To any of those on the Right who continue to assert that somehow Libby received an abnormal sentence in his case, I would encourage you to consider going to the nearest federal district court in your area on a day where they do federal sentencings.
You are likely to see several people with no previous record who have gotten caught up in federal prosecutions and received jail time for offenses that most people would never be prosecuted for.
You will notice that the Probation Officer will submit a report in which various potentially mitigating aspects are discussed. Nevertheless, the final recommendation is based upon the sentencing algorithm and is always higher for individuals who go to trial, like Libby, rather than plead guilty.
You will hear federal prosecutor after prosecutor arguing that lack of previous record has already been considered in the guidelines. Indeed, it is part of the basic algorithm. You will hear them argue with respect to public employees, that such people should in fact receive greater punishment for betraying the public trust. You will hear them argue that losing a law license is immaterial with respect to sentencing, as is dangerousness. You will hear them tell the judge that all varieties of acquitted or uncharged conduct should be imputed to the defendant to increase his sentence.
You will see the tears of the family members and friends upon seeing loved ones who are a threat to no one go away for long periods of time.
Perhaps at that point, you will realize that for many the issue is not whether or not the President had the power to do what he did, it is the raw, rank hypocrisy of Bush's commenting that the system behaved unfairly with respect to Libby, when in fact, the system behave exactly as Bush and the Republicans have always argued that it should and exactly as it does virtually every single day during federal sentencings in the nation that imprisons the most people per capita in the world. http://www.kcl.ac.uk/depsta/rel/icps/worldbrief/highest_to_lowest_rates.php
Friday, July 6, 2007
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Federal Sentencing and Fairness
It is startling just how ignorant people on the right are about the federal criminal sentencing processes. Ben Stein has a column in the American Spectator to apparently say whatever he wants, regardless of whether it has any basis in reality. I have seen similar articles in other web locations such as Townhall.com and TCSdaily, where the writers show a basic ignorance (if not abject ignorance) as to how our federal system functions. Perhaps Ben Stein or somebody from TCS or the Wall Street Journal should call Tony Rudy or some of the other unfairly charged Abramoff defendants and ask them how the system functions with respect to first offenders, rather than spouting off some nonsense that they believe they learned from the Law and Order television program.
I have not seen a single person with a column among Republicans lift one finger to help Tony Rudy, while they bend over backward to defend the Libby pardon, which is violative of every single Republican sentencing precept of the last 8 years.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11675
I have not seen a single person with a column among Republicans lift one finger to help Tony Rudy, while they bend over backward to defend the Libby pardon, which is violative of every single Republican sentencing precept of the last 8 years.
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=11675
Libby Pardon Fall-out
This reminds me a bit of when Apprendi, a significant Supreme Court sentencing case came out. The New York Times was going on and on about some mundane issue, while I remember thinking to myself, people outside the field of criminal law have no idea how big the Apprendi decision is.
I often tell non-lawyers that I have a 25-year lag theory regarding the public's knowledge of criminal procedure. The American man in the street still believes it is easy to "get off" by pleading insanity; he believes that all felons are out in 6 months; he believes that it is easy to get cases thrown out due to evidentiary loopholes and he believes that there is no system more fair than the American system of justice.
The Libby pardon proves the point. From their statements, neither Tony Snow nor the President have any understanding of how sentencing works under the federal guidelines, which have only been in existence now for 23 years. In spite of the recent Supreme Court Rita case, in which Bush's Justice Department argued against the very rationales (and won) Bush gave for commuting Libby's sentence, I believe that Bush's gaffe in this manner by not simply pardoning on grounds of mercy is going to sway a lot of judges, even though they may not admit it in court.
I think all throughout the media, we are seeing confusion as to the jury's role in federal sentencing, which is very different from most states. In some states, like Virginia, for example, juries may give sentence recommendations that may bind judges to some extent, but that is emphatically not the case in federal court.
Juries in federal court have nothing to do with sentencing. They don't recommend one and they have no idea what the sentences are likely to be. In fact, jurors often indicate that they would not have convicted had they known that the federal sentence was ten times what they had thought it would be.
The jurors vote up or down on individual counts, which assuming a conviction, are then put into a highly complex formula that attempts to set a monthly range for that defendant's sentence, based upon criminal history, acceptance of responsibility, level of culpability and at times, cooperation. In spite of its purported goal of making sentences fair for everyone, it only accomplishes this by making sentences draconian and restricting judges from lowering them, something Bush has promoted with more vigor than even Clinton or his father.
