Babel

Now, I like pretentious, wanky, artsy movies as much as the next guy but the movie Babel pushes even me to the limits.

I like movies that challenge but I can't help feeling Babel is just doing it to be considered "artistic". Being obscure just for obscurity's sake. Critics will say it delves into the nature of family relationships and of misunderstandings of language and culture. Blah, blah, blah. It made me want to put a gun into my mouth.

Babel is a depressing movie with moments that are damn near unwatchable (most notably the kids in the desert). It was painful to watch as a parent and I simply do not understand how it propels the story at all.

It has disparate story lines in 3 countries tied together with a common thread like Magnolia or more recently, Crash. I liked those movies ... this one I'm not so sure about.

I know it's trying to say something about synchronicity or causality but it does so little that would allow you to invest in the characters or to care about what happens to them.

I get that the story is supposed to make you feel unconfortable and maybe confused ... like the characters. It's about what can happen because of misunderstanding borne out of not listening or just because of differences in language. But just because I understand what the director was trying to do doesn't mean it's an enjoyable or even an enlightened experience.

Maybe some clue to the movie comes from the word Babel itself. From Wikipedia:

Babel is mentioned in Genesis 10:10 as the home city of Nimrod.

[10] And the beginning of his kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of Shinar. [11] Out of that land went forth Asshur, and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, [12] And Resen between Nineveh and Calah: the same is a great city. (KJV)
According to Genesis 11:1-9, mankind, after the deluge, travelled from the mountain where the ark had rested, and settled in 'a plain in the land of Shinar' (or Senaar). Here, they attempted to build a city and a tower whose top might reach unto Heaven, the Tower of Babel.

The attempt to build the Tower of Babel had angered God and in his anger, made each person involved speak a different language which ultimately halted the project and scattered and disconnected the people across the planet

It's not to say there are not great performances. Pitt's acting is as understated and mature as any he's done. Blanchett is great. Gael García Bernal, previously of the excellent movie The Motorcycle Diaries, is also good. The movie looks great and is shot in gorgeous locations. But it's all wasted because it's missing something ... I'm not sure what. Maybe heart?

I don't know how to rate it. It's either one of the most brilliantly original things that I've seen in awhile or it's an overwrought piece of crap in love with it's own cleverness. I may change my mind on this one. It would probably reveal itself better in a 2nd watching. But I'm not sure I have the patience or desire to do that.

Blood Diamond

I saw a really good movie Christmas night, Blood Diamond, starring Leonardo DiCaprio, Djimon Hounsou and Jennifer Connelly. It reminded me of two of my favorite movies, Killing Fields and Cry Freedom. In those movies, the story was told mostly through the eyes of the white outsider who befriends the oppressed native. It's not so much a criticism, but rather an observation. In many movies, it seems like that white role is added only to make the movie more palatable for a largely white audience. Of course, those two previous mentioned movies are based on real stories. This one is fictional but the problem of "conflict diamonds" is real.

From Wikipedia:

"A blood diamond (also called a conflict diamond or a war diamond) is a diamond mined in a war zone and sold, usually clandestinely, in order to finance an insurgent or invading army's war efforts." They have included Angola, Sierra Leone, The Ivory Coast and Liberia. International awareness has led to a reduction in the amount of conflict diamonds bought in the West, but they still exist and some have speculated that they have even had some part in funding of Al Qaeda.

DiCaprio is one of the best things about this film. His performance in this and Departed were outstanding. You see the arc of his character as he progresses from, what we assume, is a mercenary "make a buck" type to one who cares about the people affected by the sale of conflict diamonds. DiCaprio's maturation as an actor and the choices he has made in roles are admirable.

Hounsou, as always, is very good in his role. He's very passionate and believable as a father whose family has been torn apart by the rebels.

At times the Jennifer Connelly role (as an American journalist) seems superfluous. I suppose that you could justify it within the context of her role in exposing the diamond companies smuggling. But it sometimes seems to wander into the territory of being tacked on just for the sake of having a potential love interest. Her performance is fine and as always she looks stunning. I just wonder if you could have propelled the story without her.

The movie has a few moments of forced exposition of plot and message. Explanatory lines frequently come up inorganically. Movies about some of these important subjects have a tendency to do that because they assume, rightly so, that a large part of the audience does not know a lot about the subject. Of course, not all recent movies do that. For example, Syriana.

