Worst Christmas Carols Ever

I love Christmas music. However, every once in a while, you hear something that is so bad that it makes you want to puke. I am not talking about novelty songs like "I'm Gettin' Nuttin' for Christmas" and "Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer." While those songs are irreverent and not quite in keeping with the holiday spirit, they are witty and fun. To make my Hall of Shame, a Christmas Carol must either be blatantly offensive (and not in an ironic way) or be senseless sentimental drivel or be just plain slow and boring. So far I have four songs on the list. Feel free to suggest your own additions.

1. "Santa Claus Will Take You to Hell" by Westboro Baptist Church.

Fortunately, you will NOT hear this song on the radio. However, it just shows that some people just can't stand to see anyone else enjoying the Christmas season. For the unitiated, Westboro Baptist Church is a cultish group which revels in the belief that God will punish everyone but them. They said that the people who died in 9/11 are victims of God's wrath. They show up at the funerals of American soldiers and pronounce God's judgment. Now they have written a Christmas carol in which Santa Claus is blamed for the collapsing economy, the death of soldiers in Iraq and just about everything else in society.

If you don't believe me, go to: http://www.layscience.net/node/421. I have to warn you, this song is offensive to the max.

Thanks to Elle Adair for the tip.

2. "Christmas Shoes" by New Song.

I recently heard this song on the radio and couldn't believe that they would play it without a disclaimer. This is a song about a little boy trying to buy some shoes for his dying mother because "I want her to look beautiful if Mama meets Jesus tonight." This has nothing to do with Christmas and is a blatant appeal to sappy sentimentality. I don't know what else to say, other than change the station if this song begins to play.

3. "The Cat Carol" by Bruce Evans.

The JB and Sandy Morning Show recently highlighted this song as one of the worst Christmas Carols ever and I have to agree. It is a song about a cat who is locked outside in a blizzard and who saves a mouse with the heat from his body only to be discovered dead by Santa. According to the song's website, "The Cat Carol has a traditional appeal, but there’s an underlying humour which keeps it from getting too sucky." No, this song is just annoying. While the underlying message about sacrifice in the spirit of the season is very appropriate, the actual song is just so bad. The songs drags along with no sense of irony and is way too cute.

4. "Same Old Lange Syne" by Dan Fogelberg

I have hated this song for years. It limps along like a Yugo with a blown transmission. It contains such profound lyrics as:

We took her groceries to the checkout stand,
The food was totalled up and bagged.
We stood there lost in our embarrassment,
As the conversation dragged.

This is almost a parody of the bad singer/songwriter who is trying so hard to be earnest but sounds like he is reading a grocery list.

ttyl Pulled From Round Rock Middle School Libraries. Is It Censorship?

Recently a familiar scene played out in Round Rock. Parents learned that middle school libraries included a book called ttyl which included adult situations and bad language. The parents complained and put together a petition of 150 other parents who didn't want the book in the library. Panels were convened, appeals were taken and finally the superintendent of schools made the decision to pull the books from the middle school libraries and move them to the high school libraries. What is the reaction to all of this? Predictably, there are cries of censorship. This raises a question that I have been wanting to blog about: What is censorship?

A Little Background

First, a little background. ttyl is a book by Lauren Myracle about three fifteen year old friends who get into some age inappropriate situations. One girl strips at a frat party and finds herself on the internet. Another girl is seduced by a teacher and has to be rescued by her friends. One of the girls has a potty mouth. According to the author and her supporters, the book is a cautionary tale about the choices girls make. According to the book's detractors, it is pornographic smut which encourages bad behavior. I haven't read the book yet. However, I will note that a Christian counselor recently recommended that I read the book, because in his words, that's how kids really talk.

Censorship They Say

Back to the big question: Is this censorship? Lauren Myracle thinks it is. (On a completely unrelated note, I want to give Ms. Myracle props for a great pun. Her blog article is titled "Jesus Bans Myracle." The Round Rock superintendent's name is Dr. Jesus Chavez. I am likely to read the book on the strength of the pun alone). On her blog, she writes:

But it IS banning a book to say, "This book is now banned from all middle schools. It is not allowed to be on the shelves, it is not available for students to check out." It IS censorship to say, "Look around. See all the lovely books the library has chosen for its population? Now, draw a big black line through all the pink books with smilies on them, because we don't like them and we want them to no longer exist in this glorious collection."

* * *

If I were in Nazi Germany, and my uncle, say, wrote me a letter expressing his ideas about what Hitler was doing, and the Minister of Propaganda intercepted that letter and drew black lines through certain words before giving it to me, that equals censorship, right? Someone else is deciding what's appropriate for me to read and what's not.

Mrs. Jennings wanted ttyl blacked out in all the middle school libraries in her district. That IS censorship.

And she got what she wanted.