The issue thus, is the blatant hypocrisy, which given that Bush and his spokesman, Tony Snow seem oblivious to how the Guidelines work, could actually be nothing more than abject ignorance, if that makes those of you on the Right feel better about your President.
Ultimately, Bush articulated the very same reasons that criminal defense attorneys always elucidate on behalf of their defendants. While this may not carry a precedential force of law, it certainly may portend a turning point, as ideas cannot easily be bottled up once unleased.
Until about 2 years ago, the formula was basically automatic and unappealable. Judges have slightly more leeway now but the Bush administration and the Republicans have sought to restrict even that bit of leeway, thus resulting in the unassailable charge of hypocrisy against King George. Starting with Libby, things may now begin to change.
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/07/still-more-sent.html#comment-74971306
I often tell non-lawyers that I have a 25-year lag theory regarding the public's knowledge of criminal procedure. The American man in the street still believes it is easy to "get off" by pleading insanity; he believes that all felons are out in 6 months; he believes that it is easy to get cases thrown out due to evidentiary loopholes and he believes that there is no system more fair than the American system of justice.
The Libby pardon proves the point. From their statements, neither Tony Snow nor the President have any understanding of how sentencing works under the federal guidelines, which have only been in existence now for 23 years. In spite of the recent Supreme Court Rita case, in which Bush's Justice Department argued against the very rationales (and won) Bush gave for commuting Libby's sentence, I believe that Bush's gaffe in this manner by not simply pardoning on grounds of mercy is going to sway a lot of judges, even though they may not admit it in court.
I think all throughout the media, we are seeing confusion as to the jury's role in federal sentencing, which is very different from most states. In some states, like Virginia, for example, juries may give sentence recommendations that may bind judges to some extent, but that is emphatically not the case in federal court.
Juries in federal court have nothing to do with sentencing. They don't recommend one and they have no idea what the sentences are likely to be. In fact, jurors often indicate that they would not have convicted had they known that the federal sentence was ten times what they had thought it would be.
The jurors vote up or down on individual counts, which assuming a conviction, are then put into a highly complex formula that attempts to set a monthly range for that defendant's sentence, based upon criminal history, acceptance of responsibility, level of culpability and at times, cooperation. In spite of its purported goal of making sentences fair for everyone, it only accomplishes this by making sentences draconian and restricting judges from lowering them, something Bush has promoted with more vigor than even Clinton or his father.
The issue thus, is the blatant hypocrisy, which given that Bush and his spokesman, Tony Snow seem oblivious to how the Guidelines work, could actually be nothing more than abject ignorance, if that makes those of you on the Right feel better about your President.
Ultimately, Bush articulated the very same reasons that criminal defense attorneys always elucidate on behalf of their defendants. While this may not carry a precedential force of law, it certainly may portend a turning point, as ideas cannot easily be bottled up once unleased.
Until about 2 years ago, the formula was basically automatic and unappealable. Judges have slightly more leeway now but the Bush administration and the Republicans have sought to restrict even that bit of leeway, thus resulting in the unassailable charge of hypocrisy against King George. Starting with Libby, things may now begin to change.
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/07/still-more-sent.html#comment-74971306
Tuesday, July 3, 2007
More on Scooter Libby
While Bush's decision is obviously abhorrent to almost any rational person, it is extremely beneficial to Tony.
Like most Republicans, and unfortunately most lawyers, Bush has no idea how the federal sentencing system operates and he employed virtually all of the standard defense arguments that his own Justice Department has argued against to prop up the sentencing guidelines against Scalia and Thomas's arguments for abolishment. All of the things Bush cited in his order are the same arguments that his very own Justice Department has sought to abolish as a matter of law. The utter and complete hypocrisy of Bush and the GOP is going to benefit thousands of defendants in the long run.
So, I say, thank you, George. You are an utter, genius, even better at managing legal affairs than you are at managing the war in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/washington/04commute.html?hp
Like most Republicans, and unfortunately most lawyers, Bush has no idea how the federal sentencing system operates and he employed virtually all of the standard defense arguments that his own Justice Department has argued against to prop up the sentencing guidelines against Scalia and Thomas's arguments for abolishment. All of the things Bush cited in his order are the same arguments that his very own Justice Department has sought to abolish as a matter of law. The utter and complete hypocrisy of Bush and the GOP is going to benefit thousands of defendants in the long run.
So, I say, thank you, George. You are an utter, genius, even better at managing legal affairs than you are at managing the war in Iraq.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/04/washington/04commute.html?hp
Housing Bubble?
