You Don’t Kick a Dead Dog

Notwithstanding all the points of policy and history on which the Republican candidates differ, they all seem to be united in at least one area: their disdain for Mitt Romney. Naturally, a public figure will always have views and actions which someone dislikes, but Romney seems to attract an inordinate amount of criticism, some of it smug and mean-spirited (à la McCain or Huckabee in Saturday’s debate), from all the candidates. For the record, I don’t know who I’m going to vote for, but Romney is certainly a contender in my book. Romney continues to receive jabs and cheap shots - such as Huckabee’s use of the classic Mormon smear about Satan and Jesus, or the apparently irresistible urge by the candidates (or even the moderator, Charles Gibson, last night, who I’d call likable but, like so many people in the media, partial to the political left) - to scandalize Romney’s record on abortion when they need to score a few quick and easy points, and this after he’s clearly and repeatedly explained himself on the issue, I think satisfactorily. I’m not saying that Romney’s the absolute perfect candidate, and everyone else is garbage, but I do think that the attacks he seems to be receiving from all sides indicate that he is viewed as a strong and viable presidential nominee and a real political threat. On my LDS mission in northern Virginia, I became acquainted with the phrase “you don’t kick a dead dog”, which I learned in reference to the criticism the Church receives (but appropriately pays little heed to), and basically means that an adversary only attacks those parties deemed to be real threats. I think this phrase is applicable in Romney’s case too - not because he happens to be Mormon, but because he is viewed as a threat by certain people. As a side note, I think the same can be said for the vocally anti-religious, such as Hitchens and Dawkins - religion presents a worldview which opposes and threatens their own. But that’s a topic for another time

American music = crappy, part 2

Merry belated Christmas and happy belated New Year! Well, fortunately for whoever actually reads my blog, most of the various things that occupy my mind never actually make it to the keyboard, but one thing which I feel must be expressed is this very important idea: American music sucks, and U.K. music rules. Now, this is not a hard and fast rule, as The Killers, an excellent band, emerged from Las Vegas, and Rush, though not strictly American -they’re Canadian, if that makes any difference-, is regarded by millions as one of the greatest rock bands ever (and this is nothing to say of all the mediocre U.K. music that I’m sure does exist). It’s worthy to note, however, that both The Killers and Rush credit some big British names as significant musical influences.

I have two recent experiences which have supported my belief that the U.K. somehow produces better music consistently. First, I was recently introduced to Muse’s music, specifically their latest album, and I liked it over all. Initially, I didn’t realize they were British (notwithstanding the resemblance of the lead singer’s voice to that of Thom Yorke of Radiohead). It was only after listening to their music and liking it that I learned that they were British after all. Again, the U.K. makes better music than us.

My second and most recent experience to back up my claim is simple: for Christmas I got “The Boy With No Name” by Travis, a Scottish band, and it is understatedly excellent! Great lyrics, catchy melodies, a pleasant mix of optimism and bittersweetness. Does America ever produce music like this? Nope. Generally speaking, we seem to like our music loud and obnoxious, not deep and reflective. There is so much to love about this country, but when it comes to popular music, I prefer the greener pastures across the pond.