Classic Spirts--Best Buys

For those who enjoy consuming in moderation the "good stuff," the falling dollar and the economic turmoil of recent weeks can make indulging in expensive liquor a more difficult decision. Not to fear, here are my buying tips, with some category suggestions.

First of all comes the age question. Most spirits improve with time in the barrel, but not necessarily all. If you are buying vodka, buy the cheapest triple-distilled product you can find. When talking about premium rums, bourbons, Scotches and Irishes, and ryes, yes, quality does generally improve with age, but there are diminishing and perhaps, even negative returns after a certain quantity of years. Aging greatly increases the ultimate price of a liquor.

Rye whiskey tends to need the least time in the bottle to mellow, and thus, tends to be the best liquor bargain out there, so little time, in fact, that usually there will be no age statement. Rum also needs very little aging, but tends to be slightly more expensive than rye due to the cost of importation, perhaps, although some rums can age for up to five years or more. Bourbon comes next, generally doing well with six to ten years in the bottle, followed by Scotch and Irish whiskey, which can be aged up to 21 years or more.

Tequila is a new entry into this category, but due to supply constraints, it is currently well beyond what I believe it is worth and should be approached with caution. When buying Tequila, make sure that it is 100-percent agave. After that, the clear, less aged, cheaper versions with 100-percent agave tend to have the most robust tequila taste, with the more expensive dark versions tasting somewhat more like brandy, which I won't treat here because it tends to have a bad reputation in the United States, as opposed to Spain and France. Aging in general, will tend to make a liquor taste somewhat less like its original grain, fruit or sugar.

So here are my recommendations:

Rye Whiskey is almost always the best deal among premium liquors and many Scotch drinkers won't even notice the difference. Jim Beam, Pikesville and Old Overholt should all cost anywhere from $9 to $13 and are all excellent.

When speaking of Rum, I am not talking about clear rum, which is essentially vodka made from sugar. Rum tends to evaporate quickly and often does not carry an age statement. You can do excellently with Goslings Black Seal, which is a very dark rum or Sergeant Classick, which is straw in color, either for around $13 and excellent for sipping.

I find bourbon to be somewhat less friendly for sipping than either Rye or Scotch, but there are times where that more caramel taste is welcome. I would generally avoid the so-called "small batch bourbons", as I believe this is basically a scam to piggyback on the marketing of single malt whiskeys, which is a more legitimate category. Tennessee Whiskeys like George Dickel and Jack Daniels, are similar to bourbon, but perhaps a bit smoother.

Old Granddad 100 is certainly a best buy, as are the higher proofs of Ancient Age. One tip is to look for bourbons which have a proof higher than 80, as higher proofs have traditionally been a sign of better quality among bourbons, perhaps due to the bottled in bond category of yesteryear, that of a 100 proof bourbon. You will rarely go wrong with either George Dickel Number 12 or Wild Turkey 101, both for between $15 and $20 a bottle.

I am not going to pick any Irish because it is too similar to Scotch and generally more expensive. I believe the real merit in single malt whiskeys is in training the palate as to what good Scotch tastes like, but the prices of single malts generally rule them out here. If you do want to buy a single malt, consider a 10-year old as it is not clear to me, whether or not further aging actually improves the product, or rather degrades the malt taste. This depends on the palate, I suppose. Also, consider Johnny Walker Black or Chivas Regal, which are cheaper than single malts but not necessarily inferior.

The all-time winner for best buy in any category has to go to White Horse Blended Scotch Whisky, which can be found for between $12 and $15 a bottle. This whisky has attractive packing, like more expensive whiskeys, and has a base of Lagavulin, one of the most distinct and expensive of the single malts. This is highly recommended. My runner-up would be Teacher's, which is slightly more expensive. It also has the same attractive packaging, i.e., metal caps instead of cheap plastic ones, has a high malt content and a distinctive sweet taste. If you can't find either of these, Passport is not bad, for about the same money. The rule of thumb here is if it has a plastic cap, it is no longer a best buy, but rather cheap swill and this rule seems to hold up fairly well.

R.I.P. Chicago Cubs

What a joke baseball's post-season is. You play 162 games and show that you are clearly better and then baseball sticks you in what may be only a 3-game series and it's over. Or as Billy Beane said in Moneyball, "My sh*t doesn't work in the post-season."

I don't care what happens here. The Cubs were clearly the better team this year.

The World Series winner is now little more than a statistical fraud. St. Louis barely even had a winning record a couple of years ago, but the better team tends to only win about 55% of the time in baseball, which means that a true powerhouse like Seattle had when they won 116 games in the regular season has less than a 20% chance of winning the World Series. A wildcard team with a couple of good pitchers can stumble its way into a title.

This was somewhat obscured at the beginning of the addition of the dreadful five game division series back in 1996 because the Yankees had an unlikely run, winning four times in five years. But since the 2000 season, no team has repeated and some very mediocre teams have won the Series.

I sincerely doubt that the 1976 Cincinnati Reds, which were the only NL team in the last 80 years to repeat, could do so under these modern rules. Atlanta would have won several world series under the pre-1969 and even under the pre-1996 rules, but now it is just a lottery where the regular season means little or nothing.

One commenter has brought up the scheduling changes due to intra-division play. I understand about the scheduling changes, which are another unfair change, particularly to the Mets, but understandable to let some inter-league rivalries take place. The differences in the records here seem significant enough to offset that.

If winning 12 more games in the regular season does not make you better, then why not let all the teams in the post-season?

Two games is not any kind of representative sample upon which anyone can make conclusions. If the Dodgers took two easy games in a row at Wrigley in July, people wouldn't bat an eye. I think I have seen articles that say that it would take 8-10 games to be somewhat statistically reliable, it is certainly more than three games.

The NFL and NBA play-offs are much more statistically sound and I don't think anyone denies that. Hockey is somewhat less so but still more than baseball.


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/03/sports/baseball/03cubs.html?em

Sarah Palin

I am kind of fascinated by Sarah Palin. Her entire candidacy is so surreal that it seems like something out of a movie, maybe a chick-flick called Veep Mom, or one of those comedies where the yokels show how much smarter they really are than more sophisticated folks, call it, Wasilia White House, and instead of Easter Egg Hunts, Sarah "dresses" a deer for the children and teaches them where food comes from.(No moose in D.C., unfortunately).

She has bragged about being the Joe Sixpack candidate, and don't they deserve a little representation in Washington, too?

It reminds me of the situation back in 1970, where Richard Nixon nominated to the U.S. Supreme Court, Florida judge, Harold Carswell. When Democrats questioned his capacity for being a Supreme Court Justice, Senator Roman Hruska of Nebraska attempted to make his case for him:

”Even if he were mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and
people and lawyers. They are entitled to a little representation,
aren’t they, and a little chance? We can’t have all Brandeises,
Frankfurters and Cardozos.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Hruska

I guess we all believe in Affirmative Action now.

Or not, since John McCain recently compared her experience to that of Ronald Reagan, who, together with Barry Goldwater, espoused an influential and detailed political doctrine, and who governed the most populous state in the nation for 8 years, and who ran three excellent presidential campaigns, finally winning in 1980, after losing narrowly to Nixon and Ford in 1968 and 1976.

Yeah, that's the same as being governor for two years and mayor of some podunk town in Alaska.

The GOP stalwarts go apoplectic if anyone disses Sarah, so I am writing this at my own risk.

Still, it is hard for me to be too mad at the GOP because this month has been the greatest reality show I have ever seen: the Sarah Palin show. These are the same Republicans that have opposed affirmative action for 30 years because it advances people beyond what they are capable of; these are the people who sneered at welfare queens having babies in high school, but in Alaska you get an extra $1,500 per year for every baby you can pump out, so why shouldn't Bristol get on board?

Let me make clear that I am not disrespecting Sarah just because she sounds exactly like Frances McDormand, who played the female cop in the movie, Fargo, although she does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fargo_(film) ; http://www.slate.com/id/2201318/

I definitely am not a "hater."

Nor am I am one of those people who point to every factual gaffe that people make.

Furthermore, I understand that when people speak, they don't necessarily use 100% proper grammar, but Palin seems to be especially challenged with respect to verb-subject agreement and antecedents, which seem strung to and fro, interrupted by healthy doses of talking points, which usually seem to have nothing to do with the original question.

If you are a liberal, you really have to scratch your head sometimes to even figure out what the heck she means, and often, you simply cannot. Those talking points are not intended for you. That is conservative secret code. She's non-linear, so don't go trying to put her in the constraints of ordinary grammar and syntax. Let Sarah be Sarah!

You definitely cannot accuse her of not trying to improve herself. My goodness, when asked by Katie Couric what periodicals she reads, Palin remarked, "all of them."

That's a lot of reading.

Slate magazine online, has done a number of superb humor pieces on her. There was one about diagramming her sentences, which was funny, but the Slate article on the poetry of Sarah Palin may have been about the funniest thing that I have seen since the movie Borat. http://www.slate.com/id/2201342/

Sarah tells it like it is, no pulling punches for her:

"On Good and Evil"

It is obvious to me
Who the good guys are in this one
And who the bad guys are.
The bad guys are the ones
Who say Israel is a stinking corpse,
And should be wiped off
The face of the earth.

That's not a good guy.

