Ranking Beatles albums

Awhile ago, Stanek wrote a post ranking the Trek films.  Around that time, I had been reading through a special Rolling Stone edition titled "The Beatles: The Ultimate Album-by-Album Guide" and I got to thinking I would do a similar idea ranking the Beatles albums.  And now, two years later, I finally got around to writing the post.

Why did it take me so long?  Partially because I kept forgetting or delaying. But I also honestly agonized over this.  I thought it would be fun, but then it started feeling more and more like I was trying to pick my all-time favorite Futurama episode (which is obviously the benchmark for tough decisions).

So a few disclaimers that I have to say or else I'll seriously feel guilty about writing this.  First of all, a relatively poor ranking does not in any way mean I hate the album.  Even the worst album is still awesome in its own way.  It's all pretty subjective and based on my personal opinion, so since I generally like the middle-period the most it shouldn't be surprising those do relatively better.  I tried to make the categories fairly broad in range. "Album layout" is based on the CD version, which I realize is different from how they incorporated it onto a record, but to me it was a useful way to quantify how all the songs sort of work together.  "Overall enjoyability" is my way of comparing the albums to one another, since again even the poorly ranked albums I thoroughly enjoy (and since I enjoy them all so much, generally even the lower-ranked albums get a 5 or 6 in that category).  And "Rock and Roll factor" does not necessarily mean "hard rock", as we typically imagine it meaning today; so I would still consider a softer or acoustic song like "All I've Got to Do" or "Norwegian Wood" pretty solid rock and roll.  The "Shout Out" song from each album is either because I feel it's greatness is often overlooked or because it's simply an amazing song.

I tried to be stingy with the 10s, and afterwards I went back through my list and made myself dock each album more points in order to create some more variance.  Interestingly, even with all of that there ended up being groupings of albums that naturally organized into tiers.  It wasn't intentional, but I decided to include the tiers anyway. In the end, I was somewhat surprised where some of the albums ended up when I actually score them based on categories rather than just my gut feeling.

So, after that rather long introduction, here are my personal rankings starting with the worst tier, which is...

4th Tier: Something is Missing...

13. Yellow Submarine
Originality: 7
Re-playability: 2
Rock and Roll Factor: 3
Album Layout: 1
Impact/Longevity: 1
Overall Enjoyability: 2
Total: 16

No surprise here.  It's not really a fair fight to begin with honestly: only six Beatles songs, two of which were already released.  The other side is the classical music soundtrack for the film, not exactly what I would consider Beatles music.  Originality is certainly not lacking, especially considering George wrote 1/3 of the songs (which admittedly amounts to 2 of them).   However, the album was cobbled together and it really shows.  Re-playability is a 2 only because it is so short, and the rock and roll factor was saved primarily by "Hey Bulldog" and George's two songs.  Ironically, "Hey Bulldog" has always been one of their most "rockin'" tunes for me. It's a shame it was stashed away on such a weak album.

Shout Out: "Hey Bulldog"



12. Let it Be
Originality: 6
Re-playability: 2
Rock and Roll Factor: 6
Album Layout: 3
Impact/Longevity:3
Overall Enjoyability: 3
Total: 23

This score didn't surprise me all that much either.  Let it Be is hurt a bit by the fact that it was basically cobbled together like Yellow Submarine, albeit with a little more care.  I guess they were going for a live sound, but it makes a lot of the songs sound sloppy.  And the odd half-songs like "Maggie Mae" and "Dig It" hurt the album layout and make it tough for me to really care, especially with "Dig It" since I think it would have been a decent song had they completed it.  And "The Long and Winding Road" is a little too much for me, although in Paul's defense I guess it was intended to be much more toned down than what the producer Phil Spector made it out to be and in that way I think it could have been a fine song.  Both re-playability and the album's impact are very personalized scores, because I listen to the album comparatively rarely and hence its impact on me is limited.  I should maybe note that I'm referring to the original album, not the Let it Be... Naked version, which apparently cleans a lot of that stuff up.  In the end, it wouldn't change its order in the rankings, though. When you consider all the fighting between the band and that it was their last released album (though much of it was actually recorded earlier than Abbey Road) it's a rather sad way for the Beatles discography to end (ignoring all the compilations and oddball Christmas albums, etc.).