I liked the movie even if it did seem Hollywoody at times. But it didn't shy away from the gruesomeness of the violence or how shocking the behavior of child soldiers was. Also, it didn't try to paint just one group as the bad guys. Really everyone (including us) are complicit: governments, the factions in Africa, consumers, the media. I recommend this film. Grade: B+

Happy, Merry Hanu-Kwan-Mas and a Cool Yule

We're going to be out of town through Christmas and I won't be blogging for a few days but I thought I'd give as non-cynical an appraisal of it as this sarcastic, liberal humanist/atheist can.

Christmas is still a bit fun for me because I see the idealization of it through the eyes of my 5 year old. He brims with a joy that I can only imagine. Though he loves the idea of presents, when Santa at the mall asked him what he wanted, he wouldn't tell him anything specific because he said, "I'm always happy with whatever you bring me, Santa."

I like this part of the year because even people that you are not a big fan of ,or that you have had disagreements in the past with, will soften and wish you "Happy Holidays" and they will mean it. For a few weeks, most people are thinking about parties, family, helping out the local food shelter, etc. Yeah, it'd be nice if people thought about these things all year. But I'll take this time of year over no time of year.

Don't let the commercialization of the holidays suck the life out of the festiveness of it. I could care less about getting anything but I love giving others things. I love seeing friends. I love the food.

Don't let people tell you what the holiday is supposed to be about (including me) and don't let people tell you there is a "war" on it. If some people think it's about God, that's OK. If others think it's about the celebration of winter or anything else, that's OK too. People that shove down your throat what they feel it should be about have a lump of coal for a heart anyway.

I was reading my son a Christmas book when I put him to bed last night. A passage in it, though unapologetically corny, seems to sum it up for me (through the words of a young girl):

... Perhaps what we need is not one more toy.
Maybe it's something more simple - like joy.
The presents are great, and we both love to play,
But I think that the meaning of Christmas Day
Is ore about loving and less about things,
And the feeling that sharing and giving brings.
I know it's a lot, but here's what I wish,

... I hope that tonight as you fly in your sled
That all the worlds's children are safely in bed,
And are warm, and are dreaming dreams that are sweet,
And have plenty of love, and plenty to eat.

Oh Santa, dear Santa, I think what we need,
Is a world that is peaceful and not full of greed,
Where everyone cares about one another
As if each child were a sister or brother ...

So celebrate it in any matter you choose ... or if you choose not to, that's OK. But try to take a little of the happiness of it and extend it on past the start of the year.

I'm truly thankful for all of you (my blog friends). I enjoy your words. I hope I learn a little each day through the dialogues we have.

Happy Holidays to you all! I'll be back in a few days to start inundating you with boring year-end "best of's".

Bueller ...

Sorry for the long delay in posts. I've been getting slammed at work (in a good way) and just have not had the time.

CK's recent post on the "War on Christmas" is a good read. Never has such a pampered majority been so intent on casting themselves as the picked-on victims. Much as they would like to say that Christmas is only a religious holiday, you cannot deny it's secular significance. Christianity itself and Christmas owe more to non-religious and pagan rituals than they would care to admit. I, as a secularist and humanist, have every right to celebrate the holiday as I see fit.



CK's post reminded me of a Christmas rant, purporting to be by Ben Stein, "Confessions for the Holidays", that ended up in my Inbox this week and I got myself into a bit of a shitstorm because I took the time to point out to the sender (and the rest of my business referral group) that this message was not completely by who it claimed to be. It got under my skin for several reasons:

- It's yet another e-mail pushing the myth of the "War on Christmas"
- It's factually inaccurate
- It was sent using our group's group e-mail feature, which is supposed to be used for group business. Even if the e-mail was completely accurate as to its attribution, it is still not appropriate to send it in a business context.

The sender and several other people in the group believe that is OK because they agree with the sentiment that it pushed (regardless of the accuracy). I wonder if they would feel the same about the use of this feature if they disagreed with the viewpoint.

E-mails like this are sloppy. They are rarely by who they say they are by. It takes roughly 10 seconds to refute 99% of these. They ultimately say more about the person that forwards them than anything. Unfortunately, people that are sheep will not be as diligent with checking of facts when they hear something that reinforces their own prejudices. Going into anything with a preconceived notion is a dangerous thing ... just ask W.

And that is a lesson that any of us can take ... seek the truth even when it's unpleasant or difficult.

Jimmy Carter

Tuesday night was pretty cool because I got to meet my first ex-President ... Nobel Peace Prize winner Jimmy Carter. That is if you use a very loose interpretation of the word "meet". By "meet", I, of course, mean hanging outside for an hour with 1600 of your closest friends and then getting quickly shuffled through an assembly line that runs you past a table where he signs your book at record speed. He signs pretty damn fast for a 82-year-old man! At that age, he's writing books, touring the country, and apparently angering some Jews. At that age, I'll probably be drooling on myself and angering my relatives.



