure, happiness or despair? Or is it circumstance that makes us feel hopeful and motivated? And how much of success and happiness is due to us having hope and motivation versus some people simply being fortunate through no fault of their own? Hell, even if some people might have more hope and motivation, could it be possible some people naturally have more of these things than others? The problem is nobody, regardless of how strong their position is (including myself), can ever prove whether we have free will or not from a psychological point of view because we have the ability to change perspective in order to suit our needs,and this makes us very unreliable in trying to objectively attribute what determines our actions. That and we have a very incomplete understanding of human psychology and make things up to cover the gaps. Also, we can (and do…often) state what causes what in the world when in reality we can only at best find a correlation between phenomena. (Does this sound like any familiar concept?)
Ironically, when a person states his or her opinion about the existence of free will, about the only thing we really learn through the response is what that person thinks about the subject for him or herself (and even this opinion is more feeling-based than rationally derived). Because of different viewpoints, discussions become more speculative and theoretical to the point we spend more time on attribution than examining evidence. Which is fine in my book, because we need to interpret date and I love to philosophize more than just about anything…well almost anything…ha, ha. But even I recognize I’m kind of bullshitting, albeit in a sophisticated and fun kind of way.
Fortunately, there is another field of study which can help shed some light on this subject: sociology. More specifically, we can analyze social trends in order to determine if certain things beyond our control are more influential than an individual’s capacity to determine their state. Now, if you know anything about the study of sociology, you know the study focuses on how society dictates the lives of individuals, so just the existence of the field suggests individuals are not fully in control of our lives. Now, stating one’s environment (or genetics) play influencing roles in an individuals life is not exactly the same thing as saying life is predetermined. However, when we start to frame this discussion of predetermination and free will by looking at social phenomenon, much of the mystery surrounding philopshical dilemmas gives way to the glaring reality of the tangible here-and-now.
From the day we are born (and even further back), many realities are already set for us. In theory, it can be argued that though many things may be determined for you by birth, you can still make choices in life to change your station in life. I would have to say it is helpful for the individual to think they have the power to change his or her life, but some heavy realities still play out based social trends. First of all, I live in the United States, so I am sheltered by the reality over forty percent of the world makes two dollars or less a day. I am inclined to say for people who live in parts of the world where abject poverty is high, the supposed power of free will may not have that much significance to average person. Life is heavily determined by circumstances, and though one may still have the power to make choices, a good chunk of life boils down to you live in an impoverished society.
Even in a economically richer society like the United States, disparity runs rampant along lines of race, gender, region you live in, what kind of family you grew up with and the available resources that went with it, etc. Again, it is fair to say social trends don’t prove or disprove the existence of free will, but let’s examine popular attitudes about successful people. People who are held to successful individuals of a society are celebrated for their competence and the inspiration they provide other people in achieving personal and societal goals. However, as an example, Bill Gates may be a genius (at least we know he made a lot of money), but I doubt he would have had the same opportunities if he was born to desert nomads in Saudi Arabia. Granted, Bill Gates probably would not have become a billionaire if he wasn’t intelligent or driven to make money, but nobody can doubt the power of circumstance in determining an individual’s life when we look at such an example and larger social trends. Hell, I could argue since intelligence is fairly genetic, the fact Bill Gates was born with a certain amount of intelligence was also a major determining factor in his rise to financial success.
The flip side of recognizing what determines success if examining what determines failure. Interestingly, success and failure have relative meanings because somebody in the United States might be one of the lowest money earners in the United States and be considered a financial failure, but still make more money than somebody relatively well-to-do in a very poor nation who would be considered a successful person in that country. We pretty much automatically consider that an unfair comparison because of circumstances and this is reasonably so. (Actually some ethnocentric people will think even whole groups of people are responsible for their status and some societies are inherently worse. Yeah, I’m only going to point out that fact and not waste any more time writing about peoople with such stupid beliefs.) We are much more ready to believe circumstances stop us from achieving success, but at the same time, we celebrate successes of other people when much of their success if based on circumstance. Being human, I empathize with the desire (if not need) to highlight success and rationalize failure, but objectively speaking, we cannot have it both ways.
We might say in effect a person can choose to be a failure, but to think somebody actively set out to fail and expereince hardship is ludicrous. Do you really think by choice or chance certain ethnic and racial groups in the United States choose to be poorer on average than Caucasians? I just want the reader to know it gives me no pleasure pointing out these kind of things. I want to believe I am master of my existence, but I am largely not. Given all I have stated about this topic, you might find it hard to believe I do believe in free will. I do believe in free will, but, I think we drastically underestimate the importance of circumstance in our life. However, I will choose to give a positive spin on this situation.
I believe we overlook the simple fact that every individual is a very small part of the universe. Perhaps (and I would argue) we are meant to be in control in a very small part of existence that belongs to a greater network which is interconnected and allows all of us to have an unique role in a larger framework. (Now this is when we can talk about religion and philosophical concepts!) One of the major problems humans have as individuals is when we don’t consider the fact the universe does not exclusively cater to us and overlook the possibility we are often happiest when we serve some greater purpose than living life for ourselves. I would argue every individual plays a role in society, no matter how great or small. The beauty of how I perceive reality is though life seems to be fairly random and chaotic there are still some patterns which suggest certain truths and a sense of order exist. The interesting thing is no matter how well we have can scientifically attribute why people act in a certain way through psychology and sociology, there is still a certain mystery to our existence because we have yet to explain everything, and this mystery does rule out the possibility we have some power to determine our state through free will. I figure we will gain further understanding of ourselves as a species in the future, but often knowledge and wisdom make us even more appreciative of how amazing it is for us to be alive and of the perception there is a thing we call existence. Part of the amazing thing to be human is we certainly have the imagination to shape this world to how we want to see it, and though we may never succeed in fulfilling our dreams, the hope that inspires us to change most certainly helps us to become better human beings even if we can never be sure where that hope comes from and who or what is responsible for it.
I was inspired from my Cabin Boy post to not only watch Pulp Fiction, but also Fargo. I think I watched parts of both movies when they originally came out, but I sure didn’t remember much from them in terms of plot and what the movies were all about. In my Cabin Boy post, I was critical of 1990′s movies and postmodern films which had become mainstream films and Pulpmentioned Pulp Fiction and Fargo in my post. To be fair, I thought it was worth watching both of these films more intently to gain a better appreciation of them. Many of my critiques are pretty general because I like to comment more on social trends than any particular thing. In this case, I really could care less about Pulp Fiction or Fargo, but I am going to do a review on both them in this post. That’s right two for the price of one!
Let me start with Pulp Fiction. Pulp Fiction has been celebrated as being the first of its kind to achieve mainstream success. Honestly, I don’t what kind of movie Pulp Fiction is or how to categorize it, but it has been referenced as a major movie in the development of modern postmodern movies. All I really know is in the 1990′s a lot of the movies just plain sucked because they had no heart, and it seemed pretty trendy to throw disconnected scenes together with no sense of closure, call it a movie, and make it appear the movie developers were being artistic, innovative, and sticking it to the conventional practices used in most mainstream movies before the 1990′s. I will stop going on about this since you can read more about it my Cabin Boy post and get back to this review.
All in all, I can’t say Pulp Fiction is a bad movie. It’s not my type of movie and lacks many of the elements (contiguous plot lines, traditional movie arcs with climatic closure, and *gasp* a theme which reveals something about people that often suggests a moral to the story) which make movies great. (At least in my opinion). However, I was not bored while watching Pulp Fiction. I’m not sure that was because I was treating it like an anthropological study by examining qualities which endeared it to many fans and cemented Pulp Fiction’s place in the pantheon of 1990′s pop culture, but I was not bored. Funny enough, I was one of those teenagers who this movie was marketed to back in the 1990′s and I recall seeing parts of it but I didn’t have much interest in it at the time. When I originally saw parts of it, I didn’t seem any redeeming qualities, and given I become easily bored with a movie that I can’t take something with me when I am done watching it (which is why Cabin Boy is such a strange and wonderful aberration to me), it’s no wonder why I originally had little interest in it.
It’s not too much of a surprise I had more in watching Pulp Fiction most recently given I think my movie-watching tastes are more refined. (I can broaden my spectrum.) I was able to appreciate how the movie created these relatively complex characters and a story that did not have a moralistic theme (other than don’t fuck with Samuel Jackson’s characters, but that’s really more just good advice). In the vein of postmodern movies, there is no message other than that life as portrayed on film is disconnected, random, and, well, has no meaning of which can be used to create an overarching theme that can inspire us. This may seem like a naive point of view to many postmodernists, or even most movie critics, that movies are better when they contain inspirational or meaningful themes, and I think movies like Pulp Fiction were made to counteract such assertions. In the beginning of Pulp Fiction we watch two gangsters (really assassins) as they to perform a job by killing somebody who (I think) stole money from their boss. The two gangsters, played by Samuel Jackson and John Travolta, recover an important briefcase and narrowly avoid death when shot at from close range. Jackson’s character experiences a type of epiphan aynd Travolta’s character is skeptical of Jackson’s claims of divine intercession. Jackson’s character decides to give up his life of crime and “walk the earth”. Oh yeah, the beginning scene (which doesn’t include Jackson or Travolta’s character) gives a backdrop of another important character, a boxer played by Bruce Willis. This scene is pretty famous and includes a character played by Christopher Walken who tells the young boxer-to-be that he shoved a watch up his ass for several years because the watch belonged the young boy’s father and he was asked to bring to Bruce Willis’s character.
