You Get What THEY Pay For

Anyone who is complaining about the gridlock in Washington D.C. right now needs to understand an important fact:  it is the voters who put these folks in office.

But who put them up for election?  The ones with the money, of course.  One of the most vital aspects of any modern day campaign is the "war chest".   Who has the most money for advertising?  Who can spread the cash around? 

It is like any advertising campaign for a product or service.  A beverage can taste like malted battery acid, but if that company puts out clever and frequent advertising, and gets some important folks to say that the product is great, then people will buy.  It is the crowd mentality at work.

Now, apply the same idea to elections.  Whoever is the loudest; whoever puts the "product" out there; whoever gets the famous people to back them - that is who wins the election because of the crowd mentality.

On top of that, primary elections appeal to the most fervent of each political party, as the middle-of-the-road voters don't cast a ballot until the big elections.  That's how you end up with candidates like Rick Perry and Michelle Bachman getting the attention that they get.  It isn't that they will do what is best for everyone, but they are the ones who appeal to the extremists of their party.

Don't tell me that I have to vote to complain.  My candidate is ignored in human elections, and I watch the news and wonder if the members of the U.S. Congress can even agree to discuss the thermostat level. 

Money talks...advertising sells...and the voters end up choosing the lesser of two evils...or the greater.  In any case, they get what someone else pays for.

Tragedy in Reno

I have always had a problem with air shows.  Oh, I like airplanes well enough (except when I am white knuckling my way through turbulence), and I think some of the old prop driven aircraft are amazing.  But I have issues when planes traveling hundreds of miles per hour are flashing by grandstands of people.  It is a recipe for disaster, and that recipe was served up in Reno last week.

Granted, accidents do happen.  People are killed on highways every day.  People slip and fall in their homes.  But in general, society takes certain precautions to try to prevent such accidents.  We have laws for seat belt use and for speed limits.  We put rails on stairways and tell our kids not to run with scissors.  And yet, we place grandstands alongside runways as modified aircraft go streaking by overhead, passing within feet of each other and the ground.  Then we stare in shock as accident after accident takes place.

How about we use some common sense when it comes to air shows.  You want to have air shows?  Fine. Have them.  Just keep them away from populated areas and make sure that the grandstands are quite a distance away from where the event is taking place.  Trust me, the planes are in the sky, so people will be able to see them.

A number of people are dead in Reno, Nevada.  I have friends in Reno, and am very glad that none of them were there that day watching this tragedy.  I am sad, however, to think that this terrible event could have been averted; if only common sense ruled.

Memory ... (Not from Cats)

I'm reading a book right now called "Moonwalking With Einstein". It's all about memory, and how human society has moved away from the need to memorize things internally.

It's really fascinating and quite true. In the days before books, humans had to memorize information that needed to be passed on. It was vital. Now, we trust that everything is available at a moment's notice, and because of that, we find that we memorize less, and our ability to memorize falters.

I have to present parts in French. What does that have to do with memory? Well, my ability to memorize anything except useless trivial information is bad; terrible, in fact. So, add to that the need to actually speak in French, and I find myself reading everything from the printed page rather than speaking extemporaneously. I hate that. And I hate that I have to search for every piece of info...every scripture...every magazine tidbit that I need instead of being able to recall it with ease.

Unfortunately, I have finished 70% of the book (according to my Kindle) and am no closer to improving my memory. Oh, I have learned a lot about how memory works and how there are some memory pros out there who compete in freakish contests of memory, but I haven't learned the tricks myself.

And yet I find myself meditating on the benefits of having a trained memory. Imagine being able to quote scripture (in English or French) with book, chapter, and verse as easily as you might order lunch. Imagine being able to give a 30 minute talk from memory, without looking at notes. Imagine remembering the name of the person you have met at work no fewer than 20 times. (Guilty..)

