I spent the past weekend in Boston, up from CT, where I work. The point was to celebrate Thanksgiving, albeit early. For actual Thanksgiving I'll be in Ithaca, surrounded by cold and grey.
My family is split, and has been as long as I can remember. In Singapore I had to make Thanksgiving dinner on my own, with a surrogate family of expat friends and acquaintances. Also on that day my long-term girlfriend broke up with me.
Last thanksgiving I was seeing someone, but that ended in June. It's now been about two months since I've seriously been seeing anyone. The interval has, however, provided dating.
Dating sucks. Due to the 80 hour a week commitment of my job, I long ago took the millennial route with an online profile. So here are the dates I've had so far this fall:
The one where she told me she didn't like politics and generally would be considered center-right, because she hates Obama.
The one where after getting coffee I offered to walk her home, only to find it was 45 minutes, and then she said she wanted to remain Platonic.
The one where it went well, and we kept rescheduling a second date, and then she cancelled last minute, telling me her place burned down, and did not reschedule further.
The one where it went really well, and after a really nice date she messaged me the next date saying she liked me and unfortunately she can't date anyone right now, and deleted her profile.
So I'm not particularly optimistic about this Thursday's date, if it happens, but hey - the dates are going better each time, even if the reactions are also getting more ridiculous as a consequence.
Regardless, this past weekend was filled with turkey and mashed potatoes, stuffing and pie. It was good. I'm getting better at scrabble as well. Maybe I need to give dating a break and focus on food instead - that's where I can find real happiness.
Or maybe not.
In Other News:
Two-plus years ago I listed the living Nobel laureates, and their ages. That included all five categories, but after Doris Lessing's death the other day, I revisited the list, as can be seen below:
Literature 20
Nadine Gordimer – 1991 Age – 89 South Africa
Dario Fo – 1997 Age – 87 Italy
Gunter Grass – 1999 Age – 86 Germany
Gabriel Garcia Marquez – 1982 Age – 86
Colombia – Longest Holding
Imre Kertesz – 2002 Age – 84 Poland
Derek Walcott – 1992 Age – 83 St. Lucia
Toni Morrison – 1993 Age – 82 USA
Tomas Transtromer – 2011 Age – 82 Sweden
Alice
Munro – 2013 Age – 82 Canada – Shortest
Holding
A look back at Disney from 1960 and earlier. Here are the top 20 old Disney cartoons:
20.
The Ugly Duckling – 1939, Silly Symphony
Oh
the feels. The classic story is given a particularly poignant update in the
sequence when the duckling seems to have found happiness with a decoy.
19.
Who Killed Cock Robin? – 1935, Silly Symphony
A
weird little retelling, with caricatures of Mae West, Harpo Marx, and Stepin
Fetchit, amongst others. Amusing, musical little short.
18.
The Little House – 1952
A
Mary Blair short, with her trademark visuals. Though best in her longer works,
this adaptation of the picture book is saved from saccharine by Blair’s
artistic quality.
17.
The Brave Little Tailor – 1938, Mickey Mouse
Visually
beautiful, heroic Mickey takes on a giant, with a little twist at the end. It
is the most successful of the attempted adaptations of existing fables and fairy-tales in shorts.
16.
The Truth About Mother Goose – 1957
Disney
decided the fifties were an era to educate America with their shorts. This
unusual cartoon explains the history behind old nursery rhymes.
15.
Music Land – 1935, Silly Symphony
Symphony
and Jazz are at odds, with a pair of discordant young lovers…not an original
plot. But it is perfect to showcase the ‘Silly Symphony’ format, with music in
place of words, high imagination, and a tender quality, without being pap (at
one point King Sax is seen ‘tickling’ a Ukelele hula girl…)
14.
Ferdinand the Bull – 1938
Academy
Award-winning, this adaptation of the classic children’s book is perfect Disney
of the late 30s. A quiet protagonist, an obvious moral, plenty of humor and a
little action. This is the first of Disney’s trademark gentler cartoons.
13.
Clock Cleaners – 1937, Mickey Mouse
Disney
came close to Buster Keaton and Harold Lloyd in this short. It’s the mark of a
great cartoon when Goofy’s high-teetering antics can keep you on the edge of
your seat. This is an example of a short whose staying power resides in the
timing and gags.
12.
Ben and Me – 1953
Disney
only did a few shorts longer than ten minutes. (‘Paul Bunyan’ jumps to mind.)