After signing the book, he did look up and gave a peaceful smile and I thanked him. The wait outside before the signing was actually quite fun as most of those in the line, as one would expect, are like-minded Dems. I had some very nice conversations with a 60-year-old union organizer and a nice mother with her teenage son. Overall, a nice night.

Women

An attorney friend (female) of mine sent this video. I couldn't help but think of my wife and Laura when I saw it ... two vocal and opinionated women (and we are better for it).



Too funny.

Cards 27 - Seahawks 21

Some pics of my first game in the new stadium.

Guns

This happened yesterday here in Phoenix:

The Arizona Republic
Dec. 8, 2006 09:20 AM

PHOENIX - A 2-year-old boy who was accidentally shot by his 9-year-old brother has died, authorities said Friday.

The older brother apparently was playing with a .357 handgun that belonged to his mother's boyfriend when he shot his younger brother, Eric Sanchez-Velasquez, said Phoenix Police Lt. Tracey Miller.

The boys' mother drove the wounded boy to a hospital. Eric was taken by helicopter to another Valley hospital, where he died about 11:25 p.m., authorities said.

The accident happened about 9 p.m. on the 18000 Block of 40th Avenue between Union Hills Drive and Bell Road. The older child took the firearm from a closet and was handling it when he fired and struck Eric, who was in the same room, investigators concluded.

The boys’ mother was at home at the time, but not in the same room when the shot went off, said Detective Stacie Derg, a Phoenix police spokeswoman. A third child, a 12-year-old girl, and a family friend who lives in the house were also home but not injured.

I could go on a long-winded and sourced rant about our country's love for firearms but frankly right now I don't have the patience. All that I want to do is scream and to slap the shit out of any moron that tries to tell me that about their inalienable "right to bear arms". You are scared, weak-minded people that try to compensate by owning guns. And who pays the price? Not you. No, it's two year old kids who pay with their lives and nine year old kids who will bear the guilt of what they should never have had to worry about doing for the rest of their lives.

Movie Review - Casino Royale

Though not as skeptical of Daniel Craig as a lot of Bond fans were, I was nonetheless curious how well he would fill the shoes previously inhabited by Connery, Moore, Dalton, Brosnan, etc. I'd previously seen Craig in Munich and Layer Cake, two outstanding movies. So I knew of his talent but it is not just talent that makes a perfect Bond. You must have an appreciation of the original source material (Ian Fleming's novels). You must have a ruggedness and cockiness that suggests an underprivileged upbringing and you must have raw sexuality. Sadly, only one of the previous Bonds had this ... Sean Connery. I liked the succeeding movies well enough but that was despite the Bond actors instead of because of them. Pierce Brosnan was probably the 2nd best in my eyes but even he was a little too refined and dandy to be a true Bond.

Daniel Craig is now my new 2nd best Bond and he passes all my tests of what a Bond actor should be. A lot of people had a problem when Craig was cast merely because he had blond hair intead of the classic dark hair. If that's the worst that can be said about him, he is doing well.

Casino Royale (loosely based on Ian Fleming's first Bond novel) does a great job of not only stripping down the Bond character to it's original elements but also the setting in which he works. The movies of the 80's and 90's relied too much on the cuteness and novelty of the gadgets that Bond would use. This movie has few, if any. The violence is gritty.

The plot from MovieWeb:

... CASINO ROYALE traces the early career of James Bond. His first "007" mission leads him to Le Chiffre, banker to the world's terrorists. In order to stop him and bring down the terrorist network, Bond must beat Le Chiffre in a high-stakes poker game at Casino Royale. Bond is initially annoyed when a beautiful Treasury official, Vesper Lynd, is assigned to deliver his stake for the game and watch over the government's money. But as Bond and Vesper survive a series of lethal attacks by Le Chiffre and his henchmen, a mutual attraction develops, leading them both into further danger and events that will shape Bond's life forever ...

The movie runs long (2 1/2 hours) but is fairly well-paced. It has some unique fight scenes with Jackie Chan-style gymnastics. The supporting cast fill their roles well, particularly the beautiful Eva Green as Vesper Lynd. She is a French-born actress previously seen in Kingdom of Heaven. Overall, I liked this movie quite a bit. It's a worthy reinventing of the Bond franchise. Grade: B+

Quick Hits

• Is it just me, or is this really ironic? -- Bush's $500 Million Library
  From Huffington Post:
  

  "...The idea of Uncurious George building a $500 million shrine to his disastrous presidency is the political equivalent of a whoopee cushion; a veritable laff riot. The punchlines write themselves:
  
  A George W. Bush Library? What's it going to house, 100,000 copies of The Pet Goat -- with some Shakespeares and a Camus thrown in for good measure?"

