Thinking Blogger Award

It seems once again I've been hit with an Internet meme, although this time it seems slightly more meaningful than the annoying adolescent fluff currently plaguing MySpace bulletins and YouTube message boards. Sometime earlier today, Aspazia of Mad Melancholic Feminista saw fit to choose me as the recipient of one of her five Thinking Blogger Awards, causing me to blush so furiously my computer screen fogged up (well, okay, not quite, but I was quite flattered). In keeping with my responsibility as a recipient, I will post my own five Thinking Blogger Awards below. But first, the rules:

1. If, and only if, you get tagged, write a post with links to 5 blogs that make you think
2. Link to this post so that people can easily find the exact origin of the meme, and

3. Optional: Proudly display the 'Thinking Blogger Award' with a link to the post that you wrote (here is an alternative silver version if gold doesn't fit your blog).

And for my Thinking Blogger Awards, I tried to showcase blogs that exemplified the best in blogging on all three of my favorite topics: music, film, and politics (or "life" as I so metaphysically put it above). However, upon re-evaluating, I decided that there are few blogs on music and film (that I know of) that actually make me think in deep, complex ways (there are even viewer that use capitals) and so I didn't feel comfortable adding any of them. However, my first pick listed below does combine all three of the aspects I mentioned.

MINDSPEAK.COM Blog: Jeremy dePrisco describes himself as a "composer, writer, technology hound", and, my favorite, "critic of what we've become". This eclectic list of personal descriptions does well to illustrate the eclectic content of his blog, which eloquently speaks of topics as diverse as sitar-playing, stomp-box construction, and the never ending battle between Star Wars and Lord of the Rings. Posts are relatively rare, but always worth the wait.

A Poetic Justice: I normally find blogs-in-verse rather hard to read and fairly tedious, but there's something about the ThePoetryMan's moving political poetry and intricate digital collages that makes this blog really speak to me.

Punk Ass Blog: This blog I discovered from Aspazia's Blogroll, and have found myself returning to it often for further tastes of its perfect blend of social-political rage and quick-witted satirical comedy. And who can't love a blog that consistently publishes posts that are at the same time uproariously funny and bitingly political?

Liberal Street Fighter: The first time I viewed this blog, the first thing I saw was a Calvin and Hobbes strip involving a certain figure sculpted out of snow. Then, I looked down and saw System of a Down's "Prison Song" listed as the author's No. 1 "beloved tune." Enough said. This blog rocks.

Baghdad Burning: I can only imagine that this blog by young Iraqi blogger Riverbend has already been given this award (multiple times, probably), but I just can't resist honoring her again. This moving, eloquent, wonderfully written blog offers a young Iraqi prospective on religious fundamentalism, the new Iraqi government, Bush, the U.S occupation, and everything that affects Riverbend's day to day live as a young woman in Baghdad. This is one of the blogs that really cemented my interest in blogging.



Thanks to everyone, especially Aspazia!

The Police Reunion!! (And a Little "Roxanne")

As anyone who came in contact with me today will say, I spent most of the day humming this song in my high, painfully pinched Sting voice. Alright, I wasn’t humming. I was singing. Loudly, and in a voice I usually reserve for Cheap Trick. Anyway, I thought I would let you guys hear the song the way it is meant to be heard: sung in Sting’s “my-spandex-is-too-tight” whine and backed by Stuart Copeland’s frantic, energetic drumming and Andy Summers’s subtle, tasteful guitar work. And, of course, played from a broad, well-lit stage to a crowd of cheering Grammy viewers.

Unfortunately, they only played this one song, following the No. 1 rule in show buisness and leaving their audience wanting more. Mercifully (to those few music fans who, like me, somehow managed to miss the Grammys), a world tour is now in the works. Copeland reportedly said to Rolling Stone, “We’re going to come out and burn down the world. We’re going to enslave your children, rape and pillage across the world.” Let me join Rolling Stone in saying “Yes!”

The Unseen: Some Words on Punk

I have a huge stack of magazines, most of them music journals or punk fanzines, that sit in a precariously balanced pile in my basement gathering dust. Occasionally, mostly when avoiding homework or procrastinating, I pick one up. However, rarely do I find anything interesting. Rarer still do I find something that genuinely impresses me, something that makes me nod and think "That's exactly what I believe!" This is one of those increasingly rare finds. And how appropriate that it should come in the form of an op-ed by Tripp, the bassist for Boston punk band the Unseen, who's music has often caused me to nod in the same way I did as I read his piece (if slightly more violently). This piece Tripp wrote addresses issues of conformity, homophobia, and the "punker-than-thou" mentality among modern punk fans: issues I have often contested in the calm, safe world of blogs and in the secure environment of online message boards. Tripp, however, lives his massage, sings about it, and tattoos his skin with it. And for this I congratulate him.

