The White Album: The Best and Worst Album of All Time

I'm generally not one to rank works of art against each other, but if I had to rank Beatles albums, I would probably put The Beatles -- conveniently known as The White Album -- somewhere in the middle. It contains a great amount of what made The Beatles the best rock and roll band in history, but it also has a lot of nonsense.

In this post, I will try to prove that within The White Album is both the best and worst Beatles albums recorded. With a roughly 90-minute playing time, it could easily be made into two, even three full-length albums. So, for the purposes of this experiment, I shall choose the best 35 minutes (average album length), as well as the worst 35 minutes of the album.

The Best:

1. Back in the U.S.S.R.
2. While My Guitar Gently Weeps
3. Happiness is a Warm Gun
4. Martha My Dear
5. I'm So Tired
6. Blackbird
7. I Will
8. Julia
9. Birthday
10. Sexy Sadie
11. Helter Skelter
12. Long, Long, Long

If The Beatles had released just these 12 songs, they would have made, in my opinion, the finest album of their career. There is some of the best songwriting from Lennon and McCartney here, with "Sexy Sadie" and "I Will" being their respective standouts. With "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" and "Long, Long, Long", George Harrison makes his case for the Best Songwriter in The Beatles title. I feel this collection of songs, unlike the actual release, features a much healthier mix of the aforementioned ballads and rockers like "Back in the U.S.S.R." and "Helter Skelter." In my opinion, this would-be album would have surpassed Revolver, Sgt. Pepper's, and Abbey Road in terms of quality.

The Worst:

1. Glass Onion
2. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da
3. Wild Honey Pie
4. Don't Pass Me By
5. Why Don't We Do It in the Road
6. Yer Blues
7. Mother Nature's Son
8. Revolution 1
9. Honey Pie
10. Revolution 9
11. Good Night

This collection of songs is just about as bad as The Beatles can get. First of all, you have "Wild Honey Pie" and "Revolution 9" -- a pair of anti-songs that make you want to tear your ears off. Lennon and McCartney hit new lows here with duds like "Yer Blues" and "Why Don't We Do It in the Road". And Ringo's first attempt at songwriting, "Don't Pass Me By", is one that should have been locked away and never spoken of again. If The Beatles released these 11 songs as an album, they would likely have to go into hiding.

There you go. You may disagree with me on my song selection, but hopefully you can agree that the album has by far the largest range in quality of any album the band recorded. I still love it, as I do every Beatles album, but it's not an easy one to listen to in one sitting.

Children of Men: The Casablanca of the 21st Century

I watched Casablanca this past weekend, and then Children of Men a few days later. I didn't think anything of this pair of movies at first, but today something occurred to me: the latter is essentially a futuristic remake of the former. (And it is, in my opinion, just as good.)

Both Rick of Casablanca and Theo of Children of Men are devoured by cynicism. One a businessman and the other a bureaucrat, they're equally disinterested in the politics of the world, despite the ever-looming presence of fascism that surrounds them. However, it is revealed in both movies that these characters weren't always so apathetic. Rick ran guns into Ethiopia and helped fight the fascists in Spain before resigning himself to political agnosticism. Theo was a dedicated activist who once spiked a police officer's coffee with ketamine before shedding his ideals in pursuit of economic gain. Though they admit to having done such politically-motivated things, they submit that they were done with ulterior motives. Rick claims to have been in it for the money, while Theo simply wanted to "get laid."

Eventually we find out the sources of Rick's and Theo's cynical feelings. They both stem from a personal tragedy--Rick was heartbroken by Ilsa, and Theo lost his son to disease. Their inabilities to reconcile these tragedies render them emotionally detached from people and politics--and by no coincidence, lead them to drink heavily.

But as the movies progress, each protagonist is given an opportunity to use his power and influence for a just cause. Rick acquires two sought-after letters of transit, which he can either use for his own selfish purposes, or donate to Victor Laszlo, a leader of the underground anti-Nazi movement, whose escape to America is crucial for his work to continue. Theo similarly aquires letters of transit, which, if he chose the more noble path, he could use to bring Key, a pregnant immigrant in an immigrant-hating country, to the sanctuary of the Human Project.

Thus, the major conflicts of the two films are the same; Rick and Theo must confront their cynicism, their selfishness, and their feelings about the past, so as to successfully aid a cause greater than any of their own problems. While as in many remakes, the plot is largely restructured, the central themes remain the same. And in the end, both "heroes" earn that title, making a major sacrifice for what they finally know is right. Rick sacrifices a ticket out of Casablanca with the woman he loves, and Theo sacrifices his life.

Well, there you have it. There are some less striking, but nonetheless interesting similarities between the characters of Louie and Jasper as well. Louie is utterly neutral while Jasper clearly has a political stance, but they both exhibit an ability to be friendly with both sides, as evidenced by Jasper's friendship with the "fascist pig," Syd. They're also the comic relief in they're respective movies. So take out of this what you will, and if that's nothing, oh well.

