My Name Is John

 My name is John. How shall I tell you about my life? I was the Lord's best friend. Well, no...the Lord was my best friend. Does that sound arrogant? He loved us all--He loved everyone that He met. But we were like brothers...even though He was a rabbi, and I was just a fisherman. I was a young man then, impulsive and brash--not as brash as Simon the Stone, mind you--but, oh, the arguments we had, Simon, my brother James and I...and then the Rabbi would speak, and our squabbles would seem so petty and small by comparison. He made the world seem so alive, and yet so calm. But yes, I was allowed to be there even when most of the others were away.

 I saw the most amazing moments--when He let His true self start to shine through on the mountain, and the bright day seemed so dim by comparison. When He learned of the death of His cousin--and prophet--John the Baptizer. His cousin and prophet--can you imagine that? How He took the news quietly, calmly...with a clear undercurrent of anger at the injustice and loss, but also with acceptance that John was now at peace, his mission complete. When He was faced with impossible conundrums from the "holy men," but would turn toward me with a wry smile before confounding them with His wisdom and understanding. These amazing stories He would tell us--so energetic, so full of truth--and yet we would not understand the point. And He would shake His head, almost laughing, "Do you still not understand?" And calmly, He would explain His meaning. And His rampage in the temple! I had never seen Him so furious! The anger burning in His eyes, as He flung tables across the floor, the clanging of bags of money spilling about, the fierce slapping of His whip startling the shocked bankers, as He shouted louder than I had ever heard Him shout before, "My house shall be a house of prayer!" The hurt in His voice was palpable. And yet, whenever there were children around, He almost became as one of them--smiling, laughing, holding them close as if they were His own.

 But we were like brothers. In a sense, all of us were--we traveled together, ate together, dealt with the enormous crowds together. We'd be crammed together on a little fishing boat, either traveling across the sea, or pushed just far enough from the shore so He could speak to the multitudes. Our last meal together, though, He spoke with such passion and fervent longing--as if imploring us to understand, cherishing each moment. He had washed our feet--we were shocked, all of us! But He made us each feel like royalty in that moment--and yet, I felt so undeserving. And then, after all that, we ran. Every single one of us. When He needed us most, we ran. I felt so awful...but I made myself go back. I was determined to stand with Him again...but I was ignored by the council. Simon the Stone went back too--ever the talker, he drew some attention, and started yelling and cursing, before a glance from the Rabbi silenced him. But I, I could not make myself speak. I was there, and yet I couldn't bring myself to offer a single word in His defense. What I would give to change those moments....

 And yet, even as He struggled on the cross, covered in blood and scars, He looked at me, and I saw not anger...but warmth, and understanding. He charged me to take care of His mother. How could I not see Him as my brother now? It was a charge I never forgot. In her later years, as she grew weaker, I would spend hours recounting all the times we had spent together, miraculous and mundane, and I do believe it gave her some comfort as she reflected on all that had happened since she was told she had been "chosen." And I'll never forget that feeling of improbable elation and anxiety when the women came and told us the impossible news--He was gone! We buried Him, watched them seal the giant stone, and yet...He was gone! And then we met Him! Touched Him! He was changed, somehow, but that smile was the same. That look in His eyes was the same. He tried to tell us, and we never quite believed Him, but somehow--He knew. He knew it had to happen that way.

 Now as I look back over the years, I think of all that has happened. We saw Him float away into the sky. What a sense of wonder, and also a sense of dread--He's really gone from us! Not dead, but gone away. And then when crowds gathered around us, we felt so confident to tell them what happened, in a way we'd never felt before. Even when the leaders threatened us, we knew we had to go on telling what had happened. Not that it was easy--my own brother was murdered for speaking the truth. A man named Saul who was sworn to stop our movement suddenly came to us asking for forgiveness and acceptance. Such a brilliant mind, but trusting him took every ounce of faith I could muster. And after all this time, the story seems so clear--a perfect picture of faith and redemption, such a perfect display of love. I've seen so much happen--like the world is transforming before me, small stones creating a mighty onslaught that can wipe away the evil of these days. For evil they are--we are chased, persecuted, and murdered. Our teachings of truth and love are called demonic, and those who would claim to be part of us teach of having special knowledge that never came from the Rabbi. But lives are changed. The most vile folk transform into gentle and loving souls--reflections of the Man I walked with when I was so much younger.

 Did I say these days are evil? Surely they are. Indeed, I see troubling images in my mind--glorious nightmares, horrible and terrible visions, but they all end the same. He overcomes. For His truth is completely invincible. So magnificent that no weapon, no empire, no demon can topple it. There is so much uncertain, so little I can predict, except one thing I know with absolute confidence. In the end...we win. He wins. And on that day...I know I'll see Him smiling.

Lunch Meat: A Modern Fable

 Meet Mr. Koothrappalli. He has no relation to the similarly named character on The Big Bang Theory; it’s just an astonishing (and completely legal) coincidence. Mr. Koothrappalli opened his furniture store in suburban New Jersey several years ago, and the first was so successful that he was able to branch out and open other stores in the local area, and later throughout the state. He has even managed to open some stores in neighboring Pennsylvania and New York. He employs over 150 people full-time and is enjoying his own rags-to-riches success story.

Mr. Koothrappalli long ago decided that as a way to keep his employees healthy and happy, he would offer meals to his workers, free of charge. Whenever they take their lunch break or afternoon snack break, there is a full selection of food for them in the employee break area. Iced water, tea, and soft drinks are available as well. There is no requirement for them to partake, but many do, or supplement their home-packed lunches with items from the “Big K Menu,” as they call it. The Big K is offered at all of his furniture store locations to any of his employees. Leftovers are taken to local homeless shelters. Mr. Koothrappalli is proud to run a clean business that provides jobs and service to the local community.

However, things have gotten a bit tougher recently. A new law, the “Employees Always Take Lunch” or “EAT Lunch” act, was passed in Congress. This law requires that any company with over fifty employees that offers lunch must offer a full menu of twenty different items. Naturally, those items include chicken, turkey, and dairy products like milk and cheese. That’s a problem because Mr. Koothrappalli is Hindu and, in keeping with the teachings of his religion, is a strict vegetarian who offers no meat or dairy in his menu. The employees don’t complain; after all, the food does not cost them anything, and they are of course free to bring their own food if they don’t like what the Big K offers. But the law is the law, and if Mr. Koothrappalli does not expand his menu accordingly, he must pay thousands of dollars in fines per day, per employee. Needless to say, his business is not so successful that he can afford that.

Mr. Koothrappalli joined some other businesses in a lawsuit to ask for an exemption from the law. After all, what they were doing was completely legal before the new law was passed, and several non-profits, like many local PETA branches, were allowed exemptions. Surely he should be free to run his family-owned business and provide food to his employees without having to compromise his religious beliefs! Fortunately for him, the Supreme Court agreed. The new law went too far, and he could provide whatever menu he wished as long as he did not prevent his workers from purchasing and consuming their own food of choice.

But that’s when the protests began. The day after the ruling, hundreds of protestors showed up outside his main showroom door. None of these protestors were familiar; they certainly hadn’t worked for him before. But there they were, large poster board signs in hand, chanting “meat is neat!” and other trite catchphrases. Mr. Koothrappalli made his way through the gauntlet of protestors and sat down at his desk. There were angry voicemail messages on the phone. There were outrageous accusations on his company Facebook and Twitter pages. Irate editorials in the newspapers and screaming commentators on the news channels. And there were reports that similar protests were popping up at his other locations.

“He wants us to starve!”

“K hates American food!”

“We won’t stand for cafetyranny!”

“The average worker can’t live on this type of diet!”

Mr. Koothrappalli could not believe what he was seeing. For years, he had offered his beloved employees free food. They had never complained, to him or anyone else. He had sued simply to protect his First Amendment rights, and now the worst accusations were being hurled against him. A reporter for one of the local stations called for a comment.