She also says:

Censorship, on the other hand, is an individual seeking to suppress materials from a position of intolerance, imposing his or her values on the group. Censorship, in this case, ensures that students can only read what Superintendent Chavez and the Jennings deems acceptable.

But why should the Jennings’ opinion be given greater weight than that of the librarians, teachers, and other parents who reviewed the book and found it appropriate? What are her qualifications? What was her process?

Finally, she concludes that the First Amendment rights of Round Rock Middle Schoolers were violated.

The American Library Association would agree with Ms. Myracle. Its Intellectual Freedom Manual states:

“Intellectual freedom can exist only where two essential conditions are met: first, that all individuals have the right to hold any belief on any subject and to convey their ideas in any form they deem appropriate; and second, that society makes an equal commitment to the right of unrestricted access to information and ideas regardless of the communication medium used, the content of the work, and the viewpoints of both the author and receiver of information. Freedom to express oneself through a chosen mode of communication, including the Internet, becomes virtually meaningless if access to that information is not protected. Intellectual freedom implies a circle, and that circle is broken if either freedom of expression or access to ideas is stifled.”

But Is It Censorship?

I have included the lengthy quotes because I wanted to let the author and the ALA speak for themselves. I hope that I have accurately reflected their viewpoints because I am going to take them to task. In my mind, there is a huge distinction between censorship and failure of the government to make a work available to the public in a given forum.

I would define censorship as banning or prohibiting an item. For example, if the Williamson County District Attorney prosecuted Barnes & Noble for selling ttyl, that would constitute censorship. For another example, if the Round Rock schools prohibited students from bringing ttyl onto campus, that would strike me as censorship as well. In Ms. Myracle's example from her blog, if the government intercepted a letter and blacked out portions of it, that would clearly constitute censorship.

However, for the Round Rock School District to say that we will provide ttyl in the high school library rather than the middle school library because it is more age appropriate for high school students doesn't look like censorship. The action of Dr. Chavez does not prohibit any middle school student from reading the book. Any student who wants to read the book may buy it on Amazon.com, check it out from the public library or read it when they enter high school. Indeed, the fact that the book has been "banned" may do a lot to stimulate interest in it.

What concerns me here about the claims of censorship and book banning is the subtext which says that decisions about what books should be included in public school libraries should be left to the professionals, namely librarians and teachers. When parents object to inclusion of a specific book that they have concerns about or when school boards and superintendents accede to their wishes, there is a sense that something sacred has been violated. Literary professionals frequently argue that parents should be allowed to decide what their children read, but not what is made available to other children. However, this doesn't seem to give any weight to the notion that parents have a legitimate concern about the overall school environment. It also doesn't give much credit to the fact that public schools are paid for by the public, including the parents who are complaining. Finally, it doesn't give much credit to the notion that the First Amendment is a two way street. The First Amendment gives citizens, including parents, the right to petition the government for the redress of grievances. That is what happened in this case.

The Legal Issue

One of the arguments that I intended to make was that there is no constitutional right to object to a book being removed from a public school library. However, it turns out that there is, although it probably wouldn't apply in this case. In Board of Education v. Pico, 457 U.S. 853 (1982), the Supreme Court held that a case where a student sued for violation of his civil rights based upon books being removed from a school library should be allowed to go to trial. That case has some similarities to the present one. A group of school board members sought to remove books from the school library that they thought were anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-semitic and "just plain filthy." They appointed a committee to review the books and then rejected the committee's recommendation that most of the books be retained. A parent, acting on behalf of a student, sued the school board for violation of the student's First Amendment rights. The District Court tossed the suit out without a trial, finding that the school board had acted properly in applying community values. The Supreme Court sent the case back for trial, finding that the School Board's reason for removing the books was an issue which should be developed at trial.

The Supreme Court agreed with the school board that it should be allowed to act based upon community standards, stating, "We are therefore in full agreement with petitioners that local school boards must be permitted 'to establish and apply their curriculum in such a way as to transmit community values,' and that 'there is a legitimate and substantial community interest in promoting respect for authority and traditional values be they social, moral, or political.'" However, that authority did not extend to the wholesale suppression of ideas.

