Certain Songs, They Get So Scratched into Our Souls

[Preface: I guess with me lately, it's only music and science as blog post topics. It's what's keeping me together through law school. Trust me, music and science are by far the best, most interesting things I have going for me right now. You don't want posts on, say the implied obligation of good faith, or res ipsa loquiter or interpleader, do you? Didn't think so. Oh yeah, I get kind of emo in this post too. Sorry. Blame Elliot Smith. ]

One thing law school has given me is the chance to indulge in my music collection -- it's good study music! A recurring theme, when I read with my ipod on, is that my favorite albums inevitably conjure up stirring memories surrounding experiences I've had that are somehow associated with the music. I think that listening to music, like certain smells, are especially connected to memories; not always specific, sometimes just flashes of emotion.

For instance:
This song by the Dirty Projectors, reminds me of walking up to my house in DC. It's summertime and I'm really happy. I can see the railing on the front steps, wrought iron and painted white and if you leaned on it, it shed paint specks with reckless abandon. The sidewalk running in front of the steps was old brick, with sporadic upheavals making it look wavy and lived-in. I miss DC and the friends I made there...

Yes, that is Billy Corgan, and yes, this is his short-lived post-Smashing Pumpkins-star-vehicle Zwan. I was obsessed with this CD in high school, specifically junior year. I can remember playing this song in my '96 Mercury Mystique while driving down the cloverleaf from 494W to Highway 100. Weird, I know...

This is the prettiest, most haunting song off of one of my favorite albums of all time. Jeff Mangum, through his band Neutral Milk Hotel captured something crazy in this album, of which this track is the title song. He wrote the album after reading the Diary of Anne Frank (hence the fan-video montage) and never recorded another album. He didn't have to. I listened to this album while driving to and from college full blast so many times, the only thing that comes to mind is the swirling snow ever-present in the UP.

Every night after dinner as a kid, my dad, sister, and I would trek down to the basement, choose from either a Tom Petty or (most often) Bruce Springsteen tape, throw it in the boom box, and dance. Whenever "Dancing in the Dark" came on, we literal-minded youngsters would dim the lights and go crazy. Writing this now, I feel full of mom's meatloaf and the euphoria of being young, not knowing that I didn't have a care in the world, but not caring.

Songs are powerful devices. We all have songs that, as the Hold Steady so aptly say, get scratched into our souls. Some conjure odd, disjointed snippets of memory, others much more. But each means something, and that's all that matters.

Lipstick on a pig; or why the debate on teaching "Intelligent" Design in our schools is hurting our chances

I've written posts on science before (here) so I'll spare the gory details regarding my infatuation. But some things always get me worked up. Creationism/intelligent design is one of them. And yes, I know that some people pay lip service and differentiate creationism and intelligent design by the absence (intentional) of mentioning G-O-D in intelligent design discussion. But I see it for what it really is, just a gussied-up "science-y" version of creationism. And it's hurting our chances as a country for future success.

I'm going to make the argument that the fact that over 40% of Americans believe in creationism as a valid explanation for the origins of life and the fact that, at least in some parts of the country, it is taught side-by-side with evolution, as persuasive evidence that we are, to put it succinctly, screwed. Compare that to the percentage of Americans who believe in Darwinian Natural Selection (around 20%) and we've got a big problem.

The problem is that a basic understanding of science requires at least a preference for Darwinian evolution -- it is the only explanation grounded in true science. Pro-ID groups use "science" and "the scientific method" but only as misleading propaganda. Their theory boils down to this: since we can't explain it, and it looks pretty complex, then it must be designed by an intelligent being, because hell, if we can't explain it, who can? It relies on the circular argument rooted in a religious mentality that it's only us (humans) and an intelligent being (god) that can have any bearing on the natural world if we can't explain a particularly vexing natural system. I think its a rather arrogant way of viewing the world -- holding a candle to real science up to the point where it ceases explaining a certain topic and then ascribing the rest to an intelligent being, supposedly smarter than us humans.

It's an entirely modern construct as well. Where science is the gradual unlocking of the secrets of the universe, intelligent design is just another way for scientific skeptics to cling to a theory which still places humans at the top of the worldly intellectual food chain. The theory can never advance, it is left to being a placeholder for the areas where science still seeks answers. So, science will continue to unravel the mysteries of our natural world while intelligent design, creationism, or some other construct will attempt to (temporarily) fill increasingly small voids in our knowledge.