This is what I find funny about this film. This a beloved and celebrated scene, but it could have easily been left out and it would not have really mattered. The scene gets your attention, but all it does for the plot is explain why the watch is valuable, and the only function of the watch is it creates a turn in the plot which could have been done without the watch. I guess what serves as the target of my criticism of Pulp Fiction as exampled by the opening scene is what endears the fans of Pulp Fiction to their cherished movie. It’s a chaotic, crazy, and a sensational mess. It’s hard to really describe where this movie goes. The boxer rips off the gangsters’ boss and we follow the resulting events. There’s a bit more to the movie, but it is a type of movie you have to just watch and appreciate the current scene without putting too much of where the scene is taking you. For example, the memorable scene with John Travolta’s and Uma Thurman’s respective characters ultimately goes nowhere for both of these characters and does not add much to the overall plot. It is an iconic scene, but given what happens to Travolta’s character, what’s the point?
What does stand out in Pulp Fiction is Tarantino’s knack for dialogue. The dialogue is superb in this movie. I heard more buzz about the dialogue (especially in the beginning scene) in regards to Reservoir Dogs, but the dialogue in Pulp Fiction is just as good and is spread through out most of the movie. The dialogue between Jackson and Travolta is especially excellent. Their conversation about narrowly avoiding their death and the significance of the event is something classic and deserving of earning a page in the book of movie-making. The acting is pretty good too. This was the film that revived Travolta’s career and he does a pretty decent job. I don’t think he is that good of an actor (I mean he went a whole decade without doing anything of acclaim), but he did well with the type of character he played. Funny enough, his character’s portrayal in Pulp Fiction seems a fairly similar with what he did in The Punisher, which says something. I’m the not the biggest fan of Samuel L. Jackson (I don’t like him or dislike him), but he is great in this movie. He is a bad motherfucker, and I would usually say something like that when I’m being ironic or silly, but he really is a bad ass in this film. He is what the kids today say when somebody is ferocious, I mean fierce. Or maybe that’s what Beyonce is. In any case, he plays a character you don’t want to mess with. Jackson’s character is about as close as anybody who actually goes through a traditional sense of character development, which is funny because this change is demonstrated primarily through dialogue with Travolta. Willis’s character also serves as somebody who you can root for and treat as a protagonist, though nobody is really portrayed as a virtuous character. Now, I can actually appreciate this dynamic, because when you just take in the movie without projecting your value system it is a fairly entertaining experience. The thing is, you have to evaluate a Quintin Taraninto movie with different standards because it is painfully obvious his type of movies are made for a particualr audience who “gets” him and it is unfair to say his movies suck just because you don’t like his type of movies.
The only thing I have to say abut Tarantino is most of his movies have a particular feel to them. Pulp Fiction is really a story involving mob-related events through the style of Tarantino just like Inglorious Bastards is a Tarrentino World War II story. Even Dusk ’till Dawn (probably my favorite movie of his!) is pretty similar to his other movies except for the fact Dusk ’till Dawn is completely silly. Pulp Fiction is a movie that has it’s merits which Tarantino fans will celebrate and shortcomings to which detractors who hate Tarantino will emphasize, so your viewpoint is the biggest determining factor in how much enjoy this film. I will not say it is a good film or a bad film, but it is definitely a Tarrentino movie of which gave him the rise to fame and the precipice for somebody who is not really a fan of his to watch and review Pulp Fiction.
Okay, I said I would review Fargo, and I will, but I give warning this will probably be short (and hopefully sweet!). I will use that as a tie in to comment about a movie involving the reportedly pleasant people living in Fargo, North Dakota and Minnesota, though this movie is much more disturbing than sweet. In comparison, Pulp Fiction never disturbed me even with scenes involving S & M related rape by strange rednecks, characters keeping things stored in their rectums for years, and depictions of brains being blown out of one’s skull, but Fargo did. First of all, and I need to get this out of my system (and not in the literal Pulp Fiction way with watches), the depiction of the people in Fargo is farcical and I am not being congratulatory in saying that. The movie directors, the Cohen Brothers, are from Minnesota, and know better about how people in North Dakota and rural Minnesota talk. “Yeah, there…hey (eh) there.” Give me a fucking break. Thanks to them, a lot of Americans really think that’s what people in that part of the Midwest really sound like. What’s really ridiculous is they portrayed people the Twin Cities, MN who also spoke in that hokey accent. C’mon guys, do you really need to sell your movie with that? Seriously, when I talk to people in the South, I often hear how cute they think my accent is and how they love Fargo… Let me tell you, I’m actually from Wisconnnnsinnn, okay. I don’t talk like anything like those folks in Minneeeesooooota. The fact is all Americans are losing our regional accents and most people from the South don’t sound how people think they do with the extremely thick Southern drawl (though there have been a minority of Southerners I cannot make out at all). Maybe a small portion of people from that area portrayed in the movie talk like that, but obviously the Cohen brothers are relying on cheap and lazy humor to endear people to a pretty brutal movie. In part, what is pretty disturbing about Fargo is how even nice, pleasant people from the Midwest can come up with sinsister schemes which involve kidnapping and result in murder.
I will spare you from an elaborate description of Fargo’s plot. Basically, William Gacy’s character comes up with a plan to have his wife kidnapped and collude with the perpetrators of the kidnapping so they can all take some of the ransom money from the father-in-law of Gacy’s character. Murder, betrayal,and incessant jabs at the simple sensibilities of the characters in this movie ensue. Actually, from the police investigation to the depiction of the kidnappers and Gacy’s character the movie plays out pretty well. You can see where this movie is going and buy into the progression of events. Gacy does an excellent job in this film as playing the deplorable cretin who kidnaps his wife and obviously has no remorse or empathy. What’s additionally great about his portrayal is it’s so weasley; he is not only somebody who would have his wife kidnapped, but he is also a craven coward. Steve Buschemi is great as one of the kidnappers. Buschemi is pretty much what you would imagine out of him if you envisioned him playing a murderer and kidnapper. He kills people, treats people with disdain, but is still a “funny looking guy” who is wise cracking and is the type of guy who overtly demands conversation out of people when in a car. The other kidnapper, played by by Peter Stormare, is genuinely creepy and would be a great representation of a person who has no soul. You know, the type of person you can look in the eye and gives no indication he acknowledges anything of worth outside his or her needs and has that calm, but glassy feel to him as to tell you I am about to kill you and think nothing more of it than taking out the trash. I would say Frances McDormand does a good job given what she has to work with but her accent makes her a caricture first and then somebody who exhibits dramatic skills.
Fargo is (was) a critically acclaimed movie which Roger Ebert raved about (I have a lot of respect for Ebert). Here’s his review:
http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19960308/REVIEWS/603080302/1023
I did not like Fargo. Mostly, because I did not find the depiction of the people funny and found it disturbing (and not really in a good way) how it was combined with the gruesome events of the movie. Being it is supposed to be a dark comedy, I found the humor stupid and juvenille. I’m probably being a little protective coming from the part of the country the characters were from, but I still can’t say I like this movie. This is a shame because the plot, the acting, and even the characters are positive features of the film, but this is a movie many people will the humor witty that I find to be plain ‘ole dumb. You betcha’. See I can do that too. I actually can’t recommend this movie (even though everybody else has). I will say this: it is one of the best movie of the 1990′s when I think of movies of the ninties everybody thought was so great in that cutely disturbing way, but I thought was a waste of time. It illustrates why I hated a lot of the movies in the 1990′s and how something everybody thought was so novel and creative was really trendy and unimaginative. Seriously, if you think this movie was funny, let’s have a movie containing characters who have exaggerated accents and sterotyped (and I mean it in the worst way) behaviors according to whatever ethnic, racial, or socioeconomic class they belong to. I admit I may be a bit sensitize about this movie and should be able to laugh at it more, but I don’t find any genius from the Cohen Brothers with the comedic parts. Honestly, from watching this movie I can see them socializing with people from the East or West Coast and making fun of their Midwest background, exaggerating what people are in the Midwest for comedic effect. Wait, that’s what they in this movie so I don’t have to imagine it. This is not genius this is what you do when you are nervous and feel the need to debase yourself in the company of other people so you don’t have to confront others about their misconceptions and plain idiocy. Even when a real genius, like Benjamin Franklin, does this by going to France on a diplomatic mission dressed in a raccoon hat and acts like a yokel, he is still a genius who looks and acts like an idiot to pander to whatever crowd he is trying to amuse.
Oh, and I am going to watch A Simple Plan tonight, a similar movie which I actually liked enough to watch it the whole way through the first time I saw it. That movie was filmed on location in Wisconsin and I had no problem with the depiction of the characters or setting though I might have had about the same review as I did for Fargo if something as stupid as having them wear cheeseheads or masturbate to Brett Favre posters.