(To K. Couric, CBS News, Sept. 25, 200

Here is another of my favorites:

"On the Bailout"

Ultimately,
What the bailout does
Is help those who are concerned
About the health care reform
That is needed
To help shore up our economy,
Helping the—
It's got to be all about job creation, too.

Shoring up our economy
And putting it back on the right track.
So health care reform
And reducing taxes
And reining in spending
Has got to accompany tax reductions
And tax relief for Americans.
And trade.

We've got to see trade
As opportunity
Not as a competitive, scary thing.
But one in five jobs
Being created in the trade sector today,
We've got to look at that
As more opportunity.
All those things.

If you submitted a sitcom based on the reality of this candidacy, it would be rejected as unbelievable. Truth is stranger than fiction, indeed! And funnier, too. I can't wait to see Gramps McCain holding Bristol's baby in the White House--that alone would be worth having the Republicans win the election.

Sarah is actually funnier than Borat and that movie was hilarious. A great sequel would have Borat go to Alaska and learn about Alaska from her. She truly is about the funniest thing I have ever seen.

I love the way she can turn any question into a nonsensical talking point, or as one wag noted, "babble points." Bail-out? Well, its all about health care reform and lower taxes and trade.... And always remember, Iran is not a good guy.

So you can see, I love Sarah Palin! I am on pins and needles to see what she might cook up for us in tonight's debate. Talk about "Can't Miss T.V."!

I'm not voting for her, of course, but if she ever actually gets a reality show, I will be watching! As she might herself say, Right on!

LPs versus CDs--The Debate Continues

CBS recently did a report on the renewed popularity of vinyl records, which were once thought to be dead a decade ago.

So what happened? Well, a couple of things. First of all, vinyl records are much harder to pirate than CDs, so the record companies like them. Second, they have much more room for artwork and lyrics and the like, so both fans and artists like them in that respect. Third, (and I am not going to provide any links because there are too many opinions out there), vinyl records may interact with a phono cartridge in a way that is simply more pleasing to the ear than is digital reproduction, even though they may or may not be as technically close to the original recording.

For what it is worth, I take a middle position. The vast majority of rock music, up to about 1985, was composed and engineered for vinyl, thus it might not be surprising that it sounds as good or better on this medium. This is true for a large chunk of the great jazz music out there.

With respect to classical music, however, I believe that CDs are generally the better choice for 99% of people. There are so many soft passages in most great classical pieces, which generally date before 1950 or even 1900, that any little bit of surface noise generally becomes obstrusive to the enjoyment of the piece. Most of the imperfections on rock music generally will fall beneath the noise floor.

GOP Prospects for the Future

If you compare the 1988 electoral map to the 2008 electoral map, as provided by Realclearpolitics, it is becoming clear that the GOP is going to have to change its positions on many issues. The map continues to trend away from them.

The idea that Republicans could win a rout like 1988 or 1984 or 1972 anymore is ludicrous. The blue states on the East coast are heading south towards North Carolina and then Georgia on the I-95 and I-85 corridors. Among states below the Mason-Dixon, Maryland has already become reliably blue after voting for Reagan and the first George Bush and Virginia now has had 2 Democratic governors in a row, and will soon have two Democratic senators.

Some have posited that re-apportionment will save the GOP in the coming decade, with Red states likely to gain electoral votes at the expense of blue states, but this assumption is suspect, as the gains in Texas, South Carolina and Utah, which should remain reliably red, are liable to be tempered by the losses of Virginia, North Carolina, Nevada, Florida, Arizona and Georgia, all of which have suddenly become competitive states for the Democrats. Colorado and New Hampshire, both of which were won by George Bush in 2000, and New Mexico, which he won in 2004 after losing in 2000 are trending blue as well. http://www.savethegop.com/2008/09/14/electoral-college-2012/

You will notice that with the exception of Utah, none of the most fiercely conservatives states, such as Alabama, Kansas, Oklahoma, Louisiana or Mississippi will be gaining electoral votes.

Virginia may go blue this fall and if it does, expect it to remain blue, followed by North Carolina in the next election, with Nevada and Florida already at equipoise. Georgia has gone Democratic for President in 1976, 1980 and 1992, while Arizona went blue in 1996 and has looked increasingly competitive, if not this year, due to the nomination of a favorite son.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=16

The Greatest Fights of Muhammad Ali

Boxing, along with horse racing, was once widely followed among Americans. In many ways, the 1970's were the final heyday for the sport, when there were excellent practitioners, particularly in the heavyweight division, which was led by Joe Frazier, George Foreman, and Muhammad Ali.

Ali, who had previously been a dominant champion during the 1960's with no serious opposition, found himself surrounded by several fighters who were in his class during the 1970's, which resulted in several great, great fights, most of which are now available on either ESPN Classic or youtube. For anyone interested in watching some of them, here is my ranking of the ten greatest fights involving Ali. These are all interesting fights and I would put the first five of these on a list of the greatest fights in boxing history, not just among heavyweights.

1. 1974--Ali vs. George Foreman--Known as the Rumble in the Jungle, this fight had an electric atmosphere, with almost constant action. Ali proved that he had the best chin in boxing as he survived Foreman's brutal assaults and ultimately won on a "light" knock-out over an exhausted Foreman in the 8th round, giving Big George his first career defeat. Despite the biased announcing by the British commentator, this fight was pretty even until the surprising ending where the spent Foreman twirls to the canvas. Because of Foreman's acclaim at the time, this fight was much more of an upset than it seems today, somewhat akin to Buster Douglas stopping the undefeated Tyson in 1990.

2. 1975--Ali vs. Joe Frazier--Known as the Thrilla in Manila, this fight lacked the explosive individual punches of the first Ali-Frazier fight or the Foreman fight, but what it lacked in knock-downs, it made up for in intensity. Frazier and Ali went toe to toe for 14 brutal rounds, fighting to the point of utter exhaustion, if not quite death. Every time I watch this, I am unsure whether or not Ali is going to be able to come out for the 15th round.

Sports Illustrated had this to say the week before the Thrilla: "It is doubtful that Ali and Frazier will match their first fight, a masterpiece of courage and talent and high tension that left one damp with sweat and tingling many hours later." http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1090286/index.htm

Somehow, they did.

3. 1971--Ali vs. Joe Frazier--Known as the Fight of the Century, this bout pitted the two undefeated champions in a fight which had more peaks of excitement, but less overall intensity than the Manila fight. Frazier punishes Ali in both the 11th and 15th, perhaps worse than any other boxer until Larry Holmes in 1980. Frazier's knock-down of Ali in the 15th was one of the hardest punches in boxing history, but somehow Ali got up and finished the fight. Overall, it was still a pretty close bout and Frazier may have looked more beaten up than Ali at the end.

4. 1977--Ali vs. Earnie Shavers--Shavers had a punch like George Foreman and would later go on to destroy Ken Norton in one round, and put Larry Holmes down in a title fight, and he showed his power here, hurting Ali in several rounds and leaving Ali sagging on the ropes at the end of round 14.

We didn't realize how good Shavers actually was at the time, so in retrospect, Ali deserves credit for beating an excellent opponent in a close, exciting 15-round bout. Sports Illustrated gave this fight its cover with the headline: "Ali's Desperate Hour." http://vault.sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/cover/featured/8558/index.htm

5. 1975--Ali vs. Ron Lyle--Ron Lyle was another excellent 1970's fighter, along with Shavers, Norton and Jimmy Young, who never quite won the title in the ring, but who all gave Ali all he wanted head-to-head. Lyle appeared to be ahead in this fight in which he made Ali come to him, away from the ropes, but Ali stopped him in the 11th on a somewhat questionable TKO.

6. 7. 8.--Ali vs. Ken Norton--Ali fought Norton three times, in 1973, twice and then in 1976 and there essentially was not a dime's worth of difference between the two fighters. The first two fights were split decisions, one won by Norton and one won by Ali, with Norton breaking Ali's jaw in the first bout. The third fight took place in 1976 in Yankee Stadium and was just as close as the first two with Ali winning a highly controversial decision by one round on two cards and two rounds on the referee's card.

9. 1978--Ali vs. Leon Spinks--This was an exciting, entertaining bout that resulted in Ali losing his title. The reason why I grade it only at 9 is because it was not apparent at the time, just how poor a heavyweight Leon Spinks was or how much Ali's skills had been degraded in the five months since his victory against Shavers. Spinks may be the worst heavyweight champion to ever hold the lineal heavyweight title, but this was a pretty good fight.

10. Tie--1976--Ali vs. Jimmy Young; 1975--Ali vs. Chuck Wepner. The Young fight was not particularly exciting, but many felt that Young won the 15-round fight. Wepner never really had a chance to win against Ali, but he did put Ali down with a surprise glancing punch and took Ali into the 15th round before finally succumbing and ultimately inspiring the concept of the Rocky movies for Sylvester Stallone.

Ali fought ten title bouts in the 1960's and won all of them easily, against mostly mediocre competition, with the exception of Sonny Liston and the small, former champ, Floyd Patterson. In the 70's, however, Ali rarely had an easily fight when fighting against highly ranked opposition, as the above list shows. It is difficult to assert that the 1970's Ali was measurably better than either Norton or Frazier head to head, and neither Foreman, nor Young, nor Lyle nor Shavers ever fought Ali again, after difficult wins for Ali.

Reel Mowers Revisited

I now have had the opportunity to use my Scott's Elite mower exclusively for a couple of months and I have to say that my opinion of this unit has only gone up. It simply works beautifully and for me, anyway, has made lawn care somewhat addictive.