Stringer Bell is Charles Miner

SPOILERS BELOW

The following may come as a startling revelation.

Contrary to what you think you saw at the end of season three of The Wire, Stringer Bell was NOT murdered by Omar Little and Brother Mouzone. This is by no means a suggestion that that scene was some sort of dream, but rather that Stringer indeed survived the attempt on his life. You see, as his imminent downfall became blatantly obvious to him -- between his flagrant double-crossing of trusted cohorts and his making enemies with just about everyone whose path he crossed -- Mr. Bell began taking precautions he wouldn't have otherwise needed. One of these, inevitably, was his wearing of a bullet-proof vest everywhere he went. On the day of his 2004 "murder," his paranoia effectively saved his life. So he did the smart thing -- he played dead. And, having friends in Baltimore's high places, he was able to smoothly carry about this ruse. No one knows precisely how he did it, but there are a number of possibilities, mostly involving the bribing of drivers and morgue workers. But c'mon, the dude was loaded.

The next thing Stringer Bell had to do was lose Stringer Bell. This entailed changing his name, cutting off all ties, and getting the hell out of Baltimore. With his new name, Charles Miner, he moved to New York City where he laid low for a period of five years, working odd jobs to stay afloat. He falsified his documents under his new identity -- driver's license, Social Security card, et al. -- and after enough time had passed, he began to seek higher-level employment. He made a false Bachelor's degree and an MBA. Eventually, his skills were sought by Dunder Mifflin Paper Company, whose ex-V.P. Ryan Howard left a large vacancy in the corporation's upper management. Bell/Miner interviewed for the position. His fake resume was most impressive to C.F.O. David Wallace, who was particularly interested in his stint at Satacoy Steel. (I know this company is totally fabricated because unlike Dunder Mifflin, it doesn't have a Wikipedia article.)

Charles Miner was hired in early 2009. Though his degrees were forgeries, his extensive business background working in the Barksdale organization as well as his stint at Baltimore Community College rendered him equally qualified. In his new, more legitimate profession, Miner has been using the same tactics he used in his Stringer Bell days -- the same deceit, the same eye at upward mobility.

I feel the evidence I've provided is conclusive and irrefutable. As for Beadie Russel and Holly Flax being the same person...well let's just say that's a discussion for another day.

The 2009 World Series for Mets Fans

The two teams competing for this year's World Series title seem to together represent the worst possible combination for fans of the New York Metropolitans, of which I am one. On the one hand, you have the Phillies -- the Mets' bitter NL East rivals for the past few years (the Mets' 2009 season notwithstanding). On the other hand, you have the Yankees -- New York's perpetual overachievers, whose fans' condescension is the bane of many Mets fans' existences. Thus, this year's World Series equates to the Mets' divisional rivals versus their geographical rivals.

So what is a fan of the listless Mets to do? To whom should he or she pledge allegiance? Or should we all just sit this year's series out? Well, I've thought of an analogy with which to address these questions.

Let's wind the clocks back to last year's presidential election. I supported and voted for now-President Barack Obama in both the primary and general election, but let's assume, for argument's sake, I supported Hillary Clinton. In this analogy, Clinton will represent the Mets, Obama the Phillies, and John McCain the Yankees. The NL and AL are the Democratic and Republican Parties, respectively, and winning the pennant is equivalent to winning either party's nomination.

With all this in mind, here's the scenario: I'm a passionate Clinton supporter, embittered by her loss to Barack Obama. I can do one of three things: reconcile my personal feelings and vote Democrat, carry my bitterness into the general election and vote for McCain against my political ideology, or simply abstain from voting altogether. (Voting third party doesn't work with this analogy!) Being a supporter of the democratic system, I immediately remove the third option from consideration. Moreover, believing that political ideology trumps any candidate's own personal qualities, I throw out the second option as well. I will support Barack Obama.

Consequently, I will immediately disregard the option of sitting out this year's World Series, being that my love of baseball supersedes my love of the Mets.

Now here's where the analogy becomes strained -- are the NL and AL ideologically distinctive enough to be analogized with the Democratic and Republican parties, respectively? The answer, initially, would appear to be no. However, one must consider the single major difference between the two leagues: the AL's use of a designated hitter. The DH is a rule to which I am ideologically opposed. I find it to be contradictory to the nature of the sport. I am as stringent in this position as I am in my support of abortion rights. So just as I could never support John McCain for being pro-life, I could never support the AL pennant winner so long as they employ a DH. I will instead have to reconcile my bitterness in the name of the sport I love, and support the team who I feel more closely resembles my ideology and my values.

I will support the Phillies in this year's World Series.