The Beatles, Queen, The Beach Boys, The Mamas and the Papas, and Fleetwood Mac (and possibly Mumford and Sons, if they keep up their good music). These are the bands that I have heard that have the best vocal harmonies, in no particular order. You can argue with me if you want, but you'd be wrong since I certainly haven't heard anything better. Listen to these and try to disagree.
In this, George, Paul, and John harmonize beautifully with either John or George (can't tell, though it's likely John) taking the falsetto and doing it beautifully. Each one of them takes an octave to sing and in beautiful fashion.
While you may have been expecting Bohemian Rhapsody (and I wouldn't blame you), I enjoy the fact that the background chorus sings different lines concurrently to what Freddy Mercury is singing as the lead vocalist. One of the greatest bands with vocal harmonies, hands down.
The Beach Boys were synonymous with great vocals in their time, especially since most of the sounds in their music are simply from one (or two) background guitars and their vocals.
The Mamas and the Papas were the quintessential example in a band utilizing their vocal harmonies to achieve fame.
Fleetwood Mac knew how to mix male and female vocals well, much like The Mamas and the Papas, though Fleetwood Mac relied more on an entire band than their vocal harmonies.
They have great potential.
That's all for now.
DF
As always, click this or be subject to the torture of incessant tickling by one of Santa's elves. I can make that happen.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Intervention in Libya: The Line
The UN Security Council last week approved the institution of a no-fly zone over Libya in order to “protect civilians” from Colonel Qaddafi’s merciless force of mercenaries. The United States, England, and France, along with members of the Arab League, have offered to lend planes and warships to uphold the no-fly zone. President Barack Obama has stated that the United States will soon take a back seat in the operation, eventually ceding responsibility to either NATO or the European nations, but many have criticized him for the use of force.
Much of the criticism comes from President Obama’s deployment of warships into the Mediterranean in order to comply with the Security Council resolution, as many state that the president does not have the authority to launch strikes without congressional approval. The famous War Powers Resolution, passed under Nixon, states that the President can deploy forces only with approval from congress or if the United States is under direct attack. As the president did not receive approval from congress, the question is whether or not the president overstepped his bounds.
While it is not within presidential powers to deploy forces without congressional approval, the Constitution does not have any provisions mentioning forces under international treatise or an international organization, such as NATO or the UN. The document was originally written to prevent the eventuality of a monarch or a dominating house, such as congress, which is why military powers are divided among the two branches. The document does not lend any credence to international organizations or coalition militaries, which is why, in a case such as this, the Constitution may have to be circumvented.
I am not saying to completely disregard the Constitution; there is no slippery slope here. We must accept the limits and faults of the Constitution and be willing to step into a world where international cooperation is becoming a fact rather than a hypothetical action. If we cannot cooperate willingly and amiably with the world, we set a poor example as the self-proclaimed world leaders. What needs to be done in Libya will be done, and after the necessary amount of time, strategic forces will move under an allied command. There will be no ground troops committed, no American armor fighting Libyan armor, no American soldiers teaching Libyan rebels how to march, nothing; there will be the enforcement of a no-fly zone, and that is it. Those with the delusion of another formal (or informal) war should recognize that this situation, in all of its minute details, is infinitely different.
Much of the criticism comes from President Obama’s deployment of warships into the Mediterranean in order to comply with the Security Council resolution, as many state that the president does not have the authority to launch strikes without congressional approval. The famous War Powers Resolution, passed under Nixon, states that the President can deploy forces only with approval from congress or if the United States is under direct attack. As the president did not receive approval from congress, the question is whether or not the president overstepped his bounds.
While it is not within presidential powers to deploy forces without congressional approval, the Constitution does not have any provisions mentioning forces under international treatise or an international organization, such as NATO or the UN. The document was originally written to prevent the eventuality of a monarch or a dominating house, such as congress, which is why military powers are divided among the two branches. The document does not lend any credence to international organizations or coalition militaries, which is why, in a case such as this, the Constitution may have to be circumvented.