One tip that I want to share is that I did make one adjustment to the unit's factory settings, which was to raise the cutting height to its maximum. While you cannot really do this on the fly with this mower as you can with the Sunlawn's, it really is not all that difficult to do and takes about five minutes to change, but what a change!

The mower is much easier to push and the difference in cutting height is not all that great. In fact, I believe that many of the people who have found these types of mowers too difficult to push probably never tried the mowers in the highest cutting position.

After adjusting the height to its maximum, it was much easier to cut tall grass, while cutting grass which was just at the verge of needing to be be cut, was almost too easy, as there was very little resistance at all. I am sure a physicist could explain this with an equation, but basically, the larger the mower's width and the higher the grass, the more effort it takes to push a reel mower and small differences in the dimensions and settings might make a significant difference in terms of the pushing effort required.

For where I live, which is the hot and sunny Mid-Atlantic region, the highest setting is plenty short to be presentable and is probably close to the optimal cutting height for the Ryes and Blue Grasses used in this region.

With respect to some of the other issues regarding reel mowers, I continue to find most of the criticisms overblown. My yard is larger than recommended, it is uneven in places and has different types of grasses. None of these factors has been much of a hindrance.

Some critics have raised the question of small sticks getting caught in the mower. The Elite is more susceptible to this than the Sunlawn, but it really hasn't been a big deal. You either roll the reel back slightly or just plow through it if the stick is small enough.

Reel Mowers are not great at cutting tall weeds or breaking sticks into mulch or leveling uneven soil, but most of these practices are not essential, or even antithetical, to safe, proper lawn care. If there are weeds that don't get cut, I simply yank them out.(or if they are dandelions, they eventually fall over on their own.) Yes, it takes a little more time, but the yard ends up looking better. Reel mowers are actually better for mowing near obstructions such as rocks or stumps, as they tend to cut the ground around these objects without hitting them, unlike gas mowers which often break or lose their sharpness due to hitting stumps and exposed concrete and the like.

About the only other issue has to do with the sharpening of the blades. I have mowed a lot of grass with this Scott's Elite and the blades still seem perfectly serviceable. I have, however, bought a blade-sharpening kit for this unit and it appears to be much easier to do than I expected. Although I haven't used the kit yet, I have read the manual.(rtfm, right?) Basically, you apply a sharpening compound to the blades and then either roll the mower backwards, or take one of the wheels off and crank the reels backwards for a few minutes to make the reel edges sharp again, but after a couple of months of using this mower, I don't feel that it is necessary yet. http://www.rubyrooms.com/p/How-To-Service-Your-Reel-Mower/l-2452012

There have lately been a slew of articles, including one in the New York Times, which have dealt with the inability of many small gas-powered engines to run well on fuel blends which contain ethanol, which is basically all of them in the U.S. now. Apparently, small engine machine shops have been inundated the entire country all over, with malfunctioning gas mowers.

This probably explains why my gas mower has died three times in the last 9 months and probably is now headed for the recycling heap. I recently tried high octane gasoline to see if that might turn its sputtering into starting, but to no avail. The only other thing to try is some type of fuel additive, and if that doesn't work, then I am giving up on my gas-powered mower. I wouldn't even bother trying, except for the challenge to see if I can get thing running again.

Nevertheless, with the possible exception of grinding fall leaves, which I haven't had to do yet, I honestly cannot envision a situation where a simple gas-power mower is superior to the tried and true reel mower given my personal lawn mowing needs. Although I have actually seen some good looking gas mowers on sale recently for around $100, I just don't miss the noise and the smell and the wrenching my arm out starting the thing, even if the newer ones actually do work with ethanol blends.

Review--Dennis Wilson--Pacific Ocean Blue

I have been going back and forth over what is going to be my next post, this exquisite album by a former Beach Boy or the new Batman movie, the Dark Knight, both of which I had been awaiting anxiously. Well, you have to start somewhere and this amazing work has soothed my disappointment over the new Batman flick. http://www.pacificoceanblue.net/

First of all, although, this re-issue album is entitled Pacific Ocean Blue, which was a Dennis Wilson solo work from the late 1970's, it is much more than that. Dennis, the lone surfer in the group, was not one of the more-heralded Beach Boys, known mostly as the drummer who rarely sang, but became known for his excursion into transcendental meditation and for having more than a casual relationship with Charlie Manson, before Helter Skelter. He would eventually be overcome by personal addiction and drown in the very ocean he so loved.

Due to Dennis Wilson's early demise--he was to die a few years after the release of POB--he left behind a great deal of music in the archives directed toward an album that never saw official release. Tentatively called, Bambu, after the rolling papers that used to sit next to every cash register at every convenience store in the 1970's, the second disc of the POB re-issue carries songs from the so-called Bambu sessions, that have been bouncing around as bootlegs for close to 30 years. Finally, the release contains two versions of an amazing unreleased instrumental song by Wilson called Holy Man, which by itself is worth the price of admission.

I was never a Beach Boys fan growing up--too corny, I thought and I might have been right given what American radio usually played, Barbara Ann and Surfing USA--not that they were bad but I was more attracted to the Beatles and never realized that the Beach Boys had records like Pet Sounds and Surf's Up and Holland that were amazingly beautiful and deep. Strangely enough, the Beach Boys have always been much more popular in England than at home. Maybe the grass is always greener. But the works on the new POB release are not much like any Beach Boy albums that I know. They have an amazing 1970's feel. Think of the very best music from the 1970's, whether from Jackson Browne or Pink Floyd or George Harrison and you will be right at home with POB and the Bambu out-takes.

Even though POB and Bambu were not originally released together(or Bambu, ever, until now), taken together, they definitely have a similar feel among the songs. If Dennis Wilson had followed George Harrison (another unappreciated famous band member with vocals more expressive than exquisite) and released all of these songs at once, the effect might be quite similar to Harrison's lauded sprawling triple-album, All Things Must Pass, with Dennis's Holy Man playing the role of Isn't it a Pity, as the album's anthem, while River Song might be Dennis's My Sweet Lord. There are 33 tracks here and very few that feel out of place.

My only caveat for Beach Boys-aficionados is that this album reminds me much more of the best of 1970's album oriented rock and not of the the Beach Boys in general. These songs are not at all like the harmonies that many associate with the Beach Boys. They are much more bluesy and laid-back. I've only had these discs a fortnight and I may re-address this new CD release more in depth at a later point, but right now I rate Pacific Ocean Blue very favorably with Harrison's All Things Must Pass, which I see as maybe the classic album of the 1970's.

Five stars and highly recommended!

Reel Mowers

I have been intrigued by reel mowers ever since I noticed Wally and Beaver using one on Leave It to Beaver re-runs. It was my job to mow the lawn growing up and the Cleavers always made lawn care look a lot more fun than it was for me pushing around a heavy gasoline-powered mower.

When we bought our first home, one thing that really didn't occur to me was that once again it would fall to me to keep the grass cut.  Kids come by the house asking if they can do it, but at their going rate of $30 to $40 dollars, I usually ask them if I can mow their lawn instead.

In the process of renovating our home and yard, which had been left in not exactly the greatest shape by the previous owners, I quickly went through four separate gasoline-powered mowers, either simply wearing them out or by hitting upon (literally) hidden treasures like the remnants of a grown-over outhouse, or the mostly buried boiler in the yard that broke the engine of one of the mowers.  I then switched to buying used ones for under $100 from a local guy, but soon tired of their inevitable refusals to start, usually just before we have guests or during the last mow of the season, leaving patches of uncut grass for winter.

A riding mower seemed like overkill and plus, I grudgingly like the exercise that I get from cutting the grass.  I finally decided to take the plunge and buy a reel mower, figuring that at the least, I could use it as a back-up.  My wife tried to warn me off the endeavor, remembering painful childhood hours spent pushing an old, rusty reel mower with dull blades on her family's farm, but I figured that it was worth the risk, given that they aren't all that expensive anyway, and took the plunge.

Doing research on which one to buy, was far from easy.  Reel mowers are a product that people seem to either love or hate with equal passion.  Lawns come in all sizes, with different kinds of grasses that vary in texture and of course, humans come in different sizes and strengths.

Ultimately, it appeared that there were two major choices, either a Brill-type mower or a Scotts-type mower, with the major difference between them being that the Brills did not need sharpening, while the Scotts-type mowers were recommended for higher, thicker grasses, due to the slightly different manner in which they clip grass.  Apparently, the Brill-type mowers are big in Europe where lawns are far smaller and gas-powered mowers are used sparingly.  Most reel mowers have five blades, but some of the ones for shorter grass varieties come with seven blades.

After a little more research, I decided to buy a Sunlawn MM1, which was a less costly five-blade clone of the Brill-type, and which also offered the ability to cut a bit higher than the Brill.  I am not exactly sure what types of grass I have in my yard, but I think that they are mostly blue grass varieties that grow a bit higher than some Southern varieties, and so I did want the ability to cut above a golf fairway height.

I decided to purchase a Sunlawn MM1 and have used it for over a month, after buying it as a backup for my old gas mower that has already been serviced twice this spring and still refuses to start.

