Visiting History: Antietam 1862

by Conroy

Burnside Bridge over Antietam Creek

This past weekend I went kayaking on the Potomac River with a couple of friends. We put into the river several miles north of Harpers Ferry, West Virginia, at a location heavy with history. Just to the north of where we started, in the area around Sharpsburg, Maryland, is Antietam National Battlefield. In September 1862, this was the scene of the bloodiest day of the American Civil War, and likely, in all of American history. The armies of the North and South suffered nearly 23,000 casualties, including 3,700 men killed, in what became one of the major turning points, but also missed opportunities, of the Civil War.

As these facts suggest, Antietam is more than a name on a map or event obscured by the many years that have passed. As a student of American history, I think it's critical to be aware of an consider places like Antietam. The Civil War was both the most important and most horrible calamity to befall the American nation. As with all history, we must understand what went before and the lessons of those events. We must remember the men who fought and fell on that ground.

---

Background
As my friends and I floated down the Potomac, we passed the mouth of Antietam Creek. Had we paddled our kayaks up the stream (which in reality you can't do very far because of several sets of rapids) we would have passed under Burnside Bridge, one of the iconic landmarks of the battle and war. Living so close to this battlefield, I've toured the area before (from land); and a view of the landscape helps one understand just why the battle was so disjointed, confused, and tactically indecisive. A close view also helps one visualize the mass of men thrown together in battle. The entire battlefield is marked by monuments, large and small, of the various units that comprised the armies. These landmarks were commissioned and installed at a time when the Civil War was still a living memory and veterans were still alive to recount the events.

Speeding and its Discontents

by Conroy

[Note: John Fowles wrote that "all cynicism masks a failure to cope." This is likely true, and perhaps you'll recognize that sentiment in this post, but what follows does have basis in reality.]

Speed kills, or so the saying goes. Speeding might be dangerous, but one thing is for certain, driving faster than the posted speed limit can get you a citation, fine, and if egregious enough, affect your license and insurance. As a basic idea this works, travel too fast, unsafe for a given road, and you'll be penalized. Like other law enforcement activities, speed enforcement is intended to protect other drivers, pedestrians, and the public at large from dangerous behavior. That's the theory anyway, the reality is something different.


Attitudes about speeding vary greatly, but I like the old George Carlin joke:

"Have you ever noticed that anybody driving slower than you is an idiot, and anyone going faster than you is a maniac?"

So true. For full disclosure, I'm a "maniac" not an "idiot", but still, based on my observations how many "idiots" are actually traveling below the speed limit? Not many. This reality has always bothered me and I have two major objections to speed limits and enforcement: (1) speed limits are set and apply equally to any driver on the road irrespective of their vehicle, experience, or outside conditions, and (2) speed enforcement, in real life, is sporadic and arbitrary. I'm not the only one to hold these objections, and I think this perspective is valid enough to call into question the standard approaches to speed enforcement.

Speed Limits

Let's consider speed limits first. As a transportation engineer, I'm an expert on road design, so let me share a few insights on how speed limits are determined. First, roads are designed based on their context (rural, urban, flat, hilly), classification (freeway, arterial, local road, etc.), and an associated "design speed". This means the various characteristics of a road, curves (horizontal and vertical), cross slope, lane widths, roadside features, etc. are set based on idealized vehicle characteristics and driver behavior at that speed. As a general rule, it is accepted by traffic engineers that drivers will travel over a road at the speed at which they are comfortable. The wider, straighter, flatter the road, the faster drivers will travel. The measured 85th percentile speed of all vehicles is often used to derive this comfortable operating speed. In practice, a very small percentage of drivers will actually travel at an unsafe speed for the design of the road. Speed limits are supposed to be set based on the design speed. But often for political reasons speed limits are set artificially low. Think of how you frequently see speed limits drop by 10 mph just as you enter the jurisdiction of a small town. That's one problem.

The Best Picture

by Conroy

Ask most movie fans and they're likely to tell you their pick, or short list of picks, for the best movie of all time. As a movie fan, I'm no different, but until recently I hadn't narrowed my list down to one film. Now I have, but before I reveal what it is, let's consider some more authoritative opinions.