“I don’t understand all this. I have never shown bias to anyone! Most of my employees are Christians, and they have never complained about this. I treat my employees well. I give part-time jobs to low-income kids so they get a paycheck and experience and can stay off the streets. I pay above minimum wage to my full-time employees. I offered lunch to them before the law required it, and then the law changed everything. I challenged the new rules to protect my personal beliefs, and my challenge was vindicated. And yet now, somehow I’m the bad guy…? I guess some Americans aren’t as tolerant as they like to claim they are. Wait, don’t include that last part–they’ll think I hate this country, even though I was born and raised here.”

What's the Deal With Soccer?

 I'm not a big fan of soccer. I don't dislike it, mind you; I just never have been passionate about it. Like most Americans, my tastes run more to baseball and football. A big part of it is personal involvement: I never played organized soccer, but I did play baseball and I went to lots of football games as a member of my high school and college marching bands, so there is some emotional attachment involved. For me, soccer just doesn't have that.

 What mystifies me, though, is how every time the World Cup comes around, this debate starts up about why soccer isn't/should be more popular, and how the game somehow becomes this metaphor for American/world society. There are typically two views that emerge during the debate:


1) EVERYONE ELSE LOVES SOCCER SO WHY CAN'T WE
It is the most popular sport in the world in just about every major industrialized country (and even the non-major countries too) except for the United States, so shouldn't we get with the program and embrace it, and what do you mean it isn't exciting? The entire game could depend on just one kick! Our nation is culturally deprived because we don't have the enthusiasm everyone else does, especially since anyone with a soccer ball and some open space can play it. Also, we should call it football like the rest of the world.

The people with this viewpoint typically are considered politically liberal.

2) WE LOVE AMERICAN SPORTS AND SOCCER ISN'T ONE
Soccer is boring, no-score ties are commonplace, the field is just too big, and who cares what everyone else thinks? We love sports that have been part of our popular culture for decades, and those sports were developed HERE, so if you love soccer move to one of those other places. Our tastes are not defined by what everyone else wants. You can't make us have a passion for a sport that we just don't enjoy, and no one enjoys a sport because "it's good for you." Yuck! If we wanted to follow British sports, we wouldn't have declared our independence from the king. And we'll always call it soccer, because real football is played Friday night in high school, Saturday in college, and Sunday in the pros.

The people with this viewpoint typically are considered politically conservative.

And thus follow radio commentaries and print articles about what's wrong with soccer and how there are all these reasons why *real* Americans prefer other sports.

Before I go further, I do want to be clear about one thing:
I AM NOT TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU TO LIKE SOCCER.

But if you're in camp number two, especially if you're politically conservative, I'd like you to consider what you're saying about soccer. The reason is that, somehow, this topic becomes another proxy war in the battle for the culture. A typical skirmish goes something like this:

Person A: Wow! Have you been keeping up with the World Cup? What a game the other day!!!
Person B: Nah, I can't stand soccer. No scoring, it's boring--hey, that rhymes!--and who cares about this "world" stuff anyway? Give me my baseball and apple pie and let me cross off the days until fall camp starts!
Person A: But don't you want us to win? This is one of the best teams we've ever fielded!
Person B: So what? Real Americans could care less about soccer. What a dumb game.

All of the sudden, you've gone from "I just don't like soccer" to "you're un-American if you do."
Now undoubtedly, some of you are reading this and saying, whoa, not only have I never said that, I don't know anyone who has! Or would! But it's too late: the caricature is out there, and it is going to stick. If you doubt me, just Google "Ann Coulter Soccer" and read the headlines. This is how you lose elections: you become known for what you oppose rather than what you support. If you're conservative, you have to deal with the uncomfortable reality that most people in the media hate you.  They want to make you look bad. They don't need a *good* reason, just an opening. And what one of us says, ALL of us believe. It isn't true and it isn't fair, but THAT is our perfectly-manicured over-sized playing field. We are always the visiting team, and the refs are wearing home colors.

 Does this mean we compromise our ideals and move to the center? No, of course not. But it does mean that we must have a good strategy, and we will only sway the crowd by playing the game better than they do. If you don't recognize that it's a game, go to the showers; you've already lost. And if you object to a sporting event because it requires minimal equipment, then you're clearly an elitist who hates poor children. (Remember, there is no logic in the media--object to healthcare reform and you want grandma to die.)

 Just for the sake of argument, let's deal with a few common objections to soccer.
LOW SCORING
Yes, soccer games are typically very low-scoring. If you're a fan of baseball or hockey, though, you should not use this objection. Remember that scoring is not the only action in the game. Watching guys dunk the basketball fifty times in a row can get monotonous too.

IT'S JUST GUYS RUNNING AROUND
Well, running is a good thing. It even has its own sport! If we want our kids to be active and healthy and burn off all that extra energy, there are far worse things they could do than running around on the grass kicking a ball.

YOU CAN'T USE YOUR HANDS--WHAT'S UP WITH THAT?!
Every sport has its idiosyncrasies. You can't move the basketball without dribbling. No icing the puck. Don't nod your head before the snap--that's a penalty! It makes a lot of sense that a game referred to as "football" by millions of people requires that you move the ball primarily with your feet.

TIE GAMES IN AN ELIMINATION TOURNAMENT?
This is what I'd call an "organizational flaw" rather than a structural flaw. The game itself would be exactly the same if there were a requirement for overtime or penalty kicks to decide every single game and require that every game have a winning score. For whatever reason, FIFA has chosen not to do that. Maybe if enough fans demanded it, they would. NCAA football used to allow ties; now they have almost ridiculously long overtimes to determine a winner. This is like complaining about baseball's designated hitter; it could be easily changed with a rule modification that does not impact the actual play of the game.

WHY SHOULD WE LOVE IT JUST BECAUSE EVERYONE ELSE DOES?
Why not? A lot of people think soccer is fun, and believe it or not, a lot of those people are Americans. A good number of them are immigrants who loved soccer and then came to love their adopted country too. Do we want to be the ones telling them that they'd better give up their sporting passion if they want to blend?

LIBERALS WANT TO FORCE US TO LOVE IT BECAUSE IT'S EUROPEAN.
Well, that may be true. Many liberals say becoming more like other nations, especially European ones, is something America needs to do. But we should not object to a game simply to be contrary to our political opponents. If a person simply loves the game, we are being shallow if we allow that to become a point of political division.

Winning elections is about winning the culture. Winning the culture is about giving people a reason to believe that your ideas are better for them and their neighbors. When your reaction to a sports tournament is to chalk up reasons why Americans shouldn't like it even when they have a team competing, you are not broadening your coalition. You aren't welcoming new people; you're giving them a reinforcement of their notion that conservatives are stodgy, close-minded, obnoxious traditionalists who just don't get it. Sporting events bring people together. We should see that as an opportunity.

Person A: Wow! Have you been keeping up with the World Cup? What a game the other day!!!
Person B: Not really; I never got into soccer. What happened?
Person A: We lost the game, but we still managed to make it to the next round. Still alive!
Person B: That's awesome! I don't care if it's competitive kitchen-tile painting, I want to see the US team holding that trophy when it's all over!

We're the land of the free. We put astronauts on the moon. You better believe that World Cup should be ours. Let's go get it.

This is cross-posted at http://politicalprospect.com/2014/06/30/david-proctor-why-conservatives-should-embrace-soccer/ . My thanks to Kayleigh McEnany!

Thoughts On Film: Saving Private Ryan

 As row after row of Soldiers are cut down by constant machine gun fire and artillery blasts, a few manage to find footing on the beach. The only sounds are the rattling of the guns, the booming explosions, and the screams of the wounded and dying. Captain John Miller sees one Soldier run up to him through the cascade of enemy fire.

 "Sir, what's the rally point?"

 "Anywhere but here!"

 This is the invasion of Normandy as depicted in one of the landmark films of recent years, Steven Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan. The story is a simple one: A squad of US Army Soldiers in Europe manage to survive the hellish attack on Omaha beach of June 6, 1944. Three days later, they are tasked to locate Private First Class James Ryan of the 101st Airborne Division. PFC Ryan's three brothers were all killed in action and the Army has decided that Ryan must be sent home. (Though fictional, the story was inspired by real-life examples of siblings who fought concurrently. Department of Defense policy now allows for serving family members of those killed in action to be exempted from combat.)