==================================================

• Let me get this straight ... a silver-spoon in his mouth legacy who partied through his military service has the gall to define the terms in which a proud father can speak of his son serving in Iraq? Bush, Webb in testy exchange over Senator-elect's soldier son
  W, you pompous ass. That would have been sweet if Mr. Webb had popped W in the chops. Someone needs to.

==================================================


• Speaking of pompous asses: High Court Divided on Warming.
  

  "When is the predicted cataclysm?" Scalia asked with some sarcasm.

  
  Justice Scalia, you ignorant slut. The very definition of an activist judge. His limitless ego now seems to give him power to decide scientific principles.

He Still Believes ...

Why Are Atheists So Angry?

Sam Harris on the Huffington Post:

While the religious divisions in our world are self-evident, many people still imagine that religious conflict is always caused by a lack of education, by poverty, or by politics. Yet the September 11th hijackers were college-educated, middle-class, and had no discernible experience of political oppression. They did, however, spend a remarkable amount of time at their local mosques talking about the depravity of infidels and about the pleasures that await martyrs in Paradise.

How many more architects and mechanical engineers must hit the wall at 400 miles an hour before we admit to ourselves that jihadist violence is not merely a matter of education, poverty, or politics? The truth, astonishingly enough, is that in the year 2006 a person can have sufficient intellectual and material resources to build a nuclear bomb and still believe that he will get 72 virgins in Paradise. Western secularists, liberals, and moderates have been very slow to understand this. The cause of their confusion is simple: They don't know what it is like to really believe in God.

The United States now stands alone in the developed world as a country that conducts its national discourse under the shadow of religious literalism. Eighty-three percent of the U.S. population believes that Jesus literally rose from the dead; 53% believe that the universe is 6,000 years old. This is embarrassing. Add to this comedy of false certainties the fact that 44% of Americans are confident that Jesus will return to Earth sometime in the next 50 years and you will glimpse the terrible liability of this sort of thinking.

Nearly half of the American population is eagerly anticipating the end of the world. This dewy-eyed nihilism provides absolutely no incentive to build a sustainable civilization. Many of these people are lunatics, but they are not the lunatic fringe. Some of them can actually get Karl Rove on the phone whenever they want.

While Muslim extremists now fly planes into our buildings, saw the heads off journalists and aid-workers, and riot by the tens of thousands over cartoons, several recent polls reveal that atheists are now the most reviled minority in the United States. A majority of Americans say they would refuse to vote for an atheist even if he were a "well-qualified candidate" from their own political party. Atheism, therefore, is a perfect impediment to holding elected office in this country (while being a woman, black, Muslim, Jewish, or gay is not). Most Americans also say that of all the unsavory alternatives on offer, they would be least likely to allow their child to marry an atheist. These declarations of prejudice might be enough to make some atheists angry. But they are not what makes me angry.

As an atheist, I am angry that we live in a society in which the plain truth cannot be spoken without offending 90% of the population. The plain truth is this: There is no good reason to believe in a personal God; there is no good reason to believe that the Bible, the Koran, or any other book was dictated by an omniscient being; we do not, in any important sense, get our morality from religion; the Bible and the Koran are not, even remotely, the best sources of guidance we have for living in the 21st century; and the belief in God and in the divine provenance of scripture is getting a lot of people killed unnecessarily.

I'm not sure where Harris got all his numbers, but they are basically in the ballpark. The "Jesus rose from the dead" number that I could find was closer to 75%. In any event ... scary stuff. If you said that 75% of Americans believe there are aliens, most people would think that the country was obviously delusional and that this country should not have control of a nuclear weapon. So, why is Jesus rising from the dead any different? The amount of proof for either is nonexistent. Some might even argue that there is more compelling evidence for aliens than for the Resurrection.

As Harris puts it, we are now "... a country that conducts its national discourse under the shadow of religious literalism". And this is "unique among wealthy democracies". This is while Japan and the U.K. are among the least religious societies on Earth. Allowing faith to govern you personally is fine. Everyone needs to come to their own truth through whatever path they choose. It's when that "dewy-eyed nihilism" by our leaders allows them to ignore global warming and to provide quaint solutions to the transmission of AIDS (abstinence-only) that we have a problem. Your personal beliefs are now jeopardizing my children and grandchildren. If you don't cash in the bet that you are making, you probably won't be around anyway. But your children and mine will be. And what kind of world will we be leaving them?