Perhaps the most respected list is that compiled once per decade by Sight and Sound Magazine. It's two top ten lists actually, one developed from the individual rankings of nearly 150 critics and academics the other from the individual lists of over 100 directors. The latest lists are from back in 2002 (a new list should be released next year). Not surprisingly, Citizen Kane ranks number 1 on both lists (click here for the critic's and director's lists). Orson Welles' masterpiece is the movie most often mentioned as the greatest of all time. After 70 years, it still holds up; seeming fresh and inventive. It's not my pick for the best movie though. The Godfather, The Godfather, Part II, Vertigo, 8 1/2, and La Regle de jeu are the other films that are included on both lists. I haven't seen the last two (one by Fellini and the other Renoir), but the other three are definite classics, and are high on my ranking, but not in the top spot.

The American Film Institute released a list of the Top 100 films in 1998 and then updated the list in 2008. Again, Citizen Kane ranks number 1 followed by The Godfather, Casablanca, and Raging Bull. I like Casablanca and love Raging Bull, probably Martin Scorsese's finest film and certainly his best directing performance. The internet movie database (IMDB), compiles a list of the Top 250 films based on user's individual film ratings. The number 1 ranking is held by The Shawshank Redemption followed by The Godfather, The Godfather, Part II, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, and Pulp Fiction. Personally I like The Shawshank Redemption but certainly not as the best movie of all time; Pulp Fiction is great. Still, none of these are my pick.

Other films that rank high on various lists or are frequently mentioned as one of the best of all time include, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Battleship Potemkin, Dr. Strangelove, Gone With the Wind, Lawrence of Arabia, Rashomon, Schindler's List, Seven Samurai, Singin' in the Rain, and The Wizard of Oz.

Now ask me and I'll tell you that I'm a big fan of Francis Ford Coppola's first two Godfather movies, Citizen Kane is great, Lawrence of Arabia is an amazing viewing experience, Raging Bull has some of the best editing moments of any film, Roman Polaski's Chinatown is pitch-perfect, and Terrence Malick's Days of Heaven is haunting. These any many more movies rank high on my list, but it's another that takes my top spot.

Still the Best

by Conroy

A familiar final pair -- and result

The French Open results prove that you must be wary of doubting great champions as Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer once again grabbed the limelight in Paris.

---

When I last wrote about tennis, Novak Djokovic had just beaten Rafael Nadal in the finals of Indian Wells to win his third straight tournament and 20^th straight match. I posed the question of whether this would be merely a career run or the beginning of a major shift at the top of the game. Well in the weeks and then months after, Djokovic kept on winning, beating Nadal in a thrilling three-set final in Miami, transitioning smoothly to clay to capture his “home” tournament in Belgrade, and then most impressively, beating Nadal twice on clay in the finals of Madrid and Rome – both times in straight sets. By then Djokovic had the world’s attention, his match winning streak was extended to 39 and he was 37-0 to start 2011, just five wins shy of tying the record set by John McEnroe in 1984.

When the French Open (or Roland Garros as the French call it) started Djokovic stood alongside Nadal, the five time Roland Garros champion, as the favorite. A win (or finals birth) or a Nadal loss, and he would take over the number 1 ranking from the Spaniard. Perhaps for the first time since his winning streak started, he had a lot to lose. He didn’t let it affect him, navigating a tricky draw, including a very game Juan Martin del Potro in the third round, to work his way convincingly to the quarterfinals. Then he got a free pass and four days off when his quarterfinals opponent, Fabio Fognnini, withdrew due to injury. As he took the court for the second semi-final, his winning streak stood at 43 matches (41-0 in 2011). He was one win away from a much anticipated final against Nadal; and a pivotal moment for both men. There was only one problem, his semi-final opponent was the greatest grand slam player in history.