You really have to wonder when you see stories like this:
"Bolivian immigrants Marcelo Ortega, a dump truck driver, and his wife, Jenny, who cleans houses, bought a brick-front Colonial in Herndon for $549,000 in February 2006. The payments are $4,200 a month, which grew unbearable as residential construction work slowed and Ortega's income dropped." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902582_2.html
How could such a loan have been approved?
Marcelo notes that "My wife loves this house."
Who wouldn't?
"Bolivian immigrants Marcelo Ortega, a dump truck driver, and his wife, Jenny, who cleans houses, bought a brick-front Colonial in Herndon for $549,000 in February 2006. The payments are $4,200 a month, which grew unbearable as residential construction work slowed and Ortega's income dropped." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/29/AR2007062902582_2.html
How could such a loan have been approved?
Marcelo notes that "My wife loves this house."
Who wouldn't?
Libby Pardon
In spite of all the complaining on the Left, Bush is now on record as stating that the sentencing guidelines can be excessive. This is significant because his administration has strongly opposed any efforts to weaken the guidelines authority and (Clinton also) has argued that in fact, the guidelines are virtually always correct and should seldom be departed from.
The truth is, that there is very little about Scooter Libby's case that differs from other run of the mill white collar cases under the federal system. Unlike what Bush claimed, such defendants virtually never have a criminal record and virtually never received jail time before the imposition of the sentencing guidelines. Bush has now publicly stated that the guidelines can result in excessive sentences and I expect to see many defendants and their lawyers using Bush's language in future briefs. I also think that Courts of Appeal are likely to take Bush at his word and will begin to grant many more departures for defendants in general, given their often excessive nature.
In summary, what Bush did is great for defendants and their lawyers. Once again, thinking that he is smarter than everyone else, Bush made his decision essentially without consultation and has come up with a decision that is a nightmare for the standard Republican argument on crime and something that will be a nightmare for prosecutors to deal with. Bush has come out and made all the arguments against the federal criminal justice system that many liberals and libertarians have been trying to make for years.
For those who are upset, look past Libby and be glad that many future defendants are likely to benefit from this.
So, those of us who believe the system is unfair should recognize that Bush has done a potential favor for all current and future defendants.
The truth is, that there is very little about Scooter Libby's case that differs from other run of the mill white collar cases under the federal system. Unlike what Bush claimed, such defendants virtually never have a criminal record and virtually never received jail time before the imposition of the sentencing guidelines. Bush has now publicly stated that the guidelines can result in excessive sentences and I expect to see many defendants and their lawyers using Bush's language in future briefs. I also think that Courts of Appeal are likely to take Bush at his word and will begin to grant many more departures for defendants in general, given their often excessive nature.
In summary, what Bush did is great for defendants and their lawyers. Once again, thinking that he is smarter than everyone else, Bush made his decision essentially without consultation and has come up with a decision that is a nightmare for the standard Republican argument on crime and something that will be a nightmare for prosecutors to deal with. Bush has come out and made all the arguments against the federal criminal justice system that many liberals and libertarians have been trying to make for years.
For those who are upset, look past Libby and be glad that many future defendants are likely to benefit from this.
So, those of us who believe the system is unfair should recognize that Bush has done a potential favor for all current and future defendants.
Friday, June 29, 2007
Gator Sighting in DC Area
Ever since Bush has been President, DC has just gone to Hell....
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062801343.html?sub=AR
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/28/AR2007062801343.html?sub=AR
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
Apple and Industrial Design
You have to give Apple credit. Its products are about 99% styling based and 1% based upon technology. People act as though Apple invented the MP3 player and as though there were something technologically exceptionally about its OS. Neither is true.
But with all things being more or less equal, people want to use products that look good, especially when based upon timeless designs. I find myself especially drawn to audio products that embody these precepts and a quick perusal on Ebay will show that products from the past that look good generally receive a large premium, even over sometimes superior products that fail the coolness test.
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/brierdudley/2007/06/mossberg_and_pogue_like_the_ip.html
But with all things being more or less equal, people want to use products that look good, especially when based upon timeless designs. I find myself especially drawn to audio products that embody these precepts and a quick perusal on Ebay will show that products from the past that look good generally receive a large premium, even over sometimes superior products that fail the coolness test.
http://blog.seattletimes.nwsource.com/brierdudley/2007/06/mossberg_and_pogue_like_the_ip.html
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
College World Series
Congratulations to the Beavers, who seem to have the Tar Heels' number in the College World Series, after defeating them for the second year in a row.