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." -- Stephen Roberts

Tipping Points

There's a great article in the latest Mother Jones on the different factors that color our planet's ability to respond to global warming. It's a long article and I won't include it here but there were some snippets that I found particularly interesting. The first is on how our station in life affects our views on global warming:

" ... found that Americans fall into "interpretive communities"—cliques, if you will, sharing similar demographics, risk perceptions, and worldviews. On one end of this spectrum are the naysayers: those who perceive climate change as a very low or nonexistent danger. Leiserowitz found naysayers to be "predominantly white, male, Republican, politically conservative, holding pro-individualism, pro-hierarchism, and anti-egalitarian worldviews, anti-environmental attitudes, distrustful of most institutions, highly religious, and to rely on radio as their main source of news." This group presented five rationales for rejecting danger: belief that global warming is natural; belief that it's media/environmentalist hype; distrust of science; flat denial; and conspiracy theories, including the belief that researchers create data to ensure job security." -- 2005 study by Anthony Leiserowitz, published in Risk Analysis

And the second on the need and the ability of our country to take action in the face of a threat:

"We also changed with breathtaking speed in 1941 when we recalibrated the entire economy of the United States in one short year to fight global enemies in Germany and Japan. The effort was promoted by the government but carried forward by individual citizens. Obviously, our powers of transformation are magnified by visionary leaders. Mahatma Gandhi's Salt March in 1930 ignited Indians of diverse religions, languages, and ethnicities to unite in the common cause of independence. Gandhi, in turn, inspired Martin Luther King Jr., Stephen Biko, Nelson Mandela, and Aung San Suu Kyi, who catalyzed their followers to change the world as well.

Leaders can rouse us against them, too. Whether or not Marie Antoinette actually said, "Let them eat cake," she inspired change that reverberated far beyond Europe. Likewise, when George W. Bush says we can't act on global warming until we "fully understand the nature of the problem," we can use his callous disregard as a rallying cry.

The truth is, we can change, and change fast, even in the absence of perfect knowledge. Like cockroaches, our hallmark is adaptability. Long ago, we looked out from the trees and saw the savannas. Beyond the savannas we glimpsed other frontiers. History proves that when we behold a better world, we move toward it, leaving behind what no longer works."

That's a recurring point with global warming naysayers ... waiting for "perfect knowledge". Or at least that is the reason they give. If they actually cared about having all the facts before taking action, they would have never invaded Iraq on a false premise. But in the case of global warming (and Iraq), they don't care what knowledge they have at hand. They will twist whatever data or testimony they have (from questionable sources) and use it to promote the policy that they have already decided on for other reasons. After all, we know who/what is really in control here -- (big) oil. If you needed any proof, Exxon Mobil is being allowed to influence what is considered science in our classrooms. They actually have the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) so scared that the organization is turning down a donation of 50,000 DVD's of An Inconvenient Truth:

Science a la Joe Camel

I'm sure I've overused Stephen Colbert's quote but it's so fitting -- "Reality has a well-known liberal bias". Conservatives will paint science as "left-wing" if it doesn't fit in with their worldview. That's a dangerous thing when it affects how our children are taught.

Sadly, it looks like it will take the courts to force any kind of action by a "see-no-evil" administration:

High court to hear global warming case

White House Sued for Not Doing Report on Warming

Work and Politics

I just about had a "Dixie Chick" moment the other day when I was at one of my long time clients. You know ... one of those moments where you say something that you believe but that may hurt you in the pocketbook later on.

While at clients, I really try to avoid political discussions or even talking about subjects that divert sideways into politics. It's not because I'm not passionate about politics or that I feel people shouldn't give their views. It's because I believe the exact opposite. I am afraid if somebody asks me point blank about some issue, I will not be able to stop myself from offering an opinion. And because of where I live, there is a high probability that my client is a conservative. While I don't care if they have a differing viewpoint (everbody's money spends the same), I can't rely on them being as understanding.

Anyway, we were talking about a seemingly innocuous subject, high-definition televison. He had mentioned that our local NBC affiliate, Channel 12, had recently started broadcasting in HD. I said that was cool but I hadn't had a chance to check them out because I rarely watching network television. Like a true Republican, he immediately took this to mean that I didn't watch it because network news has a "liberal bias". It's funny how most conservatives automatically believe everyone believes the way that they do. They are genuinely surprised when someone has the audacity to disagree with them. While I don't necessarily feel that network news has a "conservative bias", I do feel that by not asking the probing questions, they have have inadvertantly become mouthpieces for the administration. That is why I don't watch, but I kept that to myself because I didn't want to start anything. So, he takes my silence as agreement and gets confident he has a captive audience. He then says that the only unbiased news you can get is on FOX News. After audibly choking, I had to compose myself. Under my breath, I said something about FOX News being the MOST biased news source and quickly tried to change the subject. At that point, he understood he didn't have a disciple and he was anxious to change the subject also. I have known him and his wife for a long time (she was the realtor that handled a couple of our home sales) and we have a pretty good relationship. Neither of us wanted to mess it up with a silly political disagreement. But I can't assume that other newer clients of mine would look at it that way. So, I try to be careful.