Hidden Success

by Conroy

Bill Gates - an example of traditional success

I'd like to talk about an insight I had about the nature of success. Traditionally, we think of success as the fulfillment of some goal in the immediate sense or achievement of a desired social status in the broader context. We assign objective measures like wealth, fame, professional achievement. If I asked you to name the most successful people in the world, who would flash into your mind? President Obama, Bill Gates, and Oprah Winfrey seem like good examples. Why pick these people? Their immense public achievements; they have reached a level of esteem, fame, wealth, and professional achievement that we find admirable. Looking at our own lives we see those around us with the high-paying jobs, those with important professional responsibilities, those with impressive material possessions, those that we respect for their competence, intelligence, and charisma. Surely these are measures of success.

But what else makes up "success"?

I would suggest there are less obvious measures that are of profound value. I wrote about this recently, but how about the happy marriage?  Happy is the key and hard to measure, but I would say that a happy marriage not only improves the lives of husband and wife, but provides a substantial foundation for the well-being of that couple's children. If one of society's greatest challenges is getting young people through adolescence ready to join the "real" world, then what better start than under a happy marriage? And in that same vein, how about being a good parent? Providing the care, love, and guidance that can help children become well-adjusted adults. Someone once told me that the most important job a person will ever have is being a parent. That's not a hollow statement, we all know children whose lives as been damaged, sometimes irrevocably, from neglectful parenting.

Good parenting - a hidden success

How about the value of charity? Giving one's time, money, effort to others, especially others in need, must improve our world. Isn't responsible altruism a mark of success? More broadly, charity in its widest context, that of a loving kindness toward others, was described by Saint Paul as the greatest of all virtues. Certainly anyone who can embody even a portion of this virtue is a success. It sounds simple, but how many people do you know who can follow Henry James’ dictum: “three things in human life are important: the first is to be kind; the second is to be kind; and the third is to be kind”?

How about being a loyal and dependable friend? Maintaining long-standing relationships, being there for others in good times and bad?

Perhaps you could term these as "selfless" measures of success and the more traditional forms noted above as "selfish" measures of success.

I believe an evolved individual must be both selfish and selfless; responsible to yourself and to others around you. As I’ve written, the great achievements in human history and the upward arc of humanity are the result of the selfish impulse, measured in selfish success. This must be so. But as throughout history we have slowly and painfully learned to function as a community, and are still struggling, surely we must recognize the vital importance of selfless acts, measured in selfless success.

Who do you know that is a selfless success? I count myself fortunate to know many successes of this type: my parents, my girlfriend, many of my friends. I’m a better person for it, and hopefully I can learn from their example.

---

In Woody Allen’s excellent movie Crimes and Misdemeanors, there is a character of a sleazy and shallow television executive played by Alan Alda. He’s a bad human being, but he’s been immensely successful in his career. In the end he wins the girl, wealth, and the esteem of those around him. He epitomizes that reality that our society seems to value selfish success over all other behavior. We lavish attention on celebrities, athletes, business leaders, and politicians. These people gain fame and wealth, are idolized and too often viewed as role models and even “heroes”.

If I asked you to pick one form of success for yourself, selfish or selfless, which would it be?

Lost in the Wild

by Conroy

Rescue helicopter in action

A couple of days ago my girlfriend and I decided to take advantage of the holiday weekend and warm weather with a long hike. I chose a well-regarded but lightly trafficked trail (according to the on-line guide) on the western portion of Liberty Reservoir. All was well until my usually reliable sense of direction failed me and I picked a wrong fork, leading us on a circuitous and incorrect loop. 40 minutes later, and much to my girlfriend's consternation, we ended up back at the same fork. At least we didn't have to backtrack, or so I optimistically noted. Further on, and with wet feet after an improvised stream crossing, we faced another choice, go straight or turn right. I chose straight - wrong again - and we ended up staring across 200 yards of water at the bridge where our car was parked. Rather than backtrack 20 minutes up a steep hill to the other path, I suggested we bushwhack around the reservoir and pick up the trail nearer the end. My girlfriend had moved on from irritated to miserable and I faced a mutiny. We backtracked, and the rest of the decisions on the hike were made more democratically. We (or I) were saved from any other wrong turns by following two hikers, clearly familiar with the correct path, that we spotted about a hundred yards ahead of us on the trail.

