Music: A Rush Of Blood To The Head (Coldplay)

Album Review: A Rush Of Blood To The Head by Coldplay

Released in August 2002, A Rush Of Blood was a major improvement for Coldplay over their debut album Parachutes. The band developed a greater variety in their music, and came up with some great "stadium rock" songs that helped catapult their fame. They still had plenty of room for improvement here, as they found another formula they liked and tended to stick to that as if their confidence was still a little shaky. But, they do show more boldness with the tone of their songs, and the added power gives the music a much greater kick. Important step forward.

1. "Politik"
The album opens with a familiar pattern of simple yet driving drum and guitar parts. When Chris comes in, the guitars and drums drop out, with only a soft piano as accompaniment. But the verses already show a musical intensity that promises something beyond their earlier work. The chorus is a simple reflection of that first guitar and drum part, but Chris' vocal and lyrics give it an edge. Then the last two minutes completely changes the style with a more gentle part led by Chris and the guitar; unfortunately, I feel this weakens the song. Still a great track, but bogged down a bit by the end.

2. "In My Place"
Here's one of my very favorite Coldplay songs, and one of their big hits. The drums provide a slowish but very strong beat, and the guitar part is incredibly infectious and affecting, with a great bass (?) counterpoint. Martin's vocal verses are also great; very expressive, but not over the top, volume- or pitch-wise. The refrain is also a great fit, and the middle eight continues the tone of a steady but subdued hope throughout the song. The song then goes to a gentle ending - but the band keeps this one short, and the track length as a whole is perfect when Coldplay can tend to get carried away. Fantastic song.

3. "God Put A Smile Upon Your Face"
This one starts off with a guitar part with the same tone as "Politik," though there's no drums here and it's quieter. Chris comes in with a verse that also has a similar feel but also unique. Then come the drums, along with a harsher sounding guitar part and nice bass part. Chris' chorus is very nice, and the drums really keep it humming as he holds out some nice extended notes. Martin then starts repeating "as good as mine" as instruments build around him, and finally he also builds in intensity with some echo but not overdone. Again, the song comes back down in intensity for the end but like "In My Place" it's kept brief. Very strong track.

4. "The Scientist"
Here we have the first ballad on the album, and this one starts off with a nice piano part. Chris enters with a tenderly-sung verse, still accompanied only by piano. The chorus is nice as well, with some great lines: "nobody said it was easy, nobody said it would be so hard." Subdued guitar and drum parts enter after this, as well as some backing vocals, with Martin's lead vocal definitely the focus. The song ends with another change in style, like in "Politik" - and like in that song, it doesn't really fit (here, a simple guitar part with Chris "ooo"ing). Nice song, but it's a little long with not quite enough variety and/or pace.

5. "Clocks"
Perhaps Coldplay's biggest hit, the opening piano part is surely recognizable to millions of people now. And it is a very nice, trademark Coldplay simple but infectious part. Chris has a cool vocal during the verses, one of his best to this point, and he's accompanied by a neat drum rhythm and soft keyboard shimmering. The refrain is just some "ooo"ing, but it fits the sort of mystical feeling of the song. The guitars are very well played, their contributions fitting great with the other instruments while not disrupting the more important piano and drums. The middle eight is alright, although Martin's vocal is a bit off. The rest is instrumental and "ooo"ing, but it fits in this song that floats along effortlessly. Great pop songwriting.

6. "Daylight"
Here we start with an intriguing, exotic-sounding guitar and keyboard part, followed by Martin entering with a great vocal that is effectively double-tracked with a lower part and accompanied by a great bass part. The chorus changes things up perfectly while keeping the overall feel of the song intact, and when it returns to that more exotic sound, it's new all over again. Like in "God Put A Smile", Chris begins to repeat a line ("slowly breaking through the daylight") as the instruments play around him, and the song fades out to this pattern. One of Coldplay's most underrated song, this one is just great.

7. "Green Eyes"
Oops. Now we get perhaps my least favorite Coldplay song. I'm not sure what they were going for; perhaps a bit of a country feel? (also might be why I don't like it) It's basically just Chris and acoustic guitars, and Martin's vocal is not particularly good here (it's at its worst when he rises up to hit "be out of their MIIIIIIND!!!" (OUCH!!!). Quick, hit the fast forward button!

8. "Warning Sign"
A gritty-sounding but soft guitar part is what we hear first here, followed by drums keeping the slow beat and a wavering keyboard part. The verses definitely take you back to Parachutes, and it does kind of feel like a leftover from that album. The chorus is perhaps passable, but I'm really not a fan of those accordions (adding healthy doses of sap). I think the instrumentals are strong on this song, but the songwriting doesn't fit on this album.

9. "A Whisper"
Now we get a slightly faster song here, with a neat guitar part that kind of sounds like someone strumming a homemade guitar (OK, that doesn't sound appealing, but just trust me). I believe the rhythm here is in 6/8, which might be part of why I like it, and Chris seems comfortable with this pattern. The verses and chorus don't really come together like most songs, but Chris sings them well. The song ends with a grating keyboard gradually enveloping the guitars and other instruments. Not an ambitious piece, but a pretty well executed one.

10. "A Rush Of Blood To The Head"
Chris starts off with a soft, contemplative vocal, as a simple acoustic guitar accompaniment is eventually replaced by a more conventional lineup. The chorus is a sudden burst of energy and intensity, both from Chris' vocal (which is not loud, but very effective) and a striking guitar part. The song calms back down a bit, but thereafter even the verses seem to absorb quite a bit of the outburst from the chorus. Chris finishes off with a bit of a variation on the verses. It's a fine song, but it's way too long.

11. "Amsterdam"
This one starts off with a very pretty piano part, and Chris joins in with a matching, gentle, tender vocal, which slowly gains a little more range and he hits the high notes well. A bit of a backing vocal is a nice touch, but the band does well to keep it a minimal production, with no drums to be found until well into the last act, and when they do come in it's a cool effect, having been preceded by a strong guitar opener. The song then returns to its simple roots to bring the album to a close. Very strong track, another underrated song.

Score: 4 out of 5. Coldplay maintains its consistency of quality from track-t0-track, and even improves it on this album. The music is far more adventurous here, and there are more stand out tracks than on Parachutes' quality but uninspiring songs. However, they still relied a little too much on the same song structures track after track, and Martin's vocal isn't top tier yet.

Essentials: "In My Place", "Clocks", "Daylight", "God Put A Smile Upon Your Face"
Weak(er) Songs: "Green Eyes", "Warning Sign"

Sports: NFL Picks, Week 8

Hmmm, 8-6 last week. It looked like I would do quite well until the late games, with Oakland inexplicably spanking the Broncos, Favre choking in his return to Lambeau, and Romo getting his collarbone broken (a double whammy since he was my fantasy QB). Other than that, it was actually a pretty predictable NFL week (except for the Saints getting blown out by CLEVELAND). Even without having both of their starting QBs go down to injury, I think it's time to give up on two talented teams that have been bad (Dallas and San Francisco). Here we go again.