I have been pretty happy with the design of the Sunlawn and particularly enjoyed the soothing sound that its blades make while cutting grass, but I am afraid that Sunlawn must be in the initial stages of product production in China and quality control is apparently not good right now.  Previously, some of their dealers have seemingly implied this, as they have delayed production of their new mowers in this style:

"Due to a major production issue with our supplier Sunlawn has been forced to refuse our shipments of the MM-2 model. As a result, availability of the MM-2 will be delayed until further notice. We apologize for the delay and the inconvience but Sunlawn insists that all of our quality standards be met or exceeded."

http://www.rewci.com/lux38freship.html

As evidence of these problems in my own case, the handle bars of my Sunlawn MM1 were warped right out of the box, and this made putting the unit together much more of a chore than it should have been, although Sunlawn was responsive about dealing with this in terms of sending replacements.

Unfortunately, however, after a little more than a month of use, the adjustable metal brackets for changing the mowing height, in the back of the Sunlawn MM1 mower, have both cracked in two, and the mower can no longer be used at all. This happened on Sunday.

It simply appears that the metal was not cured properly or otherwise Sunlawn is going to have to engineer this metal thicker.  The Sunlawn has a 2-year warranty and I have no doubts that they will send me a new mower, but I have grass to mow now and hence I bought the Scotts Elite because it was available for pick-up at Home Depot for $84, which is about 2/3 to 1/2 of the going price for the Sunlawn.

I wasn't all that upset about having to invest in a second mower because I have really enjoyed using the Sunlawn mower and its temporary demise gave me a chance to try the Scotts type and to detail my experiences here.

One reason why there are so many varying opinions about these reel mowers is the different ways people use them.  Some people in condos and townhouses and the like, have about 100 square feet of grass.  I think virtually all of them could (should) be using a reel mower.

My yard is pretty large, probably about a quarter acre of grass, however, and I mowed all of it during the past two days with the Scotts Elite and was impressed.  It may be preset a tad low compared to what many recommend but I have usually preferred to mow lower than most people so I probably will not fiddle with the height settings, as I think it is harder to change heights on the Scotts than on the Sunlawn, which had detailed height markings.  When I get the new Sunlawn, I may leave it on its highest height setting and use the mowers in tandem.

My grass was about as high as it ever gets during the two days that I mowed it with the Scotts Elite and the Scotts was easily able to handle it, although it was quite a work-out for me.  For comparison, the grass height would probably have choked and halted a 4.5 horsepower gas mower unless mowed very slowly, but the Scotts plowed right through it. For further comparison, I then mowed a patch in the front yard that was at a normal cutting height and pushing the Scotts through it was actually easier than pushing a gas mower, as they are much heavier than reel mowers.

I think I like the sound the Scotts makes even better than the Sunlawn.

The Scotts was also easier to assemble and seems better able to handle tall grass than the Sunlawn was, and as I said, my grass was very tall since it needed to be mowed several days earlier.  The Scotts' cut may have also been a shade crisper.   My Scotts Elite seemed to have more metal parts and to be better constructed than the Sunlawn.  My only complaint was that the handles were uncomfortable to hold compared to the Sunlawn but adding some black electrical tape seemed to help.

Theoretically, it may be harder to sharpen the Scotts at some future point, but I obviously have not gotten to that point yet.  The Sunlawn may only need sharpening every 7-10 years, as they claim, but there is scant possibility that the mower will last that long, if used on a large yard, although I guess one could get replacement parts after the 2-year warranty expires.

I would add one thing about aesthetics.  Part of the fun of these is the throwback aspect, sort of in the same way that vinyl records and tube radios are making a comeback.

Scotts has two mowers under their name.  The Scotts Elite, which is the 16-inch mower, seems to me to be more of what people think of when they remember classic reel mowers, with blades that are about shoulder-wide, and usually sells for $80-$100, which seems a bargain. I really like the look, sound, and feel of this mower which seem to embody what a reel mower is, or at least should be, to me.  If anyone has read my earlier posting regarding record players, the Scotts Elite is the AR Turntable of reel mowers.  It has classic styling, simple engineering that simply works, and few if any extras to break or complicate use.

Scotts' other mower is the 20-inch Scotts Classic--so named, even though it looks less classic to me than the somewhat smaller Elite.  The Scotts Classic is about twice the cost of the Elite, and to me, looks a bit strange as it is somewhat wider and has what look like training wheels in back, instead of rollers as on the Elite and on the Sunlawn MM1.

I did not like the look and feel of the Classic nearly as much as the Elite.  It felt clunkier and as though it was shaped to meet the 20-inch width just for competitive reasons rather than principles of engineering, because many people who have never used a reel mower before seem to want the widest one possible because they think they will finish mowing quicker.

People forget, however, that getting the larger cutting area is not "free."  Aside from the fact that the Scotts Classic costs much more than the Elite model, potential purchasers need to remember that given the laws of physics, it is probably about 25% harder to push the bigger 20-inch Scotts Classic than the 16-inch Scotts Elite.

I also notice on the box that the manufacturer is the American Lawn Mower company, which also makes mowers under its own name, which look similar.  They are usually an attractive red in color, and the one for sale at Home Depot was even cheaper, at $74, with a cutting width of 14 inches.  It might be a better choice for smaller people or those with less pushing power.

So far, I am very, very impressed with what I got for $84 in the Scotts Elite, but I will let you the gentle reader know if any negative things crop up.

Right now, I would probably recommend that for people who want a mower for a condo or tiny, well-manicured lot, or one with really short or thin grass types, that they consider the Sunlawn since it doesn't need sharpening every year or two, but for people who need a workhorse mower, the Scotts are the way to go.

Among other manufacturers, the American Lawn Mower, Sears and Prison(Yes, really! That is the brand name) reel mowers are probably fairly similar to the Scotts in their mechanics, while the Brill and Gardenia are closer to the Sunlawn, I believe.  In terms of aesthetics, I think both the Sunlawn and Scotts Elite are equally attractive, but would give the Sunlawns the edge over the Scotts Classic, which looks ungainly to me.

Lastly, let me say a couple of things about the ease/difficulty of use of reel mowers.  If the grass is high enough so that someone would objectively say, "hey, that grass really needs to be cut," then a reel mower would probably be harder to push than a gas mower(non-self-propelled) on flat terrain(Self-propelled mowers have their own issues in terms of being difficult to use, but I won't go into that here.).  Reel mowers are actually easier to manage than gas-powered mowers on very hilly terrain due to the lower weight of reel mowers, but overall, if the grass is high, reel mowers are harder to push.

If you stay on top of your lawn, however, and mow perhaps slightly earlier than you would otherwise, then a reel mower may actually be easier to push since they weigh much less.

Secondly, using a reel mower successfully probably demands a change in the way a person mows the grass.  If you are the type of person who always is in a hurry to finish mowing and have a fairly large lawn, then reel mowers are probably not for you.  You are not going to achieve any significant savings in gas by using a reel mower, although they are safer, much quieter and less polluting, not to mention not having to worry about running out of gas in the middle of mowing and having to trek off to the gas station.

The great thing about reel mowers is that you can mow for five or ten minutes a day, without getting all hot and sweaty and without smelling like gas and without wrenching your arm out starting the mower.  You can have fellowship with your family out in the yard because the noise factor is minimal.  You can stop whenever you need to rest or get thirsty because there is no worry about starting the thing up again or wasting gas while you rest a second if you leave the gas mower on.

You may actually start enjoying your time spent mowing now that, instead of trailing the hot fumes and noisy barrage of a dangerous gas mower, you are focused on the gentle and safe whirring of a reel mower's blades and the delicate balance of the grass blades as they lift gently in the air after being cut.

Ulitmately, mowing with a reel mower is a Zen thing.  If you think it might be for you, give it a try.

Grammar Question

A relative recently asked me for help regarding the standard usage of the word, "lie," and its confusing counterpart, "lay." Let me start by saying that virtually no American gets this right all of the time and very few ever get it right at all.

The confusion stems from several factors.

First, the two words have similar meanings, that of, more or less, lowering a person in the case of lie, and lowering an object, in the case of lay. Secondly, many Americans do not consistently differentiate between the past participles and past tenses of irregular verbs--compare have run and have ran, and have come and have came, which are often used interchangeably by many people. Third, when used reflexively, "lay" may be properly used when normally one would use lie. Finally, lie and lay share a conjugal form, that of the word, "lay," but in different tenses, and this is probably the most difficult aspect regarding keeping these words separate.

Let's look at the present and past tenses for these two words:

Present:


Lie: I lie -- Lay: I lay
you lie -- you lay
he lies -- he lays
we lie -- we lay
they lie -- they lay

Past Participles

lain -- laid

Past:

Lie: I lay -- Lay: I laid
you lay -- you laid
he lay -- he laid
we lay -- we laid
they lay -- they laid

So here is where most people get tripped up: the past tense of the verb "to lie" is the same as the present tense of the verb "to lay." This tends to make the verb "to lie" feel like a present form when used correctly in the past tense and people instinctively tend to dislike this.

One of the most famous novels of all time is called As I Lay Dying, by William Faukner. Most people probably perceive this as a present tense but it is in fact the past tense of "to lie."

Here are a couple of other famous examples. The traditional children's prayer, Now I Lay Me Down to Sleep appears at first blush to be incorrect but what is happening here is that because there is a direct or reflexive object pronoun, which is "me" only the verb "to lay" can be used. The verb "to lie" is intransitive, which means it is a type of verb that cannot take an object.