Note: after writing this, I bought a copy of Let it Be... Naked.  It is remarkably better, but overall the album would remain at #12.  Still though - much improved.

Shout Out: "Dig A Pony"



11. A Hard Day's Night
Originality: 8
Re-playability: 3
Rock and Roll Factor: 3
Album Layout: 6
Impact/Longevity: 4
Overall Enjoyability: 6
Total: 30

This album has always been something of a mystery for me: for no particular reason, I've always struggled to really get into it like I do the other albums.  It's a fine record, but something about it has never quite worked for me.  The originality is pretty solid, considering it was their first album devoid of cover songs.  But on the other hand, there isn't a whole lot of variability with the songs.  There's a lot of acoustic stuff, and while I said that doesn't necessarily hurt the rock and roll factor, it kind of does when it permeates the album so much.  That being said, some really great softer or acoustic songs appear on this album, such as "I Should Have Known Better" and "And I Love Her".  In the end, it's an album that's at something of a crossroads in Beatles history and you can definitely see the maturation of their song-writing.

Shout Out: "Things We Said Today"




3rd Tier: Pretty Awesome 

10.  Magical Mystery Tour
Originality: 7
Re-playability: 2
Rock and Roll Factor: 4
Album Layout: 5
Impact/Longevity: 8
Overall Enjoyability: 5
Total: 31

Well, there are unquestionably a lot of unique songs, that's for sure: an instrumental ("Flying"), a song written to deliberately confuse people obsessing over the meaning of lyrics ("I Am the Walrus"), and even a song that borders on show tunes ("Your Mother Should Know").  In a way, though, that is what interrupts the flow of the album for me: the opposite of A Hard Days Night, there are so many different styles of music on one album.  I know most stoner-rock fans would object to its rock and roll factor being 4, and I am sort of torn in that regard, but some of the songs really do stray from rock and roll and just enter into "weird" territory.  That's not necessarily bad, but it's hard for me to get in a rock-and-roll mood that way, especially on a fairly short record.  There's a lot of Paul on this album, and as a result sometimes that makes the album end up more bubblegum or pop-ish; hence you get songs like "Penny Lane" and "Your Mother Should Know".  Some of these songs are great, but they make the record seem disjointed.

Shout Out: "Magical Mystery Tour" (this could be a stretch, but to me this song could be an early example of ska music).



9. Please Please Me
Originality: 4
Re-playability: 6
Rock and Roll Factor: 6
Album layout: 8
Impact/Longevity: 3
Overall Enjoyability: 6
Total: 33

As a kid Please Please Me was always sort of forgettable, but for some reason the older I get the more I love this album.  The history itself is pretty impressive:  recorded in a single day, over the course of a 10-hour session where the band actually practiced and planned songs during their lunch.  Please Please Me is essentially the group's live show and has become a way for me to imagine hearing them play at the Cavern during their early days.  It has that raw, classic rock and roll feel and always seems like the Beatles at their purest.  The re-playability is pretty good because it's such a fast-paced album, but it's hurt a bit by its lack of longevity to me: I was introduced to the album a lot later than most of the others so it took longer to appreciate it, and to me songs like "Chains" and "Boys" work a lot better in a more chaotic, live show setting than on a recording.