Miami at Cincinnati: Miami, 27-17
Two iffy quarterbacks... but my Miami has a better defense and running game.

Jacksonville at Dallas: Dallas, 24-23
Why do I keep picking Dallas? Well, this week they're playing the lousy Jaguars. This one completely depends on how the 'Boys respond to losing Romo for the season.

Washington at Detroit: Detroit, 30-20
Detroit has looked good at home this year, and Washington just isn't all that great anyway.

Buffalo at Kansas City: Kansas City, 42-38
The Bills have shown that they can actually put some point up, but their run defense sucks and running is the Chiefs' specialty.

Carolina at St. Louis: St. Louis, 28-20
The Rams are another team much better at home, and Carolina is stinky.

Green Bay at NY Jets: NY Jets, 24-17
After so much preseason hype, the Jets seem to be flying under the radar, but they've developed that key winning edge I think.

Denver "at" San Francisco: Denver, 35-21
This is "at" SF because it's actually going to be in London (only a few thousand miles away). Denver should be mad and embarrassed after last week's game.

Tennessee at San Diego: San Diego, 21-20
This should be a great one. SD's picking up steam, losing to TTSNBN due to typical ref favoritism. Tennessee is looking great to, and would be even better if CJ2K could FINALLY get some consistency (*hint hint nudge nudge*)

Tampa Bay at Arizona: Tampa Bay, 13-10
Arizona's QB situation continues to be disastrous, while TB at least has a steady QB if not a stellar one.

Minnesota at TTSNBN: TTSNBN, x-x
Hmmm, how many more favorable calls are we getting this week, TTSNBN? I hope Moss torches you.

Seattle at Oakland: Oakland, 20-10
Holy crap! Oakland scored more points last week than it did all of last season.

Pittsburgh at New Orleans: Pittsburgh, 31-21
If the Browns can dominate the Saints on their home turf, what do you think will happen when the Steel Curtain comes to town?

Houston at Indianapolis: Indianapolis, 34-24
I'm sure the Colts are licking their lips for some sweet revenge here. Having had time to work on a strategy for Arian Foster, and working against an exposed Texans' defense, they'll get it.

2010 Picks: 60-44

News: 2010 Midterm Election Thoughts

Today is Monday the 25th of October, and the U.S. midterm elections are just a week and a day away now. Granted, my experience is not extensive, but I believe this is the most charged election season that I can remember. So I knew, months ago, that I would want to make a blog post about my thoughts on it prior to the voting (actually, I've already voted, via absentee ballot). Just as thousands, if not millions, of people have over the last few months, I was feeling really angry about the election a few days ago. Since I'm a liberal, you can guess at whom I was angry. But I want to take a page from the Stewart/Colbert playbook for my blog. I am going to tell you why I think you should vote Democrat in the 2010 midterm election. But I'm not going to do so by telling you all the things I hate about what Republicans are doing. I'm going to do it by telling you what I think Democrats are either doing right or are standing for - in other words, why I'm voting for Democrats rather than against Republicans. Without further ado...

There is a mountain of issues facing the nation right now, which of course is one reason why there is so much attention on these midterm elections. These issues relate to and affect one another quite a bit, so I'll try to go as smoothly as possible from one to the next, showing how I think they're connected without being too tangled (hopefully). Then I'll end with why I think the Democrats are best suited to handle this web of issues.

The economy, unsurprisingly, is considered the most important issue by a large number of Americans. This is a good place to get a bird's-eye view of our country's situation: I believe that the U.S. is at a critical economic juncture, and that we must take a long-term perspective on the direction of the economy now. We'd been heading for this point for at least 10, maybe 20, maybe 30 years: it happened to be in 2008 that things came to a head, and now the economy is sputtering. Of course, we should do our best for the unemployed and those worst off; but we must also rebuild the national economic infrastructure - not as it was, but as it must be to meet the challenges of the 21st century and the increasingly globalized economy. If we improve on many of the following issues, it will go a long way.

The 2008 financial collapse was a huge shock for just about everyone, and was perhaps especially scary to see just how important a few of those gigantic companies were to the entire economy. There was a lot of questioning of this system directly afterwards, but it's since dissipated. We need to get better regulation of this industry - and more importantly, better monitoring and enforcement. It's not the bankers' billions I want to protect, it's the trillions in ordinary peoples' savings.

Two more aspects of the economy, one personal to each American and the other a more broad connection, are taxes and the deficit. I bring them up not because I think they're particularly important, but because I'm concerned that too many Americans think they are the most important. I could have a whole blog post about why I support a healthy tax system, but for the moment let me simply say that now in particular it is needed to help our nation through this situation. The budget deficit and national debt issues have been around since the 1980s (other than a respite at the end of Clinton's presidency thanks to his efforts). And while it does need to be addressed, suffice it to say that it is not one of our more challenging nor dangerous problems, and it's best dealt with gradually, not all at once.

Fortunately, one issue I believe both Democrats and Republicans agree on (though to varying degrees and means) is education. If we can start to do a better job throughout the nation, it will be good in so many ways. It will prepare children for the 21st century economy, as I mentioned above; it will once again provide upwards mobility, especially for the currently impoverished; and in general, it will create a more open-minded, compassionate population. A few specifics: we need to concentrate on science and math again, making them attractive to elementary as well as college students (too many of the brightest just go into business or law). We also need to update postsecondary education for the 21st century (but not abandon the liberal arts) and make it more widely accessible.

The final issue I'm going to mention is the environment. There is simply overwhelming scientific evidence that the climate is changing rapidly (relatively speaking) due to human actions. We don't know exactly what all of the effects will be, of course, but we know that there are so many interconnected, sensitive factors involved that the potential consequences are utterly catastrophic. This is THE perfect example of the frog getting killed in a slowly boiling pot of water. You don't want your kids and grandkids to have to pay the national debt? That pales in comparison to what they'll pay for global warming - if they even can do anything about it by then.

There are obviously other issues. There's the war in Afghanistan, which I'm still unsure about; I'm also encouraged by recent reports of success in the Kandahar area, but discouraged by news of Iranian and Pakistani unhelpfulness (yeah, I just made up a word). There's also illegal immigration, which I don't think about as much living here in the upper midwest. They are important, for sure, but I'm choosing not to take a strong side in this blog post.

So, why Democrats? Under Barack Obama's leadership, I believe they have done their best to confront these short- and long-term issues head on. They passed a stimulus bill which helped keep the economy from falling into depression, despite not completely turning things around. They passed financial regulation, which, while not perfect, is at least a start. Ditto for health care (another huge issue that I forgot to mention, but worthy of a whole post in itself). Obama hasn't been perfect, but I believe he is doing his best to confront many of America's biggest issues, not just the politically expedient ones (taxes, deficit, etc.). There are good and bad politicians for both sides. But while Republican leadership irresponsibly ordered its members to merely oppose anything Obama wanted to do (pure politics) for the last two years, Democratic leadership focused on the nation's health, not its own popularity.

These are simply my views on the coming election, and I hope that you will vote.