Simon and Garfunkel had a famous song called, Bridge Over Troubled Water, with a lyric, "like a bridge over troubled water, I will lay me down," which is similarly archaic but correct due to the following reflexive pronoun after the verb "to lay."

One way to usually get this right is to use the verb "to lie" when we are referring to ourselves or to someone else's lowering themselves downward. Thus, I lie down when I am tired. I lie in the sand to get a tan. She lies down everyday at 3 p.m.

The problem here is when we want to talk about the past, because then, to parallel the above examples, a person will have to say: Yesterday, I lay down when I was tired. I lay in the sand to get a tan. She lay down everyday at 3 p.m.(but presumably no longer does). Unfortunately, most people are going to perceive these correct forms as being in the present and not the past, and we haven't even gotten to the past participle issue, with the strange sounding "lain" being the correct form for the verb "to lie."

I wish I could make this even easier but given the difficulty most people have with this distinction, try the following rule of thumb. If no person or thing follows the verb, use "lie." If a person or thing follows the verb, use "lay."

If I want to lie down, first I must lay the baby down.
When I lie out in the sun, first I lay a towel on the sand.
At night before lying down, I say, "Now I lay me down to sleep...."

Any questions, just leave a comment and I will try to respond. But right now, all this grammar is giving me a headache so I think I will lay down my laptop and lie down for a spell.

Law and Economics--Not Just for Conservatives

As a diehard opponent of the death penalty, I have been thoroughly gladdened by the U.S. Supreme Court's recent curtailment of the practice.

The United States is the only western democracy that makes use of the practice of having its states and federal government execute human beings. I believe that after 30 years of attempting to let U.S. politicians do the right thing, the Supreme Court has finally realized that there are apparently no limits on the appetite of American legislators in terms of application of the death penalty and thus, it falls into the Court's lap to do the dirty work or orchestrating the abolition of the death penalty.

The most recent case, Kennedy, dealt with whether the death penalty could be given to rapists of individuals under 12 years old. And in a nice, bit of irony, Kennedy, Justice Kennedy, that is, was the deciding vote among the five conservatives on the court.

First of all, I find the whole notion that the application of the death penalty should be dependent upon the victim to be despicable. It doesn't matter to me whether the person raped was a police officer, housewife or 12 year old girl--if the crime is the same, why should the penalty differ?

The arguments in favor of this differentiation, "because it was a child" are pretty thin and the Court was right to not let them carry the day.

What was really great about this opinion, however, was the way that the Court's liberals rubbed the use of Law and Economics in the face of the Court's ultra-conservative rightwing. Here's a quote:

"[B]y in effect making the punishment for child rape and murder equivalent, a State that punishes child rape by death may remove a strong incentive for the rapist not to kill the victim. Assuming the offender behaves in a rational way, as one must to justify the penalty on grounds of deterrence, the penalty in some respects gives less protection, not more, to the victim, who is often the sole witness to the crime. It might be argued that, even if the death penalty results in a marginal increase in the incentive to kill, this is counterbalanced by a marginally increased deterrent to commit the crime at all. Whatever balance the legislature strikes, however, uncertainty on the point makes the argument for the penalty less compelling than for homicide crimes."

This is an excellent example of how smart liberals can use law and economics to carry the day.

The other thing that was great about this case was the fact that it involved the 8th Amendment's "cruel and unusual punishment clause", something that basically throws Justice Scalia into apoplexy because his generally well thought-out legal theory of textualism cannot handle examples where the legislature throws the decision to the Court on purpose. Scalia's fallback here tends to be a more Borkean mode of analysis of original intent, which involves looking at the history of the amendment and trying to project what the legislators intended.

Well, what if the legislators intended for Justice Scalia to be Plato and decide the issue based upon any myriad of reasons? Scalia's theory doesn't have an answer for this and his conclusion that the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause was inserted to merely foreclose punishments that were already considered cruel and unusual back in 1789 seems fairly redundant.

Anyway, after a series of terrible disappointments by this Court and Administration for libertarians in terms of abandoning Lopez, we have finally gotten some heartening decisions on the 2nd and 8th Amendments due to the movement of Anthony Kennedy from side to side. Neither Presidential candidate had anything very intelligent to say about this decision, which seems to reinforce the point that American politicians simply lack the courage to deal with the death penalty in a forthright manner, so thanks be to G-d for the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause.

Letter to George Will

Dear Mr. Will:

Regarding your article in the Washington Post on Sunday, June 22, 2008 -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/20/AR2008062002276.html

For someone who writes a fair number of excellent columns, you completely blew it on this one. I can only wonder who did the research on this column and I further not that your citation from someone named Heather Mac Donald is absolutely wrong.

Mr. Will, if you believe that "the criminal justice system will do everything it can to keep you out of the ... federal slammer," then you definitely need to start attending some federal sentencing hearings. If it quite common for non-violent federal offenders to get federal prison time for first offenses.

You quibble about the proportion of crack defendants in prison and seem to blame it on the higher murder rate among blacks, as though murderers make up the majority of inmates in the U.S.

You never bother to address the fact that the U.S. has more people in prison than China and India combined and imprisons at a far higher rate that Great Britain. What accounts for these differences? How do these nations stay safe without imprisoning at the rate which we do?

Apparently your interest waned at the point that support for you hypothesis wavered.

You may quibble with Obama over his definition of what consitutes a "young, black male" but your article itself is simply shoddily done and quite disappointing given the caliber of work that you often do.

William Loeffler

Criminal Justice Act Attorney

Healthful Alternative to Beer

Now that we are getting to the dog days of summer, many people like slaking their thirst with a cold beer after mowing the law or working in the yard. Good enough, but given all the recent data concerning the healthfulness of red wine, why not give red wine a shot.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/04/health/research/04aging.html?scp=2&sq=red%20wine&st=cse

Well, first of all there is the taste. Red wine goes great with meals, but is often too tannic to be drunk alone, particularly to quench thirst and there really are not that many red wine cocktails that fit the bill.

But thanks to the Spaniards, there is one great way to add red wine to your diet in place of beer or other alcoholic drinks: Sangria.

Now, Sangria has a myriad of recipes, most of which involve something acidic like orange juice being mixed with cheap red wine, fruit and other things, in a pitcher or tub.

But here is an easier alternative if you just want one glass. Take red wine, the redder and the cheaper the better, and pour one serving in a large glass over ice. Then mix in equal parts of Sprite and orange juice, or club soda and orange juice, and if necessary, sweeten to taste. If you don't have any Sprite or orange juice around, try a recipe of one half red wine and one half Coca-Cola--it's pretty good as well. If you want to cut up fruit to put into your concoction, you can, but it isn't really necessary. It is hard to ruin Sangria, so try putting lime or lemon juice in, as anything citrusy works well.

Using the Will Loeffler formula for making Sangria is easy and fun and it also has an added benefit over the traditional way of making it. Here, because you are making it like a cocktail, you are adding exactly one serving of the alcohol portion and are much less likely to over-indulge, as is the case when drinking mystery punch where one doesn't know the alcohol content and it is easy to fool yourself. Happy Summering!

Richard A. Posner

Richard Posner is a judge on the 7th Circuit in Illinois whose scholarship, often associated with the Chicago School of Economics, particularly in the application of economics to law and also to matters of sexuality, had a large effect on my own intellectual development. I have a first edition of his book, Economic Analysis of Law, which he signed for me and I have often considered him a hero.

Unfortunately, I lost a lot of respect for Posner after reading one of his opinions in the field of criminal law where he upheld a particularly onerous sentence while finding a way to wedge what he thought was a clever joke into the opinion. As bright as we all know him to be, perhaps the demands upon him and other federal judges are not all that great given all the time he has to write books and be witty in his opinions. He appears not to have much regard for core principles of human rights and seems to view violations thereof as sort of misguided government ventures which he virtually always upholds.

On a less personal note, I also do not see that he is any more likely, all things considered, to be upheld in his decisions than other judges. He erred badly in an opinion on the sentencing guidelines in which he defiantly ignored (while pretending to be in compliance with) the Supreme Court's previous rulings on the guidelines and got smacked down by Clarence Thomas and Scalia.

What part of the word "advisory" did you not understand, Judge Posner? I mean, come on, how much respect can you have for a judge who doesn't know what the meaning of the word "advisory" is? Either Judge Posner was pandering to the Right in one last attempt to garner a Supreme Court seat, or he really isn't any legal genius in terms of following Supreme Court precedent.

In spite of all his unsolicited opinions about how to improve the legal profession and law schools, Posner, himself, has been guilty of shoddy, almost inexcusable practices at times. Perhaps, no one needs a lecture from Judge Posner about how to improve the legal field when he cannot even refrain from citing vacated opinions. http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2006/09/does_judge_posn.html(Does Judge Posner know how to Shepardize or KeyCite?).

In short, Posner has lost a great deal of respect for his opinions on the sentencing guidelines, which frankly make me wonder whether it might not be time for him to take senior status. After all, doesn't the legal profession deserve better than this sort of shoddy work?

I still admire Posner greatly for his 1973 treatise on economics and law, in terms of popularizing the idea which was important. Posner, himself, has not shown much particular aptitude for the enterprise of applying economics to law, interestingly enough, unlike Coase, Demsetz and others. He has often, in fact, been a great aid to those who oppose the Right because of his cursory applications of what he deems to be "efficient" outcomes. In spite of his avowed opposition to the "war on drugs" his legal philosophy actually promotes it and his predictions for its demise after September 11th have been dead wrong.