Adding to the impressive history of the album, John had a cold during the recording sessions.  You can hear it pretty easily in the shout out.
Shout Out: "Anna (Go to Him)"

8. The Beatles (The White Album)
Originality: 8
Re-playability: 3
Rock and Roll Factor: 10
Album Layout: 4
Impact/Longevity: 5
Overall Enjoyability: 6
Total: 36

If I had to sum up the White Album in one word it would be "chaos".  That's not a bad thing, the album is definitely fun to listen to, but in the end it's what hurts the overall enjoyability for me, because my God the weird songs are distracting.  It also affects how I view the album layout (I also took an extra point off simply for their decision to keep the junk song "Wild Honey Pie" on there).  It's just hard to get into the album when you go from "Revolution 1" to "Honey Pie."  The length of the album keeps the rock and roll factor high for me: there's so many songs that they cancel out the throwaways like "Why Don't We Do It in the Road" and "Good Night".  On the other hand, while I'll gladly listen to some of the songs over again, I almost never play the whole album a second time through due to the length. All the negatives aside, this album has some amazing songs on it, like "Birthday", "Glass Onion", and "I Will".  It was tough choosing a shout out.

Shout Out: "Savoy Truffle"




7. Beatles For Sale
Originality: 7
Re-playability: 9
Rock and Roll Factor: 6
Album Layout: 7
Impact/Longevity: 3
Overall Enjoyability: 8
Total: 40

Beatles for Sale has always been solidly in the middle for me.  It's only weakness is that it doesn't quite have the impact that other albums have had, although it has to be their most underrated record.  All the songs on it are pretty great, with the exception of "Mr. Moonlight", and it has a good mix of classic rock and love songs, with some new songs that made a bigger leap in originality than the previous A Hard Day's Night, in my opinion. There are covers again, but apparently they were rushed during the recording so that can be excused (that sounds like I don't like the cover songs, which isn't the case.  I just meant as far as originality is concerned). Also, the cover songs have a bigger Beatles "twist" to them. I also get this sense that the softer songs are more soft rock than A Hard Days Night as well, but that's pretty subjective I guess. I could re-rank the albums again in 10 years and see a lot of variability, but Beatles For Sale would most likely still be solidly in the middle.  It's a great album.

Shout Out: "Baby's in Black"




2nd Tier: Solid Though-and-Through

6. Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band
Originality:10
Re-playability: 4
Rock and Roll Factor: 5
Album Layout: 10
Impact/Longevity: 9
Overall Enjoyability: 6
Total: 44

If this blog was read by people outside of our circle, this is where I would expect to get some flak and claims that I simply don't know The Beatles.  I love the album, but similar to Magical Mystery Tour it's just sort of all over the place.  That's great, and the theme style is pretty original, but I always feel like the album is slightly distracting.  I'm flexible about what is "rock" music, but it's tough to call the whole middle of the album rock and roll, with songs like "She's Leaving Home" and "Within You Without You". I've said it a million times already, but: both of those songs are amazing and really add to the originality of The Beatles as a whole, but you can't really put them on as background music at a party or something. And while I can and do listen to songs like "Lovely Rita", "Good Morning Good Morning", and "A Day in the Life" over and over, as an entire album usually once through is enough for me. One minor aside, here: say what you want about the movie Across the Universe, but after seeing it I suddenly found myself enjoying "With a Little Help From My Friends" a whole lot more.  Ultimately, this album knocked my socks off the first time I heard it and it ranks ahead of the majority of the pack.  In hindsight, I would have liked to see more John and George on the album, though. (Paul has lead vocals on 7 of the 13 songs).

Shout Out: "Lovely Rita"




5. With the Beatles
Originality: 5
Re-playability: 6
Rock and Roll Factor: 8
Album Layout: 10
Impact/Longevity: 8
Overall Enjoyability: 7
Total: 44