I'm not going to "dance" for anyone. I've left jobs for what I believed in. But by the same token, I'm not going to purposely try to sabotage myself and piss off a client for a throw-away political point.


On the subject of FOX News, this was not the first time that a watcher of that channel has said something that indicated they believed it to be the most reliable source. Hello, people, here's a red sign: if a station has to tell you that it is "fair and balanced", it probably isn't. I'm not sure which is worse, FOX for saying it or the vast legion of automatons for believing it. If you need any more evidence of FOX's bias and eithical sliminess, look no further than these recent events:

"Fox memo is 'smoking gun' proof of bias against Dems"

Murdoch scraps OJ Simpson 'confession' show

Glendale Glitters

Hijinks with the family at Glendale Glitters (no relation to Gary Glitter).

Dixie Chicks concert -- 11-19-06

Often you go to a concert and come home wanting. Either they didn't play your favorite song or they didn't play long enough. Neither could be said about the Dixie Chicks concert Sunday night. This was in stark contrast to the Prince concert we went to a few years ago in the same venue. Despite being what most people would call one of the most prolific songwriters of all time, he only played for 90 minutes. The Dixie Chicks, with only 4 albums to their credit played over 2 hours. Most of the songs on the new album were played.

Looking at the crowd, it would not strike you as being a country crowd. I've been to country shows and these didn't look like your typical attendees. Obviously the band's appeal has crossed over into the mainstream both because of their music and their politics. But to sell the crowd short as being just a pop music crowd would be wrong too. Playing some of their early bluegrass and country tinged songs, like Long Time Gone, White Trash Wedding and Wide Open Spaces, the enthusiasm of the crowd was just as great.

I went into this show much like I believe the band did ... not knowing the reaction of the fans or how enthusiastic they would be. And I think they were pleasantly surprised by that reaction. If the several minute long raucous standing ovation after Not Ready to Make Nice was any indication, these fans came to support the Dixie Chicks. It wasn't just about the music, which was great, it was about what they believe in and what they have went through. The Dixie Chicks merely said what a lot of us had been thinking. By giving voice to this, they gave each of us a little courage that we could do the same. You would have had to have lived in a hole the last few years to not know the story of the Dixie Chicks. Whether you know the saga or not, check out their outstanding documentary, Shut Up and Sing, which we watched earlier in the day. From Peter Travers review in Rolling Stone Magazine:

Life in Bush America gets a blunt, honest telling in this documentary that makes you want to stand up and cheer without ever begging for tears or glib sympathy. Natalie Maines, the lead singer of the chart-topping Dixie Chicks, set off a shit storm at the start of the Iraq War in 2003 when she told a London audience, "We're ashamed that the president of the United States is from Texas." Maines joined Martie Maguire and Emily Robison -- the two sisters who founded the Texas band -- in a media attempt to straighten up without flying right. But a concerted right-wing effort to kill their radio play and concert appearances, especially in the South, had success. Barbara Kopple, who directed this movie firecracker with Cecilia Peck, has been chronicling threats to democracy since Harlan County, U.S.A. in 1977. And she gives due respect to Topic A: free speech. For three years, the camera focuses on the Chicks as wives, mothers, entertainers and political flash points. Their fight to stay uncompromised is inspiring. When Bush himself claims the Chicks have no right to complain about "hurt feelings," Maines lets out a terse "dumb fuck." Amen to that, sister.

In a matter of 90 minutes you can be both ashamed (of the lame redneck response to the Chicks' statement) and extremely proud to be an American because of the strength the band had to stick to their guns in the face of unbelievable controversy. The movie helped to give some context for a lot of the songs on the new album.

Ironically, a couple sitting in front of us at the show were there because their son gave them tickets, courtesy of the Dixie Chicks. Their son is Craig Hymson. He was a producer of Shut Up and Sing and also worked on Bowling for Columbine. They were a really nice couple and I couldn't help thinking to myself, "Why am I not that guy?". How cool is his job?! Instead of working on films and working for causes you believe in, I stick my head inside computers every day. Lame.

Forgive me for being a name-dropper, but the band Jimmy Eat World sat next to us. They're from the valley but have had some national exposure and recently toured with Green Day. Evidently the section we were in was mostly spots held for the Dixie Chicks themselves and VIP's.