What should have been a two-and-a-half hour hike lasted closer to four hours. We had wet feet and I had an angry girlfriend, but we made it out and my mistakes were pretty quickly forgiven (I think). Fortunately, we were hiking in suburban Baltimore, and we were never in any danger. My cell phone had coverage, and we were never more than a mile from houses and roads. Still, I had silly visions of us lost, going in circles, being trapped by darkness. These thoughts led me to ponder something that has bugged me for years: people getting lost and rescued from the wild.

---

You hear stories in the news about hikers being rescued after getting lost, climbers never found after long searches, or sailors rescued from adrift sailboats. These stories get plenty of coverage because of the dramatic aspect of people lost and time running out for a successful rescue. The adventure and tension draws people in. However, should these types of search-and-rescue missions even be launched? At times I've felt, perhaps hardheartedly, no. 

Say it Aint So

by Conroy

Armstrong celebrating 7 Tour victories - were they all legitimate?

Lance Armstrong is one of the most successful athletes in history. After recovering from near fatal testicular cancer, he won the Tour de France, by far the most visible and prestigious (and rigorous) cycling stage race, a record seven times in consecutive years from 1999 through 2005. In the process, he rose to international fame, and became a hero and inspiration to many, including this blogger. Along with his rising fame came an impressive growth in the Lance Armstrong Foundation, which has raised awareness for cancer, provided support for survivors, and raised more than $300 million for cancer research. This impressive legacy may soon be severely tarnished.

As reported this past week in several articles and tonight on the weekly news show 60 Minutes, yet another series of accusations has been leveled at Armstrong by one of his former teammates. Tyler Hamilton claims that Armstrong cheated, doped in cycling lingo, by using performance enhancing drugs (PEDs) to win at least some of his "Tours". Armstrong has denied these claims. Hamilton's accusations are just the latest in a long list.

Almost from the conclusion of his first Tour victory in 1999, there were whispers that Armstrong's performance was "unnatural". After all, he was less than two years removed from intensive cancer treatments, including chemotherapy. When he returned he was physically different, thinner but an immensely strong climber and a powerful time trial-er. Some, especially among the cycling community in France, thought the story was too good to be true. Through his following Tour wins, the suspicions continued. Armstrong worked with Italian trainer Michele Ferrari through 2004, who was connected to distributing banned substances to riders. Armstrong denied any knowledge of these activities. After his final Tour victory in 2005, allegations were circulated that frozen "B" samples of urine from the 1999 Tour, supposedly matching Armstrong's rider code, tested positive for the EPO, which ups red blood cell production (and therefore increases aerobic performance). Questions over the chain of custody in the intervening years and the fact that "B" samples are meaningless without the corresponding "A" samples, which were disposed of after 1999, lessened the impact of these allegations.

Where to Travel Next?

by Conroy

The breathtaking Amalfi Coast of Italy

With summer almost here, my girlfriend and I are discussing vacation options. In addition to a few near-by short-term trips already planned, we both want to go somewhere far away and new to us. That led me to thinking more constructively about all of the places that I want to go. I’ve thought about these vacations before, some many times, but never actually put them down in writing. And let’s be honest, with the breadth of places that I want to visit and the scope of some of the trips, it’s going to take a well-thought-through plan to make it happen. I’m not fortunate enough to have an unlimited travel budget or endless vacation days, so I have to be smart in prioritizing my list and combining destinations if possible. 

I’m sure this will be an evolving process, but the first step is to list where I want to go and what I want to see. Below is that list, with destinations grouped into potential one to two-week vacations. For completeness I’ve also listed the places that I’ve already visited. After all, you can’t know where to go next unless you understand where you’ve been. Also, the list is of places and not events. I’m sure it would be unique to say, go to the Tour de France, but I don’t think I’d travel for that purpose alone.

Travel and Adventure

A quick aside. I know many people who are indifferent to travel, or at least travel to distant or foreign destinations. Not me. I find the experience of big vacations to be a great adventure. Thinking about vacations is enjoyable, the planning and anticipation leading up to the trip even more fun, and actually going is great.

