Kinda random, but hey, then again, so is life. It's a brickolage of several of the blog postings I started, stopped and saved since my last posting, which was over four months ago. What can I say? I've been busy. But, here's a list of things with no apparent connection which I've been thinking on over the past four months.
10) Dropping off the face of the earth for four months. I keep on hearing the same thing from a handful of people - where have you been? Why haven't you e-mailed or called me? Sorry about that - got a little too wrapped up with my own stuff over the past four months, and didn't bury myself out until recently. I'll be better about that stuff in the new year.
9) Sarah Palin's push for a Constitutional Amendment. This comes from a blog posting from mid-October, right towards the end of the presidential campaign. The posting never saw the light of day, but I liked this one, so I'm including it here. I didn't change the verb tense - this is in reaction to an interview I saw with Palin on CNN, I think. This also could be labeled as "My goodness, the Republicans really are getting desperate, aren't they?". In a recent interview (should know who she interviewed with, as the fact that she gave an interview is rare), did you see what Sarah Palin supported as a new Constitutional Amendment? Huge shock here - an amendment which defines marriage as being between a man and a woman. This does make me scratch my head in three ways. The first is the "careful" wording of the statement - what a load of crap. How stupid does she and the Republican party think people are? This isn't a way to "define" marriage, it's a way to ban gay marriages. Second, real original here, Palin. Let's use the same scare tactic that Bush, Cheney, and Rove used in 2004 to galvanize the base. Before you chide me for being too harsh on this being a scare tactic, look at what W. did (or, more fittingly, did not do) after winning the 2004 Presidential election. If this was such a big deal to him and his base, why, then, didn't W. pursue this over the past four years? Seemed awfully convenient to use at the time, though. Thirdly, given my four year stint in a very red state, I came to know and understand the positions of people who can truly call themselves conservatives. From my understanding, most conservatives aren't really too fond of government mandates which curtail people's individual rights, and this certainly fits the bill. This, to me, is clearly wanting to have your cake and eat it too - it appeals to neo-cons who like to blend their conservative moral beliefs with their politics, which most of the die-hard conservatives I know don't like to do.
8) Super Bowl pick: Arizona Cardinals versus Pittsburgh Steelers. The conference championships are going on as we speak, but I have yet to peek at the scores. But, if you'll notice, the teams in football and baseball championships are eerily similar. It's not that the same city/state will have teams in both championships, but rather, team types seem to remain the same. The 2008 World Series, if you remember, was the Tampa Bay Rays, the Cinderalla squad of the American League East, versus the Philadelphia Phillies, a perennial contender in the NL East over the past few years who finally made it. The Steelers are, of course, a perennial contender, and nobody expected the Cardinals to make the playoffs, much less be in the championship game. Super Bowl 42 winner: Steelers. Cinderella stories only happen in the movies, and in the American Upper Midwest.
7) Slumdog Millionaire will win the Oscar for Best Picture. The writing is on the wall already. This, in my opinion, is an even safer bet than Heath Ledger winning a best supporting actor Oscar for "The Dark Knight." I'll get my Oscar picks in when they're announced, but, as far as the surprise winner of the night goes, look to the Best Actor category - I'm giving Frank Langella ("Frost/Nixon") the ever-so-slight nod over Mickey Rourke ("The Wrestler").
6) European literari are snotty bastards, but then again, it may be us giving ourselves a bad rap. Another old one, but hey .... I don't know if you had the chance to see who won this year - it's some obscure French poet (the guy across the hall from me is a French literature scholar, and he's barely familiar with him. So, it's kind of a small reputation - maybe he's big in France). But, one of the key figures/leaders from the Nobel Laurate committee didn't exactly have nice things to say about American authors winning the Nobel - our literary view, according to him, is too narrow in scope, as it only focuses on the here and now (present day America), and doesn't address the universal and eternal (human condition/metaphysical angle, I'd imagine). My initial reaction was to tell this Euro-snotbag off - insert something about an old, archaic culture that can only remain relevant on the world stage by being insular- but, after seeing the American authors who've been nominated in the past few years, I think he may have a point. This took me by surprise - when I think of those American authors deserving of the Nobel, I think of Pynchon (even though he probably wouldn't go), DeLillo, McCarthy, Mamet, Didion. Those five, even though they do focus on American ideas and concerns, seem to me to be more universal (human condition/metaphysical approach). The two names popping up as being the most nominated writers: Joyce Carol Oates and Philip Roth. Huh? Really? I've read a couple of books from both authors, and I must say, I really wasn' t impressed by either. I mean, the novels were good, but I didn't get the big deal. So, maybe next time, American nominators, throw in Pynchon or Didion, maybe DeLillo - major authors as opposed to minor ones. That, and I must say, it's inexplicable how four authors - Milan Kundera, Salman Rushdie, Margaret Atwood, and Umberto Eco - aren't Nobel laurates. Over the past seven years or so, some big names deservedly won the prize - Doris Lessing, Octavio Paz, Gunther Grass, and J.M. Coetzee. How about we give the prize first to older authors with solid, long-standing literary reputuations before giving them to the soup-de-jour?