With the Beatles is similar to Please Please Me in that it comes close to a live show and displays the band at their purest, but everything seems up a notch from their first record.  It comes off as thoroughly more rock and roll, albeit very classic rock and roll as opposed to their later records.  Both have the same amount of cover songs, but the original tracks are more developed and advanced. To me the re-playability and overall enjoyability are linked, and that's one of the main strengths of this record: whether I'm attentively listening to each song or have it on in the background, I can replay With the Beatles quite a few times and still get excited when a song like "It Won't Be Long" or "Don't Bother Me" comes up next. And although it's tied with Sgt. Pepper, I gave With the Beatles the edge due to overall enjoyability.  This was one of the first full Beatles albums I was introduced to as a kid, so it has some personal impact for me, but historically it was pretty huge as well.  With the Beatles and Beatles for Sale are the two strongest arguments against people who claim the group's early stuff isn't any good (although I've found that often times the people who say that are stubbornly going to resist anything you say anyway).  As for the shout out song, a hat tip to Rolling Stone's "The Beatles: The Ultimate Album-by-Album Guide" for this: "With the Beatles... leans heavily on double-tracked lead vocals.  It isn't easy to do: The singer must record a second vocal track that is, ideally, a mirror image of the first. All of the Beatles were proficient at it, but on this cover of an obscure song by the Donays, Harrison is positively astounding."  Listen to the pre-chorus. I couldn't have said it better.

Shout Out: "Devil in Her Heart"

4. Abbey Road
Originality:10
Re-playability: 6
Rock and Rock Factor: 10
Album Layout:6
Impact/Longevity: 8
Overall Enjoyability: 7
Total: 47

It might seem odd that Abbey Road and Meet the Beatles are ranked so close together, but to me that just illustrates how varied and amazing their styles of music were.  The originality is pretty outstanding here: very little that seems forced (unlike The White Album), a rare song written by Ringo, a medley at the end, and my favorite Beatle, George, really shining with possibly the two best songs on the album, including my #1 song - "Something". Some may wonder why the album layout isn't higher considering the medley, and perhaps I was a bit harsh but the category took a huge hit with the song "Maxwell's Silver Hammer". Putting it on the album was bad enough, but placing it right after a brilliant song like "Something" is like having an obnoxious alarm jolt you awake from a perfect dream. Lastly, I feel like "Octopus's Garden" is somewhat underrated.  It isn't the greatest song ever, and I used to dislike it a lot myself, but the more I listen to it the more I find myself enjoying it.  The guitar solo is catchy and the lyrics are simple, in a good way.  Sometimes you need a meaningful song like Lennon's "Give Peace a Chance", and sometimes you need something more lighthearted like "Octopus's Garden".

The shout-out would have been "Something", but since I already built it up enough I'll go with a  more "under-the-radar" song:
Shout Out: "Oh! Darling"



1st Tier: Knock Your Socks Off

3. Revolver
Originality: 10
Re-playability: 8
Rock and Roll Factor: 8
Album Layout: 5
Impact/Longevity: 10
Overall Enjoyability: 9
Total: 50

If you had asked me to rank based solely on my gut feeling, I probably would have leaned towards Revolver as my favorite. Even broken down into categories, it's still awfully close to number 1 and probably has been at some point in my life. Whereas the metaphorical dam began to crack stylistically during Help! and Rubber Soul, it flat-out broke with Revolver and they discovered a whole new realm of originality. At the time of ranking them and writing this, though, I feel like the album layout ends up being it's only real shortcoming. It has some of the most unquestionably hard-rock songs they ever released, with "Taxman", "She Said She Said", "And Your Bird Can Sing", and "Tomorrow Never Knows". But it's sort of the randomness of the other songs that throws me off, and they're intermixed at odd places. "Eleanor Rigby" and "For No One" are astounding songs and offer a great change of pace, but there's just slightly too much off-pace stuff for one album. But the reason this record ranks so much higher than one like The White Album is because of the knock-your-socks-off quality of every song, whether it's softer, hard rock, or experimental. The personal impact for me is huge with this record, when as a kid it was almost difficult to fathom its awesomeness the first time I listened to it.