--The below was originally published on p.18 in AP (Alternative Press) #211, released in February of 2006--

EDITOR'S NOTE: Some people call punk an attitude, others swear it's a musical style; and a handful more, such as Boston street-punk road warriors THE UNSEEN, are too busy living it to worry about fitting into anyone's rulebook. And while you'd think it would be easy to go against the grain in a scene that was founded on just that idea, you've probably never had to deal with the sort of sniping and backbiting that these guys put up with every time they read their e-mail. This month, during a rare break from touring in support of the Unseen's late Hellcat album, State of Discontent, bassist Tripp issues a wakeup call.

"WTF: YOU GUYS USED TO RULE BUT YOU SUCK NOW. YOU'RE TURNING INTO EMO FAGS! QUIT RUINING PUNK ROCK..." This is a typical example of the hate mail we in the Unseen receive on a semi-regular basis. All the letters say essentially the same thing, and about 90 percent of them use the term "emo fags" or the more-to-the-point "faggot" (as well as a lot of really bad grammar), in their ranting. I'm not sharing this to evoke sympathy; I'm sharing it to prove a point about our subculture and its tendency to preach equality while turning a blind eye to homophobia.

As a member of a band for the past 12 or so years, I understand that every time you release something to the public you make yourself a target for abuse. I also know that my band has evolved over the years, both musically and in terms of how we look, and I'm well aware that this is going to rub some fans the wrong way. While I do expect backlash from some people, the excessive use of the word "faggot" in their complaints sickens me.

A majority of these e-mails are centered on reoccurring topics. People don't like the fact that we've signed to a bigger label or have made a few videos, and to a certain extent I understand their frustration. Some kids don't like the fact that we don't look the same today as we did 10 years ago. It's not Scott's fault he went bald and can no longer grow a Mohawk, or that I'm at a point in my life where I no longer fell it necessary to decorate every square inch of my clothing with the logos of 20-year-old bands. Sorry, kids, but people change.

While I don't fully understand this fashion-conscious mentality, I accept the fact that people find fault with us over it, and I still manage to sleep at night. What really sickens me is that these people accuse us of selling out their subculture and then use homophobic terminology to drive home their point. Call me whatever insult you can muster from you glue-addled teenage brain, but if you're going to blame us for ruining an entire subculture, please do so within the accepted language and social structures of your precious little "open-minded" scene. I mean, if you're so worried about the sanctity of your spiky-haired utopia, why do you sound like every other redneck, racist asshole who perpetuates the same fucked-up society you claim to oppose?

Like any other freethinking, mildly intelligent human being, I believe that being gay or lesbian is a perfectly acceptable lifestyle, it's no different than being born black, white, rich, poor, American, Iraqi and so on. And as punks, we all learned from our record collections that judging people on these traits alone is wrong, right? Why then, is one form of derogatory speech so openly accepted in our subculture, which claims to value personal freedom so much? How is it that sentences like 'I used to like them, but they're all emo fags now" can be typed hundreds of times without censorship in punk-rock message boards, but if someone were to say they don't like a band anymore because "they're all filthy Jews now" they'd (hopefully) be run out of their local scene?

Speaking out passionately against racism, sexism and classism while openly walking all over the personal rights of another minority isn't just stupid; it's detrimental to our movement and how others perceive us. If you want people to respect your views and yet you contradict yourself in the statements you make, it's no wonder the rest of the world doesn't take punk seriously when we try to voice an opinion beyond our love for getting wasted and hating the police.

Ignorance is a horrible part of human nature, and it will never go away. However unpleasant a thought this may be, I feel it's the truth, and I have come to terms with it. But what isn't a part of our collective damaged psyche is hypocrisy, which I find even more offensive then ignorance itself. The ignorant man is the one who acts appallingly, passes judgement on others different than himself, but through stupidity or upbringing doesn't seem to know any better. The hypocrite is a person who condemns the ignorant man while being to lazy to realize his self-righteousness is completely backward and just as offensive. Being too dumb or preconditioned to understand how your actions hurt others is one thing, but being capable of rational thought and preaching against the ills of exclusion, and then turning around and doing it yourself, is fucking inexcusable.

I am in no way implying that all punkers talk like this; in fact, I'm convinced that it's a small minority of people within our scene who go out of their way to call strangers "faggots" over the computer. Unfortunately, the anonymity the internet provides only helps these closeted bigots spread their filth without fear of reprisal, thus ensuring it's not going anywhere any time soon. But that doesn't mean we have to accept it.

Homophobic speech may be common in George Bush's America, but that doesn't mean it's not offensive or vile, and I would expect punks to be the first people to understand that. Forty-five years ago, the word "nigger" was used freely by people of all colors, and only through education, understanding and hard struggle did America learn to see the error of its ways. The same thing will be proven for other minorities of this country, from Muslims to homosexuals. In my opinion, you're either part of the solution or part of the problem, and I would expect our "socially-aware" subculture to act accordingly. Years ago, I would have said with unconditional resolve that I knew where most punks stand on civil rights issues; now it saddens me to say that I'm not so sure.

Wow, you read all the way to the end. You rock! I want to mention that all textual errors in the above piece have remained intact out of respect to the author.