If you feel the same way, do you ever ask yourself why traveling is so exhilarating? I can give two reasons. First, the world is big and fascinating (I hope readers of this blog know this perspective of mine by now). I read so much in books, magazines, and other writings about the world’s histories and cultures. I see places and events in television, films, and photographs. This stimulates my interest. I want to take the next step and travel to what I read about and see in media; to be surrounded by a new place. On previous vacations I’ve found myself giddy with excitement when I first arrive, so eager to start exploring.

The Cobb at Lyme Regis with the Undercliff in the background

A good example: several years ago I vacationed in London but made a special point to take a side trip to Lyme Regis, a small town in Dorset on the English Channel coast. Why go there? Well it was the setting of one of my favorite novels, The French Lieutenant’s Woman, and home to book’s author, the great John Fowles. The book and writer drew me in; I wanted to see it for myself. I went to Fowles’ house – this was a year before his death – though he didn’t like visitors so I merely strolled by, walked out onto the Cobb that features prominently in the 1981 film adaptation, and meandered back in the Undercliff wooded preserve above the town where much of the critical action takes place. It was a very worthwhile and enjoyable trip and subsequent readings of the novel have been enhanced as a result.

The second reason, and harder to articulate, is what I term the places the haunt me. I use the term in the context of being captivated not scarred. For whatever reason, some places captured my imagination in a deep and visceral way when I was young. There’s more to this than just travel, and I’ll write broadly about what I mean in a future post, but a good example is Australia. Even since I was very young I wanted to go down under. I did in 2006, and Sydney, Uluru, the Great Barrier Reef, the landscapes, and people were all that I thought they would be.

Where are the places you would like to visit and why? What would you like to see and experience in person? What places “haunt” you?

Hope and Disappointment

by Conroy

Forgive me some philosophical musings, but a couple of recent events have rekindled a line of thinking.

[Note an important caveat, the following post is based mostly on my thoughts and observations, not from my experience. This is a critical distinction.]

Ten days ago, to modest fanfare, Prince William, the future King of England, married Kate Middleton. Yesterday, another celebrity couple's marriage all but ended when Arnold Schwarzenegger and Maria Shriver announced their separation. They have been married for 25 years.

On reading the news today, I couldn't help but contrast these two marriages because it brings up a central dilemma that has dominated my adult thinking: how can you be sure that a marriage will succeed? I've never been married, so I can't attempt to answer that question. And I won't write about what I don't know. Instead, think about all the hoopla surrounding the Royal Wedding.

I'm sure much of the attention in Britain and the rest of the world is the result of the princess/fairy tale nature of this type of (rare) wedding, but that aside, in many ways this event differs only in scale from most other weddings. After all, weddings are accompanied by large celebrations. Perhaps the largest celebrations the bride and groom will ever experience. I see weddings as an occasion for celebration because the wedding, representing the marriage, is a great symbol of hope. As I've written before, hope is that intrinsic human ability to see better for the future. Marriage at it's core is about hope. The belief that you have found lasting love, happiness, and companionship in someone else. That there is someone you can share your life with. That your marriage will succeed.

Divorce is the opposite; a disappointment, indeed the greatest of disappointments.The realization that love, happiness, companionship do not last forever. I choose my words carefully here, divorce isn't the greatest tragedy, worse things can happen, the death of a loved one for instance, but I doubt anything can ever be as disappointing.

I find it deeply unsettling that such antithetical perspectives, the highest hope and the deepest disappointment, are so intimately attached to marriage. Most of the people we know are, have been, or will be married at some point. And we all know marriages that have failed. What does this teach us? What guarantees are there that a happy wedding day won't lead to a discouraging split? Surely, relationships are doomed without dedication, work, loyalty, trust, and many other similar behaviors and attitudes. But is that enough?

By most estimates,  somewhere between 40% and half of American marriages end in divorce. One could reasonably assume that a sizable proportion (10-20%?) of those marriages that don't end in divorce would be described by one or both spouses as unsatisfying for one reason or another. So half or more of marriages fail. That's a depressing statistic.