Sports: NFL Picks, Week 7

Ah, that's quite a bit better. 9-5 is pretty good, though I've yet to have a breakout week of picks this year. There were a whole lot of close games last week, though the number of surprises dropped significantly (perhaps why I did better...). On the helmet-to-helmet hits, since everyone seems to be chiming in: I have somewhat mixed feelings, but I definitely lean more towards the NFL here. As the league says (even if it is also pushing an 18-game season, which is completely hypocritical), player safety is the most important thing. Although I've never played tackle football, I can understand how the players would be frustrated that the culture of hard-hitting that they have been raised in is suddenly being frowned on (although I question players who say they were taught to make launching, helmet-to-helmet hits - sounds like bad coaching). And it would be fair to say that the NFL is being blatantly reactionary here, after several hits happened the same week. But if the NFL can clean this up, I think the players will appreciate it if their brains are not mush by the time they are 50 or even 40. Everyone's "line" is different, but the fact is that the brain is the most precious part of your body and it needs to be protected from unreasonable risk, period. I'm obviously a Steelers fan, but was surprised and disappointed by Harrison's childish claim that he was thinking of retiring. I also think that Meriweather - coincidentally (or is it?) of TTSNBN - should have been suspended for his despicable hit. Anyway, on to the picks (I don't really feel like putting in explanations this week, sorry).

Cincinnati at Atlanta: Atlanta, 21-17
Washington at Chicago: Washington, 20-10
St. Louis at Tampa Bay: St. Louis, 30-24
San Francisco at Carolina: San Francisco, 13-7
Buffalo at Baltimore: Baltimore, 41-14
Philadelphia at Tennessee: Tennessee, 17-16
Jacksonville at Kansas City: Kansas City, 28-10
Pittsburgh at Miami: Pittsburgh, 24-21
Cleveland at New Orleans: New Orleans, 27-14
Arizona at Seattle: Seattle, 21-20
TTSNBN at San Diego: TTSNBN, x-x
Oakland at Denver: Denver, 31-14
Minnesota at Green Bay: Minnesota, 28-24
NY Giants at Dallas: Dallas, 17-14

2010 Picks: 52-38

Sports: NFL Picks, Week 6

Ewwww... 6-8?!?!?! That may be my worst week of picks in years (I usually get at least .500). I guess that's what you get when you add a couple shockers (Raiders, Cardinals) to the usual toss ups and bad calls (on my part, not the refs - although those hurt too). With some of the league's worst teams on a bye week this week, it should be an interesting weekend. Let's see if I can reclaim a little dignity this week.

Seattle at Chicago: Chicago, 24-3
Eww, hope I don't "get" to see this one. The Bears get Cutler back after his concussion, which adds a little flavor I suppose. The Bears' D looks pretty dang good, and Seattle doesn't have any offense to begin with. Special teams are about Seattle's best hope here.

Miami at Green Bay: Miami, 27-20
Ah, here's one of those games that's just juicy to analyze. Miami, despite getting trounced by TTSNBN, played pretty well on offense and defense, they were just annihilated on special teams. Green Bay's season is going down the toilet and fast; Rodgers just got a concussion, and though he'll probably still play (not smart), it's just the tip of a mountain of injuries including season-enders to TE Finley and RB Grant. Plus, Green Bay can't even take advantage of home field when it's only October. Their fans will witness up close the inconvenient truth.

San Diego at St. Louis: San Diego, 35-10
Poor Rams. They were humming along pretty well through week 4. Then their #1 receiver (and starting on my fantasy team, to boot) goes down for the season early against Detroit, and they completely unwind in humiliating fashion. San Diego also got embarrassed last week, but I think they're in better position to bounce back than the Clippers of the NFL.

Baltimore at TTSNBN: TTSNBN, x-x
TTSNBN will surely thrash a foe with a historically terrible defense, a young QB who looks terrified, and absolutely no offensive weapons around him. *hums innocuously*

New Orleans at Tampa Bay: New Orleans, 20-17
This is a huge, must-win game for the Saints. They seemed vulnerable through four weeks, and after losing to the Cardinals, the division seems entirely up for grabs. They have to assert themselves here, against a young, up-and-coming divisional foe. I don't think it'll be easy, but if the Saints still have the drive from last year, they should find a way to win it. If not, look out.

Detroit at NY Giants: NY Giants, 31-10
Whoa, what have the Giants been drinking these last few weeks?!? It seemed like they were a team ready for rebuilding earlier this year, with a bunch of apathetic players. Now they turn around and steamroll the Bears and the Texans. The Lions must get rookie RB Jahvid Best going if they have any shot here, while they still have to deal with a newly balanced offense from New York.

Atlanta at Philadelphia: Atlanta, 17-14
Philadelphia is a team that I just can't figure out this year. QB injuries have been part of it, but they seem equally poised to be stinky or stellar each week. They were able to take advantage of the San Francisco Stooges last week and (barely) win. However, Atlanta is a much more disciplined team, and while they still have some kinks to work out and QB Ryan is still inconsistent, I think they'll win on the road.

Cleveland at Pittsburgh: Pittsburgh, 34-6
A perfect storm here: Pittsburgh gets back their star QB, just as Cleveland puts (forces?) their rookie QB into the game. I kind of fear for McCoy's health here, not even kidding. I think the Steelers give a statement-game performance here, and the Brownies will be looking for the paper bags again.

Kansas City at Houston: Kansas City, 23-16
Here's another interesting matchup. At the beginning of the year, it looked like Houston was finally breaking through to become one of the league's top contenders. But in the last three weeks, they've lost to both Dallas and the Giants pretty badly. Schaub just doesn't seem to be quite in rhythm yet, and WR Andre Johnson is banged up; RB Foster had provided a big boost, though. Meanwhile, Kansas City lost to Indy but showed some impressive defense, and the running game is very good. If only QB Cassel can do something productive, they could be quite a force. I think they'll win a close one here.

Oakland at San Francisco: San Francisco, 21-13
Battle of the Bay Area here. Another one that I'd be just as happy glancing at the final score rather than actually watching. San Francisco has a lot of talent, or so you'd think, yet they are remarkably 0-5. When is the management going to realize that "tough guy" Mike Singletary is a bad coach? Oakland has been competitive in all but one of their games, so I wouldn't be too surprised to see them win.

NY Jets at Denver: Denver, 30-24
I think that the way the Jets' handle Mile-High Stadium will be the deciding factor here. If they have no problem with it and they're able to blitz like crazy, it could spell trouble for Denver, which has no running game. But, if NY's secondary gets winded, Denver can make them pay. Denver's defense has been up and down (shut down CJ2K, but Ray Rice lit them up), so that's the other key here. I'll take the home team.

Dallas at Minnesota: Minnesota, 27-21
Easily this week's most hyped game (to the point that even I'm getting a little sick of hearing ESPN talk about). The loser of this game will be in considerable trouble, no doubt; but they are both in pretty unstable divisions. If they do well in their remaining divisional schedules, they should be fine. I mean, Washington, the Giants (unless they can sustain their current heading - I'm doubtful), and Philly aren't too scary; neither are Chicago, Detroit, or injury-plagued Green Bay. For this one, I think Minnesota's superior running game gets them the W. Could break the combined penalties in a single game record here.