Martin Scorsese: The Departed

I think we can all agree that Martin Scorsese is responsible for three of the best gang films of all time. After explorations into the genre with 1972's Boxcar Bertha and 1973's tragically unrecognized Mean Streets, he released his first truly great crime masterpiece in 1990 with Goodfellas, the violent, profane portrait of mob informer Henry Hill. And after further explorations into his motifs of guilt/redemption and mock-machismo in films like the hyper-violent Casino (1995) and almost amusing Bringing Out the Dead (1999), he released 2000's Gangs of New York, a high-budget, high-risk film about Civil War era New York and the gang violence occurring in the Five Points. And now we have The Departed, a modern gang masterpiece chronicling the rise and fall of (fictional) Irish mob boss Jack Costello.

The Departed opens with Jack Nicholson (brilliant in the role of the deranged Costello) explaining, in a think Boston accent, his mantra to the audience. "Nobody's ever gonna give it to ya. You have to take it." And it is this philosophy, this belief, that the film follows to the letter. The film follows the story of two "rats", one of whom (Matt Damon) is a protege of Costello that has infiltrated the State Police Special Investigations Unit, and the other of whom (Leonardo DiCaprio) is a ex-police cadet and undercover agent raised poor and desperate in Boston who rises in the ranks of the local mob. On the surface, the stories are strictly parallel-- opposite stories of good and evil. But it is more complex than that. As we watch DiCaprio savagely beat and mutilate "Mafia guineas" from Rhode Island while at the same time observing Damon meeting his future finance, the lines between good and evil, law and crime, become blurred, until what the film is left with is a wonderful tension, a sense of overwhelming desperation that slowly overcomes both the characters of Damon and DiCaprio, until it ceases to matter what is right or what is wrong. It only matters that they survive.

As the film progresses, the stories of the two characters become more intertwined and less parallel. Damon's finance becomes first DiCaprio's shrink and then his lover, DiCaprio's only contact at police headquarters becomes an obstacle to Damon's work inside the organization, and finally, it becomes clear that they are really hunting each other. DiCaprio is assigned to find the rat in the Special Investigations Unit and Damon is assigned to find the rat in Jack Costello's crew. As the scenes become more climactic and the sets darker and more menacing, one profoundly frightening thing becomes clear. The two charecters are, in essence, searching for themselves. Just on opposite ends of the scale.

Tension is everywhere in this film. Whether during a profoundly terrifying scene in which mob-boss Nicholson confronts DiCaprio about the suspected informer or during Damon's first date with his finance, the sense of tension is beautifully conveyed in the the gifted camera work, in the screenplay, and in the actors' inspired portrayals of their characters. And it is this, this terrifying tension that sucks a viewer in until they feel the fear of the characters on screen. And it is this, this expression of pure, animal fear, that makes a gang movie. Not car chases, not gun-fights, not scenes of drug use and debauchery, but the subtle, constant feeling of fear. And in this, the film succeeds.

SERIOUSLY?!

Which is more horrifying? To you? To America?

Pan's Labyrinth (El Laberinto del Fauno)

Guillermo del Toro's latest film Pan's Labyrinth (El Laberinto del Fauno) has been heralded as the "new Lord of the Rings" and "a new masterpiece in fantasy." But to characterize it as such is not only to misrepresent the story, but also to miss the point of the film completely. What Pan's Labyrinth is is a masterpiece in modern magical realism, a story that neatly draws parallels between the real world and the magical, and then, as the story goes on, dissolves the barriers between the two worlds until they have, in the viewers' minds, become one and the same. The "real world" that exists in Pan's Labyrinth is Spain post-civil war, a time when bands of rebel guerrillas violently oppose the fascist regime of Fransisco Franco, resulting in bloodshed and even more tyrannical practices so as to cripple the rebel forces. The "magical world" that exists is a dazzling world psychologically inhabited by Ofelia, a young girl experiencing the horrors of war and retreating from them into a land of dream-like fantasy that at the same time envelops her, comforts her and shelters her from the horrors being committed by the Captain, her mother's fascist husband running an outpost ruthlessly hunting rebels in a rural area of Spain. The stories fight with one another for screen time over the course of the entire film, just as they fight for time in Ofelia's mind, and, as Ofelia retreats further into her dream-like world of fantasy, they begin to collide, effecting each other in magical, catastrophic ways. (Ofelia, incidentally, is played to absolute, tear-jerking perfection by then 11-year-old actress Ivana Baquero.)

And as is exemplified by such masterful authors as Gabriel Garcia Marquez and Mario de Andrade, for a story to be effective in a magical realist setting, the two conflicting elements, magic and mundane, need to be reliant upon each other. They need to not only offer parallels between one another, but they need, in a very direct way, to add to their opposing element. One can not merely highlight the other: they need to both become part of one narrative so as to convey a complete storyline. And it is in this aspect of the story that del Toro truly shines. Lift the magical elements from the movie and you are left with nothing more than a one-dimensional, mildly thought-provoking film that half-heartedly struggles with the issues of tyranny and violence. And lift the realism from the magic, you are left with the shallow love child of Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings that dosen't struggle with real world issues but neatly sidesteps them to create a mildly pointless story. However, when the stories are combined, the serve to create a film that is at the same time frightening and comforting, horrifying and amusing, and never shys away from offering a full portrait of the trauma of war on a child.