 SPOILERS AHEAD

 "...like looking for a needle in a stack of needles."

 Naturally, the troops have misgivings about what seems to them a public relations mission rather than a tactical one. Without cellphones, GPS systems, Twitter, or Facebook, they have to find one man whose location is "somewhere in France, probably, if he isn't already dead." On top of that, someone who is not trying to be found. Even CPT Miller (Tom Hanks), who properly refuses to question his orders in front of his men, holds out little hope for success. The horror of the opening battle is a shadow through the rest of the film, with any moment holding the prospect that the small group will encounter a larger German force, or that a single well-placed sniper could take them down. (This is to say nothing of the possibility of other American or Allied troops accidentally mistaking them for the enemy.)

 "You wanna explain the math of this to me? I mean, where's the sense of riskin' the lives of the eight of us to save one guy?"
...
 "We all have orders, and we have to follow 'em. That supersedes everything, including your mothers."

 As they make their way through the countryside, occasionally encountering other Army units and trying to determine if Ryan is in their ranks or among their casualties, the Soldiers wrestle with the thought that, officially, Ryan's life is more important than theirs and how they too have families back home. The new guy (there's always a new guy), translator Corporal Upham (Jeremy Davies), wants to learn about the camaraderie of the team, but to them, he's still an outsider. He's spent the war behind a desk and hasn't seen the action that they have. CPT Miller still tries to maintain some distance by refusing to reveal anything about his life and family back home; he has to order these men to kill and may have to order them to die and prefers that they not get too close.

 When skirmishes break out and men in the team die, the question is no longer hypothetical: is saving Private Ryan worth the cost?

 Eventually, they manage to find PFC Ryan (Matt Damon) as part of a contingent of men holding a strategically important bridge. Of course, finding him is not the end of the mission. They have to get him back safely to a secure transport, and the odds of a quiet jaunt through the French countryside are not good. What they hadn't counted on was Ryan choosing to stay, when any of the men who were hunting for him would gladly have gone back home after surviving D-Day. But the camaraderie that unites Miller's squad is also felt by the man who is their mission.

 "Tell her that when you found me I was here and I was with the only brothers that I have left and that there was no way I was gonna desert them. I think she'll understand that. There's no way I'm leaving this bridge."

*     *     *

 From the day it hit the theaters, Saving Private Ryan was a game-changer. The realism of its battle sequences has impacted every historical war movie made since then, including star Tom Hanks's own landmark HBO mini-series Band of Brothers, based on the real exploits of the 101st Airborne's Easy Company. According to William Manchester,  men in war do not fight for flag, country, glory or other abstractions, but for one another. The men in this film are not in a position to see the "big picture," so they do the only thing they can--fight to get themselves and their buddies through one more day. They resent anything that makes that harder, or reduces the odds that they can all go home. For me, one of the biggest messages of the film is that even if one does not think war is wrong, one can still acknowledge that war is a terrible thing, and that even good warriors pay a price for their participation. What the men in the film can't see in the heat of battle and the insanity of a war zone is that their mission to find one man and protect him is essentially what the military is supposed to do for all of us: fight the enemy so that complete strangers can be safe. When a mortally-wounded Miller tells Ryan, "Earn this...earn it..." I find myself thinking about how all of us today benefit from the sacrifices made seventy years ago. Thousands risked their lives, and many of them lost their lives, to allow us to have the freedom we have now. Let's not waste that gift, but rather use it to keep this nation a free one, and to make this world a better place for everyone.

Good Friday

 I'm going to spend this blog writing about some things I don't often write about, but sometimes I feel moved to get certain ideas out of my system. Partly I am prompted to write because, among most Christians around the world, today is celebrated as "Good Friday," the day Jesus of Nazareth was crucified by Roman governor Pontius Pilate in order to keep the peace in the troubled nation of Judea. And of course, Good Friday is the prelude to Easter, the following Sunday when the grave, sealed with a huge stone, was found empty and the followers of Jesus saw Him in person, very much alive. Nearly all of his apostles went to their deaths proclaiming this to be true.

 But if you're reading you probably already know all this. But the thing that we often seem to forget is that while we all grew up thinking of the Easter bunny and eggs and baskets and chocolate and marshmallows, there is nothing cute about crucifixion. There is nothing happy about a mob calling for the death of an innocent man. There is nothing cuddly about betrayal, or cowardice, or fear, all of which were on display by the men who were Jesus's closest friends. There is nothing pleasant about sin, which is what this is really all about.

 It is normal for people in the church to talk about how Jesus died for our sins, or was crucified for our sins, or something to that effect. What we really need to think about is why. After all, the Son of God was not executed for the purpose of atonement, in a legal sense. The Sanhedrin accused Him of blasphemy, but Roman governors, as a matter of course, did not execute violators of the Torah. No, if Jesus is who He claimed to be, He let Himself be crucified. Beating, scourging, public shame, followed by about six hours of death-by-torture. That is how important sin is.

 Sin can be defined as "missing the mark." I suppose this is what Paul meant when he wrote "...all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God." (Romans 3:23) A fatal flaw, the one thing--the one little thing--that keeps a person from that perfect score. Except that we all know it's never one thing. Usually it's several things, and often the same several things multiple times. How bad is sin? The only payment for it is death. Under the law of Moses, it was animal sacrifices. Jesus made Himself a sacrifice--the perfect, final one. The perfect innocent willingly going through all that because you (and everyone you've ever met) missed the mark. Serious stuff.

 What got me thinking about it is this trend in modern churches--not just those other churches, but yours too--to teach that sin really is not that big a deal. Everyone does it, everyone has it, so no harm, no foul. And if it's no big deal, then why bother actually doing something about it? Forget those lists of all the bad things you aren't supposed to do--we don't want to be judgmental. Just pray, and sing some repetitive simple songs, and hold hands and feel good about talking to Jesus, because we're all messed up and He loves us all so there is no point in actually having standards. We don't bother talking about Hell, we just talk about how we've been saved...from....well, something.

 But what about that part where we are supposed to die to sin? Yes, we're supposed to love everyone--that means, figuratively, that you tell them when they're missing the mark. Love isn't about making people happy; it's about telling the truth. I expect people who are not Christians to misinterpret, twist, misunderstand, and generally screw up what the scriptures say to make whatever points they want to make, but when people who claim to be Christians do it I really question what churches have been doing the past twenty years. Modern social media has been great for opening lines of communication; sadly, it has also made it all-too-clear that years of attendance at churches, camps, retreats, and Christian schools has been virtually useless for thousands of people who can't defend, explain, or justify a thing they claim to believe, to say nothing of all the folks who have turned away from the faith.

 Jesus did not die to make everyone happy. He did not die to justify us getting what we want. He didn't die to make sin OK; He died to make us OK. Jesus did not die because it was the best solution or the most convenient solution; He died because it was the only solution. The fact is that Jesus died to absolve you of every sin you could ever commit--this speaks to how great His forgiveness is, but it also speaks to how awful every sin is that you could ever commit. You'll never meet a person for whom Jesus did not die. You'll also never meet a person who has any hope without Him.

 Pilate famously asked Jesus, "What is truth?" The truth is that sin is real, and it is destructive, and it touches every life. The truth is that if there were any other way besides the crucifixion, Jesus would have done that instead. The good news--our Good Friday--is that in spite of how awful sin is, He wants us anyway, and He died--and lived--to make that possible.

Video of the Week: "Say Say Say" (Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney)

 After some time off from blogging for work, rest, and travel, I'm back this week with this gem from 1984, "Say Say Say." This collaboration, written and performed by Michael Jackson and Paul McCartney, is a great showcase for two of the best vocalists in pop music history. The two made two recordings together: "The Girl Is Mine," which was one of the numerous hits from Jackson's landmark album Thriller, and this one from McCartney's album Pipes of Peace. While the former was one of the admittedly weaker songs on an album full of great songs, the latter is generally agreed to be the best song on an otherwise mediocre album. McCartney had another notable duet with an African-American in the early 80s with "Ebony and Ivory," a sappy ballad about racial harmony performed with Stevie Wonder.