Indianapolis at Washington: Indianapolis, 20-10
Washington faces a very similar foe to the one they defeated last week. However, Manning is just a master of beating foes in whatever way is necessary. Indy's defense might not be as good as GB's, but Washington's offense is terrible, so it shouldn't really matter.

Tennessee at Jacksonville: Tennessee, 28-14
It's time for Chris Johnson to have a truly monster game, and in the Monday Night Football spotlight. He looked a lot better last week against Dallas, and Vince Young even looked not so terrible. Jacksonville can score against bad defenses, but Tennessee isn't one of them.

2010 Picks: 43-33

Movies: The Social Network Review

Score: **** out of *****

Long Story Short: The Social Network is a film based on the origins of Facebook, and the highs and lows for its founder, Mark Zuckerberg. It's a very well-made film with strong dialogue and good performances, especially from Eisenberg (Zuckerberg). While it does cast Zuckerberg as something of a villain in the story, he is still a character with whom you can sympathize, due partly to that strong performance. Facebook itself is basically just a device for the plot here; it's about the characters, and it does that exceptionally well.


Boy, I haven't had a movie review in awhile! Usually I see a lot more movies in theaters, but I started my blog just as the slow part of the movie season hit (late summer/early fall). The Social Network was directed by David Fincher, and Wikipedia calls it a "drama," so that's what I'll go with. There seems to be a lot of debate about exactly how accurate this film is, which is at least based on the origins of the uber-popular web site Facebook (duh). To be honest, I'm not too concerned about its accuracy, and that certainly won't play a part in my review. Either way, it's an excellent drama, and now for some reasons why.

When the movie starts, don't be surprised if you feel like the projectionist (is that still the term?) made a mistake and started you in the middle. Mark Zuckerberg (Eisenberg), future founder of Facebook, is having a very rapid conversation/argument with his girlfriend at a bar. Once you get settled down, the scene, and the next 15 minutes or so, serves as a nice background to the story, namely Harvard (side note: if that really is anything like Harvard, boy am I glad I didn't go there). Zuckerberg is a computer nerd who doesn't fit in with Harvard's social fabric, but he is a genius. After getting dumped by his girlfriend, he lashes out in revenge on the whole campus in a mean but pretty clever prank.

This prank gets him noticed by three other students (two of whom are twins), who come to him with the idea, basically, for Facebook (specifically, "MySpace with exclusivity"). Zuckerberg passes this idea off as his own to his friend Eduardo (Garfield). Eduardo gives him start-up money, and becomes the young Facebook CFO. The web site soon spreads far beyond Harvard, as Zuckerberg keeps putting off the other three students. At some point, Eduardo and Mark meet Sean Parker (Timberlake), founder of Napster (though I can't remember why). Anyway, Sean schmoozes Mark, who is impressed with Sean's savvy and, well, social connections. Eduardo, though, is suspicious and wants to play it safe with Facebook.

Without going into too much more detail, Sean eventually gets Mark on his side at a crucial moment (Frodo-Sam-Gollum anyone?), and Mark gains immense wealth through Sean's help but also loses his one true friend in the process. Throughout the film, scenes go back in forth between this narrative and two separate legal battles (Mark vs. three Harvard guys, Mark vs. Eduardo), where Zuckerberg actually gets most of his dialogue.

The Social Network is very well cast, an essential thing for such a character-driven film. Eisenberg is perhaps the best as Zuckerberg; he just disappears into the character. He portrays Zuckerberg as a fast-talking, very intelligent young man; perhaps most impressively, he shows Zuckerberg's complete ignorance of his own lack of social skills at times, while at others being painfully aware of it. Timberlake also does an excellent job in his role, although I think it's at least partly due to Brad Pitt-itis (cast in a role where he acts like himself). He manages to steal the role of villain in this film away from Zuckerberg, for me at least. Garfield is pretty good as Eduardo, and has some of the funniest parts of the film. Armie Hammer as the Harvard twins also does a great job; again, he has some of the funnier parts, too.

Since this isn't an action or comedy, I can't really focus on either of those two aspects here, but I'll throw out a few more things. The dialogue is very good; the screenplay was written by Aaron Sorkin, writer for "The West Wing", which is a good reason why. Again, Zuckerberg has most of the best lines, but there are some other highlights too, such as from his ex-girlfriend, and from the president of Harvard talking to the twins. I really like that the film goes back and forth between the legal stuff and the narrative; other than simply keeping both parts fresh, it's a good way to play with the chronology and the audience's understanding of the events. And finally, while the film pretty much asserts that Zuckerberg stole the idea for Facebook and then betrayed his friend, I actually felt kind of bad for the guy by the end. I won't give it away, but one of the lawyers has the perfect line to sum him up at the end.

***

The Social Network is certainly one of the best movies I've seen this year, but I'm not sure it's the kind of film that's going to stay with me. It's an extremely well-executed movie; I have no complaints there (or at least none that stand out to me). Zuckerberg himself is certainly the main draw of the film, as he should be, and everything and everyone revolves around him. The film also has a good sense of humor, which is a must (especially in a film like this that could be too depressing without it). On the other hand, while I'm sympathetic for Mark, I can't empathize with him. His friendship with Eduardo seems flimsy throughout; thus, Eduardo's anguish at being betrayed almost veers more toward anger simply at the material loss. But, it's still a very impressive film that I would recommend to anyone.

Music: Beatles For Sale (The Beatles)

Beatles Album #4: Beatles For Sale

Beatles For Sale was the last album the Beatles released in 1964, capping off the year in which they conquered America. The Beatles, of course, had continued to develop musically, and they also met Bob Dylan for the first time in August of 1964. Many say that this album begins to show that Dylan influence, and the songs are certainly much less purely optimistic or at least innocent as they used to be. I think this one ranks just above Please Please Me in my ranking of Beatles albums so far. It doesn't contain as many of the truly classic Beatles tunes as their first album, but it is overall simply a stronger album (again, they were just improving all the time).

1. "No Reply" (Lennon/McCartney)
Ah, the Beatles are at it again! Expecting a fast, upbeat rocker to start things off? Not exactly. Instead, the Beatles take the opportunity to display their further musical development. The verses are fairly typical Beatles, with Lennon singing the lead throughout, although a little up and down movement at the end of each verse is a bit of dark hinting. The chorus continues the darkness powerfully, with cymbal crashes and a great harmony from McCartney. Topping things off, Ringo's drumming is fantastic, including some neat rhythms, and the guitar chords, especially at the chorus, are great. Takes a couple listens, but this is a little gem.

2. "I'm A Loser" (Lennon/McCartney)
Musically, this one is a lot closer to some earlier Beatles songs, but of course the lyrics are much different. Again sung in the lead by Lennon, John goes to the lower registers of his vocal range at times, which sounds pretty cool. I really like the verses as sung by John, although the harmony in the chorus isn't my favorite. Paul's bass is the most notable instrumental in this one, bouncing along and giving the song good energy. I'm not a big fan of this one, but I suppose it gives Lennon fanatics material to obsess over his various transformations.