You have to give OSU credit, but in general, the idea of a best 2 of 3 series as being determinative as to who is superior between two baseball teams seems statistically suspicious. I will have to check but I am willing to bet that the Tar Heels are still ahead in the power ratings. Unlike a single boxing or American football match, baseball prowess probably necessitates a series of at least 9 games.
This is a big issue for me in major league baseball, as I believe that MLB has sold out the importance of the regular season to boost attendance through the "phony" wildcard races, which involve teams that have not even played comparable schedules.
I would like to see them go back to the way it was in 1968, when the best team from each league made it to the World Series. When was the last time that that happened? Probably, when the Braves and Yankees played a few years back, but it is becoming less and less common. Last year was just a joke, with St. Louis, a team that barely had a winning record winning the series.
You have to give OSU credit, but in general, the idea of a best 2 of 3 series as being determinative as to who is superior between two baseball teams seems statistically suspicious. I will have to check but I am willing to bet that the Tar Heels are still ahead in the power ratings. Unlike a single boxing or American football match, baseball prowess probably necessitates a series of at least 9 games.
This is a big issue for me in major league baseball, as I believe that MLB has sold out the importance of the regular season to boost attendance through the "phony" wildcard races, which involve teams that have not even played comparable schedules.
I would like to see them go back to the way it was in 1968, when the best team from each league made it to the World Series. When was the last time that that happened? Probably, when the Braves and Yankees played a few years back, but it is becoming less and less common. Last year was just a joke, with St. Louis, a team that barely had a winning record winning the series.
Monday, June 25, 2007
Mike Nifong and the Duke Case
I really couldn't put things much better than the following article, which makes clear how seldom state bar associations censure prosecutors for unethical conduct. State bar associations basically exist to promote the interests of large law firms, thus it is easy to find it laughable the way the North Carolina State Bar acted as though it came galloping to the rescue upon finding a lone violation by a prosecutor.
http://www.slate.com/id/2168680/
http://www.slate.com/id/2168680/
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Police Work as Usual in the USA
I bet they wouldn't have arrested a group of 30 Jewish Americans for the same alleged behavior. I hope this D.A. knows what he is doing because the spirit of Mike Nifong will now be hanging over prosecutors all over this nation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/nyregion/24arrests.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/nyregion/24arrests.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
Monday, June 18, 2007
Playing Not to Lose
The Washington Post had an interesting article on sports and the probability of winning depending upon strategic choices during a game or match. I have often noted the manner in which most coaches seem to make mathematically (in terms of expected value of the outcome based upon probability) incorrect strategic choices at the end of games. For instance, at the end of the 2006 NFL season, Cincinnati was playing on the road at Denver and needed a victory to get into the play-offs. They scored a touchdown in the last minute to get within one point and then, instead of going for a two point conversion to possibly win the game, they instead went for the tie, botched the kick and missed the play-offs.
In general, we should expect road teams to go for the two point conversion to win, rather than settling for a chance to win in overtime, and yet, even the most casual viewer of NFL football can tell you that this almost never happens. Coaches seem to overestimate the value of "momentum" which is derived from being the final team to score in regulation.
In basketball, you often see teams who are ahead by three points during the last ten seconds of the game, make the mistake of not "intentionally but unintentionally" fouling the other team, which gives the team with the ball only two shots and makes it difficult for them to have a chance to win, given the lack of time left.
Instead, they give the opponent a relatively uncontested three point shot which is often a better percentage than making three consecutive free throws would be.(For example, even an 80% free throw shooter has only a 51% chance of hitting three foul shots in a row. A 70% free throw shooter, which is about the norm in college basketball, has only a 34% of making three consecutive free throws, which is almost certainly a lower percentage than an uncontested three pointer.
There are many more examples, probably even some interesting ones from golf. I expect this whole line of inquiry to become a big deal in sports, in the same way that moneyball transformed the way fans think about baseball. My gut feeling is that certain coaches, like Dean Smith for example (a college math major), who are known for winning big games in the clutch, may have simply had an advantage in analyzing the probabilistic elements of endtime play.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700968.html?sub=AR
In general, we should expect road teams to go for the two point conversion to win, rather than settling for a chance to win in overtime, and yet, even the most casual viewer of NFL football can tell you that this almost never happens. Coaches seem to overestimate the value of "momentum" which is derived from being the final team to score in regulation.
In basketball, you often see teams who are ahead by three points during the last ten seconds of the game, make the mistake of not "intentionally but unintentionally" fouling the other team, which gives the team with the ball only two shots and makes it difficult for them to have a chance to win, given the lack of time left.