Ah yes, beer. I love beer. I thought about writing about my favorite beers for a long time, but it’s kind of like the subject that is so obvious you ignore it. That and it’s pretty trendy to go on about one’s favorite beers in this day and age when so many Americans are turning away from the major breweries and turning to microbrews and even gourmet beers. I was even toying with the idea about a top ten list of beers, but I tend to stay away from top ten lists or lists in general. Lists would probably attract more people, but that’s just not what I do for the most part. I will bring up a few beers I think worth mentioning and expound on their greatness and maybe go off on the crappiness of comparable beers. I predict there are going to be a lot of people who will have major issues with this post as I have varied tastes and sensibilities but here I go anyway.
Miller Lite
Okay, if you are a beer snob (unlike me who is a beer connoisseur), just skip this beer unless you feel like jumping up and down and going stark mad. This is not a list of my favorite beers it is a post about beers worth talking about and Miller Lite is worth talking about. I can’t remember the last time I bought or even had Miller Lite (though it was probably at a wedding) and it’s a beer I do not plan to buy in the future. I don’t drink Miller products or any comparable product like Budweiser or Coors except if it’s free and even then I’m probably simply being polite. However, though it is not a beer of my personal taste, I do remember the days when I drank stuff like Miller Lite. I used to drink not only Miller High Life, but Miller High Life Light. Wow, I’m not even sure how I did that but I know why I did that. I was young and it was cheap. Oh yeah, and taste was a pretty low priority back then. So I know what Miller Lite tastes like and what other beers like it taste like even if I currently have little (positive) appreciation for Miller Lite or its peers. But I would say Miller Lite is an exceptional beer in comparison to its peers (especially light beers). Perhaps Miller Lite wins the award for being the best of the worst (it actually wins awards for being the best American-style draft or whatever it is categorized by), but if I still give it credit for being a beer I can have at a wedding and not be totally disgusted. That’s it, Miller Lite wins the award for being the best beer often served at a wedding. Very prestigious. You know, I was trying to make a point about how it is remarkable for Miller Lite to be the best beer of it’s kind, but even I’m starting to wonder why I mentioned Miller Lite. I think it’s because I wanted to make a point about beer snobbery, and while I guess I’m not a true beer snob since I will drink about most any beer if it’s free, I still know better. I will state this, Miller Lite is a much better beer than Bud Light. I can’t stand Bud Light or any Budweiser product. I do have a penchant for Miller products since I come from Wisconsin, but I can say without any restraint Budweiser makes pretty much the worst stuff ever. I know what you are saying, all the major American beers taste the same and are watered down grossness, and that’s true for the most part. I just want to state Miller Lite is actually a bit better since it somehow has a pleasant, sweet taste that makes it sufferable as a cheap American beer and much better than anything Budweiser has.
Floreffe Prima Melior
Okay, we are going to jump all the way across the beer spectrum and touch on my favorite beer Floreffe Prima Melior FPM. FPM is a dark brown Belgian beer made in the tradition (or at least in remembrance) of the monks of the old Floreffe Abbey of the town Floreffe in the country of Belgium. Just wanted to make sure you got that. Here’s a link for a little history:
http://www.brasserielefebvre.be/produits.php?pro=floreffe&lang=en
Given most people won’t care about that, all you need to know is Belgian monks have made some tasty beer. God, I wish I had some Floreffe right now. I used to get it at a wine club my wife I and joined. I consider it a gourmet beer because I’ve only seen it in places which serve fine wine. Guess I will have to settle with the Newcastle I am currently drinking. It’s actually going down pretty well, but Newcastle has really disappointed me lately. Newcastle is a notable brown ale that is now something I get at the supermarket when I feel like beer and there is nothing better to buy. Yes, I do have discriminating tastes, but I actually find much of the beer snobbery that goes around these days to be pretentious and pompous. Drink what you like. I remember going on a trip in the British Isles and I asked what some Australian guy what kind of beer he was drinking and he responded, “I don’t know. I just drink what I like and I likes what I drink.” Okay, I don’t remember what exactly he said and that sounds something Popeye would say, but I think he had the right attitude. (I think he was drinking some type of premium pale ale, but that’s besides the point. I was probably impressed he wasn’t drinking Foster’s or some other kind of Australian brew. I very much like Australians and New Zealanders as they are similar to Americans in some ways, but unfortunately Australian beer is not that much better than American beer.) All that being said, I become pretty annoyed with pedantic descriptions from people talking about their favorite beers. Here’s what one person said about Floreffe Prima Melior:
“Pours like motor oil and when it is in the tulip it is a dark brown/ pretty much black with a thick large tan head that rises to the top of the glass, leaving some lacing as it recedes slowly.
The scent is pleasant and rich but not overly rich. There is definitely a lot of orange in the scent along with some anise, no coincidence. There’s not much else going on besides the yeasty dark fruit scents that are usually found in this style.
The first thing I notice is the smooth, rich, not hugely carbonated mouthfeel [sic]. It works perfectly with the flavors of this beer. There is some residual orange form the smell that transfers to the taste but there isn’t a huge anise kick in the flavor, it is more vanilla and coriander with a hint of cocoa. It has that spice tinged flair but it is very fruity. It is super complex.
Overall this one surprised me big time. It is one of the smoother, not as sweet BSDAs out there.”
I got this from a website and this was one of the less obnoxious reviews, though I still think the reviewer will try to use it for a college thesis. Honestly, these types of reviews take the fun out of beer. I do consider myself a beer connoisseur of some sorts, partly because beer is great for it’s simplicity in it’s earthy, grainy taste which you can add subtle flavors to mix things up. I like wine, but I can’t talk that lingo at the winery places. It’s so ridiculous. I’m smart enough to follow along, but why do people have treat it like some scholastic study pointing out how something tastes as they would review a Shakespearean play. It’s an alcoholic drink, just have fun with it and don’t take it too seriously. For people who make wine or gourmet beer, I understand why they need to be so precise with describing why they like or dislike something, but most people who go on like this are only trying to impress their friends. I’ve been in college too long to try to act smart for most other things. I don’t want to be exactly like Thomas Haden Church’s character in Sideways and state the wine is good and that’s all he can say about it when he is downing fine wine, but Jesus Christ, some uppity types need to get a life. That being said, the aforementioned review of Floreffe Prima Melior is not off target. The beer has a strong dark brown flavor that is much more bold than Newcastle and other brown ales, but is extremely smooth and goes down well. Seriously, I use this beer as a sipping drink that some people would use in a similar fashion with a mixed-drink. I can take a decently sized bottle and sip it all day long during a lazy weekend day. Oh, it’s so wonderful. You see it’s potent enough you don’t want to gulp (and dare not chug…I’ve seen it chugged!), and smooth enough with a spicy, orange-like aftertaste you will gladly let the flavor linger in your mouth. You see, I’ve neatly summed up it’s greatness in one pithy sentence. Actually, the company’s website sums it up pretty nicely too:
“Prima Melior was the Special Reserve Ale exclusively for the use of the Abbot and his guests.
A brown beer of high strength, it is reinforced with a powerful seasoning of anise and coriander. When the fermentation and clarification are complete, doses of yeast and brewing sugar are added for refermentation in the bottle.
This is based upon the brewing tradition of Floreffe abbey. Prima Melior is ideal with a mature hard cheese, possibly selected in the range of cheeses of Floreffe, or perfect when used in the preparation of rabbit.
Like all the beers in the Floreffe range, it is Recognized Belgian Abbey Beer approved.”
Okay, so that was a little high falutin, but if anything, this beer is so good you think of it as a drink you serve for others in a special occasion or a beer you drink by yourself as much as you can because it’s so good and you don’t have to share.
Guiness, Fuller’s London Pride,
Okay, so I took a long time in describing two beers and people’s habits involving beer drinking, so I will try to keep the review of these next two beers relatively short and do a lighting round of other beers. First of all, I’ve put together Fuller’s London Pride and Guinness together for one reason in particular. They are both damn fine beers drank at pubs in their respective countries of origin. Everybody knows Guinness pretty well, so I’m not going to go on about it too much. It is known for being a stout beer, and much like many stout beers, is often mistaken for motor oil because of it’s thickness. Guinness is a relatively popular beer, though it is not that special when it is compared to other stout beers. I do enjoy the frothy head, but otherwise, it really doesn’t stand out from other stouts. However, I must say, having Guinness in a pub in Dublin, Ireland is a treat. It probably didn’t matter it was Guinness and could have been another stout, but there is something magical going to an Irish pub, having your Irish stew, and finishing it with a glass of Guinness. I said I would not go on too much, and I won’t, but let me tell you it is such a treat to be at an authentic Irish pub which takes a few minutes for the Guinness to be poured before consuming. I won’t bother you with the details of why that process is important, but it does make a difference and is something most people in American will never be able to appreciate. Fuller’s London Pride is similar because it is also a sublime experience when you are at an English pub and have it. It’s supposed to be a bitter beer and I am not the biggest fan of bitter beer, but it went down real well and real fast when I had it over in England! The bartender was worried it would be too much for my American taste but quickly realized I enjoyed it and later stated, ”Ooooh, I see you liked it!” It sounded more memorable coming from her English accent. Okay, I’ve had Fuller’s London Pride outside an English Pub and found it to be good, but not too exceptionable. Obviously going to a bar in countries of your ethnic origin probably heightens the taste and experiences of beer, but that is how this beer should be consumed! In what will be a my last socially tangential comment, I just want to say perhaps the best thing about beer from the British Isles is the joy it brings when you have it at a pub and this is something our Americans bars with their loud, obnoxious music, obnoxious drinkers who are more there to get drunk and experience oblivion than to enjoy a good beer and company, and a place does not have a clue about providing a homey atmosphere where you can be comfortable enough to enjoy newspaper or a good book with your Irish stew or British pub food. Another nice thing about old fashioned pubs is you can and bring your family to these places and avoid the usual den of idiotic decadence of most American bars.