 This song was recorded in 1981 when Jackson was visiting the UK, though it was not released for two more years. Like much of McCartney's other work, it was recorded at Abbey Road Studios in London and the sessions were produced by George Martin. Sadly, this was the final project the two worked on together, as a rift developed later when Jackson purchased the publishing rights to Northern Songs, meaning that he collected royalties from most of the Beatles' record sales and broadcast performances, as well as other artists' recordings of Beatles songs. Ironically, McCartney gave Jackson the idea by showing him the catalog of songs for which he had purchased the publishing rights, but McCartney was not happy when Jackson outbid him for the Northern Songs property.

The video was directed by Bob Giraldi, whose previous credits include Jackson's "Beat It" video. Giraldi remarked that the video works because, "Michael didn't outdance Paul, and Paul didn't outsing Michael." The video has been credited as popularizing the idea of using dialogue and a story in music videos, though in this case the plot of the video seems to have little to do with the content of the song. The song is about a man trying to rekindle a failed relationship, while the video features the two performers as con men/vaudeville performers who run numerous scams and give the money to orphans. Critics pointed out the unlikelihood of Jackson besting a muscle man in arm wrestling, but these critics seem to miss the point, since both of them are in on the scam.

 In addition to the two main stars, there are a few other familiar faces here. Linda Eastman McCartney, Paul's first wife, appears as a member of the gang, which is a case of art imitating life since she had been touring as a member of the group Wings and then as part of Paul's solo band for years. Though not highly regarded as a musician, her presence on tours may be a big part of the reason the McCartneys had a successful marriage up until Linda's death from cancer in 1998. Michael's older sister LaToya is also in the video, as the girl who attracts MJ's attention and gets a bouquet of flowers at the end. Actor Harry Dean Stanton shows up as a pool shark who winds up getting hustled by Paul. Stay tuned for more videos and commentary, some more of which will feature both of these guys....

Video of the Week: "Hold Me" (Fleetwood Mac)

This week's video is 1982's "Hold Me" by Fleetwood Mac, a group whose history rivals that of any soap opera. Formed by drummer Mick Fleetwood and bassist John McVie, the group has been through many lineup changes but is best known for its "classic" configuration that also includes keyboardist Christine McVie, guitarist Lindsay Buckingham, and vocalist Stevie Nicks. During the recording sessions for this lineup's second album, 1977's Rumours, Christine and John were in the process of ending their marriage, in large part because of his alcohol abuse, Buckingham and Nicks were ending their relationship, and Nicks and Fleetwood had an affair also. While much of the group's tempestuous dynamic is reflected in their fantastic songwriting, the fact that they managed to produce so much great music is a testament to just how good and dedicated they were. It helped that Fleetwood and John McVie formed an incredibly tight rhythm section for the band, Buckingham was one of the most inventive and talented guitarists of the century, and he joined Nicks and Christine McVie as extraordinary songwriters whose voices made for a distinctive blend despite the three of them having totally different singing styles.

 This song was included on the album Mirage, which may explain the video's surreal desert imagery. The video is also influenced by Belgian surrealist painter Rene Magritte. The numerous mirrors in the video might suggest the fractured nature of the group's relationships, but they may also just be there to look cool, which was a major element of visual style in many music videos from the early 1980s.

 The song was written by Christine McVie and Robbie Patton, who opened for FM on tour. McVie shares lead vocal duties with Buckingham, with Nicks joining on the chorus. Meanwhile, Fleetwood and John McVie engage in an archeological dig which seems to end in the enviable discovery of a lot of guitars, though I doubt all that sand is good for them. Reportedly the video shoot was an ordeal for the band members and the crew, partly because of the heat of the desert and partly because various members of the band did not want to be around each other, which is understandable given the drama between all the personnel. And yet, out of all that comes a fun video and a very catchy song.

Bad Idea: Ending Tax Exemptions For Churches

Most of that $71 B came from this one congregation.

 So today I came across something as I was scouring the web, and it was not a happy sight.

This graphic proclaims that churches (and, I presume, synagogues, temples, mosques, and whatever else you may call a house of worship) are getting a free ride. All that money, contributed freely by the members, going somewhere other than the government. Of course, this is surely not intended to show a hostile attitude toward religious people, not an indication of distrust toward places of worship, just a desire to have everyone pay their fair share.

Right? Well, wrong. Dead wrong.

 Why do I think this is a bad idea? Because, as with many of the pictures with pity captions and clever graphics that you find online, it is deceptive. There are some things that you are not being told, and are not being encouraged to consider. Ending tax exemption for churches (and, by extension, every other place of worship) would have far-reaching consequences that even the creator of this image probably hasn't considered.

 One thing that supporters of this idea have missed is that churches do not get exemption just for being churches. The reason they are not taxed is because they are non-profit organizations. Like other organizations that are considered not-for-profit, they must complete paperwork to the effect that their primary purpose is not engaging in commerce. Non-profits perform charitable services; services that quite likely might not be done should their income be reduced by payments to the government. The federal government has long recognized the value of encouraging people to contribute to charitable services (churches or otherwise) which is why contributions to them can also be deducted from individual income tax payments. (Implicit in this argument is an understanding that a person's income belongs to that person to do with as he or she chooses; there is no compulsion to contribute to charitable non-profits, but the system is designed not to discourage people from doing so.) And of course, churches and other non-profits often benefit people who are not members of the congregation and may not even be sympathetic to its beliefs and goals.

 Now, here's where it gets interesting: there is something in the US that we refer to as the First Amendment. It states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." (emphasis mine) What that means is that no federal law can be designed specifically to target a religious institution, whether it is positive or negative for that religious institution. The rules that exempt churches from paying federal taxes are not a form of "special treatment" for churches; they are simply addressed to numerous institutions that include churches. If churches are to be required to pay taxes, then every non-profit institution must pay federal taxes. Every tax incentive that benefits every non-profit organization must be eliminated. Now, if you think that doing so, regardless of the nature of the non-profits affected, is a good idea, then that makes this a different discussion. However, I doubt that this is what the creator of this graphic had in mind. I have a suspicion that whoever made this had an animus toward organized religion, and would be shocked to find out that all sorts of secular organizations, many of them beneficial to the community, would suddenly find themselves deprived of potential millions of dollars, because they now must pay taxes on what they collect, and because contributions will eventually go down once the tax benefits of giving have vanished.

 Also, I have to mention that the government still gets a little tax money from churches and other non-profits, because some of that money goes to pay salaries for clergy, preachers, secretaries, etc. The people who make a living working for these organizations must still pay tax on their own income, just as they would for a "regular" job. (I confirmed this with my dad, who used to be a preacher and thus can be considered a subject matter expert.) And keep in mind that for the majority of religious people in this country, it is absolutely essential that they pay whatever taxes the government requires of them. Likewise, they use the funds they collect to pay for utilities, plumbing services, construction, supplies, and all the other things that allow them to function. The people who are paid for providing these services pay income tax on their earnings. Let's also note that this exemption does not apply to religiously-affiliated business, such as bookstores, which are considered for-profit, because their primary goal is commerce rather than charity or teaching.

 I'd like to think that I'm open-minded, and despite my biases I do my best to present ideas that might be controversial or incendiary in a fair and even-handed manner. But this is a terrible idea, short-sighted and narrow in its focus. In their zeal to punish churches for, well, being churches, they would risk crippling any and all institutions that serve a charitable purpose. No matter how noble the intent (not that I think the intent is noble anyway), the outcome would be nothing short of evil.