3. "Baby's In Black" (Lennon/McCartney)
Well, the Beatles sure make up for the mediocre harmonies in the last song with this track. The John-Paul harmony, found throughout this bluesy song, is just fantastic. I really like this one, and I think, along with the high quality vocal harmony, everything just fits together well. OK, and I'm also a sucker for that 6/8 or 3/4 rhythm. The instruments stay appropriately subordinate to the vocals here, but they still provide a great underlying tempo and energy. And when they drop out for a few bars except for a drum beat, the toes really get a-tapping (albeit a slow tap). Another gem.

4. "Rock And Roll Music" (Berry)
The Beatles could play some cool new music, but they also still liked the old stuff. This one by rock legend Chuck Berry is quite aptly named, as you can get much closer to the core of the genre than this one. Lennon gives a good vocal here, although it still pales compared to his "Twist and Shout". The instruments help give it great energy, aided by a nifty piano part. It's hard not to like this one at least a little bit if you like rock and roll (which, if you're listening to The Beatles, I imagine you do), but it's also not earth-shattering.

5. "I'll Follow The Sun" (Lennon/McCartney)
Hmmmm. Bit of a let down here. To be honest, up until recently I thought this was another quiet ballad covered by The Beatles - but actually, Paul wrote it. But, he did write it four years earlier, which is why it strangely sounds like some of their earliest material. It's not a *bad* song, but it's significantly weaker than most of the other songs here, and doesn't really fit in with the more mature feel (relatively speaking) of the rest of the album.

6. "Mr. Moonlight" (Johnson)
Fortunately, this one I can blame on another artist for writing. It's just tacky composition. However, I will say that Lennon gives some searing vocals here, particularly in the intro, and the harmonies are pretty cool. But that organ or whatever it is in the middle eight just accentuates the overall tackiness. It's my Dad's least favorite Beatles song, and I can't blame him. On the other hand, as I'll say again, The Beatles just continued to give stronger and more consistent performances on all their tracks, even some of these crappy songs they covered.

7. "Kansas City/Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey" (Leiber, et. al.)
Ah... if listening to the last two songs was like waking up on a cold winter morning and feeling a little stiff, when this one comes on it's like getting into a nice hot shower. Completely turns the direction of the album around with one of the Beatles' strongest covers yet. Sure, a large part of it is that this is simply a better song than "Mr. Moonlight". But man, Paul gives a phenomenal vocal performance here. He was perfectly suited to this song, and shows yet again that he could rip out a rocker just as well as he could a quiet ballad. The Beatles show their usual knack for choosing the right tempo, too, keeping it under control with a blues-tinged beat. The instruments again stomp along steadily, and the vocals, lead and backup let loose in the "Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey" section. Probably my favorite on the album.

8. "Eight Days A Week" (Lennon/McCartney)
Now they follow up a fantastic cover with the one song on the album that probably a majority of the public would recognize as one of their classics. It's not my favorite classic, but I like how it keeps the old strains of Beatles rock with added touches of things they'd picked up recently. For example: the fading-in guitar intro is a new, more complex touch for The Beatles, while the basic structure of the verses and chorus are similar to past hits (perhaps a little too similar, which is why it's not one of my favorites). Still, the harmonies are pitch-perfect, the guitar part is minimal but well-suited, and the bass is bouncing along. A classic is a classic.

9. "Words Of Love" (Holly)
More cool harmonies here in this Buddy Holly cover. But it's a considerably different kind of harmony for John and Paul, going to very low pitches, like John did in "I'm A Loser". The high-pitched guitar part is a good counter to that vocal, I suppose, but it plays a little longer than is welcome I think. Plus, there's not a lot else going on, other than hand-clapping. I suppose in light of it being a cover, it's alright, but certainly not one of my favorites on this album.

10. "Honey Don't" (Perkins)
Now for Ringo's obligatory song of the album! The Beatles definitely gave him good material for this album, perhaps the best yet (of course, covering Carl Perkins is a good way to do that). This one has a country feel to it, which seemed to be what Ringo liked; at the very least, he did it pretty darn well. I actually really like his vocal in this one. Is it perfect? No, but it doesn't need to be here. Just a nice, laid back song, with instruments that stay in the background, and a couple little guitar solos. You rock on, Ringo!

11. "Every Little Thing" (Lennon/McCartney)
Here's a pretty cool little song. I'll admit up front that the Beatles clearly put less effort into this one than most of the others - at this point, they were still forced into pretty tight deadlines to get their albums out, and I guess this track suffered the consequences. However, this one is saved by some impressive composition from Paul. Plus, the John-Paul harmonies are again working well here (all the more impressive when you consider this one is more standard fare and the aforementioned lack of superior effort), especially in the chorus. Plus, the Beatles found a few instrumental parts that work quite well here, including a deep bass piano part, and even a timpani part from Ringo. Maybe it was considered a throwaway, but I kinda like this one.

12. "I Don't Want To Spoil The Party" (Lennon/McCartney)
This one also seems to be kind of average early-Beatles fare early on; typical Lennon verses, standard instrumentals (although much more energetic than in "Every Little Thing"). Which isn't a bad thing, but it seems kind of mediocre at first (except for some nice backing vocal). Then the chorus comes in, and Paul takes off with his harmony with an energy that takes you by surprise. Credit also goes to Lennon (perhaps Paul, too, I don't know) for changing things up with the composition. The instrumentals even seem spurred on by Paul's vocal. Perhaps not my favorite, but it surpasses expectations.

13. "What You're Doing" (Lennon/McCartney)
This is sort of like the "Things We Said" of the album, in that McCartney again shows a spurt of composition development that is a sign of things to come. In fact, the instrumentals and backing vocals almost sound obsolete in this song that seems as if it were meant for Rubber Soul. I really like Paul's vocal here, and like his composition, it shows a maturity pointing to future growth. The guitar part, unfortunately, really sticks out here, and not in a good way. I'm not sure what either John or George was thinking there; the backing vocals are also shockingly anemic. I do like the percussion opening and the piano part here though. If they had worked a little harder on this one, it could have been fantastic; as it is, still one of the album's stronger tracks.

14. "Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby" (Perkins)
The Beatles packed a good bit into the final track of the album: it's George's first and only lead vocal on the album, yet the second Carl Perkins cover on the album. I do like the decision to use George and Ringo's less-familiar vocal styles on Perkins' songs. George sings quite well in his lone leading role, and whether or not it was intentional, the echoing effect on the track is neat. The Beatles left their fans to wonder with this as the final track, have they really grown out of their early period of music? Well, maybe not completely yet, but while everyone was still trying to be like the Beatles, they were having enough of holding your hand.