In all, I find it hard to see Posner as any sort of legal great. Unlike Milton Friedman, or others associated with the Chicago School of Economics, Posner seems to flail to and fro, with essentially no core legal principles to guide him.

He is no Antonin Scalia (who in spite of all his faults, does indeed have core principles); he is no Hugo Black or William O. Douglas who actually believed humans had rights just because they were human, gasp!; he is definitely no Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., although he seems to think he is, but perhaps Posner should be careful what he wishes for. (Holmes was certainly not particularly admirable in many of his writings which often seem inhumane and cruel--"three generations of imbecils", indeed). http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200112/posner

What Posner does share with Holmes appears to be the certitude that he, Posner, is smarter than all the rest of us, and the ability to make this sentiment come through in his opinions.

If I had to characterize Posner, I would say that he is the P.T. Barnum of the legal world. He likes to shock people and will spout off all sorts of revolutionary-sounding things in his writings, but when push comes to shove, he is a conservative judge who basically rules conservatively in a conventional way, something that separates him from the Easterbrooks, Clarence Thomas's and Scalia's of the legal world, who will surprise us from time to time.

Here is an excerpt from the Wikipedia entry on Barnum--could this also apply to Judge Posner?:

Barnum never flinched from his stated goal "to put money in his own coffers." He was a businessman above all else, his profession was pure entertainment, and he was perhaps the first "show business" millionaire.

Posner's writings and gadfly antics have certainly made him a wealthy man, whether they have contributed to jurisprudence remains to be seen, but they probably have. As to his own merits as a judge, I am not sure how history will view Posner. One can only wonder how fair a judge can be when he refuses to stop pontificating on very nearly every policy field likely to come before him-- or does this aid in the selection of jurisdiction by plaintiffs who can choose their venue--but I digress.

At one time I might have thought Posner's career was a waste of talent by his not reaching the Supreme Court, but I no longer think it is true because whatever he had to offer, he has been able to do so with his numerous writing ventures, many of which have probably been partially underwritten by public taxpayers. Whatever the case, perhaps Judge Posner should curtail the publications and try to get his own legal house in order.

http://www.amazon.com/How-Judges-Think-Richard-Posner/dp/0674028201/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1212512235&sr=1-1

The 5 Best and 5 Worse Controversial Beatles Tracks

When I say this, I am aiming at those kinds of songs that people have strong opinions about, one way or another and this generally is in terms of whether or not a particular track was worthy of inclusion on a particular album.

For instance, probably no one has ever said anything bad about the song, I've Just Seen a Face from Help! Everyone pretty much loves it. On the other hand, there are many tracks among the Beatles' oeuvre that people disagree over.

Nevertheless, the Beatles had a few tracks that were not strong on their own merits, but that worked within the context of the greater work. Most of these are probably Pepper or White Album or Abbey Road tracks.

Fixing a Hole, Being for the Benefit of Mr. Kite!, Why Don't We Do it in the Road, She Came in Through the Bathroom Window, Polythene Pam and Mean Mr. Mustard come immediately to mind, which while all pretty weak as singles out of context, within their album's framework act in terms of creating a mood or suite and accordingly these types of tracks won't make my list.

I am also inclined to be less harsh on B-sides, as they really don't ruin the mood of an album and most of us buy them for the A-side anyhow. Most of the Beatles' B-sides were better than a lot of groups A-sides, but their last single, Let It Be, had You Know My Name (Look Up the Number), a truly dreadful and pointless song, as its B-side, but since it wasn't on the album, the harm was minimized.

So Without further ado, here are the five best controversial Beatle tracks:

1. Within You, Without You -- This long track opens side 2 of Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band and many people apparently dislike it intensely. I am tempted to say that either you get this track or you don't, and woe unto those small minds who don't get it, but I will take the high road and simply say that this is the spiritual hymn that opens side two and prepares the mind for what comes, particularly with the nervous laughter that ends the track.

Great art isn't always easy and it isn't always fun. Very few famous tracks in the history of rock music have lyrics of this depth in terms of meaning and existence, and few have had more influence in terms of the world music phenomenon. This was one of the most important moments in Beatles' history and all of the Beatles and George Martin agreed upon its inclusion and thought it was top-notch musically. This was an incredible triumph by Harrison.

2. Revolution No. 9 -- I'm So Tired of hearing people complain about this track's inclusion on the White Album. This is a monumental moment in mainstream rock history. What other group ever tried anything like this? I don't find it boring at all and while I don't have it loaded on my iPod, the whole point of the White Album was to be something different from Revolver, and Sgt. Pepper. To tell the truth, this track scarred the bejesus out of me late at night back in the early 80's when I first heard it.

Some uninformed people (such as George Martin) say that the White Album should have been a single album but there was way too much material for that. If you took Hey Jude, Lady Madonna, the Inner Light, Old Brown Shoe, Not Guilty and added those tracks you could easily have had two excellent albums and this is while recognizing that the Beatles had so much backloaded material that they already had to release Yellow Submarine at the same time as the White Album, and that George would release a triple album in 1970.

3. Birthday -- This track opens side two of the White Album and so, many of the arguments in favor of Revolution No. 9 apply here. But on top of that, this is an infectious song that is different from virtually anything they had ever done before and let's face it, while not their greatest song, it is way better than the other "birthday" song.

4. Helter Skelter -- Part of the reasoning behind the White Album was to use a scattershot approach and show just how talented the Beatles were, in a variety of styles ranging from show tunes to avant-guard and here, to heavy metal. This song just kicks ass and the White Album just wouldn't be the same without it: "I've got blisters on me fingers...." Helter Skelter apparently was a British name for the very high sliding boards that one used to see 30 or more years ago, that one road down on a mat, usually for a small fee, at least in the U.S., but McCartney here seems to use it as a metaphor for sex, which is always especially delicious in backward, puritan countries:

When i get to the bottom i go back to the top of the slide
And i stop and i turn and i go for a ride
And i get to the bottom and i see you again

Well do you, don't you want me to make you
I'm coming down fast but don't let me break you
Tell me tell me tell me the answer
You may be a lover but you ain't no dancer.

Look out helter skelter helter skelter
Helter skelter

I can tolerate great amounts of dissension but no one who dislikes Helter Skelter is allowed to comment on this blog.

5. Yellow Submarine -- This track rounds out side one of Revolver, but some fans feel that it is more of a children's song and lacks the proper tone to go along with the rest of this top-notch album, which many see as the Beatles' zenith. These critics have a point, but at the time, I believe that many fans saw Yellow Submarine as a drug-influenced metaphor for something else, rather than simply a children's song. I guess it could have been released as a single B side with say, Eleanor Rigby and Rain could have taken its place on the album. Nevertheless, without this song being issued in some form, we would not have had the incredible Yellow Submarine animated movie and so I would put it at number five even, just for that.

Here are the five worse controversial Beatle tracks:

1. Mr. Moonlight -- This song made it onto Beatles for Sale and no one really knows quite why since there seems to have been far better material that went unused. Most Beatle fans dislike this track, and since the boys didn't even write it, there seems to be little to recommend its inclusion.

2. Honey Pie -- This song was too crummy to merit inclusion even on the sprawling White Album. It is nothing more than a boring and much less interesting re-hash of Your Mother Should Know and When I'm Sixty-Four, without any of the charm and the insight of the Pepper tune. This is by far the worst real song on the White Album, grrr, although Wild Honey Pie would have given it a run, but since that song is under one minute long, it is not eligible for our list. Nevertheless, whatever you want to say about the White Album, it could have used a lot less honey....

3. Your Mother Should Know -- This is awful stuff, which may have made it out the door because it was intended for the double E.P. Magical Mystery Tour and was used to round out the six song selection. Unfortunately, with respect to this song's gaining even more undeserved recognition, Capitol in the U.S. came up with a unique idea, and an excellent one, for once, of turning the double E.P. into sort of a real album that ended up having a fantastic selection of Beatle songs, all of them worthy except for this dog. It was only sort of cute the first time when Paul made When I am Sixty-Four, and then he kept trying to do the show tune thing over and over again.

4. Maxwell's Silver Hammer -- This song pretty much ruins the mood on side one of Abbey Road.

Some say that the song without the words is actually quite good but I am sorry, I cannot get passed the ever-so-dopey lyrics: "Bang, bang, Maxwell's silver hammer came down upon her head"--bang, bang is what you may feel like doing to yourself after hearing this song. The lyrics of Ringo's song Octopus's Garden are almost as bad but at least form sort of a bridge to another song that Ringo sang, Yellow Submarine, and the music and harmony on Garden makes up partially for the bad lyrics.

Once again, what was Paul thinking? Some have conjectured that he was going for a Syd Barrett type of song from early Pink Floyd but I just don't see it. It would be great to see Paul (or anybody) fashion new lyrics for this song to see what it might be. I know that a lot of people into music, don't pay attention to the words, and Paul, himself said this about Pet Sounds by the Beach Boys, but many of us also see the Beatles and Dylan as poets of a sort and it is a shame when a bad lyric ruins a song. I'm crying....

5. I Dig a Pony -- Many people cite Let It Be as the Beatles' worst album (it isn't) and perhaps we are due for a John song to fill out this list, so at number 5 is this horrid track by Lennon. Lennon himself reportedly called the song a "piece of garbage" and I see little reason to deviate from that opinion. Unlike some of the crummy snippets on this album, which were removed from the later version, Let It Be ... Naked, this is a full-fledged song that provides neither mood nor really much of anything except for tedium.

