Hi there, cats and kittens, long time no see! I won't get into why this post is so late; it seems much more fun to leave you to your assumptions. (Hint: if you assumed "drunk in a gutter," you're on the right track!)
Speaking of assumptions: when you hear about how one pop star began her career (e.g. backup dancer, Mousketeer, relative of someone important), you start to assume that everyone in that profession had a similar start. And by "similar start," I mean "they're okay to look at and generally got very lucky." Which is why I was surprised to read this about Lady Gaga:
Playing piano by ear from the age of 4, she went on to write her first piano ballad at 13 and began performing at open mike nights by age 14. At age 17, she gained early admission to the New York University's Tisch School of the Arts. There, she studied music and improved her songwriting skills by composing essays and analytical papers focusing on topics such as art, religion and socio-political order.
which is pretty much the last thing I ever expected to read in her Wiki article. It is comforting to know that at least one pop tart got famous through hard work and study. Or, studying until dropping out of school to pursue her career, but she's two years younger than me and has a number one album, so who made the right decision?
And honestly, being part of the New York art scene probably goes a long way to explain this:
Since 2001, the critics at the Cannes Film Festival have awarded the Palm Dog to outstanding performances by a canine or group of canines, real or animated, in one of the films shown at the festival.
Of course, out of the winners and nominees listed, I've only seen two of the films: Dogville and Triplets of Belleville. And let me say, I am pissed that the dog in the former won over the dog in the latter. Bruno is a charming, funny dog, who is pretty realistic for an animation. Moses is, for 99.99% of the role, a sound effect. Lame.
"The article itself is cool, but one line really grabbed me:
'The hoard was reported to the local officer of the Portable Antiquities Scheme, and on 24 September 2009 was declared treasure by the South Staffordshire coroner.'
The coroner?! What the what?!? Why not the undertaker? Or the baker? Seriously. Those kooky Brits."
It does give one pause. Maybe they figured that he rifles through the dead's possessions enough that he was one most likely to be able to discern the crap from the good stuff?
Another thing to ponder: They found over 1500 pieces of armor and weaponry in about 20 square meters, with "no traces of any graves, buildings, or other structures have been found." How did they all end up there? A big giant battle, followed by a big giant pile of dead bodies that nobody bothered to clean up? A big giant barracks where everyone decided to become pacifist hippies one day and left all their swag behind? A big giant something else?
Okay, so this entry is technically cheating, since it's from Wikimedia Commons-- doesn't that sound like a delightful spot to go a-picknicking? "Oh do come down to Wikimedia Commons with us, Millicent! Grace has assembled a delightful basket for our dinner, and the Kensington boys shall play bowls and fence for our amusement!"-- ahem, as I was saying: Wikimedia Commons.
The article I was looking at was the results of Picture of the Year 2008. The entries were the year's featured pictures, and the voting body were users from the various Wikimedia projects, including my reason for existing on this planet, Wikipedia.
One would expect that the top ten photos would be images from great scientific and historic occurrences and far-flung locales frozen in time and put on the Internet for the benefit of those of us who, for whatever reason, are probably never going to be privy to such sights in reality. Most of the entries are really beautiful and intriguing photos. (First place: HORSIES! Second place: GUY BREATHING FIRE!)
What was this amazing picture that captured the hearts and minds of Wikimedia users the world over, gaining the #7 slot?
A scantily-clad anime girl. Comma, you hopeless pack of nerds. Wikimedia users: turn the computer off, sit in the corner, and think about what you've done.
The Wik' has found itself in news headlines once again, after deciding to ban the IP addresses of both the Church of Scientology and some of its more biased and outspoken Wiki-critics for engaging in editing wars. I'm going out on a limb here and linking to a non-Wiki news article about the incident from wired.com.
Hush now, Church of Scientology; dry your eyes. I know what you're going through. I remember the fateful day at a former job where I tried to edit an article's grammar only to find that the IP I was using had been banned because someone else had been making inappropriate edits to the Dragonball Z article. I felt frustrated and sad and totally confused, because I don't think any of my coworkers could have even told you what Dragonball Z is, let alone find a reason to edit the Wiki article. And, of course, I think you guys are a complete scam and the fact that you use the legal system to bully your critics is disgusting, so while I don't feel sorry for you in the least, I can relate.
My European readers and the more worldly among the non-European readers are probably going to find this post repetitive and boring. My apologies.
Last night, my friends introduced me to Eurovision, an annual music competition among the members of the European Broadcasting Union that has been going on for over fifty years. Each country enters a musical artist (or artists, up to six) performing a previously unreleased song; citizens of the participating nations vote for their favorite songs (excluding the entry from their own country).