Instead, they give the opponent a relatively uncontested three point shot which is often a better percentage than making three consecutive free throws would be.(For example, even an 80% free throw shooter has only a 51% chance of hitting three foul shots in a row. A 70% free throw shooter, which is about the norm in college basketball, has only a 34% of making three consecutive free throws, which is almost certainly a lower percentage than an uncontested three pointer.
There are many more examples, probably even some interesting ones from golf. I expect this whole line of inquiry to become a big deal in sports, in the same way that moneyball transformed the way fans think about baseball. My gut feeling is that certain coaches, like Dean Smith for example (a college math major), who are known for winning big games in the clutch, may have simply had an advantage in analyzing the probabilistic elements of endtime play.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/17/AR2007061700968.html?sub=AR
Friday, June 8, 2007
The Beatles, Side One
Listening to side one of my vinyl copy of the White Album, it really strikes me, that with the possible exception of the 2nd side of Abbey Road, I don't think that the Beatles ever had a single side of music as thrilling as this.
First of all, due to better recording techniques, the Beatles were able to fit many more minutes on a side during the White Album, and side one of the White Album has close to 25 minutes of music. And the group used that extra time to perfection, here, starting out with an exquisite challenge from Paul McCartney to the Beach Boys, "Back in the USSR," which both rocks and harmonizes to an extent perhaps only formerly reached by "Paperback Writer." Lennon follows with the dazzlingly pretty, "Dear Prudence," written for the shy, reclusive younger sister of Mia Farrow, who accompanied them to India to study with the Maharishi, and the baffling "Glass Onion," for all the Beatle fans into numerology. McCartney's "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" is perfect pop, while "Wild Honey Pie" is a throwaway, included to add a live feel to the album.
As we move towards the side's conclusion, Lennon again impresses sonically with the "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill" and the intriguing "Happiness is a Warm Gun," both of which are parodies on American gun obsession. Sandwiched between these two is George Harrison's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" featuring the Beatles with Eric Clapton performing a guitar solo that ranks right up there with "The End" from Abbey Road as the Beatles' most thrilling moment.
It is one amazing side of one amazing album (or two, since it was the Beatles' only double studio album), and not that much shorter in minutes than some of their entire early albums. Perhaps not so widely known is that The Beatles (the White Album) was the most successful record by the group selling almost twice as many vinyl discs as Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road, which were the highest selling albums overall by the group, but were single albums and only cost half as much.
First of all, due to better recording techniques, the Beatles were able to fit many more minutes on a side during the White Album, and side one of the White Album has close to 25 minutes of music. And the group used that extra time to perfection, here, starting out with an exquisite challenge from Paul McCartney to the Beach Boys, "Back in the USSR," which both rocks and harmonizes to an extent perhaps only formerly reached by "Paperback Writer." Lennon follows with the dazzlingly pretty, "Dear Prudence," written for the shy, reclusive younger sister of Mia Farrow, who accompanied them to India to study with the Maharishi, and the baffling "Glass Onion," for all the Beatle fans into numerology. McCartney's "Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da" is perfect pop, while "Wild Honey Pie" is a throwaway, included to add a live feel to the album.
As we move towards the side's conclusion, Lennon again impresses sonically with the "The Continuing Story of Bungalow Bill" and the intriguing "Happiness is a Warm Gun," both of which are parodies on American gun obsession. Sandwiched between these two is George Harrison's "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" featuring the Beatles with Eric Clapton performing a guitar solo that ranks right up there with "The End" from Abbey Road as the Beatles' most thrilling moment.
It is one amazing side of one amazing album (or two, since it was the Beatles' only double studio album), and not that much shorter in minutes than some of their entire early albums. Perhaps not so widely known is that The Beatles (the White Album) was the most successful record by the group selling almost twice as many vinyl discs as Sgt. Pepper and Abbey Road, which were the highest selling albums overall by the group, but were single albums and only cost half as much.
Monday, June 4, 2007
Former Posts
As this is a new blog location for me, to the extent anyone is interested, especially Carolina basketball fans, here are some older posts from a couple of years ago. I was pretty darn right about my 2005 basketball predictions, if I do say so myself.
http://journals.aol.com/williamodouglas/BrunswickMarylandMusings/
http://journals.aol.com/williamodouglas/BrunswickMarylandMusings/
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Soprano's Penultimate Episode
Questionable ethics in the psychiatric profession. It looks like Tony is going out a la Scarface or Butch and Sundance. Something is going on with Parisi. Maybe he is orchestrating the whole thing for revenge?