Essentials: "Kansas City/Hey, Hey, Hey, Hey", "Eight Days A Week", "Baby's In Black", "No Reply"
Weak(er) Songs: "I'll Follow The Sun", "Mr. Moonlight", "Words Of Love"

My Rank of The Beatles' Albums So Far:
1. A Hard Day's Night
2. Beatles For Sale
3. Please Please Me
4. With The Beatles

Sports: NFL Picks, Week 5

So, a 9-5 last week ain't too shabby. There continue to be a number of surprises - but that's the parity of the NFL, and part of what makes the league so fun to follow. I was particularly surprised that Atlanta only barely won; St. Louis won in a route (though I did predict them to win); Green Bay's struggle to take down Detroit (ditto for New Orleans over Carolina); Indianapolis losing to lowly Jacksonville (although that was a division game); and Chicago's complete implosion. Now for a new batch of games to guess!

Jacksonville at Buffalo: Jacksonville, 24-14
Theoretically, the Jags' big win over Indy will give them enough of a boost to be half decent, at least for a little while. They'll probably at least use it to pounce on a dismal Buffalo Bills team, with Jones-Drew being the only real offensive weapon in this one.

Tampa Bay at Cincinnati: Tampa Bay, 27-10
Here's one of my first bold upset picks of the year, now that we're a quarter of the way through and have seen all the teams for a few games. The question is: how good is Cincinnati? Losing to the Browns was not a good sign. Palmer actually had a good game, but I'm still skeptical about him. Meanwhile, Tampa Bay had a bye week to think things through after being blown out by Pittsburgh (which I got to watch). They're a young, dynamic team, and I think they'll be ready for the upset here.

Atlanta at Cleveland: Atlanta, 20-13
The Brownies did beat Cincinnati last week - but, as I've said before, division games are a different animal in the NFL. I think Atlanta's struggles last week were a combination of facing an inconsistent 49ers team that does have some considerable talent, and a sign that the team is still not quite ready to seize the division from the defending champs. But, I think they'll take care of business here, ugly or not.

St. Louis at Detroit: St. Louis, 38-35
Wow, perhaps the Rams really are an improved team. They got a monkey off their back beating division rival Seattle, and handily at that. While I'm sure they'll come back to earth hard at some point, Detroit doesn't have the defense to make them pay. I expect a shootout, which should make for an actually entertaining game (or at least I hope, since I'll probably be watching it here in Ann Arbor).

Kansas City at Indianapolis: Indianapolis, 34-27
Here will be another high scoring game, I think. The Colts have trouble stopping the run, and that's just the Chief's specialty. However, the Chiefs can't stop the pass, and that's bad news against Peyton Manning. Indy gets just enough stops to win a surprisingly close game.

Green Bay at Washington: Green Bay, 21-17
Hard to get a good reading on these teams. The Packers have tremendous potential, but they keep shooting themselves in the foot, and losing player after player to injury. The Redskins lose to the Rams, then beat down Philly (yes!!!) Again, though, both teams had division games last week, and I think we'll see the overall strength of Green Bay trump the 'Skins. I think Rodgers will outgun McNabb in a somewhat ugly game.

Chicago at Carolina: Carolina, 13-6
Oh, boy. Todd Collins vs. Jimmy Clausen, anyone? Chicago certainly has the stronger defense, but Carolina at least has threats at RB to offset their passing game. Plus, Collins might be KIA here, if the Bears allow another NINE sacks or more in a single half like they did last week.

Denver at Baltimore: 24-21
This should be a very interesting game. Denver showed that it can hang tough in a close game last week against the Titans, and their passing game is nothing to sneeze at. While the Broncos face a more balanced attack against the Ravens' offense this week, they have shown signs of life. Baltimore might have a let down after their big win over the Steelers. I think it'll be a close one, no matter who wins.

N.Y. Giants at Houston: Houston, 31-27
Is the Giants' pass rush back? Perhaps, but I think last week's performance was more due to the Bears' ineptitude. They also face the problem of Arian Foster, who will make them pay big if they just try to zone in on Schaub. I do have questions about Houston's defense, though, so this could very well be another high scoring game. Houston's offense is just better though.

New Orleans at Arizona: New Orleans, 45-21
The Saints' offense should finally take flight again here, against a miserable Cardinals defense. And if it doesn't, there are big worries for New Orleans' chances at defending the title. Plus, their defense hasn't been great against non-division foes, so how many points they give up to undrafted rookie QB Hall will also be a big indicator.

San Diego at Oakland: San Diego, 31-20
The Chargers seem to be in good form again, following a thrashing of the Cardinals. Rivers is having fun tossing TDs to my fantasy TE Gates, and a healthier RB Mathews should make the offense even more dangerous. Another divisional game, so I doubt it'll be a complete rout.

Tennessee at Dallas: Dallas, 21-20
Time to see if the Dallas running game can get going. Romo has been steady as a rock, but they'll need a balanced attack against the Titans' defense. Speaking of running games, when is Chris Johnson going to start busting out? Every defense is CLEARLY keying on him, almost entirely. So the answer might be, when does Vince Young start making defenses respect the pass? Dallas is known for undisciplined tackling, which could lead to some big plays for Tennessee, thus making it a close one.

Philadelphia at San Francisco: San Francisco, 10-7
To be blunt, I have no idea. I have no idea who will win, let alone the score. My gut says that SF will play a little better at home, and their defense will handle a constantly changing Philly offense thanks to all their QB issues.

Minnesota at NY Jets: 35-14
Brett Favre against his old team! I bet he loves hearing that one. A bad game for the offense to get in gear with Moss, I think the Jets are just going to cream them here. Plus, the Jets get their own star WR back in Holmes, plus Revis returns to haunt Moss again. And the Jets' offense has been humming along just fine without their star receiver.

2010 Picks: 37-25

Sports: NFL Picks, Week 4

Well, I finished 9-7 last week... although, I did pick the Atlanta-New Orleans score EXACTLY, so that makes up for it. As usual, a mixture of surprises, bad luck, and outright bad estimations of team strength. Who would have thought that the only teams remaining undefeated at this point would be Pittsburgh (minus Ben Roethlisberger), Kansas City, and Chicago?!?! Here we go again:

San Francisco at Atlanta: Atlanta, 35-13
I am officially throwing myself off the 49ers bandwagon, head first. They just got shellacked by KC, and so have now played two bad games out of three. Atlanta, meanwhile, just beat the defending champs a week after blowing out an admittedly bad team, after losing in overtime to the 3-0 Steelers. Can we say "blowout"?

Cincinnati at Cleveland: Cincinnati, 13-10
Here's another AFC North bruiser. Cleveland showed a lot more resilience against Baltimore than I thought they were capable of, especially with new RB Peyton Hillis. Cincinnati, meanwhile has two very solid wins after getting blown out by TTSNBN. I expect a defensive battle, mostly due to inept offenses (Carson Palmer looks terrible).

NY Jets at Buffalo: NY Jets, 24-16
With two good games out of three, I'm leaning toward the Jets being contenders rather than pretenders. Their offense has really blossomed after that horrible first game. Buffalo is terrible, although they did give TTSNBN a run for their money last week. But the Jets' defense should ensure that they don't ever really feel threatened, barring special teams disasters.

Seattle at St. Louis: St. Louis, 20-17
These two teams had surprising outcomes last week. Seattle owed its win, though, to not one but TWO kick returns for TDs. Listening on the radio, Rivers seemed to slice and dice their defense late in the game. Rookie Bradford is no Philip Rivers, but he led the Rams to a shocking 30-16 victory over the Redskins. Over the last few years, Seattle has played much better at home than on the road, which is why I'm taking the Rams here.