But, while it still has a firm grasp on the American public's mind, it can't be ignored -- like the kid you really don't want to talk to at school because, well, he's just a bit "off", but who follows you around regardless... yeah, creationism is that kid. Proponents argue that it is "scientific" to ask questions and be skeptics regarding the established theories in science. OF COURSE IT IS!! They are missing the point. Science, specifically evolution, is not a static subject. There is a reason why Darwin's "Origin of Species" is not the text book in evolutionary biology, nor Newton's "Principia Mathematica" in physics class -- not because they are wrong, but because the body of knowledge surrounding these important scientific foundational works has so drastically increased that we need updated text to explain the current knowledge. If skepticism wasn't part of science, well then it wouldn't be science.

But the underlying, insidious bedfellow (I love that word) to a belief in creationism, or at least a complicity towards having it taught in our schools (playing it off as relatively harmless) is that it teaches young people in our country to be distrustful of science. A distrust of science leads to a distrust of rational information and thought and skews towards "leaps of faith" behavior that ignores rationality. I remember seeing a plaque from a creationism museum that had two figures, one of science, with a rational "line of thought" bouncing from one idea to the next before arriving at an end, the essence of science. The next figure was a straight line from the start to the end; the faith line. I don't discount the power of faith or religion. Religion and science are not mutually exclusive. But religious or non-scientific ventures into the realm of science should be kept out of the science classroom. There are hardly enough resources to competently evaluate the valid scientific theories!

Raising a country or, worse, existing as a country where the lion's share of citizens mistrust science is not a country poised for a promising future. Our future as a human population hinges upon our ability as a nation to once again become leaders, inventing the technologies that will be crucial our advancement. America still has the best and the brightest; our universities really are the gold standard across the world. But to have a successful country in the future will require a general public apt to get behind the innovators. To market their inventions, write about their advances, and advocate for their funding. This can't happen with creationism in our schools. To be able to understand the problems of the future (and present -- climate change, biotechnology, healthcare, etc.) we need a public equipped with the tools to understand these complex challenges.

This highlights the general need for more education funding for the sciences, but it bespeaks of the fundamental need for science education to be unencumbered by non-science alternate theories which only muddle and confuse and turn people off of science. The future should not be decided by people who are self-professed "I'm not a science person" people, but of a public who enjoys a basic literacy of science and the origins of life.

[Edit: see the op-eds of two figureheads of the conservative movement, Charles Krauthammer and George F. Will. Both are egregiously wrong on a lot of issues, but not this one. Synopsis: don't go there, conservatives.]

Muzak I'm listening to

People always (ok, almost never) ask me what music I'm listening to. I never know what to say! I usually sputter and mutter incomprehensibly and finally just tell them, "Bruce "The Boss" Springsteen." I do air quotes around "The Boss" too, since I don't want to invite confusion to someone's real boss! Whoever asked then just kind of shrugs and walks away. But now that I've had time to "think on it," here are a few bands that have caught my fancy recently. Feel free to disagree or make fun of me. And it seems like everyone else but me is a fan of Owl City. And I thought I liked one-trick ponies who have a dated sound! (see: The Pains of Being Pure at Heart)

Neon Indian

These guys are great! They sound hazy and lazy and crazy. They sing mostly about drugs and their music sounds like it. I guess they get labeled as "Glo-Fi" or "Chillwave" or any number of blogger-inspired tags. I think they should just get labeled "fun" and be done with it. Nice.

The Pains of Being Pure at Heart


Ok, ok, so if you're like me, at first, you're like, who are these Belle and Sebastian / Camera Obscura wannabees? Take your dumb 8mm footage of your dumb hipster friends and get out of my face! But unlike the aforementioned bands, or Morrissey/The Field Mice/Heavenly/other twee, emo bands before them, the Pains of Being Pure at Heart actually sound like they're kind of having fun. I guess for cardigan-wearing hipsters, that's as good as it gets. But I like it. And they have a song called "This Love is Fucking Right!" so there. They like to have fun. It's just more of a reserved, hipster, cross-legged-hipster-cigarette-vintage tee fun.