Right now, what I have said about the irony of the ending is looking on target: the Soprano's were always a second-rate outfit who became magnified in the viewer's eye because they were the focus of the show.... Tony, apparently doesn't even have an alarm system, much less any bodyguards to speak of and he doesn't seem to have much money to speak of, a far cry from the Corleone's owning the Vatican in GF III....
One thing seems sure: Tony is out of guys. He could probably use Richie, and Big P, and Patsy's twin and Furio and "ol bowling ball head" right now. Unless he can get help from Carmine or from his female boss friend over in Italy, I don't see anybody who can strike back. Paulie and Patsy? Maybe, but I am not sure that Patsy is not getting his revenge. Maybe he will end up on top and Meadow will still be the Italian American Princess by virtue of marriage. Something is going on with that, how she all of sudden ends up with Parisi's son, whose father has been sort of a minor character until now. So far this year, members of the Soprano family who have killed have bought the farm, Bobby, Christopher and Sil, apparently. Tony has not killed anybody directly to my recollection, this year.
Right now, what I have said about the irony of the ending is looking on target: the Soprano's were always a second-rate outfit who became magnified in the viewer's eye because they were the focus of the show.... Tony, apparently doesn't even have an alarm system, much less any bodyguards to speak of and he doesn't seem to have much money to speak of, a far cry from the Corleone's owning the Vatican in GF III....
One thing seems sure: Tony is out of guys. He could probably use Richie, and Big P, and Patsy's twin and Furio and "ol bowling ball head" right now. Unless he can get help from Carmine or from his female boss friend over in Italy, I don't see anybody who can strike back. Paulie and Patsy? Maybe, but I am not sure that Patsy is not getting his revenge. Maybe he will end up on top and Meadow will still be the Italian American Princess by virtue of marriage. Something is going on with that, how she all of sudden ends up with Parisi's son, whose father has been sort of a minor character until now. So far this year, members of the Soprano family who have killed have bought the farm, Bobby, Christopher and Sil, apparently. Tony has not killed anybody directly to my recollection, this year.
Friday, June 1, 2007
More on the Beatles
It is always hard to compare national sentiment between countries but it is interesting to see differences in popularity between the UK and the United States. For instance, the Beach Boys were far more popular in the UK than in the United States and maintain a level of critical acclaim there far beyond what they have in their own country.
With respect to the Beatles, things are less clear-cut, but things seem to be pretty even on both sides of the Atlantic in terms of their popularity. The Beatles did have more number one songs in the United States, particularly after 1966, where songs such as Penny Lane, Something, and Let It Be all hit number one, while inexplicably failing to reach number one in the UK. Hey Jude was far more popular in the U.S. than in the UK, staying at number one for 8 weeks, while Hello, Good-bye was more popular in the UK, but both hit number one in both countries. The Ballad of John and Yoko hit number one in the UK for three weeks but was not released in the US, due to its mention of Christ in the lyrics. Eight Days a Week, Yesterday and The Long and Winding Road all hit number one in the U.S., but were not released in the UK while the Beatles were together. The only non-Beatles composed single to hit the top ten wasTwist and Shout. Which was a U.S. number one on the Cashbox single charts, but not Billboard, where it hit number two.
The truly amazing thing about the Beatles on both sides of the Atlantic is that once Capitol Records began handling the Beatles in the United States in 1964, every single Beatles studio LP album of new material went to number one on the album charts in both countries. In the UK, the Beatles had 11 straight such albums, from 1963 until they broke up in 1970, that went to number one. In the United States, where albums were shorter and consequently, they released more of them, the Beatles had all 14 of their Capitol albums containing new studio material go number one, from 1964 to 1970.
This does not include Yellow Submarine, which only had four new songs, and which only charted at number 2 in both the U.S. and U.K. because it was unable to dislodge the Beatles' White Album from the number one spot.
With respect to the Beatles, things are less clear-cut, but things seem to be pretty even on both sides of the Atlantic in terms of their popularity. The Beatles did have more number one songs in the United States, particularly after 1966, where songs such as Penny Lane, Something, and Let It Be all hit number one, while inexplicably failing to reach number one in the UK. Hey Jude was far more popular in the U.S. than in the UK, staying at number one for 8 weeks, while Hello, Good-bye was more popular in the UK, but both hit number one in both countries. The Ballad of John and Yoko hit number one in the UK for three weeks but was not released in the US, due to its mention of Christ in the lyrics. Eight Days a Week, Yesterday and The Long and Winding Road all hit number one in the U.S., but were not released in the UK while the Beatles were together. The only non-Beatles composed single to hit the top ten wasTwist and Shout. Which was a U.S. number one on the Cashbox single charts, but not Billboard, where it hit number two.