Okay, just as I promised, lightening round of beers I recommend:
Spaten Optimator (underrated dark German [lager] beer)
Smithwick’s (a super Irish Red beer that is smooth, but it has a malty bit that is actually not that bad)
Abita Amber beer (very smooth amber beer in a Southern United States tradition, though some might think it’s too flat; okay, this beer might be more of a special mention because most beers made in the traditional South of the U.S and Mexican beers are gross, except for Dos Equis Dark Modelo which is decent with Mexican food. Understandably Southern and Mexican beer is different because of their climates and cuisine, but there is a reason beer would have typically come from colder climates and not these places or most places in the world)
Terrapin (a rye beer and another beer made in the South that I actually like which is funny since I don’t particularly like rye bread, but I like the taste of rye in a beer)
Labatt’s and St. Pauli’s Girl (decent standby beers).
For some reason it’s actually easier to describe brands than individual beers at this point. I think this is because, and I expect some hate for this, a lot of micro-beer companies are pretty similar with the types of beers they serve. Yes, they are all independent, but usually, they all have a brown ale, a stout or porter, a type of lager (usually called honey or golden), a pale ale or a collection of beers with varying degrees of bitterness), maybe an Irish red beer, maybe an amber ale, maybe a type of Belgian ale or something spiced, etc. I’m not trying to be critical in a negative way, but beer is beer, and after awhile you rely on a few tried and true formulas and types of beers, so you notice a pattern forming amongst microbrews and craft beers. That being said, I’m going to just reference brands:
Samuel Adams (You can’t go wrong with Samuel Adams as the biggest American craft brewery)
Chimay Trappist beers (in the vein of Floreffe, something I don’t like as much as Floreffe, but still good)
Flat tire (perhaps a bit overrated, but makes a fine amber and other types of ales)
Yuenling (it’s decent).
For Wisconsin beers:
Leinkugel’s is okay (it’s seriously turning into a girlie beer factory, but Leine’s red is decent)
New Glaurus (decent, nothing too exceptional for me, but folks around Wisconsin like it a good deal)
Point (it’s okay).
I used to live in Ashland, Wisconsin, and the South Shore brewpub is pretty good and I’d drink their nut brown ale over a Newcastle any day.
Special mention, I like Pabst Blue Ribbon (PBR), but all these hipsters who drink it might as well have a High Life or Budweiser. Though PBR is a good skunk beer, it’s still a skunk beer, so enjoy a beer your upper-middle class sensibilities will enjoy and stop trying to be ironic, you assholes. Also, Steel Reserve is a high gravity beer which is gross, but nearly as bad as some it’s peers, and will fuck you up.
There are beers I don’t like and think are overrated, but I wanted to concentrate on beers I liked. That being said, Sierra Nevada Pale Ale is pretty ho-hum for all the hub-bub. Also, Shiner Bock is decent beer when you are stuck in Texas, but it’s nothing to rave about unless you are in Texas and have no idea what a good beer is. Becks, Heineken, Rolling Rock are beers I’d drink but are really the same, boring European lagers. Snore…..
That’s all for now. Drink up and enjoy!
Just to show you I have a lighter side when it comes to entertainment I am going to do a review of the movie Cabin Boy. I’m really surprised this movie doesn’t have more of a cult following because it certainly deserves one. Cabin Boy is an absurd movie starring Chris Elliot. I actually haven’t seen a lot of Chris Elliot’s stuff, but I am big fan of what he did in this movie. I really tip my hat to Cabin Boy because it is the kind of movie I usually don’t like. It is an absurdist kind of movie that has no point to it (even for a comedy) and its schtick is it’s so stupid it’s funny. There are a lot of bizarre movies out there that try to be funny by being absolutely ridiculous in a postmodern kind of way. You see, I normally hate this kind of stuff. One of the best lines ever in The Simpson’s television is when Moe the bartender is asked by his regulars what postmodern means he responded, “Weird for the sake of (being) weird.” It’s not so much I am critical of postmodernism, but I am critical of movies which don’t have a plot or themes which make any sense or have any chance of appealing to most movie goers. Seriously, some contemporary movies try to give you a post-modern sensibility when in reality these kind of movies do not know how to tie in events in story to together and are “throwing shit together.” Funny how I put that in quotations when throwing shit together is a phrase which came to me off the top of my head. Now Cabin Boy is an absurdist movie that has no real point to watching (even for a comedy), but somehow escapes the fate of being just another 90′s movie that has an independent feel in that it tries to look smart in a post-modern way when it’s simply lacking, lazy, and poorly done.
I’m going to rant about postmodern movies in 1990′s a bit more, but I’ll stick to reviewing Cabin Boy for now. The real genius to this movie is it is stupid for stupid’s sake, but in a way, it demostrates to me if you are going to try to enterain with absurdity, you better go all out. This movie will test you. From the half-man, half-shark character, an ice monster who is defeated with coffee, calling a ship “The Filthy Whore” as a pet name, and mindlessly playing on themes of class by picking on those “fancing lads” this movie is one hilariously silly scene after another. The plot is about the pompous rich-kid, Nathaniel, played by Chris Elloit, who mistakenly boards a ship consisting of crusty fisherman. The actors playing the crew are great at being no-nonsense sailors (i.e. crusty in the best sense) who hate Nathaniel, and as they have their adventures, wackiness ensues. Honestly, there isn’t too much to the movie. You just have to trust me that Chris Elloit and the rest of the cast are great. As a note, Tim Burton deseves a special mention as being to contribute in this movie as a producer beyond what I normally think he could do. You know what, I’m watching this movie as I write this and enjoying it immensely, but I really can’t describe to you what makes this movie work. It’s silly and absurd, but is unemcumbered by any sense of half-baked irony or pointless statement .
I think that’s my pet peeve about a lot of movies in the 90′s. Movies which obviously profess they have no meaning and the only entertainment value they have is illustrating life’s absurdity through disconnected, ill-conceived, and uninspiring scripts. Okay, so I’m probably overgeneralizing about a whole decade of movies and going a bit overboard *rimshot*. Sorry, that had to be done. More than anything, you are wondering what the hell I am going on about. I have one movie to explain my rant: Pulp Fiction. Now you either get what I was talking about or you have no hope of understanding my commentary because that one movie should tell you all you need to know. Don’t get me wrong. I don’t hate Quentin Tarratino as a director, in fact I give credit to Resevior Dogs containing some of the best cinematic dialogue. I don’t even think Pulp Fiction is a bad movie per se. It’s just it isn’t one of the best movies of all time because it has no redeeming value. That might seem a little harsh, but there’s nothing to really take from that movie. Okay, so the movie was innovative for it’s time, but it didn’t lead to innovations which led to great movies in the 90′s. Pulp Fiction is the epidimy of movies trying to look smart (while having no themes or anything worthwhile to state) and rebelling against the conventions of traditional movies while having nothing to replace those conventions except for the message life, as depicted in postmodern film, is meaningless, absurd, and random. Funny thing is these postmodern films are unlike anything like life or at least the internal processes of which we use to form our experiences. Honestly, do gangsters philosphize in the manner Travolta and Jackson’s characters carry on or is their banter something we envision that would be entertaining to comtemplate upon in this chaotic world? The thing is we can’t say for sure, which is one of the better dyanamics of the movie being the ambiguity found int he film, but this is not a classic movie. Perhaps it is classic (at least iconic) in the sense it identifies what the 90′s were about, but in the effort of being postmodern, Pulp Fiction then became a classic by destroying our notions of classic movies, evidenced by future movies. How ironic.
As a I alluded to before, my beef is not with Tarrentino. In fact, after seeing the end scene of Pulp Fiction, I am interested in revisting that movie to see if I can obtain a newly aquired sense of the movie (I often do this to popular entertainment of which I watch after the big buzz). What really chafes me is so many other movies in the 90′s attempted to be postmodern when doing so negates the best quality of postmodern movies in they provide a healthy critque of convetional and sometimes cheesy movies, but when almost every movie is trying to do this…….my God, it is a boring mess. Being on this topic, I think of the movie Fargo and how people gushed about that film when I can barely remember what happened in that movie. To be fair to the Cohen brothers, I loved the Big Lewboski even though that was an absurd film because it still had heart because of it’s characters (seriously, how could you not like The Dude and his compardes?) and it contained a real plot. It’s a movie with some of the most inconcievable notions and depictions in the story, but it’s a story I can follow. Even the crazy hallunications seemed to have a tangible purpose in being there, unlike the crazy stuff in other postmodern movies (eye [and mind] candy disguised as wit and irony). Newsflash, movies have always irony, because the use of irony actually points something out, unlike movies who take pride in the fact they are pointless. Don’t misunderstand, there’s nothing with pointless, brainless movies which serve the function of helping us relax. For example, I really like Dusk ’till Dawn. It’s great and fun mindless entertainment and nothing more. Just like Cabin Boy.