Annie

Woweewowwow, I love Annie. She's an indie/Norwegian/DJ Sasha Fierce. This song is old, I think I got it sometime around 2004 but she has a new album coming out soon and from listening to it, it's more bubblegum pop. Which is a good thing! This video is kind of dumb, but you can never have too many Annies prancing around.

The Dirty Projectors

This video sure has a lot of Middle Earth quality to it, but I assure you, this band will make you wish that Frodo could come back from living with Bilbo and the Elves so he could hear this! Ok, so I've just alienated 3 of the 5 people who read this blog, but my love of LOTR and this band is simply too much to suppress. I've heard this band and especially the main singer (who doesn't sing on this) is just too grating, the kind of band you like just to name-drop, but their last album, Bitte Orca, was all around good. They play next week about 1/4 miles from the law school. Sadly, at the futon store that doubles as a daytime box office, I was informed yesterday that it was sold out. It went from the best to the worst day of my life. Seriously!

Atlas Sound

Ok, so this guy's name is Bradford Cox, he's also in the band Deerhunter. I think he's friends with everyone in the indie music scene, so a lot of them are like, let me be on your record, dude! The dude abides, and this song "Walkabout" features Noah Lennox (aka Panda Bear aka 1/3 of Animal Collective aka guy who sounds like Brian Wilson). Very bouncy, moreso than a lot of Atlas Sound's other stuff. I like bouncy.

It's late and I should sleep. But I hope this post leads you to some new tunes.

And that's why you always stretch before IM softball games....

IM softball tonight: single, homerun, triple...pulled hamstring while tagging from third. I scored, but it also felt like someone punched the back of my leg. Hard. Pain. Probably not going to run in the half marathon on Halloween. Ice and Advil are in my future. Awesome!

Seriously?!

Basic rule of life #234: It is all but impossible for an adult, especially a male, to look anything but ridiculous when wearing face paint outside of proper context like a sporting event, a costume party, or a carnival where the individual is playing a clown or other jester-like character.

Corollary to #234: in said situation, trying to play it casual, contrary to normal human experience, just makes things worse.

Example:
Driving around downtown Minneapolis today in the drizzle at around 3:30 pm (or, 4.5 hours before game time) I saw a young man crossing the street with facepaint on that ostensibly was meant to make him look ghoulish in character but really made him look quite sad. It was apparent in his body language (slouched shoulders and shifty, downcast eyes, etc.) that the face paint was not his idea. Probably the result of an overbearing mother who, in return for signing the permission slip to get out of 10th grade biology early game day, insisted that he wear the skeleton-Adrian Peterson getup. "If you're planning on going to this Vikings game with this family, young man, you will dress up for it! And don't think you're not going to be a skeleton, even if Halloween is still three weeks away, because I didn't spend $15 at Party City to look at the black and white face paint as it sits on the shelf untouched by a bratty teenage boy who is suddenly "too cool" to apply random face paint as he is paraded around downtown Minneapolis by this mother. Don't think I forgot about your "call me Barbie and I'll call you Ken" phase." [A seething, "you wouldn't dare," face ensues, followed by a slow, reluctant unscrewing of the black paint and a defiantly harsh flip of the vanity mirror switch.] But nonetheless, this example proves that face paint outside of the proper context (and you could really put down a good argument that there is really no "proper" context for face paint on adults) looks simply ridiculous. A related example of this phenomenon of out-of-context absurdity occurs whenever a cyclist abandons his/her bike while still wearing spandex bike gear. Bike + biker = clothes ok (again, the argument could be made that under no circumstances should some people be in form fitting clothes). Biker - bike = clothes NOT ok.

Enough sitting around. I need to get up and run.