The difficulty is holding the audience’s attention with, well, two-dimensional
characters. The ‘Me’ of this short is colonial Amos Mouse a Sterling Holloway
narrated-character almost as interesting Ben Franklin.
11.
Goofy Gymnastics – 1949, Goofy
“Boy,
did you see that? Nobody takes a wallop like Goofy. What timing! What finesse!
What a genius!” So says Roger Rabbit, viewing this cartoon. Goofy was never my
favorite. I preferred the irascible Donald to the dope. But this cartoon may be
the apex of physical comedy in Disney.
10.
Donald Applecore – 1952, Donald Duck
Donald’s
humor, much like his Loony counterpart Daffy, lies in quality of his foil. The
nephews never got the best laughs out of Donald’s anger, probably since they
were family. With the nephews we always see the plot from their point of view,
and predictably watch the follow-through. But Chip and Dale, wily and
surprising, get Donald explosively mad in this cartoon. The comedy escalates quickly.
9. In
the Bag – 1956, Humphrey the Bear
Humphrey
the Bear got his own series – for two cartoons. His humor is not subtle.
Leonard Maltin supposedly said these shorts were ‘belly-laughs’ which typically
is not Disney. But the quality of the humor is the question. Humphrey is
hapless, with just enough guile so we don’t feel bad at laughing at his
consistent failures, losses, and fumbles. The portly ranger, too, is an
underappreciated character.
8. Thru
the Mirror – 1936, Mickey Mouse
This
is a jazzy short, loosely based on ‘Through the Looking Glass’ and ‘Alice in
Wonderland’. It’s a great product of its era. The short earns high points in
the imagination category, transforming a living room and den into a world of
living beings, some sixty years before ‘Beauty and the Beast’. Not only that,
it succeeds in creating a unique animated dance scene worthy of Astaire, and
duel worthy of ‘Stardust’.
7.
The Band Concert – 1935, Mickey Mouse
The
first color Disney cartoon. The first time Goofy, Donald, and Mickey shared a
short. Goofy was still a peripheral character, but Mickey and Donald’s
antagonism had already been developed in earlier cartoons. What makes the two
so great in ‘The Band Concert’ is that each gets in a number of quality
potshots at the other. Nor is either, really, to blame for their actions,
making the escalation even funnier.
6. A
Cowboy Needs a Horse – 1958
In
1951, UPA won an Academy Award for their excellent ‘Gerald McBoing Boing’. The
UPA style – angular, flat, modern – was almost antithetical to Disney’s
artistic style, coming out of the 40s. Disney spent the decade developing their
style (compare ‘Ichabod’ to ‘Sleeping Beauty’). In 1958 they created the best
artistic answer to UPA’s challenge, and arguably did it better.
5.
Toot, Whistle, Plunk and Boom – 1953, Adventures in Music
Academy
Award-winning, this short blends the new UPA-influenced style with Disney’s
drive to educate in the 50s. So we get an animated music history lesson, how
all instruments were developed. Attempting to be global in scope, shots at
multiculturalism come off as vaguely offensive. Yet the music, artistry, and
unusual subject matter combine to create an unforgettably smart work.
4.
Steamboat Willie – 1928, Mickey Mouse
This
is the first Disney cartoon with sound, and the oldest entry on this list.
Mickey Mouse had only starred in two previous cartoons, and his appearance
quickly became iconic. Walt Disney had been making animated films since 1921,
but for most, ‘Steamboat’ is the moment Disney became recognizable. The amusing
short also features audience’s first chance to see Mickey go toe to toe with
his nemesis Pete.
3.
Donald in Mathmagic Land – 1959, Donald Duck
From
the earliest on the list, we come now to the latest. Walt Disney decided to
dust off this excellent Academy Award-nominated short in 1961, as the first
program aired on Wonderful World of Color. A generation grew up with it, showed
it their kids, and now their grandkids are learning the beauty and wonder of
mathematics through a visually stunning blend of animation and live footage.
Artistically ‘Mathmagic Land’ is a high point of the 1950s UPA style, and marks
the decline of the short era until quite recently, with works like ‘Paperman’.
Unlike Goofy and Mickey, both of whom have had features since 2010, Donald
hasn’t had another feature since 1965, and the last few are the worst examples
of educational films that Disney used their animation department for in that
decade. With luck Donald will return to his former position in the near future.