The truly amazing thing about the Beatles on both sides of the Atlantic is that once Capitol Records began handling the Beatles in the United States in 1964, every single Beatles studio LP album of new material went to number one on the album charts in both countries. In the UK, the Beatles had 11 straight such albums, from 1963 until they broke up in 1970, that went to number one. In the United States, where albums were shorter and consequently, they released more of them, the Beatles had all 14 of their Capitol albums containing new studio material go number one, from 1964 to 1970.
This does not include Yellow Submarine, which only had four new songs, and which only charted at number 2 in both the U.S. and U.K. because it was unable to dislodge the Beatles' White Album from the number one spot.
40th Anniversary of Sgt. Pepper
It's hard to believe but it has indeed been 40 years since the Beatles released perhaps the most influential rock album of all time, Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band. In a like manner, Paul McCartney is about to turn 65, an age that he himself seemed unable to fathom all those years ago, when he asked, "will you still need me, will you still feed me, when I'm 64?" Poor Sir Paul. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/31/AR2007053101848.html
In the spirit of the times, I have been reading many works devoted to the Beatles and their art and history, as well as their amazingly well-done autobiography, entitled, Anthology. There are a couple of things that really jumped out at me.
First, the improvement in the Beatles' musical abilities was nothing short of breathtaking. When they first went down to Hamburg to play what might be considered, semi-professionally, in tawdry taverns, they really had a long way to go in terms of mastering their instruments and knew only a limited number of chords. Their bass player, Stu Sutcliffe, apparently couldn't play at all and would turn his back to the crowd in order that they not notice that he didn't know what chord the band was in.
Within two years, at the time of their first recording contract, while they had improved immensely, they still had very poor instruments and amplifiers and neither of the drummers that they wanted to use for the recording of Love Me Do, were considered acceptable. After Sutcliffe left the band, replaced by McCartney on bass guitar and Ringo Starr took over on drums, things improved somewhat, but the group still seemed far from adept on their instruments. During Beatlemania, it often didn't matter anyway because it was impossible to hear anything at their concerts. Nevertheless, by 1963, the group had become accomplished rock and roll performers, whose covers of American standards such as Twist and Shout, Money and You've Really Got a Hold on Me were electrifying.
By 1965, with the composition of Norwegian Wood, Help, Ticket to Ride and Yesterday, the Beatles had reached the highest echelon of popular music creation, rivalled only by fellow prodigies Bob Dylan and Brian Wilson. It was an incredibly fast ascent, explainable, perhaps, only by the vast talent of the group's three songwriters, Lennon, McCartney and Harrison, as well as the musical virtuosity of McCartney, who seemingly overnight, was an accomplished bassist, guitarist, drummer and pianist, and Harrison, who forays into the sitar, and later, extended guitar solos, added much to the Beatles' post-Beatlemania sound.
The second thing that really surprised me, is that Ringo Starr's "luck" as being chosen as the fourth Beatle, has been overstated. Granted, he came in just before the group really took off, but this was because, due to the new recording contract, George Martin, their producer, told their manager to get rid of drummer, Pete Best, whom he saw as incompetent.
Ringo Starr, who depending on the source, was either no better, marginally better, or far better, than Best at the time, was chosen for a couple of reasons.
First, he was the drummer for a rival group, Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, which up to that time, had been more popular than the Beatles. Starr and his group had often played in the same clubs as the Beatles and was very familiar with their musical style. Second, Starr knew the Beatles personally and was actually a far better friend of the other three than was Best, and had the effervescent type of personality that characterized the group, while Best was quiet and aloof. The truth of the matter is that Starr took a chance on the Beatles in the same way that they took a chance on him and the result was music history.
In the spirit of the times, I have been reading many works devoted to the Beatles and their art and history, as well as their amazingly well-done autobiography, entitled, Anthology. There are a couple of things that really jumped out at me.
First, the improvement in the Beatles' musical abilities was nothing short of breathtaking. When they first went down to Hamburg to play what might be considered, semi-professionally, in tawdry taverns, they really had a long way to go in terms of mastering their instruments and knew only a limited number of chords. Their bass player, Stu Sutcliffe, apparently couldn't play at all and would turn his back to the crowd in order that they not notice that he didn't know what chord the band was in.