I mean, I love I am the Walrus and I respect Glass Onion. I like Lennon's Lewis Carroll-esque stuff, but these lyrics make even those of Maxwell's Silver Hammer look good by comparison. I can only conjecture that Lennon thought the band was breaking up and tried to submit the worst song possible that he could come up with. The only reason that I Dig a Pony isn't number one on my list is that it doesn't really ruin the mood of Let It Be because the album already, in the words of John once again, had "a lousy feeling."

And as an extra, here are the two worst (controversial) original releases in Beatle's album history:

1. Yesterday and Today

2. Revolver (Capitol)

As most Beatle fans now know, the Beatles' albums diverge in the U.K. and U.S. prior to Sgt. Pepper.

This is usually blamed on two facts. First, the U.K. had different copyright procedures back then which made longer albums more economically feasible for the record company and second, one often hears that in the U.K., there was a distinction between singles and albums that didn't exist in the U.S.

The first reason was true and did affect the economics of the record releases in the two countries.

With respect to singles, the U.K. policy never was a strict rule and I find the reasoning behind the Beatles' single releases to often be hard to decipher. Paperback Writer and Rain were not included on Revolver because they were deemed singles, but Eleanor Rigby and Yellow Submarine were included on Revolver in spite of also being released as a single. The same reasoning was used by George Martin to keep Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields Forever off Sgt. Pepper, and Hey Jude and Lady Madonna of the White Album, but Something was released as a single and was included on Abbey Road. Basically, the Beatles didn't put singles on albums in the U.K., except when they did, seems to have been the rule.

This led to far more album releases in the U.S., and on some of the albums where the song order is not so important, such as Meet the Beatles! or Beatles '65, the American albums could arguably be said to be better in some respects. The American Rubber Soul ended up mostly intact, but with a more folk-type feel that some people preferred.

The last two of the American batch, however, basically chopped up two great albums, Rubber Soul and Revolver, and added some unreleased singles, in order to issue Yesterday and Today and an 11-track Revolver.

While I am not recommending the American Rubber Soul, at least it did not have its very heart and soul ripped out, the way that the American Revolver did, especially since two of the three songs removed from the U.K. Rubber Soul were arguably the weakest tracks on the record, What Goes On and Act Naturally, and the third, Nowhere Man always felt a little more progressive than much of the rest of Rubber Soul anyway.

By contrast, three Lennon songs were taken from Revolver in the U.K. and placed on Yesterday and Today, ruining the beautiful integrated whole that was the U.K. Revolver in order to give us a butchered compilation album with the butcher cover. It does still have some pretty good songs and I do own it on LP, but I am a completist.

Why You Need to Buy the Original Album

I am not a big fan of greatest hits compilations. They simply do not work at all in the field of Jazz music and are generally woefully inadequate for any musical artist of any depth. This is because, with the great artists, there are often far better tracks that never get chosen for the compilation albums and which furthermore, never even make it onto the radio.

Let's take a look at the Beatles second U.K. album, With the Beatles, which is somewhat similar to the American vinyl LP, Meet the Beatles!.

This album is especially noteworthy for its fascinating album cover, which shows a photographic and psychological depth that we would come to expect from future Beatles' albums. Four faces, partially in shadow--how well do we know them--are we with them or not? Only partially?

Meet the Beatles is one of the few pre-Revolver American albums that actually has almost the same exact album cover as its U.K. forebear. Until recently, it was not available on CD, but Capitol has recently re-issued some of the early American Beatles albums on CD, although the catch is that you have to buy a package of four at a time, meaning at a cost of some $40 to $70!
http://www.amazon.com/Capitol-Albums-Vol-1/dp/B00065XJ48

For most Beatle fans, the U.K. versions are probably the ones to buy as they contain more tracks and are closer to the Beatles' original artistic conception in terms of lay-out and mixing, while the American versions had fewer cuts and may be mixed in what many call "false stereo."

I believe that the Capitol box sets of the American albums contain both stereo and mono versions of their first 8 American albums and so, if you want early Beatles in stereo, this may be your only option. And just to make things even more confusing, for those who listen to L.P.'s, the American versions may sound better on an excellent rig due to their having fewer cuts, as vinyl L.P. quality can be impacted by the length of an album side, but this is not really a consideration for CD purchasers.

Also, simply in terms of which album has the stronger cuts, there is little doubt that Meet the Beatles! is the stronger album, as it includes two all-time Beatles classics, I Wanna Hold Your Hand and I Saw Her Standing There, while deleting Money and You've Really Got a Hold on Me.

The early American versions of the Beatles albums generally follow this same pattern, that of having fewer but often stronger cuts, which was due to the fact that British albums generally contained 3 extra cuts, giving them more breadth, but at times also more filler. Beatles '65 is arguably also better than its British forebear, Beatles For Sale, and some fans prefer the American Rubber Soul to the British version.

The American Revolver is a travesty and is to be avoided at all costs, however.

Two other major exceptions, are the film soundtracks from A Hard Day's Night and Help!, which are vastly superior in the U.K. format because the American albums were truncated and then filled out with orchestral theme music. You cannot fully understand how great the Beatles were without hearing A Hard Day's Night and Help! in the U.K. format, as these were their first albums which were great, great works as an integrated whole, not merely a collection of tracks, setting the path for Rubber Soul and then Pet Sounds by Brian Wilson and the Beach Boys.

Now, the Beatles actually did a far better job in terms of marketing compilation records than most groups. Their Red and Blue Albums (1962-1966 and 1967-1970) actually include a fair number of songs that were either B-sides or not necessarily hits, but With the Beatles is almost untouched. Only one track, All My Loving, is included.

Opinions differ, as one reviewer does select this as the best track from With the Beatles, http://starling.rinet.ru/music/beatles.htm#Me , and it certainly was the biggest hit from the record. Probably, the next most well-known song on the record is Till There Was You, followed by I Wanna Be Your Man. These were all Lennon/McCartney standards(although Till There Was You was actually a cover) and I understand the bias in terms of airplay and marketing towards these three standards, but in my humble opinion, these are just about the weakest tracks on the record.

With the Beatles is a pretty great record, but to a casual fan perusing the CD bins, it probably is not so apparent. I doubt many Beatle fans think All My Loving is close to being an essential Beatles track, unless said fan also loves Michelle and Honey Pie. The song simply is too saccharine for my tastes, but there are some real gems here.

Much of this album's charm comes not from hits per se, but from the Beatles' individual performances and the way the songs complement each other on the record.

Starting off, It Won't Be Long is a great track, with a startling amount of energy, akin to Twist and Shout or I Saw Her Standing There. It Won't Be Long is an essential track.

All I've Got to Do is another essential track. Lennon's vocal performance is amazing and I think in general, With the Beatles emphasizes the Beatles' vocal talents more than just about any other album of theirs.

Don't Bother Me is Harrison's first credit and amounts to a pretty decent start and would later be featured in the film A Hard Day's Night, albeit without credit, as the film attributed all the tunes to Lennon and McCartney. It's not Harrison's best song, but far better than say, I, Me, Mine and the lyrical depth is quite interesting given that this is during the Beatles' early period, where most of their songs were still love songs and Don''t Bother Me is basically an anti-love song and points towards the superior If I Needed Someone in terms of meaning.

The album meanders a little with a couple of weak (by Beatle standards) cuts like Little Child and Hold Me Tight and a couple of somewhat pedestrian covers--Please Mr. Postman and Roll Over Beethoven, but then picks up steam again with Lennon's rendition of Smokey Robinson's You've Really Got a Hold on Me.

Lennon grabs this song by the throat and really puts in a great performance and shows why so many expected so much more from his 1970's rock and roll cover album with Phil Spector.

We then have the so-so tracks of I Wanna Be Your Man, Devil in Her Heart, and Not a Second Time, which are not the best of the Beatles by any measure.

Luckily, we have another fantastic cover to close things out and once again it is Lennon doing Money--"that's what I want," a raucous and exciting end to a somewhat uneven album by Beatle standards. Most of the highlights here are from Lennon, and to a lesser extent, from Harrison and this is why With the Beatles is a step down from the truly great Beatles' classics, all of which had far better participation from Sir Paul.

So, we see, that the cuts that really are exciting and show off the Beatles's talents, are the lesser-known ones such as It Won't Be Long, All I've Got to Do, Don't Bother Me, You've Really Got a Hold on Me and Money. And although the American public's exposure to the Beatles' singles was more compressed, they essentially agreed that With the Beatles was essentially devoid of any interesting singles, as only two songs, All My Loving and Roll Over Beethoven even charted in the U.S. and neither made the top 40.

Considering the Beatles' first two albums, I would say that neither Please, Please Me, nor With the Beatles is really a great Beatles album but I would diverge with many critics and pick With the Beatles as the superior of the two, because it is noteworthy for showing just how talented they were and what heights lay just around the corner.

I have previously tried to rank the Beatles' U.K. studio albums which is a difficult endeavor because they are so uniformly excellent, and I still think this is pretty much how I feel, although I believe you can make convincing arguments that any of the top seven below is, in fact, their "best" album. That is how good and how consistent they were. The bottom four albums listed below are arguably better than anything ever done by the Byrds, or the Monkees, who were their chief American rivals during the 60's, or even by the Beach Boys, unless you count Brian Wilson's Pet Sounds, or the Beach Boy's early 1970's work, which is far superior to their 1960's stuff.