We watched every entry on YouTube; admittedly, we couldn't sit through most of them the whole way.
"But if these songs are supposed to represent the best the country has to offer, why couldn't you listen to them?"
Because these songs are designed to be palatable to as many people as possible, they end up being (for the most part) the blandest, most inoffensive, middle-of-the-road easy listening pop imaginable*. Take, for instance, Britain's entry. Remember now, this is the country that gave us the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, the Clash... I'm going to stop before I depress myself.
Listening to that song, all the corporate executives and government officials and marketing consultants and endless focus groups are practically a section of the orchestra. And Ms. Ewen came in 5th.
Some of the entries were pretty good. I quite liked Estonia's Urban Symphony:
My friend Ziggy was a fan of the Armenian entry, "Jan Jan" by Inga and Arnush:
There was also Gipsy.cz, the Romani rapper/superhero representing the Czech Republic:
Anyway, I was Wiki'ing furiously during this smorgasbord of mediocrity, and oh man I learned so much about Eurovision! Bullet points away!
- The song that Georgia entered, "We Don't Wanna Put In" by Stefane & 3G, was withdrawn from the contest due to the political content of the lyrics (specifically, a criticism of Vladimir Putin). - Even more controversial: Spain had to preempt their live feed by about an hour, and had to rely on a jury to cast their votes, instead of public voting. - Entries are allowed to be sung in any language. "This linguistic freedom led to the Belgian entry in 2003, 'Sanomi,' being sung in an entirely fictional language. In 2006 the Dutch entry, 'Amambanda,' was sung partly in English and partly in an artificial language. In 2007, Romanian participants Todomondo sang 'Liubi, Liubi, I Love You' in six different languages and in 2008, again a Belgian entry, 'O Julissi' was made in an imaginary language." - "The most notable winning Eurovision artist whose career was directly launched into the spotlight following their win was ABBA, who won the Contest for Sweden in 1974 with their song 'Waterloo.' ABBA went on to be one of the most successful bands of their time." See, told you not all the entries are awful. Yes, I like ABBA. No, I am not a middle-aged gay man. - "The Contest has long been perceived as politically influenced, where judges —and now televoters— allocate points based on their nation's relationship to the other countries, rather than on the musical merits of the songs. According to one study of Eurovision voting patterns, certain countries do tend to form 'clusters' or 'cliques' by frequently voting in the same way. Defenders of the Contest argue that the reason certain countries allocate disproportionately high points to others is because the people of those countries share similar musical tastes and cultures and speak similar languages, and are therefore more likely to appreciate each other's music... Another influential factor is the high proportion of expatriates living in certain countries, often due to recent political upheaval. Since residents of a country cannot vote for their own entry, countries where a large minority of the population are ethnically tied to a neighbouring country and votes for their entrant can distort the vote considerably... Following these criticisms, it was announced that juries would return to the Contest in 2009. Two systems will work together, with 50 per cent of the vote decided by the jurors and the other 50 via televoting." - "The 'Big 4' countries (United Kingdom, France, Germany and Spain) as they are the 4 largest economic contributors to the contest, and are rewarded with automatic spots in the final." Aw c'mon you guys, that's not fair! - "No restriction on the nationality of the performers exists, which has resulted in countries being represented by artists who are not nationals of that country. One of the most well-known winning artists, Canadian Céline Dion represented Switzerland in 1988 (It seems to be a Swiss tactic, as their 2005 performance was by Estonian group Vanilla Ninja and their 2006 performance is by the multinational group six4one with performers coming from Israel, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Sweden, Malta and Portugal as well as from Switzerland)." Switzerland! Where's your national pride? You make delicious chocolate and useful pocketknives, surely you can come up with some talented musicians. - "As of 2009, the country which has entered the longest with no wins to their name is Portugal. They started entering in 1964, and are still awaiting their first win." Now that is a shame. I thought the 2009 Portuguese entry was really good.
This is probably the longest TILfW entry ever, and there is so much more to say. What were your favorite Eurovision entries for 2009?
Oh, and for those of you who missed it and can't stand the suspense, this year's winner was Norway's Alexander Rybak, performing "Fairytale:"
* And I am aware that my own country is responsible for more than its fair share of bland, inoffensive pop. I shudder to think what the American entry would sound like; it would probably make Kelly Clarkson sound like Kate Bush.
Someone randomly mentioned road rage yesterday, and I was wondering if it's still a "thing." The worst exchange I've ever dealt with while driving has been a honking horn or a middle finger (the latter of which is considered road rage by the article, but c'mon. With regards to driving, I spent my formative years in New Jersey; the bird is tantamount to saying hello).