2.
The Skeleton Dance – 1929, Silly Symphonies
The
first ‘Silly Symphony.’ A weird plot, as we watch a quartet of skeletons dance
in a graveyard. That’s it. There are no words in the short, setting a trend for
the Silly Symphonies to follow. Simplicity leads to timelessness. Anyone can
understand the humor, the visuals, the appeal of the cartoon. Unlike later
Symphonies, there is no moral or lesson. When I show people this cartoon they
are still entertained, often puzzled, and always laughing. It gets to the root
of animation’s greatest talent, which is the presentation the bizarre, even the
absurd. This dance macabre comes years before Fleischer will master the black
and white surrealism in Betty Boop shorts such as ‘Minnie the Moocher’ and
‘Snow White.’ It also helped Disney diversify – for the next almost ten years
shorts will be divided between the ‘Mickey Mouse’ series, often repetitive, and
the new breadth of imagination in the ‘Symphonies’.
1.
The Old Mill – 1937, Silly Symphonies
Academy
Award winning is the least of the accolades. For this cartoon Disney’s team
invented the multiplane camera, which allows for a three-dimensional effect. This
camera will, henceforth, dominate animation. As far as the plot, we follow the
story of a night in the mill, again, so simple as to be impossible not to
understand. Visually stunning, the timing and use of music is also perfect to
create suspense and engage the viewer. If I could pick only one Disney cartoon
to show people, ‘The Old Mill’ would be my choice. With drama and humor,
triumph and tragedy, in ten minutes it is surprisingly diverse for a seemingly
limited subject. This short also marks a definitive break from the older,
repetitive style of animation found in works like ‘The Skeleton Dance’. Even
the repeated sequence of the swallow going round the gears is done with
alternating perspectives, zooming, angles, and panning. Animation so often
creates the incredible – flying anvils, King Neptune’s palace, fantastic beasts
– but this shows the potential for the ordinary, an old mill, being beautiful
and captivating.
It
was a line out of a David Lean movie. And at the time it felt like I was living
in noir tragedy. I’d done everything right, played the cards of a winning hand,
and had an ace up my sleeve. But the ace wasn’t enough, and I found myself with
nothing.
My
world was crumbling around me, and fast. I needed to get to Santa Fe, quick.
But the train was leaving without me. ‘Brief Encounter.’
“We
really shouldn’t be talking like this.”
Ten
years later, it’s always sunny when the scene cuts to ten years later. I never
made it to Santa Fe, the admissions director told me I wasn’t going to St.
Johns College. I went to Vermont for five years, did my best with second best.
Then
the wilderness years, the roving and tramping, trying to find myself, never forgetting
my real purpose, working away slowly, biding time and remembering. Like a
Dickensian shoe-maker, working away at my task. If the story were more pulp I’d
have been planning a revenge for wrongs done. But this story wasn’t
hard-boiled.
“Then
as it was, then again it will be /An' though the course may change
sometimes /Rivers always reach the sea.” Led Zeppelin, ‘Ten Years Gone.’
I’ve
reached the sea, but know not what to make of the shore. The horizon stretches
on and ever on. Painstakingly, doggedly, I went about reading the classics –
the great books of the western world – the St. John’s curriculum. Roughly 200
books, tens of thousands of pages. Copernicus, Homer, Nietzsche, Heisenberg, Austen,
Plato, Tocqueville, Mendel. Literally months of my life.
I
read them as I got my hands on them. I had my college library purchase the
obscure mathematical works: Ptolemy’s Almagest, Lobachevsky’s Theory of
Parallels. Wrote to science departments across the country for charitable
offerings of Huygens and Viete. Indeed, the maths and sciences were the hardest
to acquire.
And I
went further. In Santa Fe they only read selections of Plutarch, I read the
whole work. They only read parts of this and that – I read the whole. It’s an
exclusive club, and although I was turned away at the door, in the end I paid
premium membership.
Reading
these books has defined me. My ethics, my view of life, my appreciation of
literature, my view on narrative, on the language we use, what civilization is,
our role on the planet and the universe, all of it. Where our music comes from.
What humans are capable of. What humanism really means.
But
the horizon looms. St. Johns has been an institution in America since 1696, and
has committed to the great books since 1937. Back then they weren’t reading
Einstein, or Watson and Crick. Likewise, there is a great deal of literature on
my shelves that in 1696 probably seemed necessary, and has now dropped out:
Fibonacci, Galen, Marco Polo, Burke, Cicero, Erasmus.