Within two years, at the time of their first recording contract, while they had improved immensely, they still had very poor instruments and amplifiers and neither of the drummers that they wanted to use for the recording of Love Me Do, were considered acceptable. After Sutcliffe left the band, replaced by McCartney on bass guitar and Ringo Starr took over on drums, things improved somewhat, but the group still seemed far from adept on their instruments. During Beatlemania, it often didn't matter anyway because it was impossible to hear anything at their concerts. Nevertheless, by 1963, the group had become accomplished rock and roll performers, whose covers of American standards such as Twist and Shout, Money and You've Really Got a Hold on Me were electrifying.
By 1965, with the composition of Norwegian Wood, Help, Ticket to Ride and Yesterday, the Beatles had reached the highest echelon of popular music creation, rivalled only by fellow prodigies Bob Dylan and Brian Wilson. It was an incredibly fast ascent, explainable, perhaps, only by the vast talent of the group's three songwriters, Lennon, McCartney and Harrison, as well as the musical virtuosity of McCartney, who seemingly overnight, was an accomplished bassist, guitarist, drummer and pianist, and Harrison, who forays into the sitar, and later, extended guitar solos, added much to the Beatles' post-Beatlemania sound.
The second thing that really surprised me, is that Ringo Starr's "luck" as being chosen as the fourth Beatle, has been overstated. Granted, he came in just before the group really took off, but this was because, due to the new recording contract, George Martin, their producer, told their manager to get rid of drummer, Pete Best, whom he saw as incompetent.
Ringo Starr, who depending on the source, was either no better, marginally better, or far better, than Best at the time, was chosen for a couple of reasons.
First, he was the drummer for a rival group, Rory Storm and the Hurricanes, which up to that time, had been more popular than the Beatles. Starr and his group had often played in the same clubs as the Beatles and was very familiar with their musical style. Second, Starr knew the Beatles personally and was actually a far better friend of the other three than was Best, and had the effervescent type of personality that characterized the group, while Best was quiet and aloof. The truth of the matter is that Starr took a chance on the Beatles in the same way that they took a chance on him and the result was music history.
Wednesday, May 30, 2007
Concussion Tied to Depression in Ex-N.F.L. Players - New York Times
There seems to be more and more evidence that getting hit on the head over and over is not good for you....
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/sports/football/31concussions.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/31/sports/football/31concussions.html?hp
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Sopranos
There are two episodes to go. Christopher has left us, to join Adriana in the great beyond. Who else is going to die?
Meadow is the only innocent Soprano, so either she will survive because of that, or if they go for the meaningless of life approach, she will buy the farm and the others will survive.
There is talk of a Sopranos movie, so I would be surprised if Gandolfini gets offed, but maybe he gets killed and AJ takes over, a la The Godfather.
Silvio could carry a spin-off if they ever wanted to do that and he is generally portrayed sympathetically, so I doubt he dies. AJ would need him as consigliere.
Carmela is worse than Tony. I say off her.
Bobby is sort of good, so he will survive, but Janice will leave him to market Christian contemporary music with her former born-again narcoleptic boyfriend and her son, Harpo. Leotardo will definitely die, unless they are thinking of a movie.
I think Paulie Walnuts will die. Junior will live but still be stuck in the asylum.
I mean it is kind of funny, because who thinks of the Jersey mob being able to take on one of the Five Families, although the New York mob families aren't what they used to be. It would be an interesting twist to see the entire Soprano crime family rubbed out, to let us know that we have spent 9 years and 7? seasons watching minor league gangsters. (What mob boss bets the standard spread? I thought that was just for dirty cops).
I know I am hedging my bets but I am still hoping for either a movie or a spin-off.
Meadow is the only innocent Soprano, so either she will survive because of that, or if they go for the meaningless of life approach, she will buy the farm and the others will survive.
There is talk of a Sopranos movie, so I would be surprised if Gandolfini gets offed, but maybe he gets killed and AJ takes over, a la The Godfather.
Silvio could carry a spin-off if they ever wanted to do that and he is generally portrayed sympathetically, so I doubt he dies. AJ would need him as consigliere.
Carmela is worse than Tony. I say off her.
Bobby is sort of good, so he will survive, but Janice will leave him to market Christian contemporary music with her former born-again narcoleptic boyfriend and her son, Harpo. Leotardo will definitely die, unless they are thinking of a movie.
I think Paulie Walnuts will die. Junior will live but still be stuck in the asylum.
I mean it is kind of funny, because who thinks of the Jersey mob being able to take on one of the Five Families, although the New York mob families aren't what they used to be. It would be an interesting twist to see the entire Soprano crime family rubbed out, to let us know that we have spent 9 years and 7? seasons watching minor league gangsters. (What mob boss bets the standard spread? I thought that was just for dirty cops).
I know I am hedging my bets but I am still hoping for either a movie or a spin-off.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