---

Nevertheless, I'll get married. I have hope that marriage can succeed (I only have to look to my parents for the finest exemplar of marital achievement). The same hope that captivated the world watching William and Kate. Disappointments like divorce are part of life, but they can't, and more accurately, they won't stop us from reaching for the better.

A Long Time Coming

by Conroy

On Sunday, May 1, 2011, Osama bin Laden, terrorist and mass murderer, was killed in a targeted raid by American Special Forces at a compound near Abbottabad, Pakistan. To quote President Obama, "justice was done." It was, and it was a long time coming.

The death of bin Laden at the hands of American soldiers is a huge event, and in the past two days the coverage has been expansive. There will undoubtedly be exhaustive talk in the days and weeks ahead about the affects on Al Qaeda, the larger fight against terror, reactions in the Middle East and the rest of the world. I'm not a foreign affairs expert, and I won't pretend to have any special insights into what this event means, but I do feel compelled to share some of my initial thoughts:

•  America has waited almost ten years for this result. I remember clearly thinking in the weeks, months, and then years after 9/11 that bin Laden must surely be found and brought to justice. But so very frustratingly, he wasn't. When the news broke on Sunday I was shocked. After all this time the thought of finding bin Laden, let alone swiftly eliminating him, had faded from my mind. I doubt my reaction was unique. I was gratified but not overjoyed by the news. Again, I doubt my reaction was unique.

• I'm glad that bin Laden was killed outright in this operation. I hate the thought of a long public trial where bin Laden may have been afforded a venue to preach to his followers and continue his "holy war" against the United States and the Western World. Further, I'm glad his body was buried at sea, leaving no martyr's grave site.

• As always with shadowy missions like this, there has been doubt or skepticism expressed by some about the authenticity of bin Laden's death. Some want more proof than has so far been provided. Perhaps additional documentation will become available, but there is no doubt that the operation and results are authentic and have been thoroughly verified.

• Isn't truth more remarkable than fiction? This operation was something out of a movie, a long-term CIA intelligence mission resulting a highly precise operation against the world's most wanted man carried out by an ultra elite unit of special forces soldiers. The culminating events followed in real-time by high ranking military and civilian leaders half-a-world away. This story must be made into a movie. I hope that if it is, the filmmakers stick to the facts; I guarantee it would make for fascinating viewing.

• I find it highly suspicious that our "allies" in Pakistan were entirely unaware of the bin Laden living in a large mansion, in a sizable city, in the immediate vicinity of the Pakistan Military Academy, and only 30 miles from that nation's capital, Islamabad. I doubt my suspicions are unfounded.

• Someone will take over the leadership of Al Qaeda. Perhaps that person, or persons, will be a capable, motivated leader. I hope not. I hope that Al Qaeda will prove to be irrevocably undermined by the demise of bin Laden. I hope dispatching the most visible face of international terrorism will dampen the energy that fuels the hatred, violence, and destruction that the civilized world despises. I hope this is another in a long series of successes in the War on Terror.

One Million Steps

by Conroy

I'm declaring my intention to take 1,000,000 steps over the next 100 days. That's an average of 10,000 steps per day, which is just under five miles of walking or more than eight miles of running (your running stride is longer than you walking stride). This is a daunting challenge. To achieve it I'll have to cover well over 500 miles on foot, more than 35 miles per week. Why do this? Well before I explain that, let's consider personal fitness.

Fitness is Work

It seems every other television commercial and website advertisement has something to do with fitness. Whether that be dieting, weight loss techniques, or some novel exercise regime. Perhaps in an America obsessed with weight, this is natural. Obesity is an epidemic problem in the United States, with over 74% of adults being classified as overweight - easily the highest percentage of any Western nation. The increase in obesity, in America and other developed nations, is a result of numerous behaviors, from less active lifestyles to increased caloric intake. Regardless of the cause, obesity is a major public health concern. It is my adamant belief that this doesn't need to be so.