I
always assumed the consummation of the list would lead to further reading, but
I never grasped how much. The great books are just the skeletal frame on which
the rest – the sinews, colloids and capillaries – hang. The end, just the
start. There’s a lifetime’s worth to contend with. I got what I wanted, and now
don’t know what to do with it. The guy at the top rubbed out, but the bigger
challenge now of figuring out what to do with yourself.
As
every old-timer will tell you, candy was a penny and gas was a nickel. Econ 101
profs will likewise extrapolate why a dollar’s purchasing value will decrease
with time. A dollar today will be worth less tomorrow.
So be
it.
Stanley
Druckenmiller is the 184th richest American, according to Forbes,
valued at $2.9 billion dollars. However, he has a passionate interest in making
sure people younger than him have money when they get to be his age (he just
turned 60). The following video clip, too large to embed, details his argument from 14:00 – 40:05:
If
however, you don’t have half an hour to watch the clip, the points are these:
·Federal
entitlement payments have risen since the 60s from 30% to 67% of Federal budget
outlays
·Of
these transfer payments, over 50% goes to the elderly, and 15% to the young
·Since
1983, those over 55 have increased their net worth by 120%. Over 75 by 149%. So
the ‘one percent’ is also quite old. Not only that, but those aged 30-40, for
example, have seen their net worth decrease over the same period by 20%
·The
national decrease in poverty rates has only affected the elderly, decreasing from
a high of 35% in 1960, to a low of 9% now. However, poverty for the young has actually
been increasing since the late 60s, and now stands at over 20%
·2013
marks the start of the retiring baby boom, which began in 1948, and will
continue for twenty years, making all of these statistics worse unless action
is taken.
·And,
as more retire, fewer will bear the burden of support. The number over 65 will
increase 102%, but those 18-64, the workers, only by 17%
·Furthermore,
right now, social security is 5% of GDP, and Medicare, Medicaid, etc. is 5.5%
of government spending. Over the next 20 years that we have to take care of the
baby boomers, it’ll double. By 2080, it’s a quarter of all government spending.
·The
fiscal debt gap, at $12 trillion, doesn’t account for any of this. If it did it
would be closer to $200 trillion.
·Today,
in 2013, the elderly receive about $330,000 in government benefits over the
course of their lifetime. For the unborn, who are paying this forward without
their knowledge, they actually will be in debt to the government $420,000 over
their lifetime, paying for the boomer’s retirement.
·If
we decided to fix this with taxes, all taxes would have to increase, across the
board, 55% in 2013. If we do nothing by 2030 that percentage increases to 72%.
If we decide to fix it with austerity, the government would have to rein in
spending by a whopping 36% now, and 44% in 2030 if not dealt with. Clearly,
there will have to be a mix of each.
Bottom
line: retiring baby boomers are going to make it impossible for the current
generation, and our kids, to retire.
Combine
this upcoming catastrophe with the fact that the dollar loses value over time.
Compound that with the interesting fact that about 30% of the underemployed are
18-29, compared to 15% for those over 65. Those figures are from 2010, but the
underemployment has increased 3% overall since then. So our generation is out
of work, or not earning what we should. And we are going to need a lot of money
down the line to take care of this retirement problem for the next twenty
years.
Half
of Americans own stocks, at 52%. But this also includes 401k holders. Before
the recession it was at 65%. Of course, in lean times, people don’t want to set
aside money for something as volatile as stocks. Who wants to risk it? Who has
the disposable income to invest?
Unfortunately,
for our generation, the only way historically to ensure your dollar would be
worth more tomorrow than it is today, is if you put it in the stock market. Even
if we didn’t need the money for retirement, let’s not forget the $1 trillion in
debt our generation owes for student loans. You don’t want to pay that off with
dollars that are worth less over time, do you?
So
are we investing in the stock market? Those who are between 20-30 are investing
conservatively, around 43%, compared to 31% investing conservatively amongst
the boomers. The actual numbers of youthful investors seems to be unknown.
Based on my professional and semi-professional friends it seems as though it’s
not many, but maybe that’s just my small sample size.
I’m conservative
with my personal finances, with I have a growing savings account and Roth IRA.