There are a lot of important political isses but I don’t think any issues are more important to the United States than trade and globalization. I’m going to state my bias: I believe a tariff is not a bad thing. I am somebody who doesn’t have any urge to make sure the United States is on its way to being part of a globalized marketplace. Not that I think trade is bad. No, trade with other countries is vital for the well-being of the United States as it has been for every major superpower or any civilization. However, that does not mean we are obligated to remove all our tariffs and make discriminating decisions about what countries we want to have as trading partners. Some people think of tariffs as nasty restrictions to free trade which impede economic development and bar us from fully being part of the globalization trend that will promise prosperity in the future. However, the United States has done just fine using tariffs when trading with other countries in the past. In fact, tariffs were the main source of revenue for the United States right after the Revolutionary War. I (with some resignation) admit we are heading to be part of a massive globalized market where international boundaries will not mean that much when it comes to commerce and international trade. Heck, we are pretty much there already with most of the things we buy (including the computer you are using) being made in other countries. Funny enough, the United States makes a good number of industrial products and is a leading manufacturer. Still, many people worry about the potential (and current) effects of globalization on the economy of the United States and wonder how are economy will even function in the future.
Globalization, free trade, and related issues seem to me the most important issues of our time. They are not the only issues that are important, but when it comes to the economy, I don’t think there is anything else which will play a significant role in determining our standard of living. I see our recession as having a direct link with globalization. Not that we haven’t benefited from trading with other countries, but as much as other economies such as China, Brazil, and Russia continue to grow, it seems our economy shrinks, or at best, stalls. The global marketplace is a very funny thing, because even if you are a thriving economy, your success can work against you. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t want to live in a third-world nation and I am not a fan of poverty. It is not all doom and gloom out there and I don’t see this country heading to the abyss, but it appears we are in a evening out process with other countries in which money flows from the United States to other countries who produce things much more cheaply than we can. Again, it all seem very strange to me because since we have high living standards we lose jobs to other countries because they are more efficient making a product because their economy is less developed. Another way of looking at it is you are rewarded with jobs because you are not as developed as another country which has more money than you.
This is not an unprecedented phenomenon or anything dissimilar to many forces in the capitalistic marketplace. The workplace is based on a stratification of different jobs and tasks assigned to people with suitable skills. Also, for domestic tasks, people with money get other people to do work they could do on their own because those well-off people find it more lucrative to do something else or they don’t want to do something as menial as running errands or washing the dishes. We used to call people like this servants. With this in mind, it is no wonder some people didn’t mind if most things were not made in the United States because factory work is not easy. I was told growing up you needed to go to college in order to have the skills necessary to do well in the future because those high paying factory jobs would not be there. We weren’t actually told what the other jobs would be there to take their place, but college was definitely the key to getting those jobs…wherever and whatever those jobs are. (I am only be half-serious with these last two sentences. Obviously college is the key to getting many high-paying jobs, but my point is I don’t think things have worked out as were envisioned for Gen-Xers and younger workers.)
Essentially, the problem with how world trade effects our economy, is how are we to continue to enjoy our standard of living if we don’t actually make anything and work primarily in service-oriented fields? To be fair, and as a I stated before, we do still make stuff in the United States, but the trend in our economy is we are losing high paying manufacturing jobs and not replacing them with better jobs or even jobs which paid as much as before. This is evidenced by a shrinking middle-class and a decrease in wages for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. We all know it is happening. Even college graduates are having problems. I read that college graduates coming out of college make less money than college graduates who came out of college a few years ago. That is not too remarkable in the light of a recession, but in any event, many people coming out of college are starting to question if going to college was even worth it. When you think about it, if you are smart and able enough to go to college and come out of there with…whatever we get out of college, and question the value of college, it probably means college may have been far from the thing which would allow you to get those valued jobs (which were somewhat nebulously identified by people who supposedly knew better). In other words, even college is no guarantee of anything, except of course, student loans. Yes, college is the key to getting jobs in the “hot” fields of nursing and education, but we cannot sustain our economy with these service-oriented jobs alone.
In fact, I am waiting for just about every “hot” job field to bottom out. Think about it. Services like education and nursing are the end result of having funds and being able to use them for the betterment of society and individuals. Education and medical services are big businesses since there is a high demand for being able to live and finding a way to make a living once medical services helps you stay alive. However, and as much as education should be seen as something necessary and an investment in society, neither creates a product which in itself creates a net growth in the economy of the United States unless we are able to sell these services to people outside this country. We actually do this on a small level, but even medical services are being outsourced to other countries and we are in the position of asking what can’t be outsourced? Now, we can create wealth without selling stuff to another country, but we cannot keep servicing each other (this sounds strangely sexual) without a source of income independent of services. We were told we were entering the “information age” and we wouldn’t need manufacturing or other traditional means of building wealth because we would generate money by having super valuable knowledge and selling it to other nations who would keep busy by making cheap plastic trinkets. We don’t hear much of this concept anymore because it is a crock. There are millions of bloggers of people who are trying to enlighten the world, and believe me, most of them are not making a living from it as a result of the “information age”.
Now because I am a fair and sensible person, I will not overlook the fact that some people in the United States are benefiting from globization. Okay, you can argue we are benefiting since a lot of products are cheaper than what they used to be. Essentially this is true in more ways than one. Globalization has helped make us more of a “throw away” society. Seriously, most stuff we buy is not built to last. There is a term called planned obsolesce which describes the plan by manufacturers to purposely build stuff so it breaks down early so we have to buy new stuff. If you think you would never buy anything like that, you are probably dead wrong. Some people buy more expensive cars in part because they think they actually come out okay financially because they save money on upkeep and their higher quality car will last longer. We all make purchasing decisions based on how long they are supposed to last and how we pay for them. But for things like furniture, clothes, computers (and other household appliances), we tend to buy things we don’t plan on using for very long because what else would we shop for in the future if we just bought things we need? Even with cars a lot of people do trade-ins, and though most people like buying houses for a sense of permanence, we remodel and renovate so much you cannot recognize a house you live in from the house you bought. I think we do this because we enjoy the act of shopping and purchasing more than we ever do with the all the useless junk we have. The only thing that seems to be the exception to the rule is collectibles, the urge to get ever more still applies.
So…where was I going with this. Oh yeah, we do have a lot of cheap stuff to buy but much of that cheap stuff is cheap crap. Funny enough, my wife was making a comment to me about how some of our IKEA furniture seems to be coming apart and that cute set is not so cute anymore. Sounds like we are buying some new furniture soon. I compare this to when we bought this beautiful cabinet set at a garage sale that was probably made sometime in the 1960′s. You really would think there would be more signs of wear, but the set is for the most part immaculate. That and you can tell the set is built to last. Nothing is wobbly, it’s made of real sturdy wood, and though it was probably made in a factory, you can still appreciate the craftsmanship of people who actually saw their product as something a family would use for a long time (maybe for generations) and be something of special value. I’ll tell you this, when our IKEA couch becomes even more frayed and wobbly, we won’t have any special attachment to the pieces of cheap materials when they are unceremoniously dumped in the garbage. My point is, yes, goods are cheaper, but is questionable if we really appreciate them more.
There is also a interest group who doesn’t seem to question much if they benefit from our throwaway society and production of cheap goods from other countries: large multi-national corporations. Yes, we truly live the cliche the rich get richer while the poor get poorer. You probably have heard that the average CEO receives compensation packages worth much more than the average worker compared with CEO’s in the past. I actually don’t mind this if everybody’s standard of living increases, but as we have noted with the decline of real wages and the middle class, that doesn’t seem to be the case. And that’s what it really comes down to. We need to appease the interests of the business world. As a special note, I don’t even know which large multi-national corporations are even based in the United States even more. Hell, Budweiser is not even sold by a company that is based in the United States! It seems the Belgiums were envious of our cheap, watered down beer and just had to get their hands on the secret ingredient (rice) which gives Budweiser that taste Americans love. Well, and making money from that disgusting product.
Problem is, many of the consumers of the United States don’t have as much expendable money as they used to have and it’s getting worse. And that’s the real problem. Because so much capital is leaving the country and not being recycled in the American economy, consumers don’t have as much money to buy the cheap plastic trinkets from multi-national corporations who use third- world labor, business are hurt because we cannot consume as much and start laying off people or go out of business entirely, consumers have even less money because there are even fewer job opportunities and remaining businesses pay people less because there is more people looking for work and people will take what they can, and so on, and so on. And I believe we are in the middle of a recession that is the result of us feeling only the beginning of a process which will only get worse as we lose more and more capital. Right now our government is borrowing money in an attempt to bailout industries and provide capital, but this practice is unsustainable, and worse, will leave me and other generations with a mass of debt and interest payments. You want to know why we have no money for even upkeeping our infrastructure and China is in the process of building there’s? You want to know why we have no money for education and are putting millions of young adults in deep student debt? How about the dissolution of traditional unions and the gradual erosion of living standards for a large number of the American populace? I could go on, but so many of our current issues revolve around the fact our standard of living is threatened by the loss of money which flows outside of the United States to other countries that will allow them to prepare for the future while we hold on to what prosperity we have left.