The Supreme Court summed up the issue as follows:

With respect to the present case, the message of these precedents is clear. Petitioners rightly possess significant discretion to determine the content of their school libraries. But that discretion may not be exercised in a narrowly partisan or political manner. If a Democratic school board, motivated by party affiliation, ordered the removal of all books written by or in favor of Republicans, few would doubt that the order violated the constitutional rights of the students denied access to those books. The same conclusion would surely apply if an all-white school board, motivated by racial animus, decided to remove all books authored by blacks or advocating racial equality and integration. Our Constitution does not permit the official suppression of ideas. Thus whether petitioners' removal of books from their school libraries denied respondents their First Amendment rights depends upon the motivation behind petitioners' actions. If petitioners intended by their removal decision to deny respondents access to ideas with which petitioners disagreed, and if this intent was the decisive factor in petitioners' decision, 22 then petitioners have exercised their discretion in violation of the Constitution. To permit such intentions to control official actions would be to encourage the precise sort of officially prescribed orthodoxy unequivocally condemned in Barnette. On the other hand, respondents implicitly concede that an unconstitutional motivation would not be demonstrated if it were shown that petitioners had decided to remove the books at issue because those books were pervasively vulgar. Tr. of Oral Arg. 36. And again, respondents concede that if it were demonstrated that the removal decision was based solely upon the "educational suitability" of the books in question, then their removal would be "perfectly permissible." Id., at 53. In other words, in respondents' view such motivations, if decisive of petitioners' actions, would not carry the danger of an official suppression of ideas, and thus would not violate respondents' First Amendment rights.

In the Pico case, most of the challenged books were written by African Americans. As a result, there was a hint that the school district was racially motivated. However, in the case of ttyl, it seems pretty clear that removing a book based on its language and age appropriateness would pass constitutional muster.

Conclusion

I plan to read ttyl. Based on what I know, I would probably recommend it to my 16 year old daughter, but not my 13 year old daughter. However, I am not convinced that this is a case of censorship.

The Second Golden Age of Saturday Morning Cartoons Part 3: Freazazoid

No discussion of the slate of Spielberg Saturday morning cartoons would be complete without mentioning Freakazoid, the first internet generated superhero. In the early 1990s, personal computers and the internet were still in their infancy. In this story, a computer manufacturer discovers a minor flaw in its product: if exactly right combination of keys were pressed, the user would be sucked into the internet. Concluding that it would be impossible for this to ever happen, they keep the news under wraps. However, they didn't count on a cat walking across the keyboard. Computer nerd Dexter Douglass is sucked into the internet and takes on a second identity as the manic Freakazoid. All of this is explained in the opening theme.



Ricardo Montalban played the villain Guttierrez who developed the dangerous computer. This started a career in cartoon villainy for Montalban, who also played Senor Senior, Sr. in Kim Possible.



Despite his awesome powers, Freakazoid could be neutralized by poo gas.



Despite the show's cult appeal, it never really caught on. It lasted only 24 episodes over a season and a half. In the following clip, Freakazoid, Wakko and the Brain argue over who Steven Spielberg likes best only to face disappointment.



The show's finale predicted that they would return some day. This prediction has come true as Warner Brothers Video released the first season on DVD on July 28, 2008.




More information than you would ever want to know is contained in the comprehensive Wikipedia article.

The Second Golden Age of Saturday Morning Cartoons Part 2: Pinky and the Brain

Gee Brain, what are we going to do tonight?

The same thing we do every night. Try to take over the world!

Those lines opened every episode of Pink & the Brain, a cartoon about a megalomaniac lab mouse and his goofy sidekick and their ill-fated plans to take over the world. This show started as a segment on the Animaniacs and was spun off into its own show. The hyper-intelligent Brain and the generally hyper Pinky engaged in all kinds of schemes, such as going back in time to replace the Declaration of Independence with the Declaration of Obedience. Despite the fact that their plans invariably failed, they were always ready to have another go at taking over the world.

Here is the Pink & the Brain opening theme in seven different languages.

English:



German:



Russian:



Spanish:



Japanese:



Arabic:



Multi-lingual:

The Second Golden Age of Saturday Morning Cartoons Part 1: Animaniacs

When I was a kid, Saturday morning cartoons were the high point of the week. I lived for shows like Scooby Doo, Speed Racer and Bugs Bunny/Roadrunner. For me, that was the golden age of Saturday morning cartoons. However, after I grew up, there was a second golden age of Saturday morning cartoons, thanks to Steven Spielberg. While Mr. Spielberg is better known for Jurassic Park, Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, he also produced a slate of Saturday morning cartoons in the 1990s, including Animaniacs, Pinky & the Brain and Freakazoid. These cartoons featured clever theme songs and even more clever writing.

Part 1 of my tribute to the cartoons of Steven Spielberg features the Animaniacs. Here is the opening theme.



Although I was never a big Bill Clinton fan, I always chuckled at the shot of Bill Clinton playing the sax.

The Animaniacs could be educational as shown by this song featuring the capitals of the 50 states. I know some teachers still use this one.



The show also featured educational belching



as well as general zaniness.



They don't make them like this anymore!

Grading an Obama Administration

The votes are in and Barack Obama will be the next president. However, which Barack Obama will we see? Will it be the cool, collected orator who inspired millions with his uplifting rhetoric and message of change or will it be the Chicago pol who blindly voted with the Democratic party 96% of the time? I am willing to give the new president a chance, even though I expect to disagree with him a lot. Here are eight areas in which he can impress me or not.