I am not saying to completely disregard the Constitution; there is no slippery slope here. We must accept the limits and faults of the Constitution and be willing to step into a world where international cooperation is becoming a fact rather than a hypothetical action. If we cannot cooperate willingly and amiably with the world, we set a poor example as the self-proclaimed world leaders. What needs to be done in Libya will be done, and after the necessary amount of time, strategic forces will move under an allied command. There will be no ground troops committed, no American armor fighting Libyan armor, no American soldiers teaching Libyan rebels how to march, nothing; there will be the enforcement of a no-fly zone, and that is it. Those with the delusion of another formal (or informal) war should recognize that this situation, in all of its minute details, is infinitely different.
Monday, March 14, 2011
A Turn for the Worse
Two of the largest news stories in the world have taken a turn for the worse:
First, in Japan, as everyone is probably well aware of already, the death toll continues to rise and the threat of a nuclear meltdown seems to become more likely as each day passes. Cities have been swept into the ocean, and the death toll is believed to be more than 10,000, at the least. People have gone for days without clean water, food, heat, etc. If you can, please donate to the Red Cross, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, etc.
Second, in Libya, pro-Gaddafi forces are striking at the rebels with superior air and naval power as a rebel victory continually seems to be slipping out of reach. Debates have been raging as to whether or not to impose a no-fly zone, help with foreign troops, etc., though there has been little action by the international community. The Arab League has asked NATO and the Group of Eight to impose a no-fly zone, though Turkey (NATO) and Russia and China (G8) do not support the notion. It is a tricky situation.
What do I think about Libya? The rebels are clearly outgunned, as they do not have (to my knowledge) any naval or air capabilities, as well as a small, if not negligible amount of artillery. They are being pushed back east and will likely be forced to flee the country if Gaddafi's forces march to the border with Egypt. In my opinion, the US and other countries should, at least, declare recognition of the rebel's transitional government as the authority of Libya, and thus open trade relations with them, selling arms at low prices. That's what I would do, at least.
Aside from international matters, I'm on spring break. Hooray for a week spent in my boxers.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
First, in Japan, as everyone is probably well aware of already, the death toll continues to rise and the threat of a nuclear meltdown seems to become more likely as each day passes. Cities have been swept into the ocean, and the death toll is believed to be more than 10,000, at the least. People have gone for days without clean water, food, heat, etc. If you can, please donate to the Red Cross, UNICEF, Doctors Without Borders, etc.
Second, in Libya, pro-Gaddafi forces are striking at the rebels with superior air and naval power as a rebel victory continually seems to be slipping out of reach. Debates have been raging as to whether or not to impose a no-fly zone, help with foreign troops, etc., though there has been little action by the international community. The Arab League has asked NATO and the Group of Eight to impose a no-fly zone, though Turkey (NATO) and Russia and China (G8) do not support the notion. It is a tricky situation.
What do I think about Libya? The rebels are clearly outgunned, as they do not have (to my knowledge) any naval or air capabilities, as well as a small, if not negligible amount of artillery. They are being pushed back east and will likely be forced to flee the country if Gaddafi's forces march to the border with Egypt. In my opinion, the US and other countries should, at least, declare recognition of the rebel's transitional government as the authority of Libya, and thus open trade relations with them, selling arms at low prices. That's what I would do, at least.
Aside from international matters, I'm on spring break. Hooray for a week spent in my boxers.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
Saturday, March 5, 2011
A Current
The US media has seemingly set its news stories into a constant cycle of reporting on the civil war in Libya, the budget crisis, Charlie Sheen, and even a bunch of Christians proclaiming the end of the world is near; what I would like to focus on is journalistic integrity.
Journalistic integrity, as I see it, is the duty of every professional journalist to report a story objectively and without inserting their own bias; if there must be an opinion in a story, then there also must be a valid counter-opinion to balance the substance of the story. This definition immediately negates the Sean Hannitys and the Glenn Becks of the world, as they have been known to present arguments with both no basis in fact or logic.