I have no stocks. I try and look at Wall Street Survivor, and all the
terminology gets me in a frustrating muddle. Beyond my financial illiteracy,
though, is a more pervasive skepticism of the stock market in my age bracket.
Our trust was shaken and little has been done to reaffirm it in the years since
2007. Six years have passed with us still the largest section of unemployed
workers, and underemployed, and with incredible student debts.
And
now we’ll have to pay for our parent’s retirements with our entitlement money. All while our purchasing power decreases. We
can either get serious about stocks as a generation, and choose to trust that
which has harmed us so often as a country, or we can change politics.
For,
if we take our money to the Wall St. shell game, what will protect it? Not
Glass-Steagall. Should we trust the market with our money, when the regulators
of the market come within an hour of default, having shut down the government
for two weeks?
The point persists: no matter what you think is important, changing government is
actually the most important thing. But until we raise our voices and get really
angry, and actually vote in numbers, and maybe even take to the streets, the older
generation is going to keep ripping off the young, robbing us of our
inheritance. We face personal, tragic, impoverishment. We need to rise up and
actually make our point to the nation that we will not suffer horrific futures,
and decades of poverty, without a fight.
As Stanley
Druckenmiller put it:
“When [I was] your age the Vietnam War was
raging and I watched a group of young people, who saw a clear and present
danger – back then we didn’t have an all-volunteer army, you got drafted…You
were literally looking at if the draft number came up the wrong way you were going
to be in the rice paddies getting shot at for kind of a silly war that a lot of
us didn’t believe in. I watched young people at that time bring down a President
and change the whole political spectrum and end that horrible war. And what I want
to say to you young people tonight is, while we’re not talking about bullets
flying, you are in clear and present danger…”
So. Will
you go buy stocks, or will you fight for a righteous government?
The Nobel Prizes will start being awarded tomorrow. I'm hoping, this year, the U.S. will boast a Literature Laureate for the first time in twenty years.
Of course, one of the main things the Nobel's are famous for is science. Yesterday, fortuitously, I went to the Boston Museum of Science to see an exhibit on the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Museum opened in 1951. In the main gallery is a list of
luminaries, great names of scientists who changed the world, in bold caps above
the visitors below.
I
decided to figure out which I was familiar with, and which I still needed to learn
about. Who knows if the winners next week will be added to this pantheon.
Hippocrates.
Physician. I have read many of his selected works, collected in Volume Ten of
the Great Books series, which I own.
Aristotle.
Biologist etc. I have read a lot of his works, including his Physics, Parts of
Animals, Generation of Animals, On Interpretation, Categories, and Prior
Analytics.
Euclid.
Geometer. I have read his Elements, in Volume Eleven of the Great Books series,
which I own.
Archimedes.
I have read many of his works, in Volume Eleven of the Great Books series,
which I own.
Galen.
I have read his On the Natural Faculties, collected in Volume Ten of the Great
Books series, which I own.
Ptolemy.
I have read his Almagest.
Copernicus.
I have read his On the Revolution of the Heavenly Spheres, in On the Shoulders
of Giants, which I own.
Vesalius.
I have read his On the Fabric of the Human Body, which I own.
Galileo.
I have read his Dialogue on Two World Systems, in On the Shoulders of Giants,
which I own.
Kepler.
I have read his Harmonies of the Spheres, in On the Shoulders of Giants, which
I own and the Epitome, which I also own.
Harvey.
I have read his On the Motion of the Heart and Blood.
Boyle.
I have yet to read Boyle. His was a British chemist.
Newton.
I have read his Principia, in On the Shoulders of Giants, which I own.
Linnaeus.
I have yet to read Linnaeus. He was a Swedish naturalist.
Lavoisier.
I have read his Elements of Chemistry, which I own.
Laplace.
I have yet to read Laplace. He was French mathematician.
Dalton.
I have read his New System of Chemistry.
Cuvier.
I have yet to read Cuvier. He was a French zoologist.
Faraday.
I have read his Forces of Matter.
Lyell.
I have yet to read Lyell. He was a British geologist.
Agassiz.
I have yet to read Agassiz. He was a Swiss biologist.
Darwin.
I have read his The Origin of Species.
Helmholtz.
I have yet to read Helmholtz. He was a German physicist.
Pasteur.
I have read his The Germ Theory and Its Applications to Medicine and Surgery.
Mendel.
I have read his Experiments in Plant Hybridization.
Maxwell.