Some people argue free trade makes everybody better off because it makes products cheaper and the production process more efficient. And I would have to agree products are cheaper and business have never been more efficient. That’s what makes talk about how lazy younger workers are and how we just need to work harder seem so ridiculous because we work harder than ever. Also, the growth of the gross domestic product (GDP) points to the prosperity the United States experiences as a whole. Yes, GDP keeps increasing for the most part, though it is pretty sad to say the Dow has recently <em>risen</em> to levels observed <strong>ten years ago.</strong> Now compare this to China and other developing nations like Brazil; their growth is skyrocketing. Which is kind of interesting because on an international level the world economy is growing and that is a good thing. The more prosperity everybody has the better the United States will be. However, the problem is though other nations are becoming more prosperous, the divide between the have and have nots becomes steeper for us. In fact, if trends continue we will have a caste system consisting of a few rich people on the top and most people on the way bottom as illustrated in pyramid economic stratification system versus an economic stratification system where most people are in the middle (upper middle-class, middle class, lower middle-class) and fewer people are rich or poor, respectively. This picture will tell you all you need to know about the pyramid economic structure:
Now, please people , don’t think I’m against capitalism or religion, I’m not. I just find the picture funny.
I think we should concentrate on standard of living for the majority of people instead of simply focusing on how efficient we are. I know another economic practice which was very efficient, but did not serve to the betterment of all: slavery. Hell, you don’t have to pay slaves anything! I don’t mean to make light of the serious and dark history of slavery or make our current economic division of labor comparable to slavery, but I am making a case we do need more thought to equality when it comes economics and work. And though while I see more money being made in a global market, I’m not sure we will all get a piece of that prosperity. It seems the average worker suffers in the name of global prosperity, and if you think developing nations that will become more prosperous in time will develop a strong middle class and become less of a pyramid economic system, think again. Yes, places like China are developing a middle class, but their economy is still based on exploiting the poor and still have millions of truly destitute people. Strangely, even China may become too prosperous for it’s own good and mulit-national corporations will go on to exploit another country. I do know many of our good jobs are disappearing and the middle class is shrinking and this occurrence seems to go hand in hand with globalization.
So what can we do about this? I don’t want to be pessimistic, but globalization is a trend that will probably continue, though there is no need keep exacerbating the trend. The reality is as much as big business interests (in the U.S. and around the world) keep pushing for globalization and we depend on other countries for the production of cheap goods, these countries depend on us much more heavily on us. Though we owe China a bunch of money and have economic ties to them, believe me, China would collapse if they could not flood our markets with their cheap products. The United States still has a lot of sway and it is pathetic we cater to the governments of other countries which have terrible human abuse records. There is no reason we could not demand from another country like China to ensure better working conditions AND STOP ABUSING THEIR PEOPLE BY DENYING THEM BASIC RIGHTS! We have done businesses with other countries like Japan and South Korea which have been helped by our trade and support of them and they in turn have adopted democratic governments and provide their workers with decent working conditions. There are other countries with struggling economies we could do trade with more extensively who are more interested in democracy and promoting worker’s rights, such as can be found in Eastern European nations. Poland would be a great country to invest in, and as a bonus, we could strengthen ties with these countries and influence a part of the world still threatened by the looming threat of Russia. Yes, I know Poland is part of the EU, but my point is there are other countries we could develop more extensive trade partnerships with. Hell, we have developing economies from the whole Western Hemisphere, but wasn’t that was NAFTA for in part? Problem, again, with treaties like NAFTA, is there is no regulation which protects workers for all countries involved. Many Mexican farmers and other local industries have been devastated by the influx of cheap American goods and we know the impact NAFTA has had on the average American worker. This is a tough issue because the world is trending toward globalization, but I think we do need Fair trade instead of Free trade. Of course, as much as I like some of Barack Obama’s ideas about Fair trade, I am reminded it was a Democratic president, Bill Clinton, who was supposed to be a friend of industrial unions and the average workers, who sold us all out on NAFTA. Many people debated NAFTA would provide well paying jobs for Americans, though I doubt many people would think it has only become better for the average American worker since the institution of NAFTA in 1994. It is a sad thing because it seems the elites from both the Republican and Democratic parties and their respective special interests have sold us all out but hopefully we can learn from these mistakes and prevent further damage. That or get ready forwhen things really get interesting when dictatorships like ones in China not only keep their most favored trade nation status, but when completely open trade with China creates inequality that makes our country resemble a pyramid economic structure most commonly identified with third world nations.
I am going to write about one of my favorite fantasy authors, David Gemmell. I have read a lot of fantasy and have a few authors I follow, but David Gemmell is the one contemporary fantasy author I always looked forward to reading his latest work. Which is sad since Gemmell died in 2006. In the grand scheme of things, the loss of one of my favorite fantasy authors does mean much compared to the loss of a human being, but it saddens me I will not read anything new from him. He is not an unknown author and has wrote best-selling books, but I don’t hear him about him much from other people or even fans of fantasy. Of course, contemporary fantasy is not a well-respected genre in the world of literature (even Tolkien had a hard time trying to get other people to take his works seriously). I am not trying to suggest today’s fantasy novels are high literature as they are primarily entertainment, but it amazes me people like to write (how ironic) them off when I good proportion of high literature is pretty useless. I suppose this is my plug for David Gemmell, but just trying to do my part in spreading the word about an amazing author.
This is not going to be an wikipedia excerpt, but you can look him up if you are curious. He has a pretty interesting background and I am struck by the fact I don’t think he had any formal training as a writer. This gives me hope if I ever want to try writing a fantasy novel again. Gemmell is a natural storyteller who creates riveting characters and stimulating stories. His novels have been clasifried as heroic fantasy, but his stories move very quickly and his characters would be more likely to come from a Robert Howard novel than Tolkien. I guess why I like Gemmell is he blends some of the best elements of heroic fantasy and sword and sorcery stories, and stills writes in a distinct manner that is all his own.
Gemmell had a few different series of works, but he is most known for his Drenai series. The Drenai series contain Gemmell’s favorite character, Druss, who is about as bad-ass as you can be. Druss was introduced in Gemmell’s first fantasy book Legend, which used to called Against the Horde. I probably only mention this because I have an original copy of this book (yeah!). Gemmell wrote Legend around the time he thought he might die from cancer and it is a notable novel since it is easy to get lost in the dramatic portrayal of characters trying protect a fort against overwhelming odds. I am quite fond of Quest for Lost Heroes because it was the first book I had read by him and was instantly hooked by the book. A lot of the characters were brooding, cynical at times, and even unsavory, though many of them were still heroes. Another thing I like about Gemmell is though his books were not overly philosphical, many of the characters had some interesting philosphical conversations and dilemnas. One of the enduring themes in his books is the balancing of pacifism and the right to defend oneself and others. I like a lot of Gemmell’s work because redemption is also a common theme which is often ignored by post-modern artistic works. Yes, like the typical fantasy story, many of his stories involve a quest, though the heroes are often not paragons of virtue. In addition to more conventional fantasy, Gemmel does a nice job with historical fiction (read the Troy series and other books with an Ancient Greece setting), and I have enjoyed the Jon Shannow books which are largely science fiction and westerns. Above all, Gemmell is a natural story teller who makes a story come alive and would compel you if he was telling it around the campfire. He is well known in Britian and to many fantasy fans, but if you are not familar with him, you are advised to read his books to get familar with some of the best fantasy that has come out in the last 25 years.
If you have read some of my prior posts you might have an idea where I stand on education in the United States. Education (particularly the funding of education) is a “hot topic” as the ladies on The View would say. (Insert your joke about my mentioning of The View here. Oh wait, put that at the bottom where you can actually post.) When people bring up the topic of education many state they support having a strong educational system so our children can obtain the knowledge and skills which will prepare them for the future. It can be often difficult to state you don’t always support every referendum which pumps more money into schools without being viewed (like the most of the ladies would view you) as somebody who hates children and doesn’t support education. For the record, I do believe in a well-funded educational system, but one that is truly run by the interests of community members and not federal and state bureaucrats telling us how to run our schools. Public schools are an interesting run operation. In theory, a community votes, largely through a school board, on how much money to invest in education, and determines the policies which will determine how schools run. Public schools are long-running institutions that have been around in this country since communities figured they should do something to educate the young. To my knowledge, these early communities did not have the type of debates and arguments we currently have about public schools which often bring up concerns of a government monopoly on education. I believe (especially before the Department of Education was founded) communities were pretty much left to take care of themselves which is something we would find unfair in our modern age because poor school districts would have major funding issues. I bring this piece of history up because American citizens in the past did not worry as much as we do today that money for public schools is being used for things that are not primarily focused on the education of their children. Sure, people of every era always wonder if their tax money is used appropriately, but it strikes me that communities in the past did not have any major problems with “socializing” education and probably just thought it was the best way to support the community. Unfortunately, many people feel they, as members of their community, are not in charge of what goes on in school.