So Pan's Labyrinth is not the next Lord of the Rings, nor is it even a fantasy. It is a cinematic snapshot, a painting in film, of a wartorn nation and a young girl's interpretation of it. And it is beautiful.

(Plus, the special and cosmetic effects are amazing...)

9-11 Revisited: World Trade Center Building 7

Once in a while, when surfing the Internet, there is something I find that falls into the "Holy F__k!" category of information. This is one of these things. If I were religious I'd pray on it, if I were important I'd speak about about it, but I'm not. So I'll blog it.

September 11, 2001 was a day immortalized when World Trade Center 1 and World Trade Center 2 fell due to a "series of coordinated terrorist suicide attacks by Islamic extremists." (Wikipedia) Of course, these two buildings were by no means the only ones effected, as burning rubble and debris showered down from the falling towers, initiating numerous smaller fires below.

All eight of the World Trade Center buildings were (and continue to be) arranged in a plaza, with WTCs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 8 forming a circular shape and WTC 7 sitting directly across the street. And at 5:20 PM EST, several hours after Towers 1 and 2 fell, WTC 7 collapsed, due to what was officially explained as a structure fire caused by falling debris.

However, as detailed by the below videos, it seems impossible that it was a mere structure fire that caused the building to fall. For one thing, never before and never since has a fire in a steel framed building like WTC 7 caused the total collapse of a building, (see video 1) and has certainly never caused a building to collapse in the manner that WTC 7 collapsed. As can be seen clearly in the below videos, WTC 7 collapsed straight down (as did the other trade centers, by the way), meaning that when it fell it landed entirely in its own footprint. For this to occur, every one of the load bearing members on the ground floor would have had to have failed at exactly the same time, suggesting the deliberate detonation of an explosive device. As can be seen in the bellow photographs, when a building collapses normally and only one of the load bearing members fails, the building tips or rotates on the initiating point, leading to a tilt or lean. What the collapse of WTC 7 indicates is a controlled demolition (See video 2).

"The photos [above] are of buildings collapsed by an earthquake. They show the typical result of a single load bearing member failure - the buildings are tipped over onto the initiating point." (The above photos and caption are copied and pasted directly from http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html. Visit their site for more images, videos, and information regarding the fall of World Trade Center 7.)

When a tall building in a densely populated area is collapsed, this demolition is triggered by an explosion in the center of the buildings basement. This creates a shock wave that rocks the entire building, and causes it to collapse directly downward, thus not effecting nearby buildings (See the below videos). As can be heard in Video 2, passersby reportedly heard a loud cracking sound "like thunder," and witnessed fire spreading through several lower floors of the building. Also, as can be seen in both the videos, think streamers of smoke, much like that that emits from a controlled explosion, rose up from the bottom of the building (see below photo). Scarier still, the roof of WTC 7 can be seen crumbling just before the collapse, indicating that a powerful shock wave from inside the building, and not falling debris, caused the building's fall.

"Half-way through Building 7's 6.5-second plunge, streamers suggestive of demolition charges emerged from the facade." (Photo and caption from http://www.wtc7.net/)

Said CNN's Dan Rather of the occurrence, "Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.” (See video 2)

As should be obvious, terrorists could not have created this explosion, and so could not have initiated the building's collapse. A demolition of this size would require weeks, even months of preparation in a central, fairly visible section of a highly trafficked building. Needless to say, this implies profoundly frightening things as to the nature of what officials knew and didn't know prior to the terrorist attacks.

It has also been stated that it was Mayor Giulliani's storage of Diesel fuel in WTC 7 that led to the collapse, not a controlled explosive device. However, this scenario is unable to explain why it is that every single load bearing member on the ground floor failed simultaneously.

Most telling of the evidence, however, comes in the form of a brief (accidental?) statement from Larry Silverstein, the owner of the World Trade Centers at the time of the attack (NOTE: This statement can be heard about halfway through Video 2.) Silverstein speaks of how he chose to initiate the collapse because of the "risk of fire." If this is the case, why is it that Silverstein chose to collapse only WTC 7, the World Trade Center building farthest away from WTC 1 and 2? And why is it that the official explanation of the building's collapse is a structure fire?

Maybe Larry Silverstein has an answer. Says Silverstein "and I said...'maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it'...and they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse." Since the demolition of WTC 7, Silverstein's insurers are set to provide $861 million in financial reimbursement FOR JUST THAT SINGLE BUILDING. Silverstein's debt on the property less than half that, at $383 million. (http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7.html)

Please continue to learn about this subject by clicking on some of the links at the very bottom of this post. Also, if you know any further information, it will be greatly received. Thanks!


VIDEO 1


VIDEO 2

FOR MORE IMPORTANT INFORMATION, PLEASE VISIT--

http://www.wtc7.net/

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/attack/wtc7.html

http://www.rense.com/general47/pulled.htm

More information can be easily found through a simple Google Search. Thanks!