Video of the Week: "Somebody That I Used To Know" (Gotye feat. Kimbra)

Today, I'm beginning a new feature on The Freedom Trombone blog, the Video of the Week. I was just starting school when MTV came on the air and music videos became popular, so I've long been fascinated by the medium. For a time last year, I posted videos on my Facebook page with trivia and commentary and I've decided to carry that idea over to this blog. In fact, I will be posting some of those in the future, but today I'll start with "Somebody That I Used To Know," which was the most-played song on the radio in the United States in 2012 and just last night won Grammy awards for Best Pop Duo/Group Performance and Record of the Year. (And just in case there is any confusion, Record of the Year is awarded for the quality of the recorded performance; Song of the Year is awarded to the songwriter(s).) This song was written and produced by Wally de Backer, who was born in Belgium but has lived most of his life in Australia. He took the stage name Gotye as a re-spelling of Gauthier, the French form of his given name Walter. The song and its video have been the subject of relentless parodies, covers, and tributes, and it has become a major cultural touchstone of the past year, along with that other viral foreign video that will probably not be the subject of one of these commentaries...at least for a very long while.

 I guess it is a bit ironic to have this video posted on the week of Valentine's Day, especially since I am not personally dealing with a break-up at the moment. But a lot of people, myself included, can identify with the song's story, a couple dealing with a post-romance relationship: they both knew that the romance was doomed, but he wants to continue being platonic friends while she wants nothing to do with him.

 The music is an odd conglomeration of a brief sampled guitar lick by Luiz Bonfa along with a distinctive repeated figure played on a xylophone. Feeling that the song lacked drama after the first two verses and chorus, Gotye searched for a female singer to tell the other side of the break-up story. He ended up with New Zealand pop singer Kimbra, and the pairing catapulted them both to international fame. (Humorously, Gotye initially tried recording the song with his actual girlfriend, but decided that their romantic feelings did not match the emotional content of the song.) 

 The video, directed by Natasha Pincus, is notable for its use of abstract imagery, with the random geometric shapes symbolizing the fractured nature of the relationship. Reportedly, it took nearly a full day of work to execute the stop-motion photography that is used to blend Gotye into the painting (and remove Kimbra from it). I presume that her "removal" is really just her being painted but shown in reverse. The style of the artwork is inspired by his father's artwork, but the actual painting was done by Australian artist and skin illustrator Emma Hack. For a great cover version that has also received a lot of attention, click here to see Canadian group Walk off the Earth perform the song on a single guitar.

What You Need

 There is a question that has been popping up a lot recently in discussions of various issues, and it is a thorny problem for a society that is as affluent and fortunate as ours is. Again, I'm going to touch on some controversial issues here, but my hope is that the reader may see these issues in a new light. I have a lot of links in this one, which I hope will give clarification to the claims that I make.

Why do you need _____________?

  This is a question worth asking, of course. Why should I spend money or time on a particular thing, when it might be put to better use elsewhere. But that isn't what I'm writing about. The subject of this post is the way other people ask "why do you need ______" in a rhetorical fashion, as if the question itself is a way to win the argument. When people, especially people in a position of power, ask why you need to have something, it is often a prelude to them justifying why they should be allowed to take away what you don't need.

 For example, during election season a lot of people asked, "why do millionaires and billionaires need all that money?" "I'd be happy with just a fraction of that." "Can't they do with a little less?" When these questions were being asked, they weren't just thoughtful reflections on the nature of materialism in our society. They were actually attempts to justify taking wealth away from people. More than once, we heard calls for extremely wealthy people to "pay their fair share." The idea was implicit--no one needs that much money, so it is not right for them to have it. Given the evidence that the wealthiest people tend to pay more taxes, both in total amount and in percentage of taxes collected, it seems to me that this was a call to promote envy as much as fairness; in effect making the claim that "they have more than you do, so someone needs to even things up." It is worth noting that though the speeches tended to focus on "millionaires and billionaires," the bills proposed targeted households with $250,000 and up. The rhetoric focused on the extremely wealthy (which are extremely few in number) while the legislation targeted a significantly larger group of people, most of whom are not millionaires, especially in terms of annual income. The question of "how much money do you need?" draws our attention away from how money has been earned and how it is spent. Thus, we are encouraged to have the mindset that no matter how much money a person has, he must give more to US. Meanwhile, even wealthy celebrities who call for people like themselves to pay more seem to ignore that if they want to donate their extra millions to the IRS, they can. Let us remember the tenth commandment (Exodus 20:17) and remember that greed is often defined by wanting to take things that do not belong to you.

"We've become a culture where earning money doesn't entitle you to it, but wanting it does."--Ken Blackwell

 But a lot of money is not the only thing that we don't need. With the widespread coverage of horrific mass shootings in the news, the availability of certain weapons and various paraphernalia associated with them has caused many to ask, "why do you need a military-style weapon?" "Why do you need high-capacity magazines?" and other such questions. While I have no doubt that many people who ask these questions have good intentions, the questions ignore the fact that most gun violence involves small handguns, not rifles. In addition, "assault rifle" is a term that describes a weapon's appearance, not its function. (Many confuse "assault" with "automatic," which means that the weapon fires continuously while the trigger is squeezed. Fully-automatic weapons are not available on the open market, and were not used in any of the recent high-profile shooting sprees.) There is an assumption that since Soldiers use a type of weapon, people who are not Soldiers have no practical use for them at all. Similarly, people commonly ask about the necessity for magazines (not to be confused with "clips," which are not the same thing) to hold more than, say, ten rounds. To me, this is like asking why a healthy person has medical insurance--while it is unlikely that multiple rounds would be needed against a single attacker, to assume that there will never be a need for them is a bit arrogant. While many proponents of magazine limitations believe that such laws will prevent the ability of shooters to perform mass killings, the truth is that a determined homicidal maniac can carry multiple magazines and reload quickly, just the same as people desperate for a whole lot of root beer will buy multiple cups if they can't get one Big Gulp.

 Good intentions, as I have said in previous blogs, do not excuse bad decisions. When other people make the determination that you don't need something, be it money, an AR-15, big soft-drink cups, a high-performance sport car, a big house, a flat-screen television, an iPad, or the freedom to not pay for things that contradict your beliefs, it does not logically follow that they may prevent you from having what you don't need. Otherwise, we would find ourselves reduced to a utilitarian society where we are only allowed the very minimum to survive, because someone might decide that art, music, and literature are luxuries beyond the things that sustain us. Whenever a person tells you that you don't really need something, I'd recommend checking your pockets immediately.

Edited 29 January 2013 for spelling and Ken Blackwell quote

Spending

 There are many serious subjects that I've thought about tackling in this blog recently. All sorts of crazy things have been going on in the world, and quite a few merit some serious reflection. Many of them are also quite controversial and cause tempers to flare. So I've done plenty of thinking about whether or not I should address any of these issues, and how I should go about doing so. One of these subjects is debt. Specifically, the national debt, and why it's the constant problem that it is. This may be a lengthy post, because I'm going to try to cover all the bases that need to be covered and not leave any gaps. Having said that, I could write a book about the subject, indeed, many already have, and still not cover everything. The nation's problems will not be solved in the space of one blog posting, but I hope this will turn out to be thought-provoking and perhaps help you reconsider how you evaluate what you hear and read in the news.

 It's important to understand some of the terms in the discussion. The deficit is the amount that the federal government spends beyond what it takes in every fiscal year. (For instance, if the government takes in $500 and spends $600, the result is a $100 deficit.) The debt is the total of all the previous deficits that still remain. (If we incur a $100 deficit for ten years in a row and make no progress on paying the balance, the debt is $1000, plus interest.) The government has managed to operate under deficits for decades, and as a result our current national debt is approximately $11.5 trillion. It is probably safe to say that our country has more debt than has ever been held in the history of the world. The reason we have not yet had a major collapse, like Greece experienced recently, is that we  are not capable of defaulting on our payments because we print our own currency. Greece, as a member of the European Union, did not print its own currency.