5) Thoughts on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame inductees for 2009. What struck me was the two first-timers on the list, two pioneers in their respective genres: Run DMC and Metallica. Both got in this year, as I think both should. It's not really a big fan of either, but, given how rap and heavy metal have influenced almost all of the other rock and roll genres over the past twenty or so years, they should get in. But, I'd still like to see Rush just get nominated; no clue why they're not in. That, and if you think about it, there are a lot of big name bands/acts that aren't in. In addition to Rush, why aren't Duran Duran, Heart, Pat Benatar, The Cure, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Kiss, among others, not in? I'll concede that it may be because these bands may be perceived to be too popular in their day, and kind of kitschy in our contemporary eyes, but that doesn't stop the Hall from inducting old doo-wop acts from the 50s and 60s who may have had only a hit or two. I know that the initial criteria for induction is twenty-five years after the date of your first major label release, but if the Bee Gees, Iggy and the Stooges (like me some Iggy Pop, but I do have to admit that band was relatively minor in the grand scheme of things), Little Anthony and the Imperials, and Martha and the Vandalas are in, the bands listed above should get in as well.
4) Why use a list of ten instead of a lower number? That's what I'm starting to think now, as I'm starting to run out of juice. But, ten is such a nice round number.
3) I've become addicted to burning mixed CDs. I'm a child of the 80s, so I loved me my mixed tapes (hence the name). I am truly digging this. Over the past four months (which doesn't really work as an excuse for my lack of communication - mixed CD alert!!!! Title of a crappy old Ratt song!), I've made a total of five mixed CDs (not many, I'll concede), but seeing what's out there is pretty cool. I've yet to walk completely down memory lane and burn myself a killer 1980s CD - I've been stuck in my prolonged college career (early 90s through current), and have been burning alt-rock, hard rock and hip hop stuff that I don't own. My favorite nuggets so far - Ice Cube's "Wicked" (which I saw him do at Lollapolloza in 92 - great track), the Presidents of the United States's "Peaches" (goofy song, but I still like it), Rancid's "Ruby Soho" (always had a soft spot for that one), Sonic Youth's "Sugar Kane" (like the ecletic SY sound, but can only take it in small doses), Scissor Sisters' "Take Your Mama" (love that song), and a bevy of Foo Fighters songs - "Road to Ruin," "The Pretender," "Everlong," "Monkey Wrench," and so on. I've had mixed reactions to Foo CDs - great songs balanced with the truly crappy. They haven't had a best of CD yet, so I made one of my own. In case I'm not around and/or answering the phone or email, I may be burning a disk. That, and hopefully this turns into a nice segue - feel free to vote on the quintessential 80s song that should be on anyone's 80s mixed cd in the poll to your right. I've got my strong feelings, but then again, children of the 80s, so should we all.
2) I've done something which I never thought I'd do. I've recently joined Facebook. Never thought I'd do that - it seemed to hip and trendy, and seeing how I'm neither, I thoughht it would be best to avoid it. But, I figured what the hell - I still don't have access to a digital camera, so there are no pictures as of now, but, hopefully in the near future. So far, I've got people I knew in all levels of my schooling - grade school, high school, BA, MA, and PhD, listed as friends. Kind of a cool thing, but outside of placing the random observations on people's walls, I don't get the point. Can one pick up women on these things? Dare to dream.
1) My New nephew - Henry Ronald, born 10/15/08, 6:15ish PM, 7 pounds, 3 ounces, lots of black hair. One of the reasons I've been off the radar is because of the Hammer - my new nephew Henry. He's already one of his Uncle Dan's favorite people - I've got a picture of him below, which hopefully works. His mom took the picture, so the picture is sideways (and he wasn't). But, his favorite thing to do with Uncle Dan so far is try to have a conversation - I'll talk, and he'll gurgle, make "mmmmm" sounds with his mouth, and move his lips.
Yup, you'll have to turn your head - I can't figure out how to move the picture. But, this is Henry from a month ago, wearing his favorite hat and gumming his nook to death. Cute little guy, isn't he?
No comments:
Post a Comment