The opening act was Bob Schneider, a blues rock artist. He was very good and incorporated a lot of influences including, jazz and reggae.

I could not have had a better time at a concert. This concert had been postponed from it's earlier Sept. 3 scheduled date. Having to wait that long and the building up of the show in my head over that time could have set me up for a huge disappointment. But the Dixie Chicks delivered on every level. They played great (yeah, a country band that actually plays and writes ... rare these days in Nashville), sounded great and were friendly and gracious.

Here are some pics and a review of the concert by our local paper.

Top 10 Albums

I have a little post-election political hangover. It's going to keep me from putting up any political posts for a good long time ... maybe 24 hours or so (grin). It's not a full-blown 6-tequila-shot-hangover. Perhaps a 6-beer-on-an-empty-stomach-hangover.

Anyway, to completely change the tone for a bit, I'm going to post my top 10 favorite albums of all time (OK ... 11. I couldn't cut it down any further) and I expect you guys to, at the least, skewer or complement my list. Ideally, you would also post your own either here or on your own blogs. No "Best Of's" allowed ... except maybe Legend by Bob Marley.

I'm going to do this in descending order so that I can force you to read them all or to be a ninny and skip to the last (for those people that read the last page of the book first).


11. Disintegration -- The Cure
In a word, it's the "atmosphere" of this album. While a lot of the lyrics are upbeat, the feel of the album is very consistently dark. The signature Cure guitar sound permeates it. Highlights for me are Pictures of You and Lovesong.

10. Taking the Long Way -- Dixie Chicks
This is a recent addition to my list. I've always been a fan of the Dixie Chicks for their music. I think Natalie Maines has one of the best voices in country music (2nd only to Allison Krauss for me). But with this album, they took it to the next level because of the political content. Writing or co-writing all the tracks on the album, these songs are teeming with the angst of the last few years. Obviously, Not Ready to Make Nice is a highlight but it is by no means the only one with biting content. Upbeat defiance would be the most apt description for most of these songs. We are going to see them in concert tonight and will also see Shut Up and Sing in the next few days. Reviews of both will be upcoming.

9. Vol 3: The Subliminal Verses -- Slipknot
This album is very evocative of another album higher on my list, Angel Dust by FNM. A 9 piece heavy metal band from my home state, Iowa, Slipknot had two previous albums that showed promise but that had major problems with tone and dynamics. They were basically one note albums that went at 100 mph from the get go. With this album, the band sat down with producer extraordinaire Rick Rubin (also the producer of the Dixie Chicks album on this list) and came out with a great album. Not confining themselves to the normal constraints of the genre, they allowed songs to be slower or longer when necessary. Other songs would show up early in the album and then have a reprise later. With this album, they escaped from the banner of being a gimmick masked band. My favorite songs are Before I Forget and The Nameless.

8. Jar of Flies -- Alice in Chains
Just an EP, this album was recorded in a week. It is the only EP to ever have been #1 on the Billboard Album charts. It is largely low-key and acoustic but it shows the strength of the band: Layne Staley's haunting vocals and the vocals and guitar work of Jerry Cantrell. I Stay Away is a highlight.

7. Angel Dust -- Faith No More
Faith No More were like chameleons during their career and this album is the perfect example of that with songs ranging from metal to funk to avant garde. Most people remember their big album (The Real Thing) but this album is much better, combining jazz, classical, rock in a crazy mix. Outstanding songs were A Small Victory and Midlife Crisis.

6. Rage Against the Machine -- Rage Against the Machine
The perfect synthesis of musical angst and political commentary. I don't believe any band has done a better job of combining the two. It ranges in subject matter from racism in law enforcement to Native Americans to government control of media. Even if you didn't agree with their politics, it would be hard to deny the power of the music. But with me, since I did agree with them, it was that much more profound. The best songs are Killing in the Name and Freedom.

5. Ten -- Pearl Jam
I believe that Pearl Jam was the best band to come out of Seattle in the early 90's and their first album is probably their best. Along with Nirvana's Nevermind, they effectively killed the late 80's hair metal revolution ... thank god. Because they refused to do videos and rarely did interviews after this album, many people assume they disappeared but they have been going strong ever since. Singer Eddie Vedder cited the fact that they didn't want to influence people's views of what each song meant and didn't want to project their own feelings on to the listener. The music was and always should be the focus. Black is my favorite track on this album. Vedder's lyrics are typically very poetic.