 This is a good thing to keep in mind when you hear news reports about upcoming budget negotiations. Talk about the catastrophe of bills being unpaid is just that: talk. The government takes in enough every month to pay what it needs to pay on our obligations. This does not mean that higher deficits are not a problem; merely that the problem is bad rather than horribly bad. But no single political party or President has caused this to happen, and no single group or President will drive us "over the cliff," so to speak. The talk of crisis is ginned-up hyperbole made to take advantage of the fact that people will allow for drastic measures in a crisis that they will not accept in a normal situation. Thus, those who want to make big changes create a climate of crisis in order to achieve their goals. (Please understand, I'm not saying that the crisis is never real; just that you should immediately pay close attention when you hear the term used.)

 But deficits are not good, and the presence of deficits puts strain on our financial system. The government has certain obligations that it must meet--funding the military, paying for government employees, etc.--and deficits show us a government that incurs more obligations than it can afford. A government that routinely runs up massive deficits is probably spending far more than it should, and taxpayers should have no problem asking if the taxes they are paying are being used wisely. It is a subject for a different discussion that there are many worthy things that receive government funding, but perhaps that is not the best source of funding for those things. Heated debates have been held over cutting military funding or cutting money to PBS, but all too rarely do these debates touch on the real source of the problem: spending too much money.

 The uncomfortable truth of the matter is that all deficits are always the result of spending too much. There is no other way to create a deficit than to spend more than is taken in. Those who are in the habit of overspending rarely lose that habit when they get more money. More often, they respond to financial windfall by spending even more and winding up with more debt. The reason that our government is constantly in negotiations on raising the debt ceiling is that there has been no effort to restrain the spending that created the debt in the first place. (Doesn't it defeat the purpose of having a debt ceiling if we can just raise it any time we want?) The constant drumbeat of raising taxes (again, another subject for a different post) is a result of the fact that we are not generating enough money to cover all the expenditures we make. Of course, in Washington, convincing people to cut spending is like convincing them to cut off their own arms. Politicians have constituents who like their federal money, and the threat of losing election campaign support or alienating the voters makes them reluctant to cut anything. Add to this the modern media culture, in which no distinction is ever made between reducing spending for a thing and cutting that spending entirely out of the budget. (And as a member of the military, yes, I do not want my pay and benefits, or even my job, cut. I still will maintain that there is probably wasteful spending in the military budget that can be cut without drastically affecting those currently serving and without compromising the safety of the nation.)

 The solution to our debt problem is simple: stop spending so much. But simple does not mean easy. We are in many ways the most prosperous nation on earth, but history shows us that prosperity will eventually end if it is not used responsibly. When more money is printed, the currency is devalued. When debt is held by foreign nations, they gain leverage over us both in trade and in diplomatic issues. As long as we continue to take half-measures to address the problem and as long as we refuse to pass a responsible budget (well, any budget), this issue is going to come up again, and again, and again. If we really want to get our fiscal house in order, we have to stop spending more money than we have.

Perchance To Dream

 Vacation is over and I'm back in the Augusta/Fort Gordon area. I did not anticipate taking a couple of weeks off of the blog, but I do have some good reasons. For one, coming back to work and getting back into a rhythm (metaphorically as well as musically) was the most important thing to focus on. However, I also realized while I was in Nashville that something was wrong with me physically. I discussed my symptoms with a doctor I know and he recommended that I see someone when I got back to Georgia. So I did. And my suspicions were confirmed--I was diagnosed with an inguinal hernia, something I've never had to deal with before. Fortunately it was nothing life threatening, but this was the first time that I've been put on "profile." That's Army-speak for being under orders to limit certain physical activity, which in my case meant just about everything. I was scheduled for surgery, which I underwent this past Wednesday.

 So now I'm at home recovering, and I have no real good excuse for not getting some blogging done over the next few days. I'm fortunate that my parents were able to come down and get me to and from the hospital and keep me mobile over the past several days, and I also got plenty of good care and advice from Julia, who is a nurse. Always take a nurse's advice when you're going through surgery, that is my new motto. And I should also acknowledge the support of my chain of command at work, who have been nothing but supportive in making the process as easy as possible.

 Today, we can also appreciate the rare and fortunate circumstance we have in this country--every four to eight years, we have a transfer of power that happens peacefully. It is not easy, it involves furious debate and discussion, emotions get raw, nerves get frayed, and foolish things get said--but in the end, the government of the nation changes and no shots are fired, and it is easy for us to forget that in the context of world history what we do is far from the norm. And even when the President is re-elected, as was the case this year, there are still changes in the Congress and the balance of power shifts just a little, and yet our system is designed to allow this to happen relatively smoothly.

 And I suppose it is fitting that this year we ceremonially mark this occasion on the same day that we ceremonially acknowledge the contributions of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. To me, Dr. King's legacy is a reminder that true change is effected in a society through the skillful use of words and ideas to change the culture rather than the use of legislative power. No amount of laws can replace the idea that the content of a person's character is not related to that person's appearance or cultural background. What a great dream to have....

Don't Believe Your Eyes

 The internet is a wonderful thing because information can be transmitted almost instantly all over the world. The internet is also a terrible thing, because misinformation can be transmitted almost instantly all over the world. And how many times have people been swayed by misinformation because it confirms what they already want to believe?

 A simple example of this would be that oft-quoted aphorism that "insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." This saying is frequently attributed to Albert Einstein. Maybe he said it; I've never seen any documentation that he did. It is understandable that people like to think that Einstein said it, because that means that it must be true. He was a genius, right? (Granted, his field of expertise was theoretical physics, which has little to do with psychology.) We hear something that sounds clever, and we think, yeah, I bet that is a great way of describing insanity. We don't stop to think that it is probably a better description of ignorance, inexperience, or stupidity than insanity. An insane person is more likely to think that his crayon scribbling shows that he is Rembrandt reincarnated, or that shooting up a school will give meaning to his life. He is less likely to be doggedly persistent in pursuit of a goal.

 I'm digressing a bit...misinformation.

 So anyway, what prompted this rant of mine was something that I saw of Facebook and Twitter a few times today. This picture has been making the rounds, and something very similar circulated a few months ago:

 Pretty cool, huh? It only caught my attention because I've seen all three Back To The Future movies a bunch of times, and I have a knack for remembering generally useless information, so I remember that Marty and Doc travel to 2015, not 2013. (All the dates in the series are done in easy-to-follow thirty year intervals, or multiples of thirty: 1985, 2015, 1955, 1885.) Apparently, someone figured out how to manipulate the image. Harmless right? I suppose so, though lots of people have already passed it around without giving any thought to whether or not it is true.

 The thing is, that picture is convincing. It looks real. And we have been conditioned to accept what we see, as long as it fits our expectations. Many people accepted without question documents that "proved" former President George W. Bush was absent from required National Guard training time, because it fit their preconceptions about his character. The ruse was discovered only when someone who designed typewriters noticed that the documents contained an font artifact particular to Microsoft Word that would never be produced on typewriters of the 1970s. Even after the story was shown to be a fraud, many people continued to believe it--no doubt someone reading this very blog still does--because it fit their prejudice against a politician. In the same way, many people cling to the belief that President Obama was born in Kenya rather than Hawaii, despite birth announcements being printed in two different Honolulu newspapers in 1961. We see what we wish to see, and dismiss the things that might prove us wrong.

 My point is, be patient. Don't reflexively spread things without making sure they are true. Don't assume the worst about people who disagree with you and then forward reports to prove how "awful" they are. I'll be writing more soon about the importance of critically evaluating the information you see before making a judgment. In a time when there is a lot of arguing about a lot of important issues, pause before you share. Unless you're going to forward this blog to someone, of course.

The Trombone

 It stands to reason that, given the title of this blog, I should write something about my trombone. The trombone that I use the most, the one that I own, has gone through some changes in the past year. Parts of it are the same horn that I first got when I was in college back in 1997, but some parts are virtually brand new. (As a side note, many parts of this horn are the one that I'm playing as a member of the University of New Mexico Wind Symphony on Joseph Alessi's Illuminations CD. As another side note, I am the only trombonist besides Mr. Alessi who plays on every track of that recording.)