James Brown: Godfather of Soul, Forefather of Funk

When music legend James Brown died on Christmas Day of 2006, former president Gerald Ford followed just two days after, allowing an interesting phenomenon to occur. On television, viewers were shown endless footage celebrating the legacy of Gerald Ford, while radio listeners were rewarded with almost constant music and talk celebrating the legacy of James Brown. And honestly, it was hard for me to feel that Gerald Ford had made any greater contributions to American society than Brown.

You can say what you want about Brown's abuse of women, his mistreatment of his bands, and his egotistical antics. You can say what you want about his family, his debauchery, and his adultery. But the fact remains that as a performer and musician, he paved the way for black artists to follow and provided intelligent, danceable songs of liberation and empowerment ("Say It Loud, I'm Black and I'm Proud", "The Payback") that became anthems of pride and comfort for young black communities all over the country. He invented funk by changing the focus of soul music from its melody to its rhythm, and mentored bassist Bootsy Collins who would go on to define funk with Parliment/Funkadelic. He layed the ground for hip-hop by providing easily sampled musical climaxes in such songs as "Please, Please, Please" and "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag." And what all of these innovations did was allow a new kind of music to emerge. A kind of music that was black, poor and proud of it. And regardless as to whether that pride emerged as a slap-happy bass-line in a George Clinton song or in the beatboxing of a thousand black youth, it was there. And remains today in the hearts of young black people all over the nation, and on the Top 40 charts.

So R.I.P James Brown. You've earned it, no matter what people say.




This is James Brown's now legendary appearance on The T.A.M.I Show in 1964, where he brought his music to thousands of white television viewers, dancing and singing with such enthusiasm that the Rolling Stones were reportedly afraid to follow him!

The Death Penalty and the American Justice System

Alfonso Rodriguez Jr, the 53-year-old North Dakota man who made history in 2001 for raping and killing a college student, was sentenced to death today, an event that led me to reflect on the death penalty and the American criminal justice system. As someone constantly trying to make sense of the world around me, there are few convictions that I am as steadfast in and as sure of as my opposition to the death penalty. Part of this comes from a rather libertarian standpoint; I feel that under no circumstances should the state have so much utter control over a person that they can decide whether he lives or dies.

I am also a firm believer in rehabilitation as the purpose of imprisonment. Unfortunately (while it is a popular opinion, and is officially an objective of the United States Prison System) this is not at all what prisons accomplish in reality. Repeat offenses are skyrocketing and reports of prisoner cruelty and hardship are abundant. And aside from the antique and outdated concept of parole, absolutely nothing is done on the part of the U.S government to ensure that released prisoners aren't going back to the state of extreme poverty that drove many of them to crime and gang involvement. Many prisoners are released into society with literally nothing more than several sets of clothes, a bus token and their parole papers, but are expected to live the life of a law-abiding citizen with none of the necessary social or economic tools. But the worst evidence of hypocrisy in the U.S Prison System comes in the form of its endorsement of the death penalty, which I feel is the total abandonment of the rehabilitation objective. What the death penalty does is label certain criminals as unable to benefit from any rehab; a court identifies certain defendants as different, more anti-social, uncorrectable, based on any number of variables, the least of which it seems, is the crime itself. How many prisoners on death row have encountered others doing much lesser sentences for similar crimes? It bears mentioning here that, while race is undeniably a large factor in criminal conviction and sentencing, since the death penalty was re-instated in 1976, a little more than half of those sentenced to death were white.

However, this is NOT the case in other areas of U.S incarceration. As of an official 2005 U.S study, black people (regardless of gender) were three times as likely to be in jail as Hispanic people, and were five times as likely to be incarcerated as white people. According to another 2005 survey, there were 4682 black inmates to each 100,000, while there were only 709 white inmates to each 100,000. Contrasted with the 1993 statistics of South Africa under apartheid this becomes even more frightening; there there were only 851 black prisoners per 100,000.

I am certainly not saying that this large discrepancy in race among prisoners is exclusively the fault of blatantly racist juries. It is true that many young black people live in inner cities in extreme poverty, and so turn to gang activities and other illegal practices so as earn money to cope with their poverty. It is also true however, race relations in the U.S being as they are, that many white people view black people, especially young men (Note: 11.9% of American black men ages 25-29 were incarcerated as of 2005) with certain amounts of fear and apprehension. Gangs come to mind, as to thoughts of drugs and gun violence when many white Americans see young black people, and popular television shows like Cops do nothing but reinforce these feelings. And is hard for me to believe that this common attitude, this common fear, whether subconscious not, does not come into play as juries are deciding their verdict.

Statistics from:

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance.htm#cptrends

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/jails.htm

http://www.prisonsucks.com/

Harry Potter's End

I used to love Harry Potter. And I mean love in the most literal way I can: for all of almost four years I though of, read, and spoke about nothing else. I was famous in my fourth grade class for having read all four of those thick, 800 page books sixteen times each, and I was crushed when a new girl could top that with her twenty-one reads. Of course, this inspired a fervor which led me to read them even more, to the exclusion of all else. At one point, in an effort to get me to read something, anything, except Harry Potter, my father threatened to take the books away, which led to multiple fights and countless tears until my mother intervened on my behalf.