I have read his Dynamical Theory of Electromagnetism.
Gibbs.
I have yet to read Gibbs. He was an American physicist and mathematician.
Pavlov.
I have yet to read Pavlov. He was a Russian physiologist.
M.
Curie. I have read her articles on the discoveries of Polonium and Radium.
Rutherford.
I have read his Chemical Nature of Alpha Particles.
Einstein.
I have read his Relativity: The Special and General Theory, in On the Shoulders
of Giants, which I own.
Bohr.
I have read his Atomic Theory and The Description of Nature.
So,
all told, I’ve read 23 of 32 scientists or, as Laplace would point out, 71% of
what some guys in Boston thought was important in the 1950s.
In Other News
As most of the world has noticed, barring those Amazonian primitives whose lifestyle is looking increasingly attractive, the U.S. government has shut down. This time it seems to be real, not a single day or a couple of days, like most shutdowns, but, hopefully, not a 21-day belly-buster like in 1996.
The day after and of the shutdown there was a flurry of articles and blog posts. Some were humorous, some were scathing, some pointed fingers, some apocalyptic. Writing a post in the deluge seemed unnecessary. It took long enough to sort out which ones were worth reading as it was. But now that we're a week in I'll put forth a couple personal points and recent anecdotes.
Like many Americans, I don't have health care. The policy offered by my work is too expensive. So on Tuesday I went onto the website, was directed to another for my State, filled in my information, and am waiting for the site to fix its bugs so I can get insured. I'm 27, and excited for cheap health care. The Affordable Care Act is not all things to all people, nor did I ever expect it to be. It's a step in the right direction. 'Scumbag' is the word to be used for big employers who fire anyone over the implementation of this Act.
Which brings me to last night and a few months ago. Since 2009 Kickstarter has raised $717 million dollars for various projects. I am responsible for about $100 of that. A few months ago twenty of my hundred bucks went to funding Robert Reich's new documentary, 'Inequality for All', which just opened in select theaters.
This is part of the reason I was in Boston, to see the film I'd helped to create. (The other, and perhaps more important reason, is my mom's birthday.) 'Inequality for All' isn't playing in my state, at any theater. This is a damn shame, because the movie is excellent. If it is in your state, (check the website: http://inequalityforall.com/) go see it. The timing of its release, with the shutdown, couldn't be better. I thoroughly expect it to win Best Documentary at the Oscars, at which point it will hopefully open in more theaters. But, then again, based on last year's predictions for the Nobel Prize winners, I may not be the best at picking awards. For visual culture award predictions you should try my sister's blog: http://feedmeacat.blogspot.com/
Nearly half of the U.S. States don't have National Parks. I suppose if a law was passed tomorrow requiring all States to have a National Park, these would likely be the nominees. Be forewarned, New England is heavily represented on this list:
Alabama: Gulf State Park. Along with Dry Tortugas in Florida this would be the only other park preserving the beauty of America's Gulf Coast.
Connecticut: Pachaug State Forest. Contains within it a National Natural Landmark, the Pachaug Great-Meadow Swamp which has a concentration of pristine Atlantic White Cedar.
Delaware: Bombay Hook National Wildlife Refuge. This Refuge is a critical ground for Atlantic migratory birds, and also has pre-Revolutionary historic sites.
Georgia: Okefenokee National Wildlife Refuge. This would be the second largest park protecting swamp and marshland after the Everglades, and is home to numerous threatened and endangered species.
Illinois: Shawnee National Forest. Shawnee is filled with spectacular vistas and attractions from waterfalls to caves, near the confluence of the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers.
Indiana: Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore. This would be the second Park to protect an element of the Great Lakes, along with Isle Royal in Michigan.
Iowa: Loess Hills State Forest. Containing a National Natural Landmark, this would be the first Park preserving the loess soil region from the last Ice Age.
Kansas: Tallgrass Prairie National Preserve. This would be the first Park dedicated solely to the remaining 4% of the once vast tallgrass prairie.
Louisiana: Kisatchie National Forest. Features numerous rare habitats, including calcareous prairies and hillside seepage bogs.
Maryland: Chesapeake Marshlands National Wildlife Refuge Complex. A series of refuges this Park would showcase numerous endangered plants and vast numbers of wildlife, including bald eagles.
Massachusetts: Cape Cod National Seashore. Encompassing the Atlantic Coastal Pines ecoregion, this Park would also boast a number of historically interesting sites.