 My trombone is an Edwards bass trombone. Edwards is the professional line of instruments made by the Getzen company. My parents bought the trombone for me when I was a college student at the University of Tennessee and had switched from tenor to bass trombone. It has a rose brass bell, medium weight. The original slide was a standard dual-bore bass slide, though a couple of years later I upgraded to a nickel-crook slide that had better response. The original valve section was a dual axial-flow valve, which was popular at that time for its very "open" feel and sound. And make no mistake, a lot of great players still use and prefer that particular design. But in recent years, I began to feel that those valves were a bit mechanically cumbersome, and didn't allow me to get quite the sound that I wanted, with a little more "edge" to it. I did quite a bit of research, trying various other designs by other manufacturers, but never committed to making a purchase.

 I finally decided to make some changes after I returned from Afghanistan in the fall of 2011. The horn had spent the better part of a year not being played while I was overseas, and just wasn't working the way I wanted it to. I realized it was time to get an overhaul. I decided to have a conversion done by the Greenhoe company in Wisconsin. Founded by Gary Greenhoe, who played in the Milwaukee Symphony, they make customized valve sections that are based on traditional rotary valves but with modifications in the design to improve resonance and airflow. To ensure a proper fit, I sent them the bell and tuning slide of my trombone, which was easy given that Edwards horns are modular in design. While they were working on the horn, they were able to smooth out a crease in the bell that had happened several years ago. In addition to great craftsmanship, they have great customer service--more about that in a little bit.

They also re-lacquered the main tuning slide in order to make it match visually with the new tubing.

When my modified horn arrived, I was quite pleased. The improvement in response and tone quality was immediately apparent, and getting the proper sound took noticeably less effort. The valves operate very smoothly, and quietly, and there is virtually no difference between the feel of playing with no valves or using both at once. And they look good too!

 One thing still was not quite right: the slide. Upon having a local repairman examine the slide, I learned that the problem was red rot--the brass was corroding from the inside out, and any attempt to do chemical cleaning could make the corrosion worse. (The problem likely resulted from the months of non-use while I was deployed, allowing small particles to sit and corrode the metal when regular use would have discouraged build-up.) The fine people at Edwards informed me that red rot was covered under the warranty. I sent the slide to the Edwards plant and they replaced the entire upper tube, while also removing a small dent from the slide crook and re-lacquering the lower tube to remove some small normal-wear scratches. As a result, the slide worked smoother than it had in years.

 The final change was made when I attended the National Brass Symposium in the spring at Kennesaw State University. While there, I was able to try out some leadpipes. (That's pronounced "leed," not "led." The lead pipe is where the mouthpiece is inserted into the horn, and it is now common for horns to have interchangeable leadpipes which allow a player to further customize the way the horn responds.) I decided to go with a sterling silver leadpipe, which "felt" better than the one I had been using. My trombone upgrade was complete!

 Now, about that customer service at Greenhoe that I mentioned earlier. I had for years carried the horn around in a Reunion Blues gig bag, which was lightweight and easy to carry but offered little in the way of protection. In recent years, modern technology has caught up with the instrument case business and several manufacturers offer cases that are compact and light but still offer good protection from dents, dings, most destructive impacts. Greenhoe offers BAM cases on their website, so I inquired about the options. They told me their new bass trombone cases were out of stock, but that they did have one available that had been used for transporting horns to some conferences but was in virtually new condition. Thus, they offered it at a discount. Thus, I got a great deal on a new case for my partially-new trombone. I have already sent it on a few airplane trips as checked baggage, with nary a scratch on the horn.

 So I now have the horn I've always wanted, one that plays beautifully and easily, mechanically reliable and one that allows me to express myself musically as I never have before. There is only one downside: anything that doesn't sound right can no longer be blamed on the horn, but the guy playing it! Guess I'd better get back to practicing....

Happy New Year...Miserable People! (Don't worry, it's a film review)

 It's 2013, and it's time for a new post, which coincides with my goal of writing more frequently this year. I say "goal" because a goal is something that is pursued with a particular end in mind, as opposed to a "resolution," which is something that is planned and then quickly ignored or forgotten. (Consider that our national budget is based on "resolutions," and I rest my case.) I find it fascinating that a whole lot of people seem to be really glad 2012 is over, and that the optimism about 2013 is largely based in the philosophical belief that "it has to be better." So I'l begin by talking about miserable people...that is, the new film Les Miserables.

 I have not read the novel by Victor Hugo. If it's anything like the novel of his that I have read, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, it is very wordy and extensive, containing many passages that do not necessarily advance the plot in any meaningful way. But I have seen the stage production twice in addition to listening to various recordings of the music. (When I was in Afghanistan, some good friends sent me a copy of the CD of the 25th Anniversary Concert, which is excellent.) I have heard that some minor adjustments that were made by the filmmakers bring the plot a bit more in line with what happens in the novel, though I cannot confirm this. For the most part, the film adheres fairly closely to the stage production with music by Claude-Michel Shonberg and lyrics adapted by Herbert Kretzmer from Alain Boublil and Jean-Marc Natel's French version. 

 The film is directed by Tom Hooper, who won an Oscar for directing The King's Speech, which I thoroughly enjoyed. As you may know, for this film he adopted the unorthodox approach of having the actors sing live for each take, instead of the typical film musical technique of pre-recording the lyrics in a studio. I believe that this may become the standard practice in the future, especially given the availability of small earpieces that made it possible for the actors to sing with an accompanist on-set. (The accompanists were, of course, replaced with a full orchestra in post-production.) The emotional immediacy of the performances comes through quite clearly on-screen, and the physical effort and response of singing affects the way the performances happen. This is a benefit to this musical, which has almost no significant spoken dialogue. This also means that in many scenes that actors are singing to each other, on the set, rather than in a sterile studio environment. This means that, sometimes, vocal imperfections are left in but with a richer dramatic performance as the result. 

 The casting is, mostly, superb. Hugh Jackman, most famous as Wolverine in the X-Men films, uses his stage training to good effect as the hero Jean Valjean. Jackman's performance is memorable and convincing, and his voice is in good shape for the role. (I would have preferred a bit more subtlety in his interpretation of "Bring Him Home," but he makes the song his own. His early soliloquy upon being shown mercy by the bishop is exceptional.) Expect Jackman to be nominated for all the major acting awards this year, and he just may win some of them.Valjean's antagonist, Inspector Javert, who spends years pursuing Valjean as a parole violator, is portrayed by Russell Crowe. Crowe is a great actor, far more than he is a singer. As a friend of mine pointed out, his biggest problem is that there are so many recordings of great singers playing the role. He can hit all the notes, but his voice is not particularly special. Still, he is too good a performer not to handle the role well, and his rendition of "Stars" (one of my favorite songs in the musical) is a worthy interpretation. Samantha Barks, the teenage Eponine, was a great choice and her rain-soaked "On My Own" is one of the best scenes in the movie. She might be an Oscar contender were it not for...well, I'll get to that in a bit. Barks was a part of the 25th Anniversary recording in the same role. The young lovers-at-first sight, Marius (Eddie Redmayne) and Cosette (Amanda Seyfried), are adequate. Part of the problem is that their relationship is given so little time to develop within the story that it simply is hard to feel much emotion for them, especially given the other events which develop much more organically. Whether this is true of the book I can't say, but it is a story problem left over from the stage musical. While naive teenage love is a staple of melodrama and it works well for the plot of Romeo and Juliet, this is one aspect of the story that simply is not convincing to me. Seyfried's voice seems a bit thin at times, though she is absolutely radiant to look at and it's understandable why Marius is so taken with her. Redmayne gives a tremendous performance of "Empty Chairs at Empty Tables," so it's a shame the story doesn't give him more opportunities. Sacha Baron Cohen, who gave a surprisingly good turn as the station inspector in last year's Hugo, was a fine choice to play dastardly con man/comic relief Thenardier, and Helena Bonham Carter (an actress who is good in everything she does) keeps the pace as his equally-corrupt Madame. It seemed like their final piece, "Beggars at the Feast," was cut a bit short to my disappointment, but they play their roles to the hilt. Isabelle Allen is perfectly cast as the young Cosette; she not only looks like a young version of Seyfried but is instantly sympathetic as the downtrodden child. As a nice addition to the cast, the Bishop (in some ways, the most important character in the story) is played by Colm Wilkinson, who played Valjean in the first London production. I haven't even mentioned Aaron Tveit's strong performance as the young revolutionary Enjolras. His attempt to overthrow the status quo is clearly foolhardy, but there is no doubt at all why his followers go along with him. 