Two things that stood out to me in the article:
1. The list of websites devoted to dealing with road rage by recording other drivers' license plate numbers and crazy driving habits. I guess this would help you deal with your anger after the fact, but it's not a very good preventative measure, unless you find a list of repeat offenders in your town and memorize their license plates. "Watch out, Louise, FPQ-4291 just merged into the lane behind us, and you know his reputation for tailgating!" Also, if you're in a dangerous driving situation, are you really going to take your concentration off the road and record the other person's plate number? Maybe if you licked your finger and traced it in the dust on your dashboard. Not that I've ever left a note to myself that way.
2. A 1988 newspaper article that was quoted as an example of an early usage of the term "road rage" has a grammatical error, complete with a finger-wagging [sic] added by the editor of the Wikipedia article. Sucks to be you, St. Petersburg Times! Now, I make my share of errors while writing, but that's why I don't work for a newspaper. Well, actually I don't work for a newspaper because it's hard to find an entry-level position in a dying industry, but I digress.
I don't consider my initial question to be answered by the Wik', though, because a lot of the statements in the article were followed by the "citation needed" superscript, a red flag in my mind. Perhaps this "road rage" is a fabrication cooked up by the liberal Jewish media. Or maybe it was the conservative Christian media. Or even the damned dirty neutral Buddhist media. Bastards.
I will be the first to admit that the Grammies are about at meaningful as a certificate of participation for soccer camp. I'm not a complete elitist when it comes to the Grammies, mind you; a few of my favorite acts were nominated this year (eg. Radiohead, MIA), and I was pleased when Amy Winehouse won a million awards for Back to Black last year (and have subsequently become depressed because she's probably going to OD before putting out another album). But when I found out (via Wiki!) that John Mayer won Best Solo Rock Vocal Performance over Bruce Springsteen, Paul McCartney, Neil Young, and Eddie Vedder-- well, that was yesterday afternoon and I have yet to unwrinkle my nose. Admittedly the latter four are arguably all past their peaks, but at least their music isn't so bland as to be one consistent plateau of a career.
Anywho.
After throwing up in my mouth a little, I wondered to myself, "Gee, self, I wonder what the difference is between record of the year, song of the year, and album of the year?" And dependable ol' Wikipedia had the answer.
Record of the year goes to one song or track, and recognizes achievement in recording; the award goes to the performer, producer, and recording engineer. Song of the year goes to the songwriter. And album of the year is awarded to the performer, producer, and recording and mastering engineers for the entire album. So now I know the criteria for awards that I hold in contempt.
(The underlying irony of all this, of course, is that I'm usually pretty excited about the Oscars.)
One thing that surprised me while perusing this illustrious rollcall was that president pro tempore of the Senate is so low on the list; he's 23rd in symbolic importance. Compare that to speaker of the House, who is fifth. Senator Byrd follows the Secretary of Agriculture. He follows the drug czar. He's fourth in line for the presidency, but he's less prominent than the guys in charge of emotionally overwrought television ads about teenagers smoking pot and making sure organic beansprouts are really organic. (Maybe he should have stuck with being Exalted Cyclops.)
Of course, all of the aforementioned are less important than the mayor of the city in which the parade/ceremony/spelling bee/whatever is taking place. Which is humbling if you're a federal official and you happen to be in a ceremony in Muskogee, OK.
How cool is this: where I am (East Coast of the USA), it's 2 hours until midnight on New Year's Eve, and this is the (currently) first sentence of the entry for 2008:
Okay, so I trimmed it to the point where you can't tell it's from Wikipedia, but you guys believe me, right? Trustworthy stranger on the Internet? Yeah? Good.
It is so nice to know that there are dedicated Wiki nerds who have put aside culturally acceptable drunken bacchanals to keep the Wik' as accurate as possible. Kudos to you, friends. And here's to a great 2009, hopefully filled with largely useless factoids and dorky quips.
Yesterday's presidential election was a historic first, and no, it's not because we elected the first non-white president, or the first Catholic vice president. Well, okay, those were historical firsts, but not as interesting as what I'm about to reveal.
This was the first presidential race where both major party candidates were born outside the continental United States. Obama, as is common knowledge, was born in Hawaii, and John McCain was born before plate tectonics separated North America into one continent.
I kid, I kid. McCain was born on a naval base in the Panama Canal Zone, a territory in Panama (of course) that was controlled by the United States from 1903 to 1979. Other notable natives of the PCZ (or "Zonians") include baseball player Rod Carew and Stephen Stills of Crosby, Stills & Nash[, & Young].
Posts