Budget and Economy. Does anyone have a clue on how to get the economy back on track? If the Democrats or Republicans have a plan, I don't think I've heard it. Similarly, anyone has a way to reduce the budget-busting defecits of the last eight years, I don't know about it. Because the hole is so deep here, any progress will look good.

Energy. The Obama campaign has promised to invest billions in alternative energy sources. If President Obama is able to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and make wind and solar power feasible for use, he will have done something that other presidents have only talked about. However, if he vetoes domestic oil production and nuclear power, while supporting wasteful progrms that actually hurt the environment, such as the current ethanol subsidies, we will look back fondly on $4 a gallon gas prices.

Foreign Policy. Sen. Obama has promised to consult with our allies and negotiate with rogue nations. As president, he will face challenges from al Qaeda, Hezbollah and a resurgent Russia. If our allies demand appeasement, will he have the courage to stand firm? If North Korea, Syria, Libya and Iran promise to play nice while ramping up their ability to harm our interests, will he accept their words at face value? It is a dangerous world and we will need the support of our allies. However, we will need to lead and inspire rather than passively follow European opinion. We will need to "trust but verify" as a great president once said.

Healthcare. I have read through the Obama campaigns promises on healthcare and they seem like a lot of blue smoke and mirrors to me. As I understand the proposals, everyone will have access to affordable healthcare coverage and it won't cost any more because the government will make the system more efficient. If President Obama can pull this off, his legacy will be secure. However, if the solution to healthcare is to create another government bureaucracy like social security, he will bankrupt the country.

Immigration. Our current immigration system violates the laws of supply and demand. While there is a massive demand for hard-working laborers seeking to make a better life for their families, our immigration laws artificially restrict the number of people who can have access to the American dream. The predictable result is that millions of people are here illegally. This in turn creates opportunity for drug runners and criminals to slip through a porous border. We will be able to better secure the border if we offer those who are willing to work hard and play by the rules an opportunity to come here legally. While this proposition makes sense to me, it will face strong opposition from both the left and the right. On the left, unions oppose increasing the supply of labor because it will result in more competition. On the right, there are nativists who fear an influx of Spanish-speaking workers from south of the border. It will take a political genius to navigate this issue.

Iraq. We know that the U.S. will reduce its presence in Iraq dramatically during an Obama administration. However, the big question is whether we will make an orderly transition to a sovereign Iraqi government or whether we will cut and run. Having made a bad decision to invade Iraq, we can still make things worse. If we pull out precipitously, we will embolden our enemies to turn up the pressure.

Judges. We know that President Obama will appoint liberal judges who will support Roe v. Wade. That is a given. However, will his appointees be more Breyer than Brennan? Stephen Breyer has proven to be a relatively cautious and thoughtful liberal. William Brennan viewed the Constitution as a malleable instrument used to reach a desired result.

Middle Class Tax Cuts. Sen. Obama campaigned on the promise to reduce taxes for 95%of working Americans. Bill Clinton promised a middle class tax cut also, but it never happened. Will President Obama deliver a middle class tax cut or will he use the current financial crisis as an excuse to back away from this promise?

No More Gates

The election is over at long last. My fervent hope for the next four years is that we learn to banish the word gate from our vocabulary. I am not talking about actual gates, like the Sather Gate pictured below. I am talking about the unfortunate habit of adding -gate on to a word to define a scandal. I have two reasons for this, one stylistic and one substantive.



Every since Watergate, lazy journalists have used gate to name a scandal. We have had Troopergate I, II and II (involving Bill Clinton, Elliot Spitzer and Sarah Palin respectively), Filegate, Passportgate, Plamegate, Travelgate, etc. Merely adding the suffix gate onto a scandal is a poor substitute for thought and should be banned from the lexicon. Iran-Contra and Whitewater are examples of how an affair can stand on its own the necessity to remind people that it is a scandal by calling it a gate.

However, on a more serious level, I hope that we will give the scandals a rest for a while. When Bill Clinton became president, the right wing tried to negate the election results by launching a series of investigations into the Clintons and their associates. This ended with the sorry spectacle of the President lying under oath about his sexual pecadillos and facing an impeachment trial. While perjury is a serious matter, there was no need for the question to be asked in the first place.

The Democrats have learned to respond in kind with a never-ending string of so-called ethics scandals including the politically motivated prosecution of Tom Delay and the Valerie Plame affair.

Are we any better off for having spent the last sixteen years scandalizing each other? Careers have been destroyed, people have gone to jail and millions have been spent on special prosecutors. However, when it was all said and done, did any of it make our government better or improve us as a nation? I don't think so.

My fervent hope would be that we can lay off of the scandals for a while. If you disagree with President Obama (a position I may find myself in), debate his policies and discuss his priorities. However, we can do without the tabloid politics.