Denver at Tennessee: Tennessee, 23-14
While Chris Johnson has given me good fantasy numbers for two of three games, quietly he's been struggling on a run-by-run basis. I expect him to break out eventually, but who knows when. Their defense, however, has been one of the best in the league this year. And they'll need a good pass defense against Denver, which inexplicably has been slinging the ball with Kyle Orton putting on his Peyton Manning impression. RB Moreno is out, which means Denver will be even more one dimensional, spelling their doom.

Detroit at Green Bay: Green Bay, 42-21
Poor Detroit. Blew an opportunity to really embarrass Favre and send him and the Vikings to 0-3. Green Bay gift-wrapped their game against Chicago and even provided delivery service. However, I think even if Green Bay has EIGHTEEN penalties again, they'll still win this one.

Baltimore at Pittsburgh: Baltimore, 13-10
This has to be the most violent rivalry in American sports right now. While the Steelers have been playing really well, I think they come back down to earth a little for this one. Unfortunately I think the Ravens are really gonna lock down on my fantasy star Mendenhall and make Batch beat them in the air, which he won't be able to do. Still, Pitt's defense is so good that they should keep the offense within striking distance all game.

Carolina at New Orleans: New Orleans, 38-17
Carolina is looking pretty inept this year. Despite having an explosive RB tandem, they have done virtually nothing on offense, and are starting a rather bewildered rookie at QB. Their defense hasn't been any better, either. I'm confident that New Orleans will adjust after last week's loss, probably more stable on offense now in the second week without Bush. Saints playing at home should enhance this.

Indianapolis at Jacksonville: Indianapolis, 34-13
Jacksonville is looking even worse so far than I thought they would prior to the season. Philly just humiliated them last week. Their reward is a matchup against Peyton and Company. Indy looks right back on track after their first week loss, and I doubt Jacksonville will give them too much of a challenge.

Houston at Oakland: Houston, 30-20
After embarrassing Dallas in the preseason, then starting out 2-0 vs. Dallas' 0-2, Houston sure got a bucket of ice-cold water to the face last week. Not having seen it, I'm not sure how well Dallas' defense played vs. how poorly Houston's offense played (and vice versa). I'm guessing, though, that it was just another stage of growing pains for what eventually should be a strong contender. They should bounce back here.

Washington at Philadelphia: Philadelphia, 35-17
Boy, I really want McNabb to smear Philly in this game. To trade him like that, and to a division rival at that, was just total disrespect for a guy who endured the city's crappy, go-with-the-wind fans and bench-happy coach for over ten years. On the other side, you have Michael Vick, a former dog-fight ring leader who admittedly paid his dues but of whom I'm still suspicious (not to mention very dubious of all his new bandwagon fans). Sadly, I'm afraid Vick's Eagles will probably smash poor McNabb and the Redskins.

Arizona at San Diego: San Diego, 31-10
Are San Diego's typical early season woes over? Although I'm not sure Mathews is back for this one, I think the Chargers will be just fine.

Chicago at NY Giants: Chicago, 24-17
Chicago has now been lucky to win two of its three games. The first, thanks to Calvin Johnson being lazy and not holding onto the ball, and the second due to the Packers' crazy penalty woes. Still, their offense has looked pretty decent, and the same for their defense. Meanwhile, the Giants just look awful. The running game which served as their backbone in the Super Bowl year is long gone, and Eli just isn't good enough to carry the team by himself.

TTSNBN vs. Miami: TTSNBN, x-x
I was quite encouraged to see the Bills manage to pretty much go score-to-score with TTSNBN last week, despite losing. I think TTSNBN's offense is good again this year, but their defense looks suspect. Miami is looking pretty solid this year, but they'll have to play much better defense than they did last week to have a chance to take down TTSNBN.


2010 Picks: 28-20

Music: The Joshua Tree (U2)

Album Review: The Joshua Tree by U2

Joshua Tree, U2's fifth studio album, was released in March 1987 (look at all these great albums released around my birth! ;) I wouldn't say that I'm a U2 aficionado at all; this is pretty much the only album I know very well. I also have their greatest hits album and a few others, and I have to say, I think Joshua Tree is far better than most of their other material. I think Bono is a great vocalist, but the style of most of their music is just not quite my thing. Still good, though. And this album is just fantastic. It's another that I remember from way back in my childhood, so that's one reason, but it still resonates.

1. "Where The Streets Have No Name"
What a way to start. First we have a haunting organ/keyboard introduction, and then the great guitar part comes in to change the tone even as the organ fades out. Bono's vocal is fantastic, and the verses convey a sense of longing that has a neat combination of the haunting from the organ intro as well as the more hopeful tone of the guitar part. The chorus is a perfectly smooth transition from the verses and does a great job of encapsulating those varied moods, just like the chorus should, without going overboard. Bono's intensity builds throughout, the doesn't explode, and the song finally ends with the organ/keyboard again. Fantastic opener.

2. "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For"
Now for my favorite U2 song, and probably one of my top 20 or so favorite songs overall. It's a pretty simple song, and I'd certainly say the opening track is considerably more complex. But the power of this song, I think, is just incredible. The verses are, again, hopeful and yet both reminiscent and regretful as well. It sounds like Bono is praying, but just singing his prayer. And then of course the chorus, which is simply the song's title; Bono's voice rises and holds on the "still," and that combination of regret with hope is at its strongest. The song just keeps powering along throughout; not a lot of variation, but it doesn't need it. This one always gets me at least a little emotional.

3. "With Or Without You"
What can you say? You'd be hard-pressed to come up with a better string of three songs on any album. The song starts at a decent pace, with a subdued lyric from Bono bracketed by a prominent bass line on the bottom and high-pitched synthesizers of some kind at the top. After the first verse, Bono's vocal acquires considerably more intensity and the guitars start to break out. Bono's vocal rises like a wave singing the song's title, bringing it up to the crest - and then whoosh - an explosion of energy that will send chills running down your spine even after hearing it dozens of times. And after that, the wave peters out harmlessly on the beach, as the listener recovers and rides it out on some finishing guitar parts. Three for three.

4. "Bullet the Blue Sky"
This song is what I think of when pondering an "average" U2 song. This track is far harsher and less musically smooth than the terrific trio to start the album. Which isn't to say it's a bad song; in fact, I think it's quite creative and has some strengths; but it's also the style of U2 that makes me more of a casual fan of theirs. The song starts with distorted, harsh guitar sounds before going to an equally harsh vocal from Bono. There is a neat bass part hidden beneath it all, and I like the drum part as well. In typical U2 fashion, the singing of the title in the chorus is catchy enough. Probably one of the best U2-style songs.

5. "Running To Stand Still"
The intensity and the volume come way down in this one. When you switch from distorted guitar to piano as the main instrument, that tends to happen. The verses are fine; they are quite reflective in mood, and Bono does a good job in his transition to this style (although I think his voice is a little better suited for the louder stuff). He does have a few nice falsetto parts here. There's even a little harmonica part towards the end. This one won't blow you away, but it's certainly a nice little song.