1. Rubber Soul
2. Sgt. Pepper's
3. Abbey Road
4. The White Album
5. Revolver
6. Help!
7. A Hard Day's Night
8. With the Beatles
9. Let it Be
10. Beatles for Sale
11. Please Please Me

Critics can quibble and Beatle fans change their opinions all the time as to which of their albums is "best" but looking back from the time of With tthe Beatles, the Beatles' soon-to-be-released albums associated with their films, A Hard Day's Night and Help! were arguably going to be the best work they ever did.

So, getting back to the original point of this post (maybe I need an editor), when you are looking at great groups like the Beatles and the Stones, you have to buy the studio albums. There just are too many great tracks that you will miss otherwise.

Beatles Movies

The Beatles packed an incredible amount of artistry into their eight or so years as recording artists. Perhaps overlooked today is just how good their film work was, especially when compared to, well, have any other rock greats besides Prince and Elvis made any decent films at all?

Since I love rankings like all good Americans, here is my list of the Beatles movies from best to worst:

1. Yellow Submarine -- Some will quibble with this being chosen number one based on its being animated and will question the level of the Beatles' involvement, which was not all that great.

Nevertheless, this is a great, great movie. The writing is top notch, the vocal acting (the Beatles chose not to provide their own voices, wary of the project's success) is terrific, the animation is fantastic and the music is amazing. What more could you want?

Adults will like this and children will go bonkers. If you are tired of the Wiggles, try this. My four-year olds absolutely adore this film and my wife and I love it as well. It is full of Lewis Caroll and British-influenced humor. "Bluish? You don't look bluish....?"

The soundtrack is great and has been re-mixed in stereo and surround. Let me clarify one thing here. There are two versions of this movie's soundtrack. I have the original L.P., which featured four new Beatles songs, two re-releases and a second side with a George Martin score that is pretty darn good, that you will never listen to. The re-releases, were the title track and All You Need is Love.

The new originals were Only a Northern Song, All Together Now, Hey Bulldog and It's All Too Much. Many critics have considered these four to be among the weakest original tracks on an original Beatles album and have labelled this record as non-essential. This is hogwash. Many of the critics are Lennonphiles as opposed to Beatlephiles and I believe that they downrate this effort due to its only having one new Lennon song, Hey, Bulldog.

But all four songs are excellent and vastly underrated by Beatle fans, to the point of even being unknown by many. It's All Too Much is probably the best Beatle song that you have never heard on the radio(maybe together with Rain). Hey Bulldog rocks and is great fun, particularly in the restored DVD, where the track has been re-inserted after having been edited out in some film releases in the 60's. All Together Now is a catchy song that children adore and Only a Northern Song is another Taxman-esque statement by Harrison regarding the woes of rich and famous music performers and money hungry record producers--to be followed by Piggies as a third in a sort of trilogy--and he wrote it at the last minute in an hour when they needed one more song for the album.

Overall, Harrison fans should like this album most of all and It's All Too Much is a great psychedelic song, with a great environmental message for the young and old alike:

"It's all too much for me to take
The love that's shining all around here
All the world's a birthday cake,
So take a piece but not too much"

This is what my sons now say whenever offered sweets, just a piece, but not too much.

Would that we all behaved accordingly.

The new version of the soundtrack is called Yellow Submarine, Songtrack, and has, if I follow correctly, every Beatles song played in the film, except for A Day in the Life, which only featured an orchestral snippet, as opposed to the Beatles on their instruments and was therefore not on the Songtrack. At least that appears to be Capitol's reasoning. For casual Beatles fans, and people into surround, this is the album to buy, although diehard Beatles fans will probably prefer the original, if not both. The songs go back to the Rubber Soul-era through Magical Mystery Tour and are a great overview of the Beatles work during their inital move away from short love songs to more complex lyrical works and psychedelia.

I rate this movie every bit as highly as Fantasia. It is a classic that has only been hurt by questions regarding copyright. There is really no reason for any Beatles' fan not to own this, except, that it has once again fallen out of print and the prices for used copies are pretty high, but hey, that's not my problem, I am just the reviewer. This is an animation classic and highly, highly recommended.

2. Help! -- I am probably committing heresy here but I've recently watched both A Hard Day's Night and Help! in high-def and I have to give Help! the edge, in spite of its far-fetched plot involving a magic ring. Let's face it, both of these movies have their plot defects, but Help! comes through somehow fresher.(I would have felt differently 30 years ago).

One thing that I found evident was just how much the television show, The Monkees, that I grew up with was a blatant (but well-done) rip-off of Help! When I was a kid, growing up in the 70's, the Beatles were yesterday's news, but the Monkees' show was on every afternoon, and as Michael Stipe has often said, was perhaps a bigger influence on that generation than the disbanded Beatles, whom I would discover through listening to Wings, about the time that Wings began to falter.

Anyway, watching Help! is a bit like watching an extended Monkees episode(Yes, they all had ridiculous plots just like Help!) and for the MTV generation prior to Real World, will feel comforting because Help! is full of music videos.

The newly-released print looks sensational. I am not sure if I have ever seen a color movie from that era that looks as good as the new Help! DVD and the movie seems a lot better than it did the first time that I saw it back in the mid to late 1970's. The boys look great and were at the height of their musical prowess and their beauty as men. They would never again look this great together and appear to be such great friends, just having a sensational time as mates. Every Beatles' fan should buy this.

3. A Hard Day's Night -- This is usually ranked number one, so I must have some major ax to grind, right? Well, just a slight one. The movie bogs down into a contrived and boring plot in the second half involving Paul's fictional grandfather. Honestly, I think I could have written a better screen play in half an hour. What is great about this movie is just watching the Beatles be themselves, on the train and then with fans chasing them around. They are funny, witty and the cinematography is excellent. This black and white film has a classic look to it and they were aiming for a Marx-brothers type farce and half succeeded. The music is good but I prefer the songs from Help! and that is just my personal musical preference. Overall, I find the look of the restored Help! to be stunning while A Hard Day's Night merely looks great. But once again, highly recommended.

4. Magical Mystery Tour -- I think that part of the reason that the Beatles did not involve themselves very much in the making of Yellow Submarine is that this short film called MMT was widely regarded as their first failure. The idea seemed interesting, which was to basically make a fictional film about the Merry Pranksters from Tom Wolfe's Electric Kool-aid Acid Test.

Nevertheless, it just didn't really work for most viewers.

First off, it is somewhat hard to call something a failure when it shares a name with an album as excellent as Magical Mystery Tour, which is possibly as good as Sgt. Pepper in terms of overall song quality. However, much of the world did not have the opportunity to purchase this album initially and was presented with something else, which was a double-E.P. bearing the same title.

Once again context is everything and this is shown through the Beatles' release policy. Beatles for Sale, widely disparaged (relatively--still as good as virtually anything put out by any other group), was far better, or I should say, far more even in terms of the quality of its tracks in its American release, known as Beatles 65.

On Beatles for Sale, the more numerous than usual so-so tracks somewhat crowded out the excellent ones, which is the same thing that happened on the British double EP of Magical Mystery Tour. Remember, this was during the days when you had to get up and move the tonearm whenever there was a song that you didn't particularly care for.


The American version, on the other hand, was filled out by the excellent songs, Hello, Goodbye, Penny Lane, Strawberry Fields Forever, and Baby, You're a Rich Man, which together with Magical Mystery Tour, I am the Walrus, and the Fool on the Hill, tended to drown out the mediocre tracks of Flying, and Your Mother Should Know, and the interesting but depressing Blue Jay Way.

After the stunning success of the American version, Capitol rushed it into production worldwide and today it occupies a rare place in the Beatles' catalog. It is the sole CD where the American version became the standard CD release worldwide. Nevertheless, by the time the U.K. version had been issued, the short film had already been labelled a disaster. It certainly didn't help matters any that the BBC showed the psychedelic colored film in black and white. Nor did it help that the MMT film soundtrack was from the less good British double EP. The film was largely unknown in the U.S.

Although opinions may change through time, and some film school students may see this film as having interesting aspects, or others as a cult or "stoner's" classic, many, if not most, still see this film as a muddled mess that lacks even the normal high quality soundtrack found on other Beatles' films. I have never been able to sit all the way through it when it is on television.

5. Let It Be -- I rate this last because it is basically a bummer. It is a documentary that has never struck me as interesting, but only boring and depressing. This is probably why, to a large extent, that the corresponding album is not as highly regarded as many other Beatles albums, in spite of having several top notch songs. The Beatles were fighting a lot, some of it shown in the movie and I just don't remember much except for the rooftop segment, which is decent.

There are also a couple of dogs on this album that are inexplicably included, given the fantastic songs that George Harrison was sitting on but maybe he was already setting his sights on All Things Must Pass. His two songs that he contributed here, For You Blue and I, Me, Mine, were vastly inferior to his prior efforts and his Abbey Road and solo songs that followed soon after. Maggie Mae and Dig It by Lennon/McCartney were not particularly distinguished either.

These last two films clearly are not all that favored by the Beatles (and their controlling family members) themselves and there are not really any particularly good versions floating around. Maybe, with the right extras and restoration, they could be worth another look, but not much seems to be happening on that front right now.