4. ... And Justice for All -- Metallica
This album jarred a shy nerdy high-school kid out of his fondness for new wave and pop music. An unblinking, dry and angry album, it opened a new world of music to me that would culminate in me eventually liking bands like Ministry, Skinny Puppy and Godflesh. That wouldn't have happened without this first step. And Justice for All addresses subjects like war, the environment, freedom and suicide. My favorite track is Dyer's Eve.

3. Nothing's Shocking -- Jane's Addiction
Brilliant and absolutely original. Nothing before or since as sounded like Jane's Addiction. Combining funk, metal and an arthouse feel, this album has no filler. It is solid from top to bottom. Jane Says and Mountain Song are my favorite tracks.

2. So -- Peter Gabriel
A haunting beautiful album with production from U2 producer Daniel Lanois. We all remember In Your Eyes from Say Anything but this album is all great. Oddly, probably the biggest single, Sledgehammer, is my least favorite. The guest artists on the album were incredible and lent their help to two of the best songs, Kate Bush on Don't Give Up and Yossou N'Dour on In Your Eyes.

1. Synchronicity -- The Police
This has always consistently been my favorite album and the Police my favorite band. They (and this album) were the perfect mixture of reggae, punk, literature and philosophy. On what other pop album would have references to Carl Jung, Loch Ness and Greek mythology? Highlights for me were King of Pain and Synchronicity II.

Organic Foods/Wal-Mart

Yep, I was just about to begrudgingly give Wal-Mart credit for greatly increasing their organic foods offerings. Although they were ultimately doing it for profit reasons, it was an opportunity to expose the masses to the benefits of eating organic. But like the earlier instance where Wal-Mart seemingly did something positive environmentally by promising to protect wildlife habitat for every store they build, the promise and the result are two different things. Ultimately, with Wal-Mart, it is about consumer perception and not a sense of real civic duty. And questioning where things come from (China, huge factory organic farms) doesn't seem to be high on the list of Wal-Mart's traditional demographic.

Wal-Mart Charged with Selling Nonorganic Food as Organic; Group Asks USDA to Fully Investigate Organic Product Misrepresentation

Quit shopping at this place. It's like buying a beer for your alcoholic uncle. By frequenting this place, you are an enabler. You're telling the owners of Wal-Mart that it is OK to make a profit at any cost ... wages, insurance, environment, truth be damned.

Speaking of enablers, retard Bill O'Reilly is applauding Wal-Mart for reinstating "Merry Christmas" as a greeting. It's part of his annual "War on Christmas" rant. Either he doesn't realize or he is ignoring the fact that Wal-Mart isn't doing it as a nod to Christians or "traditional" Christmas culture. Like every other decision Wal-Mart makes, they were doing it for a financial reason. Let's get portrayed as the "Christian" store and see the profits roll in. Is it any surprise that Wal-Mart is the 3rd largest contributor to the Republican Party? Pretending to be pious and screwing everything else for financial motives are part and parcel for them.

Of God and Men

I saw Richard Dawkins on C-SPAN tonight. I'd never actually seen him on TV. He was very thought-provoking and his new book, The God Delusion, is a must on my Christmas list ... if you'll forgive the irony of that. lol

He brought up an interesting point: There aren't actually "Christian children" or for that matter, "Muslim children" or "Jewish children". These are "children with Christian parents" or Muslim parents and so on. A child that is 3 or 4 years old has not made a conscious and informed choice to be of whichever religion. He/she is merely following the wishes of the parents. To project on a child those terms is more a reflection of your wishes than theirs. That is not to say that they won't come to that choice later on in life. And I am not suggesting that people shouldn't raise their children in their religion. Just don't call them what they can't possibly be yet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Speaking of religion -- and I will be speaking a lot on religion because of the probable diminished political fodder of a lame-duck presidency -- Campus Progress has a nice article on the historically progressive causes of evangelicals. Though written before the election, it anticipates the defection of some evangelicals during this election cycle because of those causes:

"Progressives have long represented many of the causes evangelicals care about most, including peacemaking, anti-poverty and anti-hunger work, and environmental stewardship. Many have come to think that evangelicals are only mobilized around social issues like abortion or opposition to gay marriage. But, in fact, the issues that inspire the Christian faithful to act have broadened as evangelicals partner with religious and secular progressives to strengthen today’s progressive movement."

Don't assume that a new Democratic majority will cozy up the Religious Right, but also don't assume that Democrats and progressives don't see the mutual good of addressing common causes. And not all liberals are godless like me. Sorry, Ann Coulter. Don't mean to disappoint you.

D-Backs

OK, I like the new uniforms. The purple and aqua ones had gotten a little old and didn't really fit in with the colors of the desert.

D-Backs new uniforms