Buy the time I was eight, I was living a full-blown Harry Potter lifestyle. I looked into to buying an owl on the Internet, I spent all of my allowance money on action figures, and I spent a Christmas giving a receiving nothing but Harry Potter-related gifts. I ordered the British editions of the books from a catalog I found in the library, and despite the fact that nothing more than the covers and a few select words were changed, I buried myself in them as if they were entirely new books, not coming out for days. I wrote my own Harry Potter short story, entitled creatively enough, Harry Potter and the Forbidden Fortress, and sent it to J.K Rowling, receiving a typed letter and fan club membership for my trouble. (I later framed that letter.) I referred to cups as goblets, I researched the Latin roots of all of Harry's charms, and I beat both the insanely difficult computer games twice. (I used to brag in the cafeteria about having found all of the dozen or so "Wizard Cards," hidden in the electronic crevices and passages of Hogwarts, enabling me to access hidden levels and privileges within the game. I was quite envied, if I do say so myself.)

I remember waiting anxiously for my eleventh birthday, certain that a brown parchment letter would arrive via owl, and even though I always knew it wouldn't, I cried anyway, despite my new found "maturity" and excitement at being a middle schooler. I remember that as soon as Internet roumers about the fifth book (still my favorite, by the way) began to surface, I was there, neglecting my typing in tech class to read any informative snippets of information I could find. And while none of it (seriously, NONE of it) turned out to be true, that didn't matter to me because as soon as I had that huge 861-page book in my hands (midnight the day it came out, of course) nothing else mattered. I entered a world beyond computers and keyboards, beyond classmates and teachers, and lived, for the eight-hours it took me to read that book, as a pupil at Hogwarts, learning magic, breaking rules and riding centaurs.

And now, J.K Rowling has announced that the seventh and final book, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, will be released in July, and I have no doubts that I will be among the people waiting in the middle of the night for 12:01, when I can open the book and begin to read, and pretend, for as long as I have that book open, that the world is a magical place.

Underground Music and the "R.E.M Method"

In the world of underground music, a world dizzily and perpetually pursuing success, there is much talk about following the "R.E.M method." What the R.E.M method is is a series of rules and hints (legendary R.E.M, of course, illustrated them) that are the fountain of youth, the Philosopher's Stone of indie success. It is said (in hushed voices in smoking bars and sweaty clubs across the nation) that if these rules are closely followed, and the perfect equilibrium of underground cred and mainstream appeal is reached, any band can rise quickly to success. However, this method in reality is not as mythical and enlightening as it is in rumor. It is in fact rather vague and simplistic. Sign with an indie label backed by a major one to preserve underground cred but gain great distributing deals (deceive your fans, nice Mr. Stipe). Utilize the power ballad but call it something else. Never talk about your lyrics; make them vague and obtuse so as to be interpreted freely, adding a needed mystique to an indie artist while generating curiosity in mainstream press (or maybe it just takes focus of the music, who knows...)

Call me crazy, but these don't seem like pearls of wisdom or droplets of enlightenment. These seem like underhanded methods, ways to make very mainstream music but gain a very underground audience, an audience notorious for its purity. And frankly, I would seriously doubt that R.E.M used or would endorse these "methods." (Although frankly, in my opinion the power ballad nomenclature and lyrical weight observations are right on. I've never been a huge R.E.M fan...)

R.E.M gained mainstream success in the same way any band gains mainstream success, through a mixture of dumb luck, sheer ambition and sellable music. R.E.M's music was, at the time, what the record industry needed. The only "method" R.E.M employed was the ambition to get their music to someone influential within the record industry, an industry stuck in a rut and salivating over new, groundbreaking artists.

And therein lies the real R.E.M method. What underground artists lack today is the ambition to bring their music to the masses. In a culture so obsessed with selling-out, new, groundbreaking bands either are afraid to, or feel they can't, get their music to listening ears. And that's the problem. In a scene so obsessed with purity (this is punk, that's not, he's a sell-out, you're not, who's a poseur, who's not), bands are boxed in. Not only can they not seek out bigger audiences, bigger distro deals, and bigger labels, but they are also imprisoned in the kind of music they can make. Artists are afraid of experimentation, afraid to bring new sounds, new influences to their music for fear of being labeled "sell-outs." And music that is afraid of experimentation is music that is stagnant. The underground is no longer a scene for important, groundbreaking music. It is a scene of judgement and closedmindedness. And music can not flourish in that kind of environment.

What R.E.M did was not selling-out, nor was it offering their music up to be raped by a selfish record industry in return for success. It was rather carving a path into mainstream music without sacrificing the music or its message. It hijacked the mainstream by bringing radically new music to thousands of people without dulling it or making it more commercially acceptable. (Incidentally, there is a much better band called Anti-Flag doing a similar thing, leaving the punk label Fat Wreck Chords to sign with major label Columbia while maintaining their angry, politically charged message.)