We live in a society where we value convenience, and are completely satisfied with having snippets of information spoon-fed to us rather than a deep understanding of a subject. We prefer 30 second bursts of info rather than an intense "digging into" a matter. I'm as guilty of this as anyone, as my ADD causes me to flit from one subject to another like a bee buzzing around a garden. It's annoying, and it causes me to worry about what my memory will be like in 20 years...heck, in 5 years!

The time has come. It is time to begin the search for memory. It is time to learn something extraordinarily useful. From never needing a shopping list, to not needing to consult my iPhone for someone's number, to remembering how long I've been married (kidding!!), the training of my memory seems to be a noble undertaking. So, after doing a bit more moonwalking with Doctor Albert, I think I'll get down to it. Mnemonics is something that requires effort. Maybe that effort will reward me in other ways. I just hope I remember to study.

Modern Movie Musicals

I admit it. I like musicals and am secure in my man-hood, so leave my man card alone. I'm a big fan of Gene Kelly - Singin' In The Rain is a masterpiece - and I could probably watch Gigi several times a month.

Recently, the cinema has touched a bit on a sort of rediscovery of musicals. There is a problem, however. Casting crews, in their infinite cluelessness, have decided to go with big name stars rather than people who can sing and/or dance. I can give you two examples in particular.

The Phantom of the Opera - I'm not a big fan of this musical. I think the lyrics are insipid and it harkens back to the Umbrellas of Cherbourg in that all of the dialog seems to be set to music...and I mean ALL of it. I can excuse that, as I did with the Umbrellas. What I cannot forgive, however, is that the folks responsible for casting thought that the title role of the Phantom could be handled by Gerard Butler, who readily admitted that - wait for it - he could not sing. "That's okay," they said. "We will teach you, because you look so darn good!" Alas, they could not teach him, and his singing was only a bit more pleasant than a jackhammer running non-stop when you have a migraine.

Mamma Mia! - I'm no ABBA fan, by any stretch. But when I saw this musical performed at our community center theater by the off-Broadway touring company, I had a great time. The singing was fantastic, the acting was great, and I found myself laughing frequently and smiling incessantly as I left the theater. Then came the film, and the overpowering sensation that I had just been sentenced by Dick Chaney to a fate worse than waterboarding. I won't go into too many details here, as my psychiatrist says it isn't healthy. In the name of all that is decent, who thought that Pierce Brosnan was a singer? His idea of making something better is to sing it louder. In reality, it just sounds as though the lion has reached the jugular of the poor antelope and is finishing it off in an agonizing fashion. Colin Firth? Really? Mister Darcy? Christine Baranski and Amanda Seyfreid were the only saving glories of this film, and they didn't do enough to pull it out of the pit that the casting directors ... well ... cast it into. (sorry about that)

What is the point of this tirade? Can't you guess? If you want to make a musical into a movie, for heaven's sake grab the actors who performed it successfully on stage! Or at least grab a performer who has proven their chops in the required skill set.

Now.... rumor has it that the next musical to be made into a movie is one of my favorites: Les Miserables. A fantastic musical with great songs, it could be magnificent. However, that depends on the cast. Two names have leaked out, and I'm torn.

First off is Anne Hathaway as Fantine. While not THE most important role in the musical, it is important. My question is: can she sing at all? I've never heard her, and Fantine's songs are meant to be extraordinarily powerful and moving. I just think that Anne may not be up to it, but I'm willing to wait and see.

The most important role, by far, is that of Jean Valjean. The rumor here gives me hope. The lead is to be played by an actor who has been very successful in film, extremely successful doing voices in animated film, and has been wildly successful as a ... here we go ... Broadway performer! That actor is: Hugh Jackman! Yes! Actor, singer, dancer...he moves with grace and can play a variety of roles, of which Jean Valjean could easily be one. Is his voice powerful enough? If it is strong enough to star in The Boy From Oz and Oklahoma!, I'm sure it is. Finally, someone has it right. Let's just hope that the other choices are as good.

Musicals can succeed. Just grab the actors and actresses who have shown the ability to carry a show on stage before you put it on film.