Mississippi: De Soto National Forest. This Park would highlight one of the last tracts of preserved Gulf Coast ecosystem in North America, also sheltering numerous endangered species.
Missouri: Ozark National Scenic Riverways. No preexisting Park has been designated to preserve any part of the Ozarks or the Current River, often touted as one of America's finest for boating.
Nebraska: Valentine National Wildlife Refuge. With a mix of tall and mid-grass prairie, this sites encompasses a National Natural Landmark of the unique sand hills ecoregion.
New Hampshire: White Mountains National Forest. Comprising a significant portion of the state, the Park would include three major and diverse regions as well as a large tract of the White Mountains.
New Jersey: Pinelands National Reserve. By combining three State Forests this Park would have both natural and historical draws, from pygmy forests to former blueberry factory towns.
New York: Niagara Falls State Park. Why this isn't yet a Park is unfathomable.
Oklahoma: Salt Plains National Wildlife Refuge. A National Natural Landmark, this Parks would serve not only as a critical bird habitat, but also as a unique oasis in the great plains region.
Pennsylvania: Allegheny National Forest. This Park would be uniquely devoted to showcasing the Allegheny Highlands ecoregion.
Rhode Island: Burlingame State Park. Not surprisingly this Park would take the title of 'Smallest National Park' from Hot Springs in Arkansas.
Vermont: Green Mountain National Forest. This vast forest Park would have a total of eight wilderness areas within it's borders, and preserve the northernmost section of the Appalachian Trail.
West Virginia: George Washington and Jefferson National Forests. A combined site, these forests create one of the largest tracts of public land in the U.S. and significant old growth populations.
Wisconsin: Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge. This would be the only Park to actually preserve a section of the Mississippi River.
This
is an unusual one. First, Monae has been working on a seven-part work that is
inspired by Fritz Lang’s ‘Metropolis’. Back in 2007 she put out an EP that was
part one, then the album ‘The ArchAndroid’, in 2010, was parts two and three.
Three years later we now have ‘The Electric Lady’.
I
remember listening to ‘The ArchAndroid and really wanting to like it, but
writing it off as having potential, and Monae as an artist to look into. Two
pre-released pop singles from ‘Lady’ made me invest in the album: “Q.U.E.E.N.”
with Erykah Badu and “Dance Apocalyptic”.
Notably
I like these songs in part because I’ve seen ‘Metropolis’. As such the first
half of the album makes a lot of sense. I know the scenes she’s thinking of.
The conceptual side of the album is definitely stronger for the first half.
The
back half is different. It feels more like an extended love letter to soul and
R&B. I’m not sure what ties it to ‘Metropolis’. However, the first vocal
track on the album has Prince on it, and the album cover is designed to invoke
the classic soul era. Perhaps, then, there is supposed to be a more fluid mix
of these two themes.
As
examples of the love-letter theme from the back half, presumably the track
‘Ghetto Woman’ is an homage to Stevie Wonder, and ‘Dorothy Dandridge Eyes’ must
be acknowledging Michael Jackson. Yet, also on the back half, there’s a
fascinating track ‘Sally Ride’ which returns to futurism, and stylistically
returns to rock. Whether or not the album is pop, rock or R&B I don’t know.
There’s a bit of freestyling on there as well. The track ‘We Were Rock n’ Roll’
brings out the theme of Monae’s basic artistic displacement:
“We
were unbreakable
We were like Rock n’ Roll
We were like a king and queen
I want you to know…”
Interestingly
the title of the track is not ‘We Were Like
Rock n’ Roll’. Indeed, the whole idea of a young black woman’s main artistic inspiration
being ‘Metropolis’ is a little striking, but more impressive, and a more
worthwhile focus, would be Monae’s versatility. The track that best
demonstrates this is ‘Look Into My Eyes’, the closing track on the first half.
She puts away the electronics, pumps the strings up even further, and sings.
The fact that a seeming lounge track straight from Italy in the 60s doesn’t
feel out of the place is the strength of the first half. The back half, while
it has good tracks, is more of a mixed bag, and the conceptual threads are
scattered. Throughout the album are interlude skits, in the oh-so-typical radio
show style, with some hits, others misses.
Overall,
then, I’d say the album is a solid 'B'. Better than average, certainly, and a
good artistic achievement. I look forward to seeing the final two parts of her
vision.