When it comes to the issue of education, I want to focus more on who is control of education in our society and how money is used to fund education. I want to frame the issue of education this way because the topic is not as simple as to whether you support funding for education or not. I support funding for education. I think we would be better off it if we actually spent more money on education and other things which benefit young, working people. I’ve already explained my view on how we should be paying for college as I think college should be availabe for all people who are able (smart) enough to go to college, though I believe we should use a voucher system. My view on how we should fund primary school is similar in that we should use vouchers to provide funding for it. To be fair, while I do support education, I don’t necessarily support public education. I don’t dislike public education (I went to a public high school), but I don’t treat it like a sacred cow. This actually saddens me because public schools used to be institutions run by local communities, but local communities are about the last people who have a say when it comes to public schools. I understand (and accept to a good degree) state and federal governmental bodies dictate many of the policies which affect public school. It was inevitable given how society has changed over the years. However, I believe children are being held hostage when it comes to education. We are continually told we need more funding for primary education, yet we have little evidence the American public is getting their money’s worth. You might think other countries who consistently beat us in standardized tests of academic achievement spend more money than we do on education. You’d be completely wrong. Compared to other modern, industrialized nations, per capita, the United States spends considerably more than any other country. Given we are not getting our money’s worth and have been unsuccessful in having the most academically proficient students in the world even though we spend the most money shouldn’t we be trying to come up with ways to improve education? (As a note, I was reading an new article on MSN on how 100,000 teaching jobs may be cut. It seems the surplus money has been helping keeping teachers employed, but I have to ask, will we will see any result from the surplus money that has already been used? Would there be a big drop off in academic performance if schools stopped receiving the extra money [surplus bailouts] schools received after all the government bailout?)
Evaluating teaching performance is a somewhat of a taboo topic to some people, especially teachers. I would like to state before I get into evaluating teaching and education, if you are pro public education you are probably going to think I don’t support public education (which is not totally off the mark, though still off the mark) and I like picking on teachers (which is absolutely not true, but I will get to who I do have a big beef with). However, I am going to be very critical, just like I always am with issues that affect us all. And in being critical, I want to see results. I want to know how my tax money is being used and whether it is being used in an effective manner. A lot of people say it is difficult to measure the effectiveness of a teacher, since teaching is much like an art which cannot be easily measured. I know what they are they talking about. Not every job has a clearly defined way of accomplishing the objectives of an job. In fact, most jobs are fairly ambiguous and open when it comes to actually defining what is the best manner of doing most jobs. This is especially true if you work in the human services field, but it’s not that dissimilar to any job you have extensive contact with people, and nobody will explicitly tell you how to do that job unless you get in trouble, and even then you still have to figure it out for yourself.
But we can use testing. Yes, I said that blasphemous word. Testing. Read it and shudder. Yes, we can actually measure the progress of students and see what things (or what people) have a positive or detrimental effect on students. It’s not like many of the people who do not like the idea of monitoring progress in their students in an attempt to evaluate teacher performance would give out tests to their own students…er, wait…ummmmmmmm…..please, somebody help me out here. Honestly, this blatant contradiction makes my head spin. The reasoning to support the notion the use of testing would be ill-advised for evaluating teachers and schools is so flawed it is hard to make an counter argument opposed to the idea we shouldn’t evaluate teachers because teachers do the same thing every day to students because of the insane premises of the anti-testing side. Of course some people believe we should not use testing to evaluate academic performance for children, so at least they are consistent, though very wrong. Teachers simply do not like the idea of testing (at least to evaluate their performance) because they don’t like something that objectively evaluates their performance because they don’t like to be judged. I don’t blame them, nobody likes to be judged! However, I don’t have any sympathy for them because everybody who has a job is evaluated on a constant basis, and like I said before, teachers test children routinely. Enough said.
The issue of whether or not teachers should tested can be drawn out more, but I want to focus more on issues with testing teaching ability through academic performance of students. The most difficult in examining student’s academic performance is realizing all students have different levels of academic ability and some schools are probably not going to do as well when compared to others. It is a fair point to make that teachers cannot control what goes on in the home and any other outside factors which makes teaching children a much more complicated task. It is sad to say, but it would be unrealistic to expect many inner city and rural schools to do as well as schools found in the wealthy neighborhoods of the suburbs. At some point, we should just have to admit life is not always fair, and while that is not an attempt to make an excuse to give out on obtaining justice in the world, we would probably be better off accepting the fact we will have some inequality. So, I give recognition to the point teachers are not the only factor or even the biggest factor why some children are not doing well in school. However, if you admit there are problems that are out of the teacher’s hands, why is there still a push for more funding based on the idea money should always result in better academic performance?
Everybody should know many private schools educate students at a fraction of the cost of public schools, but those private school students often outperform the public school students. To my detractors, I will save you the effort of pointing out private schools can pick whoever they want as students and students who have parents who can afford to send their children to private schools probably come from a more privileged background. It is a valid point to make about the privileged backgrounds of private school children, but I can tell you as a student who went to parochial school, private primary schools don’t cherry pick as much as you might think. More telling is when students from disadvantaged backgrounds use vouchers to attend private schools and their grades and performances start to pick up dramatically. You should really look into Milwaukee’s voucher program. A major reason teacher unions are vehemently opposed to vouchers is if we were even allowed to collect extensive data on the effects on vouchers, it would quickly become evident vouchers would be exceptionally beneficial for disadvantaged children. Now, if we had vouchers and disrupted the government monopoly on primary education, we could fairly compare people of similar backgrounds and get a feel for which schools are most effective with students. But of course, we really don’t want to do that, not because public school teachers would permantly lose their jobs (good teachers would be hired from other schools, duh), but because teacher unions would be put at major risk. That’s right, the reason we don’t have vouchers, why there is reluctance to test teachers, and why we don’t have performance-based pay is not really for the benefit of teachers, it’s to benefit teacher unions.
Now we are really getting into the heart of the matter here. I do not have a problem with funding an education system. I do not have a problem with the majority of teachers. I do have a major problems with teacher unions. This saddens me because I generally have a lot of support for traditional unions. I think unions have helped many workers achieve a decent standard of living and have helped checked the interests of the business world. However, teacher unions are different than traditional unions. The fact that the teacher unions are made up of professionals makes them somewhat different than most unions, though the first unions were guilds composed of highly skilled craftsmen and professionals. What makes teacher unions remarkable, though not unique, is they are composed of government workers. Typically, in a private business, you have owners and management on one side and labor (let’s just assume they have an union) on the other side. Labor and management debate what the other should be giving up and these discussions are largely dictated by bottom lines often determined by the laws of supply and demand of the market. However, a public institution does not follow supply and demands of the marketplace, rather the limits of funds are only set by how much money the institution can receive from the government. This is where people have to understand that pure politics becomes the most important matter in regards to obtaining money and power, rather than providing a product which can help sustain the business. Public schools still have a division amongst teachers and administration, but they are all still government workers who have a direct and personal interest in making sure public schools are around so they can keep their jobs. I find it strange that a government worker is really somebody who is a public servant, though you might not think that (I especially don’t when I think of teacher unions). I believe that most teachers are in their profession partly because they care about what they do, but teacher unions are another story.
So what are so terrible about teacher unions? Shouldn’t they have the right, just like anybody else to join together and demand better wages and working conditions? Yes, but I actually find unions for government workers to be a funny concept, if you could not already tell. It becomes very evident to me teacher unions could care less about the quality of education, let alone the school children. Why would I say that? Well, because it is their job to protect the interests of teachers and the don’t get paid to care about education itself. Actually, teacher unions are great for going into great detail about the plight of teachers and how opposing forces are conspring against teachers, and maybe, maybe, giving a short, drivel-like platitude about caring about education and children. Seriously, their agenda is so painfully obvious, it’s a wonder they even bother even trying to give the impression they care about education. Now, I can go on about how teacher unions manipulate and influence schools boards to the point it is questionable (if not sometimes laughable) whether or not schools boards are running the show.
I’ll be honest, much of my furor over teacher unions comes from experiences as a student and a member of my small-town community. I had abysmal, I mean truly terrible English teachers at my high school. I had this one English teacher who was so lacksidasial and simply did not give a shit. I learned next to nothing for two years because of him. This guy actually actually arranged Fridays so we would do absolutely nothing other than watch movies. And they weren’t even educational movies they were typical movies made for entertainment. I also had another teacher who problems with mental disturbances and everybody knew about it. Every year this teacher would receive loud, angry complaints from parents, but the message was the same: we can’t do anything about it, but she will be retiring soon! My God. What a fucking sham.
I understand why teachers like tenure, but it does keep some horrible teachers employed. The funny thing is tenure doesn’t even really do a good job of protecting teachers. First of all, the fight for tenure actually leaves many teachers out of a job. Everybody knows getting tenure is paramount and this reality is often used against many teachers who were doing a fine job getting along with their instruction, but the threat of not obtaining tenure can be a career killer. Because if you can’t get tenure, you are probably not keeping your job for long. I knew of a respectable college professor who I had a class with who was denied tenure mainly through gossip and political games and that was it for him. I mean it, he was gone. I also know even if you get tenure, don’t think your boss or other conspiring coworkers can’t make your life a living hell to the point you will take a very early retirement or force you to resign, but I will get more into that later.