The biggest problem with law school is that it's needy. Every spare moment, you can feel its pull, beckoning you, making you feel guilty about not reading that next case or doing another brief. You can either succumb to this and feel pressured to go the extra mile -- the mantra "reach for the moon, because even if you fall short, you'll be among the stars" running through your head. [NOTE: I have such a major problem with this mantra. The premise is so fundamentally flawed. It's as if we're telling kids or corporate luncheon attendees -- whomever the typical audience for this saying is -- hey, underachiever, here's a cute little jingle, don't mind that it ignores the basic layout of the physical world; if you try hard enough you can be both burned out and ignorant of science! "Reach for the stars, because even if you fall short, you'll still be somewhere around the moon, or perhaps that middle distance between our star, the Sun, and the star you're trying to reach, some few million light years away, but either way, hey -- you gave it your best shot!" doesn't have that same pithiness but at least it gets the science right. See, America, this is why our children are failing out of math and science. This is why a mind-boggling, jaw-dropping number of Americans think humans walked with the dinosaurs (the History Channel series "Walking with the Dinosaurs" doesn't do a whole lot to clear this up, but at least there aren't little computer generated people walking with the Triceratops and early mammals). It's hard to do well in life if you're being encouraged by faulty science. Ok, enough rant.]

Or, you can consciously make an effort to take a break from the stress of school and go for a run. It's fall and my favorite time of year to get outside and jog by the river. The leaves are turning and sometimes when you are rushing through a tunnel of trees, bent forward with golden limbs and showering you with soon to be detritus, it feels like flight. This adjustment period to school has made my running so south. But that is soon to change.

The Twin Cities Marathon is tomorrow and, while I am not obviously running, I am declaring right now my intention to run it next year. I am also going to run Grandma's Half in June. There, I said it. Hold me to it.

I used to be a decent runner. Never fast, but not slow -- pretty good for a reformed baseball player/husky child. In 2006, I ran Grandma's Half in 1 hour 43 minutes. Now, I doubt I could make it in under two. I used to run all the time and eat Chipotle with careless abandon while weighing somewhere in the low-160's. Now, I don't run too often but still eat Chipotle like it's going out of style and I'm in the 180 range. Now, if that was LSAT score, thanks, I'll take it. Harvard, here I come! But it's not, and for that reason I must run.

Don't take this as anything but my personal desire to get back into shape and have fun running again. I'm not going on the Atkins diet nor do I plan on running 20 miles a day in this quest. I just don't want to be the guy who elicits surprise when he tells people he's a runner. "Oh, really? You run? Huh. [uncomfortable silence/stifled laugh]" Yeah, not going to be me...And please do hold me to it -- when you see me eyeing that third piece of pizza, poke my belly and give me a disapproving shake of the head or finger or both. I'll get the point. I'll try to update semi-regularly throughout the year.

Here's my first update: I'm planning on running a Halloween Half. I am picturing this as a horrible re-introduction to running races, but it will be good to look back and say, wow, I've come a long way since October 2009 in October 2010.

Stay tuned...

Proof.

Well, September has come and gone and I'm still alive and in law school. And I love it.

[Preface (although this really isn't a preface, is it? I've already begun the post. It's not pre-anything. Well, except for that weird middle part and, yeah, the end. But maybe "editior's note" would be a more appropriate title to this section? I don't care and I'm sure you don't either.): so I'm back posting tonight since I missed my bus that would have taken me to the bar to drink with my law school friends. So, instead of doing something social, I decided to do the most anti-social thing possible: blog alone in my room at midnight. The middle and majority of this post is really just rambling, so if you are pressed for time but still want to hear how my life at law school is going, just disregard the parts of this post enclosed in carrots, "<[blah, blah]>." I won't be offended if you skip to the bottom. But this is just proof that I'm alive and well. And still a little weird.]

<>

So in light of all this, yeah, law school still manages to be the most difficult thing I've ever done. But unlike eating a shitty burrito, it's also the most rewarding.

Ed. So this is a little hint for all you bloggers out there: if you put a portion of text in these things
"<>" whatever gets put in between is erased when you publish the post. A blogger black hole. Take, for instance, the last little comment about eating a bad burrito. You might have gotten this allusion if the point it was alluding to wasn't deleted when I pressed "publish post". You might have chuckled or even chortled when you read it, shaking your head as you remembered the funny, fantastical story I had just spun for your enjoyment. Well, maybe my rambling about wearing black jeans and a "Save the Tigers" long sleeved shirt and having a hissy fit in Chipotle wasn't fit for this blog that like 3 people read anyway. But I thought it was funny. Waay funnier than <>.

Ed. (2) Ok, this post just sucks. I'll try to redeem myself soon.