There’s an awful lot of public discourse about how to treat obesity. You can read stories about city councils banning trans-fats from restaurants to school boards dictating allowed foods for school lunches. These approaches won’t make one bit of difference. No, reducing obesity and improving physical fitness, like all major personal changes, comes from within each individual.

With diligence I think most people can adopt a lifestyle that leads to a manageable healthy weight and a strong, fit body. I'm not a dietitian or personal trainer, but I have set physical fitness as a personal priority and I've gained a few insights over the years.

Bad Cover Version

by Conroy

No one has ever improved on a Beatles original

I’m issuing a challenge to readers. Find one example of a cover of a Beatles song that is better than the Fab Four’s original. I am confident you will not succeed. But if you think you find one, send me the example (with Youtube or other links if possible) and I will recognize you on this blog.

The culture of contemporary music, more so than any other art, embraces imitation. Musicians regularly perform the songs of other musicians. In fact, a generation or more ago, it was very common for several artists to cover the same song. There are many examples of the cover version of a song being far more popular than the original. For example, Rod Stewart had a big hit with “The First Cut is the Deepest”, certainly more than Cat Stevens did with the original. Some songs are hits in both the original and cover versions. Creedence Clearwater Revival had a hit with “Proud Mary”, but the cover by Tina Turner was probably even more successful.

The fact that covering other musician's work is common in music provides us with an opportunity to directly compare artists, something rare in art. Listening to all these covers has led me to a conclusion: the better artist will almost always perform the better version of a song. This is why I issued the challenge about the Beatles. After all, if they are the best band of modern music, and that seems to be the general critical and popular consensus (one this blogger shares), then their version of a song should be better than anyone else's version of the same song. Fortunately, when it comes to the Beatles we can test my assertion. They covered a lot of songs in their early period and they have been covered continuously since they started recording music.

Most people have heard “Twist and Shout”, the last song off the Beatles first album, Please Please Me. It’s a classic, but it is also a cover. The original was recorded by the Isley Brothers and was a hit. One listen reveals that the Beatles version vastly improves on the original with greater energy and a famous one take vocal performance from John Lennon. The examples go on, I even think the Beatles version of “Long Tall Sally” rivals Little Richard’s howling track. What about the other side, an example of a popular cover of a Beatles song that doesn’t stack up to the original?

What's in a Name

by Conroy

I promised to cover the esoteric and mundane on this blog, and I don’t know how much more mundane I can get than to discuss professional sports team names. Have you ever asked yourself how teams get their names? Today marketing is a major factor, and owners and team management spend plenty of time and money in picking a name and logo. When the Supersonics moved from Seattle to Oklahoma City they also changed their name, making sure they made just the right choice for their new home.  A long time ago names were probably chosen with a lot less scrutiny than today. In the end though, nicknames are set and it can be fun to note the peculiarities and coincidences that result. And hey, in the modern sports world of shifting rosters, changing ownership, and relocating teams, what else is a long-time fan really cheering for besides the nickname and uniforms?

Is this name as menacing as the poem that inspired it?

I’ll concentrate on the four major team sports popular in America, football (NFL), baseball (MLB), basketball (NBA), and hockey (NHL).

Cities

Baltimore’s two professional sports teams are the Ravens (NFL) and the Orioles (MLB); both bird names, a minor coincidence. The Orioles migrated to town in 1954. Before that they were the St. Louis Browns. The Ravens flew into town in 1996. Before that they were the Cleveland Browns. What are the chances of two teams with the horrible names of ‘The Browns’ relocating to Baltimore?

In Chicago there are the Bears (NFL) and the Cubs (MLB). There’s also the Bulls (NBA). Makes sense that Chicago has a stock exchange with all those bears and bulls running around. In Miami there are the Dolphins and Marlins (one a mammal and one a fish, but both majestic). Houston has the Astros (MLB) and the Rockets (NBA); they really took to the city’s space industry (the Astros are the  renamed Colt 45s). 

I like how Detroit claimed the two biggest cats, Lions (NFL) and Tigers (MLB). In Jacksonville there is the Jaguars (NFL). Unfortunately, no team is named the Leopards. Though there are two teams named the Panthers (see below).