In honor of my critique of underground music, I'm going to mention three bands I just discovered earlier today. Right under the dashboard in my (and yours too, probably) Blogger account, there are the pages of three bands. If you haven't checked them out, you really should (I've posted links below). They belong to something called "Cordless Records," which is a small record company affiliated with record giant Warner Bros that offers its artists the credibility and intimacy of an indie label but the weight and professionalism of a major one. (Remember that step in the R.E.M method? Maybe its on to something...) Anyway, these are three very unique, very gifted bands that have managed to carve out their own identities within their respective scenes.

Die Mannequin--http://diemannequin.blogspot.com/--is a melodic punk-metal band with a female singer and some interesting melodic/chordal structures.

Dangerous Muse--http://dangerousmuse.blogspot.com/--is a cool rock-powered electronica duo with an interesting rock/new wave sound. Kind of like underground favorites Kill Hannah.

Throw the Fight,--http://throwthefight.blogspot.com/-- the weakest of the three, is straight up Warped Tour post-hardcore with the obligatory annoying melodies and hackneyed guitar playing. Some awesome riffs though.

Thanks, and check out the music!

Election 2008 and Rage Against the Machine

The presidential race is starting to rear its head early this year. Maybe this is due to some anticipation on the part of well-known Democrats (Hillary Clinton, Barrak Obama), who suddenly realize that, hey, if they can make it through the primaries and win the nomination, there is no way on earth that they can't win the White House. Or maybe people are just fed up with Bush's administration and so are getting their game on early this year, hoping that maybe, somehow, this will make the rest of his disastrous presidency go faster. Or maybe, this is just a step to change the nature of presidential politics by making them more akin to the rest of American life.

The American lifestyle is about convenience, and in keeping up with this culture of convenience, bad things are changed. Inconvenient, poorly received things are done away with, often instantly. Just click to navigate away from an offensive web page. Don't get up to change the channel, use your remote. Americans are used to having what they want when they want it, and, failing that, to at least not have something they don't want. And it is clear that a substantial majority of Americans do not want President Bush in the White House. What these presidential hopefuls are doing is catering to that American need. Whether in reality or just in appearance, they are speeding up the end of something Americans are sick of. And, failing that, they are assuring America that, yes, the end is near.

In honor of the approaching election, I have posted a little Rage Against the Machine. For those of you who don't know, RATM was one of the most politically charged bands to ever exist, and certainly the most radical band to win a Grammy (for their Album The Battle of Los Angeles, in 2000). Fronted by the radical, Che Guevara idolizing poet Zach de la Rocha, RATM created a unique blend of inner-city hip-hop and dissonant heavy metal which, along with their extreme leftist politics, gained them international attention. Their political message, while filled with incredible feelings of rage and desperation, was also often intelligent (the guitarist, Tom Morello, has a PhD in political science from Harvard and considers himself a Marxist) and inspired a wave of politically active bands that would follow.

The video I posted below is of the song Testify, which was popular during the 2000 Bush-Gore presidential election. The video, rather than show scenes of debauchery and beautiful dancing women, points out glaring similarities between the presidential nominees. Now, while realizing that the politics expressed might be a little reactionary and simplistic, the message that de la Rocha and his band mates were trying to express was exactly the correct one for the time, during which thousands of Americans felt cheated out of a proper election even before the election fraud that would follow. And, besides, it was not RATM's place to weave a message of balanced reporting and political subtlety. It was their place to express the anger felt by thousands of youth across the country. This song is from the Grammy-winning album The Battle of Los Angeles, released it 2000.

However, while I appreciate the video's power, if Gore does choose to run this time, he has my TOTAL support. (My thirteen-year-old, unactive, non-voting support...)

Sundance Film Festival: An Analysis & My Most Anticipated Films

The Sundance Film Festival does odd things. For one thing, if feature length movies (narrative or documentary, it makes no difference) have publicly screened before, anywhere, at any place, they are not eligible for submission. What this does is ensure that every screening at Sundance is a world premiere, but what it also does is allow only the small fraction of movie viewers attending the festival to view these movies as they are released; the rest of us have to cross our fingers and wait until (if ever) the films are picked up by a major distributing organization. And, as in the case of many sort films (which can not have been released on DVD or VHS prior to their entry), some films are left on the proverbial cutting room floor. Having had their fifteen minutes of fame, they never gain a greater audience than at Sundance and so either fade to black and disappear or act as starting boards for aspiring directors and filmmakers to gain industry attention. (Of course, Sundance has valiantly remedied this problem by forging an alliance with iTunes, which allows movie fans to download most of these shorts online for relatively cheap prices--check out http://festival.sundance.org/-- and allows filmmakers to reach a radically larger audience than could be reached by handing out paper flyers at the Festival. This is another odd thing Sundance has done. Notice I never equated an "odd thing" with a "bad thing"...)