Journalism and journalism media in general has been regarded as the fourth branch of the government, in that journalism media is supposed to provide another check on the government by making it accountable to the populace. Ideally, all (or most) people would read or hear the news, make a valid judgment and vote/contact their representatives based on that judgment in order to better participate in the democratic process.
Everyone and their mother knows that this is far from the truth. Unfortunately, news media is a product owned by corporations (with the exception of public news such as NPR), and is made to be sold. If a story, such as Charlie Sheen's antics, is selling, you focus more on Charlie Sheen then, say, the most conservative members of congress desiring to cut large percentages of planned parenthood and education from the budget. Thus, viewership/readership goes up, and due to that, increased revenue from advertisers desiring to display their product to the average consumer.
Regardless of this desire to increase revenue, journalists should still look to present stories in, as Fox News purports to do, a fair and balanced manner. Unfortunately, there is no Hippocratic oath of journalism for me to call upon when demanding that all journalists remain loyal to the distribution of truth rather than truth as they see it. There is only the integrity of the field and the tradition of journalists such as Edward R. Murrow to guide every prodigal journalist along the journey; unfortunately, this does not count for much anymore. For example, Dan Rather, one of the more respected journalists today, did not report on the fallacy of the buildup to the Iraq War; instead, he touted his American pride by continually reporting on American firepower and the resoluteness of soldiers to fight. As a journalist, he failed the American people.
Increasingly, journalists are being replaced by pundits for creating opinions in people, and the result is disheartening, to say the least. A pundit's opinion, however skewered and factually incorrect, is accepted willingly simply because the pundit's beliefs coincide with the viewer's.
Is the field salvageable? Of course; nothing is ever completely lost. As of right now, though, it will take a lot of work to recover.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Don't forget to click here!
EDIT------
Apparently, there is a journalistic code of ethics. Just goes to show that I should take a journalism class in college. Even so, that makes it that much sadder.
Journalistic integrity, as I see it, is the duty of every professional journalist to report a story objectively and without inserting their own bias; if there must be an opinion in a story, then there also must be a valid counter-opinion to balance the substance of the story. This definition immediately negates the Sean Hannitys and the Glenn Becks of the world, as they have been known to present arguments with both no basis in fact or logic.
Journalism and journalism media in general has been regarded as the fourth branch of the government, in that journalism media is supposed to provide another check on the government by making it accountable to the populace. Ideally, all (or most) people would read or hear the news, make a valid judgment and vote/contact their representatives based on that judgment in order to better participate in the democratic process.
Everyone and their mother knows that this is far from the truth. Unfortunately, news media is a product owned by corporations (with the exception of public news such as NPR), and is made to be sold. If a story, such as Charlie Sheen's antics, is selling, you focus more on Charlie Sheen then, say, the most conservative members of congress desiring to cut large percentages of planned parenthood and education from the budget. Thus, viewership/readership goes up, and due to that, increased revenue from advertisers desiring to display their product to the average consumer.
Regardless of this desire to increase revenue, journalists should still look to present stories in, as Fox News purports to do, a fair and balanced manner. Unfortunately, there is no Hippocratic oath of journalism for me to call upon when demanding that all journalists remain loyal to the distribution of truth rather than truth as they see it. There is only the integrity of the field and the tradition of journalists such as Edward R. Murrow to guide every prodigal journalist along the journey; unfortunately, this does not count for much anymore. For example, Dan Rather, one of the more respected journalists today, did not report on the fallacy of the buildup to the Iraq War; instead, he touted his American pride by continually reporting on American firepower and the resoluteness of soldiers to fight. As a journalist, he failed the American people.
Increasingly, journalists are being replaced by pundits for creating opinions in people, and the result is disheartening, to say the least. A pundit's opinion, however skewered and factually incorrect, is accepted willingly simply because the pundit's beliefs coincide with the viewer's.
Is the field salvageable? Of course; nothing is ever completely lost. As of right now, though, it will take a lot of work to recover.
That's all for now,
Das Flüg
P.S. Don't forget to click here!
EDIT------
Apparently, there is a journalistic code of ethics. Just goes to show that I should take a journalism class in college. Even so, that makes it that much sadder.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)