6. "Red Hill Mining Town"
This one channels the musical style of "Where The Streets Have No Name," with a bit of the intensity of "With Or Without You" - but it doesn't do either nearly as well. Again, though, that's not to say it's bad, simply not amazing. I think the biggest problem is just that - it doesn't seem to have much new to add musically, being a little too derivative of the classic tracks on the album. I do like a couple things about this song in particular, such as the guitar part and the backing vocals that come in during the chorus. Verses and chorus are fine, but really nothing special, at least relative to the rest of the album.

7. "In God's Country"
I think of this song as sort of the more upbeat, happier sibling of "Bullet the Blue Sky". The instrumentals of both songs are pretty active - especially in this one - but the harshness of "Bullet" is completely absent here. The biggest downside to this song, unfortunately, is the chorus, which musically is pretty lazy I think, and not very pretty (which it should have been). The verses are pretty cool, though, and the guitars just continue to drive it forward. Another fine vocal from Bono - a decent song, but kind of mediocre for the album.

8. "Trip Through Your Wires"
Eeek. This one does not appeal to me much at all. It strikes me as a strange sort of combination of U2 rock with American country (harmonica included) and a romantic touch that falls flat on its face. The swing to it almost feels like parody, and the sustained vocals do not suit Bono's abilities at all. I guess the... bass is alright. OK, let's move on.

9. "One Tree Hill"
This is more like it! I consider this sort of the lost classic of the album (or maybe not lost; like I say, I'm not a U2 aficionado, but know it wasn't a hit single). Driving the song forward is a fantastic guitar part, supported by yet another strong bass part. Bono's voice works just as well in this one as it does in the earlier hits, and the verses just mesh perfectly with that sweet guitar. Just like in "Where The Streets", the chorus just fits in perfectly smoothly. The song goes along at a fairly subdued intensity for awhile, but suddenly builds with about a minute left, in a very "With Or Without You" like way. Unlike "Red Hill Mining Town", however, this combination of earlier hits works perfectly. It even ends with an unexpected little a capella rendition of the chorus. Fantastic.

10. "Exit"
Here's kind of a strange one. It takes about a minute for this one to really start. Bono has only a limited vocal in this one, and it's mainly instrumental. It almost seems like just an atmospheric sort of song, but it does a very nice job of creating that atmosphere of forboding. Yet another great bass part is involved, but the guitars do a great job while ceding the starring role to the bass and the drums accompany things very well, too. Cool song, though limited.

11. "Mothers Of The Disappeared"
Good way to end album (in fact, a little tidbit from Wikipedia says that U2 only stipulated the placement of this one and the opening track). It brings back the haunting mood of "Where The Streets", which is appropriate considering the title of the song. The guitar sets the tone with a kind of strange part, but one that is appropriate and contributes to the haunting. There are bits and pieces of some harsher sounding instruments, but they are kept minimal to only supplement the mood. Bono's vocal is restrained but detailed; I think there may be a backing chorus too, but I'm not sure. It's a good finisher to the album, though perhaps not a great standalone track.

Score: 4.5 out of 5. The first three songs along are practically worth giving this song its score, but the rest is also at least decent, with some highs and lows as usual. It seems like I'm giving out great scores left and right... but I can't diminish any of these classics! And this one deserves to be right there with the others.

Essentials: "Where The Streets Have No Name", "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", "With Or Without You", "One Tree Hill"
Weak(er) Songs: "Trip Through Your Wires", "In God's Country"

Politics: A Lesson From Luke

First, I have to admit that this blog is becoming more and more entertainment-centered... which I hope is OK. For the last few weeks, I've tended to be either too depressed by the news to report it, or haven't bothered to for one reason or another. Perhaps my patterns will change, but for now, it appears the bulk of posts will be movies, music or sports. However, this is something I really wanted to post about...

Last week in church (First Presbyterian in Ann Arbor), the minister's sermon was about Luke 15:11-32. Now, I'd heard this verse before, of course, but in our current political environment, it really struck me. Basically, in case you don't want to read the linked verses (it's really short, though, so you should), a man has two sons, the younger of whom wishes to be given his inheritance immediately. He goes off on his own and squanders this, and along with outside events he is forced into servitude. He returns to his father in shame and intends to work as a hired hand. However, the father instead rejoices at his son's return, and throws a big party for him. The older brother gets word of this and is pissed off, complaining that he had worked diligently and faithfully all his life and yet had not been so celebrated. His father replies that the celebration is in order because the young son had "died" but was born again now.

Essentially, the minister's message in his sermon was that we have a little bit of both sons in all of us. There is the young son, who desires material and physical pleasure, is selfish and wasteful, and eventually is completely at the mercy of others. Then there is the old son, who works hard consistently and dutifully, but also scorns any who do not live up their standards and resents those who get a "free ride"; self-righteous, in other words.

Can't we say the same for Democrats and Republicans, conservatives and liberals? Right now, I think both sides are feeling quite strongly that they are the older son. Conservatives say, look at all this spending on health care, pork-projects, and government spending in general; now we are running a huge deficit when (excuse the expression) good ol' folks like us are fiscally responsible. Liberals say, look at what conservative policies have gotten us: lack of corporate regulation has led to spiraling health care costs, a decaying environment and a world financial crisis; we have been railing against this for years to deaf ears.

And now we have the problems of BOTH younger sons: a huge national debt and deficit, as well as huge and growing threats to the environment, health care, and the economy, among others. So old son conservative blames young son Democrat, and old son liberal blames young son conservative. Where does this get us? Republicans are filibustering every damn little (let alone big) thing the Democrats propose (even things they would normally support), and liberals liken Fox News and others to Soviets brainwashing of what they perceive as backwards, cruel rural Americans. I repeat, where does this get us?

Where it gets us is farther and farther apart from each other, even as our problems expand simultaneously with that separation. Democrats try to squeeze in as much of their agenda as possible, fearing a Republican return but hoping to solve the nation's problems, which now has Republicans horrified that things are changing so quickly and thus getting more and more extreme in their own rhetoric.

But we are ALL Americans here in the United States, as big of a cliche as that is. Politicians say "the American people want a fiscally responsible government" and "the people want adequate health care for all". But there are hard choices to be made. You want fiscally responsible government? Are you prepared to throw the poor and elderly to the wolves? Are you prepared to let the infrastructure of the nation continue to decay to the point of crisis (and so on)? Or, do you want first-rate health care for all? Are you prepared for future, unknown consequences of the national debt, that your children and grandchildren may inherit?

There is always a give-and-take in politics, always a downside for each positive government action (or inaction). But now, with what I think Americans are correctly perceiving as a critical time for our nation on so many issues, we are perhaps further than ever away from seeing the other side's point of view. And these many younger and older sons, selfish and self-righteous alike, have no wise father figure in real life that can set it straight, calm the tension.

So my message to America's politicians: put aside your self-righteousness and work with your younger brother, because he's an American, too. And America needs you to do it NOW.