However, the fact remains that Sundance ensures that all of its features be of the "never-before-seen" variety, thus insuring that only the film fans, filmmakers, industry types, and journalists (ah...journalists!...huh...) attending the festival get a peek at these films as they are screened to an audience for the very first time. "Why?" might you ask. "Why are the premieres of these often remarkable new movies hoarded by Sundance (and, of course, most other high profile film festivals). "Why are they not screened at the filmmaker's pleasure and then entered into the competition?" The answer is a simple one, and, if you think hard about, not an entirely unwelcome one. The Sundance Film Festival (as well as Cannes and many, many other similar festivals) does not exist to serve the interests of the average movie goer. They exist for the army of critics and journalists that attend their screenings. Sundance, whether intentionally or not, has created the ultimate buzz machine, allowing independent films (albeit often high budget with all-star casts) to gain reviews, press exposure, and audience interest before even being released to the general public. And that, above any exorbitant budget, above any famous actor, is the great equalizer, the bridging of the divide between big budget Hollywood cinema and big-budget independent cinema. And, with this reality firmly in place, how long before they become one and the same?

Okay, I guess this is the second half of this blog, where I mention my most anticipated films. Of course, as is suggested by the word "anticipated," I have not seen these films personally, and everything I know about then has come from filmmaker profiles, film teasers, and other promotional tools on Sundance's website and on YouTube (ah, that inescapable buzz machine!). It is worth mentioning here that independent film by no means means low-budget films, and many of these Sundance films are in fact high budget and are acted in by relatively famous film actors. However, in terms of cinematic weight, I see no reason why these films, good by any standards, should be seen as any less groundbreaking and artistic because of their budget. They are Sundance films, after all...


Features (Dramatic)

Joshua: George Ratliff won incredible acclaim for his 2001 film "Hell House," a documentary about the hell house phenomenon: a church's graphic "haunted-house" type depiction (and terrifying "tour") of hell. Now he's back directing what appears to be an equally dark feature film about an immaculate New York family and their piano prodigy son Joshua, who, after the birth of his sister, begins to show dark, terrifying aspects of himself and his talents. The film, though set in the upper-class environments of Joshua's family's home, is shot with an eye to the frightening, with a jagged camera style and an attention toward shadows and night.

Weapons: Acclaimed director of "Bomb the System", a film about a graffiti artist in New York, Adam Bhala Lough returns behind the camera to direct Weapons, a new film about several "random" youth killings in a small town and the relationships between them. Lough continues working in his comfort zone of youth culture and young characters, but it should be interesting how the very urban mentality of his first film translates into the small town dynamics of his second.

Features (Documentary)

Manda Bala (Send a Bullet): Six years in the making, this urgent and intelligent film by first-time director Jason Kohn deals with the difficult subjects of poverty, corrupt politics, and the kidnapping industry in Brazil. These complex issues plaguing Brazil today are explored and examined through tracing the stories of individual people, a cue Kohn took from legendary filmmaker and mentor Errol Morris. These individual people happen to be a wealthy businessman, a plastic surgeon who aids mutilated kidnap victims, and a fabulously corrupt politician who relies on a frog farm for income, and Kohl's explorations with them lead to everything from an interview with an actual professional kidnapper to footage of children playing a kidnapping and violence in the street. One of the most acclaimed films at Sundance this year!

Banished: From about the end of the civil war to the Great Depression, there were several cities in America that forcibly and illegally banished their African-American neighbors, forcing them to leave their homes and flee. This is the story acclaimed documentary filmmaker Marco Williams tells by researching the events that occurred in three of these communities and by following the ancestors of those who were banished returning to try to reclaim their families' land. Marco Williams, an African-American man who has made films about Martin Luther King and hate crimes, fears nothing when armed with a camera, and interviews everybody from disgruntled black families trying to regain what is theirs to an active chapter of the Ku Klux Klan.

Shorts

Bomb: Ian Olds won critical acclaim for his 2006 documentary "Operation: Dreamland" about American soldiers in Iraq, and has returned with this artistic short film about a child's attitude toward his parents' drug and alcohol abuse. Shot on 35mm but with the stock pushed a stop and a half, Olds engineered the film to look like an old hand tinted photograph.

High Falls: Easily the most professional short in terms of cast and production value, this film by Andrew Zuckerman starring Maggie Gyllenhall and Peter Sarsgaard tells the story of a young married couple who each tell their best friend a burning secret about the other. This film is worth the view if only for the novelty value of watching a first time director directing such great stars, but hopefully Zuckerman will show a little more than novelty in his Sundance debut and prove himself an up-and-coming young director.

Master of Reality: In this short documentary, young filmmaker Matthew Killip tells of the 80's-90's phenomenon of backyard WWF wrestling, where suburban children would re-enact the fights of their heroes, sometimes with dire consequences. Weaving together home footage of his own fights from his childhood in a suburb of Dallas Texas, Killip paints a chilling but intelligent picture of coming of age in suburbia.

Controversial Pick (or What My Parents Shouldn't Read)

Teeth: Even in the world of independent cinema there is rarely a film that invites as many raised eyebrows and stifled giggles as this film by Mitchell Lichtenstein. This film modernizes the ancient vagina dentata myth that, according to Lichenstein, can be seen in countless ancient mythologies and folklores. The myth tells of a race of fearsome women with toothed vaginas that a hero often must overcome and...um...conquer. This film tells the story of Dawn, a high school student and member of the local chastity group, who learns of her...uhh...vaginal abnormality and has to create something...positive out of it. (eek!) How is that for a different kind of date movie?!