 Of course, the major buzz for the film started when the first trailer showed us Anne Hathaway as Fantine singing "I Dreamed A Dream." In the past few years the song became the unofficial anthem for  Susan Boyle, and that may have played a part in the decision to showcase the song in pre-release materials. The buzz is justified: Hathaway's performance is amazing. Her rendition of the song, performed live in one unbroken take, is shattering. The Academy should go ahead and engrave her name on the Supporting Actress Oscar--she really is that good. (As a side note, I thought she did a fine job in The Dark Knight Rises as well.) 

 As a caveat, if you don't enjoy musicals, you probably won't enjoy this one, especially given its two-and-a-half-hour-plus running time. (Plus all the advertisements they show beforehand...I would have been happy if they had dropped all the ads except for the trailer for Star Trek Into Darkness.) This is not a perfect film, but it is a very good one. The music is great and there is some powerful acting. (I suspect the film's investors bought stock in Kleenex.) The use of realistic settings opens up many of the dramatic possibilities, and often brings the story to life in a way that the stage simply cannot duplicate. While the story is about injustice and misfortune, it is not about being defeated by injustice and misfortune. It is about having the faith to overcome life's trials (if you want to read more about the ideas behind the story, there is a great article here). If you need some inspiration and want to hear some great music, this is a film I highly recommend.

Thoughts On Film: "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey"

 I have taken a vacation, somewhat unintentionally, from blogging the past several months. My job has been very busy and at times overwhelming, and for various reasons the urge to write simply hasn't been there. I can tell you that I have some ideas I'm excited about for the new year, and come January I expect to be posting here with much more frequency. Having said that, on with the review!

 I haven't read The Hobbit by J.R.R. Tolkien since I was in middle earth...um, middle school. I've read his magnum opus, The Lord of the Rings, much more recently in addition to having seen Peter Jackson's film adaptations of the latter several times. Extended versions, of course. So I was eager to see the first installment, An Unexpected Journey, once the crowds died down a little bit.

 While it seems natural that the man who achieved so much success with LOTR should adapt its predecessor, negotiations over the book rights and financial problems at MGM (which produced the film in conjunction with New Line and Warner) dragged out the production schedule and resulted in co-writer and original director Guillermo del Toro dropping out of the project to pursue other things. Jackson stepped in to take the reigns, and here we are. The decision to expand the film from its planned two-part structure to a trilogy was met with equal parts anticipation and puzzlement. With many cast and production team members returning to New Zealand for this film, it fits in quite well with the visual and stylistic universe established in the first trilogy. Screenwriters Fran Walsh and Philippa Boyens are back (with Jackson and del Toro), as is Weta Workshop's costume/prop/make-up guru Richard Taylor, the Weta Digital visual effects house, composer Howard Shore, cinematographer Andrew Lesnie, and cast members whose characters appear in both sagas. In many ways, for a fan of the first trilogy, this film is like going...well, there and back again.

 Jackson takes pains to connect the two trilogies as much as possible, starting the film with "old" Bilbo Baggins (Ian Holm) as we saw him in The Fellowship of the Ring, writing an account of his adventures for his nephew Frodo (Elijah Wood) on the day of his big 111th birthday party. The story concerns the appearance of Gandalf the Grey (Ian McKellan, excellent as always), a wizard who has taken up assisting a group of thirteen dwarves led by Thorin (Richard Armitage) who want to reclaim their lost kingdom of Erebor, aka Lonely Mountain, where their vast stash of gold and jewels has been taken over by the vicious dragon Smaug. Tasked with finding the group a "burglar" who can move unnoticed, Gandalf chooses "young" Bilbo (Martin Freeman) for the job. Bilbo's typical Hobbit aversion to adventure and danger eventually gives way to his curiosity and he goes along. Meanwhile, dark things are afoot, as trolls are roaming about, giant spiders stalk the forest, and another wizard, Sylvester McCoy's Radagast the Brown, discovers the Necromancer (Benedict Cumberbatch), who can raise the spirits of the dead. If that last part seems unfamiliar to fans of the book, that's because Jackson and company have mined Tolkien's other works to fill out the story with concurrent events from his mythology. (Thus, what was a single-volume work of children's fantasy has become a film trilogy with a length comparable to LOTR, which is a much longer book.)

 The performances are quite good, with Freeman making the reluctant Bilbo likably fussy.  Armitage is a natural leader for the dwarves, his warrior personality a good contrast with the somewhat cartoonish company he keeps. (This is consistent with the book, and overall the tone of the film is a bit lighter than is found in LOTR.) McKellan owns the role of Gandalf, a bit flustered here and there but commanding when the situation is dire. Hugo Weaving (Elrond), Christopher Lee (Saruman), and Cate Blanchett (Galadriel) also reprise their roles and have the presence one expects from such great actors. And of course, Andy Serkis is back as Gollum, who loses his eventually-important magic ring to Bilbo. The game of riddles between the two is a highlight of the film, a great showcase for Jackson's under-appreciated skill at presenting a confrontation of words rather than weapons. Freeman and Serkis have fantastic chemistry, and the motion capture digital creature looks absolutely convincing. It's time the Academy wised up and nominated Serkis for his performance while they have the chance, given that Gollum probably won't appear in the remaining two films. (Depending on how faithful they stay to the book, of course.)

 Now, some words about the presentation of the film. Jackson chose to a daring way to film this movie, utilizing two non-standard techniques: 3D and HFR, or high frame rate. Most films are shot at a speed of 24 frames per second (fps). HFR uses 48 fps, meaning that twice as much visual information per second is being shown. The movement and detail are closer to what the human eye perceives in real life, so the image is more lifelike. In conjunction with 3D, this results in a visual experience quite different from a typical film. Many viewers have balked at HFR, complaining that the image looks like a television sitcom more than an epic film, and this actually does seems apparent in the beginning of the film. I believe this is a combination of the HFR and the fact that the early scenes in the movie are brightly lit, with relatively little shading. As I became used to watching the movie and the visual tone became darker, the image seemed more "film-like" while still maintaining its clarity and smoothness. The most notable difference seemed to be in the numerous battle scenes, which are startlingly clear and easy to follow. Jackson is an expert as staging action sequences, and this technology really shines in these scenes. The caveat is that, just as in LOTR, the viewer may begin to experience "battle fatigue" as the action just keeps going. But the lovingly designed sets, models, costumes, and makeup, combined with the gorgeous New Zealand scenery, make for a memorable visual experience.  Seeing Gollum in his cave, I found myself thinking, "so this is what Gollum really looks like." Rather than watching a film on a screen, it is easy to imagine you are looking through a window and seeing the actual events.

 I remember back in September at DragonCon hearing LOTR veteran John Rhys-Davies talk of visiting the set and proclaiming that this film will be a "game changer." (He also proclaimed that he will not be in any of the new films, as his character is not part of the story and he refuses to put the makeup on ever again.) I don't know if HFR will catch on, but if you are a fan of this story you owe it to yourself to check it out as it was filmed. It is a technical marvel, but the tech does not matter if the story and performances are not convincing. For me, it was easy to get lost in Middle Earth again and appreciate the story being told. Keep in mind, this is based on a simpler book for younger readers, and the film reflects that difference in source material. Fans of the book will be pleased to know that many of Tolkien's songs have been retained in this version. (Thorin's song in Bilbo's house about the loss of Erebor is chillingly magnificent.) No doubt there is difficulty in matching the success of the first trilogy, and Jackson and company probably felt like they walked a tightrope keeping the spirit of the book but matching the scale of the previous films. I suppose the jury is out on whether the story can be sustained over two more movies, but I eagerly await the next installment to find out.