As for other issues, I think you know where I stand when it comes to testing and actually wanting to see what I am paying for. With that, I do believe in merit. My God, do I have to explain why you use merit pay to reward people for doing a good job. What a joke. If you need to know why we need to pay people more for doing a good job, you probably need to go back to school, um, wait a minute, yeah, it’s just something you should have figured (with or maybe preferably without the help of a public school). You see, many teachers (especially good teachers) actually like the idea of merit pay. Sure the majority of teachers would probably tell you they don’t believe in merit pay, though sometimes you get the feel not everybody is completely comfortable towing the union line. If we are not going to reward people for excellence, do not expect excellent people to become teachers. If there is no difference in my level of pay, why would I try to do more in an effort to stand out? In fact, teacher unions take the stance practices like merit for pay would hurt teacher solidarity (more like union solidarity) and create a competitive atmosphere that would inhibit a healthy learning environment. Okay. I’m reading between the lines, and it would seem to me it actually might be a bad thing to be a great teacher! This is where I see teacher unions are willing to put the interests of themselves before education. I would say from what I know, they only way a person who excels could move up in the teaching business is if they went into administration or became a, wait a minute, let me a pause for a second…union official. Funny, seems the union has no problem rewarding many union officials with higher salaries than most of the teachers they are supposed to be serving…
I cannot fully go into all the problems surrounding teacher unions, so I encourage you to go out and educate yourself about teacher unions. Make up your own mind on the matter, but at least get to know the people who are running the educational system and how the system works. To give you a short summary on this topic I believe in vouchers because I think communities and individuals should have the right to truly choose the types of schools they want and the only people who would be worse off with vouchers would be teacher union officials, not teachers. If we rewarded people for going into teaching and paying for excellence, our educational system would be in much better shape.
I leave you with the post with a more personal tale involving my family and myself. You see, I have all the heart int he world for teachers and the idea of providing education to young people. Not only was my mother a teacher, but her mother also taught, so I know how important it is to reward teachers. My grandmother was one of the smartest and kindest people I have ever known and was part of a group of highly intelligent group of women teachers who were barred from most professions except for teaching. So these stellar examples of teaching taught in those one-room school houses where there were so many kids the older school children were often responsible for some of the educational duties but nobody thought to complain about class sizes and they taught the skills and knowledge necessary for people in the World War II generation and older boomers to run the United States, if the not the world.
My mother followed in the teaching tradition, but she taught in an era dominated by teacher unions who set policies which make it difficult for younger workers to break into the teaching world regardless of their performance and could not protect her from harassment from her boss in an effort to have my mother resign. How did it come to be my mother was subject to this? It wasn’t performance, I can tell you that! You see, she taught in a school district that was considering consolidating with another school district, which meant a good number of teachers were at risk of losing their jobs in the process. My mother was tenured and had seniority over most teachers, but that did not stop her boss, who I am ashamed to say was a school psychologist, from trying to force her to resign in order to help preserve the jobs of one of his cronies. My mother had an excellent work record before the threat of consolidation, but her boss was doing everything to defame her and suddenly new concerns arose. Interestingly, my mother did step down from the political pressure, but she retained work at the school district in a position with less pressure and fewer work demands. Essentially, my old school district was paying my mother the wage of a tenured, senior teacher for the work an aide might do, but the work was so relaxed, I doubt she did half the work an aide would typically do. It wasn’t my mother’s fault, that’s how things are done at public schools.
Crazy enough, the consolidation did not occur because there was a strong push from, gee, I don’t know, teacher unions which convinced the school board there would be no tangible benefit from consolidation, which was utter bullshit. If you live a small school district with a declining school population (often found in many rural settings these days), you would know consolidation is a heart-breaking, but often necessary, process which enables schools to remain large and viable enough to be give students a comparable education with decently sized schools. Sadly, that school district which my school district rejected to consolidate with now is refusing to consolidate with my old school district, and my school district consolidated with another school district anyway. Funny thing is that school district my old school district consolidated with is on the other side of the school district we originally proposed to consolidate with but now won’t have anything to do with us!!! That’s right, my old school district now experiences problems with busing routes (which run through the school district we should have consolidated in the first place) and instead of having the all of the actual facilities in my hometown which would have served as a convenient place for the original consolidation plans, junior high students from my hometown must be shipped an additional thirty miles to attend school and the community we now share a school district with must do the same for all their elementary and high school students! What a mess. And what for? Not the teachers of whom mainly lost their jobs anyway or had to relocate. Certainly not the taxpayers of their respective communities who could have saved millions if they would been consolidated earlier into a more efficiently run school district been able to consolidate with a community that was adjacent to them! And especially, not the students who are used like pawns to protect the interests of a special interest group. Because in the end, that special interest group, the teachers union, and their supposed administrative counterparts, held strong, and came out relatively unscathed. Well, thank goodness for that!
Sadly, this topic does have personal meaning for me as well as it has had for my family and my community. You see, I probably would be in teaching if not for my personal experiences with education. I have all the skills and aptitude to become a teacher and I think I would enjoy being a high school social science teacher. But I know too much about what really goes on in public schools and what the real priorities are. I know it is the same place I was at for several years and I know it is not changing any time soon. It is the same place that houses teachers with mental health issues the whole community knows about but is powerless to do anything about. It is the place that teachers can tell a high-achieving students’ mothers their children will not make it in college and slander their children as a nice touch. It is a place that mothers know there is no point in voicing such a concern about such behavior and must sit there while some witch makes disparaging comments about their children. It is the same place who keeps teachers who say such things in reference to students and those same students go on to obtain graduate degrees. It is the same place those students with graduate degrees who might otherwise love to have a chance to work with the minds of our youth, but would never take such a position in such a backwards system no matter how much they were paid.
The Hobbit is one of the most cherished pieces of fiction and one of my absolute favorite books. I am a huge fantasy and Lord of the Rings (LOTR) fan and The Hobbit was one of those books I instantly grew attached to and find myself reading again every now and then. But, I am not going to focus on The Hobbit the book. I am going to focus on The Hobbit the movie. You see, before I read a multitude of fantasy books (even gave a shot at writing a fantasy novel), before I read LOTR, and before I read The Hobbit, I watched the animated movie The Hobbit. I was in my early elementary years and was familiar with Dungeons and Dragons, but I had never come across anything like The Hobbit. I was instantly drawn to the movie and story about Bilbo Baggins and The One Ring. Of course, The Hobbit does not tell you the real significance of The One Ring and is a much different type of story than Lord of the Rings. The story of the Hobbit is a children’s story and I was the type of child who knew right away this movie was for me.
The beauty of the animated film The Hobbit is it is a fun adventure. It never goes too deep but provides characters and themes which can inspire and simply give a person a good type of feeling. I still get chills when I hear “The Greatest Adventure” song pump in during the beginning of the movie and become bedazzled by the songs in the movie. The music added so much to the movie; I am becoming somewhat spellbound just remebering the anthems of the dwarves, goblins, Lakemen, and elves. The song sung in the beginning by the dwarves is particularly enchanting and the goblin songs are full of gleeful mischief and terrible doom…”down, down, to Goblin town, you go my lad!” Just great stuff. Except for that weak, crappy elven stuff. I love Tolkien, but it’s amazing the race he so loved, the elves, were some of the prissiest and most ridiculous characters ever. They are actually portrayed pretty well in Peter Jackson’s LOTR movies showing some toughness to go with their haughtiness. Another reason the Hobbit is so much fun is dwarves are a main part of the cast. There’s just something fun and amusing about their crusty nature. I know if I had to fight a battle I would be picking a dwarf over an elf any day of the week to stand beside me. Good thing Bilbo had a bunch of dwarves and good ‘ole Gandalf to help him for all the stuff he would go through, though it was Bilbo who saved the dwarves more often than not.
The Hobbit is simply a fun movie full of adventure. All the scenes are memorable and flow together so you are never bored. It’s kind of like Bilbo and company go through one thing after another just to find themselves in another predicament. They fight trolls, goblins, wolves, and spiders (not to mention the dragon!), escape elves, get rescued by eagles, encounter the Lakemen, and fight in the epic battle of Five Armies. The battle of Five Armies is really something as the suspense builds and the scene tops itself over and over again with the introduction of different elements. A notable character from the book, Beorn, is omitted from the movie, and while he is a key character in the book, the movie gets along fine without him. Anybody who expects movie adaptations to be exactly like the books they are based on have unrealistic expectations due to the fact you can’t fit everything in. One of the signature scenes involves Bilbo encountering a creature named Gollum. The interplay between Bilbo and Gollum is great as they exchange riddles, and you can feel the apprehension and gloom Bilbo must have been experienced during this encounter. Some of the scenes can be pretty tense for a young child, but all in all, this movie is just plain fun. I especially implore you to have your kids watch this movie so they can experience this fantastical adventure.