Shout Out: "She Said She Said"



2. Help!
Originality: 7
Re-playability: 10
Rock and Roll Factor: 7
Album Layout: 8
Impact/Longevity: 9
Overall Enjoyability: 10
Total: 51

I do know for a fact that this album has been number 1 for me before, and I could actually see the argument for a 10 in pretty much every category. Trying to be more critical, however, it fell just short of number 1. From first to last the record has a sort of flow to it, and while some songs end up being sort of ho-hum for me (sorry again, Ringo) they all work together to make an album I can just put on repeat and enjoy over and over (ironically, I believe this was one of their albums that was cobbled together rather quickly). Tied to the re-playability is the overall enjoyability, the only album to get a 10 in this category: it's always been my go-to album for when I want to just listen to the Beatles in general, since it fits almost any musical mood I'm in. It's always been slightly disappointing to me that Lennon was always so critical of their work in later years, and the movie Help! and the song "It's Always Love" are two examples of his criticism. To me, it just goes to show you that maybe the artists themselves are sometimes their biggest critics. And, perhaps, that you don't need to have the artist's approval to enjoy their work.

Shout Out: "It's Only Love"

Just for fun, here's the trailer for the movie Help! which ends up being just about as random as the movie itself. Despite the band itself being sort of ambivalent towards the movie, it's been one of my favorites since I was a kid.

1. Rubber Soul
Originality: 9
Re-playability: 8
Rock and Roll Factor: 10
Album Layout: 10
Impact/Longevity: 7
Overall Enjoyability: 9
Total: 53

I knew I had always enjoyed Rubber Soul, but I'm not sure I would have predicted it to be ranked number 1 (again, categorically speaking) until I actually analyzed it. Like Help!, there's an overall flow on this record but I think the band managed to actually take it to another level. The change of pace from song to song works in a complementary way, they experimented with new sounds (like the fuzz bass on "Think For Yourself") without doing it to distraction, and while there are comparatively few of my "all time favorite" songs on this album, it excels in the overall quality of every single track for me. Even the low point of the album, "Run For Your Life", is listenable if you ignore some of the worst lyrics the band ever wrote in their entire catalog (interestingly, I read John hated the song himself and it's one of the few opinions of the band from his later years that I thoroughly agree with: it alone holds the album back to any degree for me). Some may wonder why the rock and roll factor ranked higher than Revolver, but to me it's the same as I mentioned above: when there are experimental or slower songs, they still retain their rock and roll roots. Plus, "Think For Yourself", "Drive My Car", and "The Word" are comparable to most harder rock songs on Revolver. For the past few years, I'm more likely to either play this record on repeat or sit down and listen to it song by song than any other. For that and everything else I mentioned, I crown it as the number 1 Beatles album.

Shout Out: "Think For Yourself"



Considering how long this post is, I actually felt like I've left out so much more that I wanted to include. But as for the rest of the guys here, how do you rank the albums? I would be interested in comparing.

Meaningful research and the "antibiotic apocalypse"

I wanted to share a recent article at BBC news that caught my eye, especially considering a conversation Mike, Jim, and I had just the other day regarding the argument that any kind of public health service in the U.S. would hurt medical research, which is currently funded in large part by American pharmaceutical companies.  It seems to me, at least, that the general assumption behind that argument is that nobody else in the world is making real, significant contributions to medical discovery and that if the U.S. offers a public option, which could hinder pharmaceutical profits, then research will suffer.

The BBC news article discusses a new project examining life from isolated areas of deep oceanic trenches for fresh ideas on antibiotics.  The two things I wanted to sort of highlight from the article are: 1) the research is being led by scientists from Aberdeen University in Scotland, a country that coincidentally has a public health service; and 2) the last sentence of this quote - the bold font is mine:

"Project leader Marcel Jaspars, professor of chemistry at the University of Aberdeen, said: "If nothing's done to combat this problem, we're going to be back to a 'pre-antibiotic era' in around 10 or 20 years, where bugs and infections that are currently quite simple to treat could be fatal."
He said there had not been a "completely new" antibiotic registered since 2003 - "partially because of a lack of interest by drugs companies as antibiotics are not particularly profitable"."

It's cherry-picking, I know, but I wanted to share because we were just talking about the idea.  Money is absolutely important when it comes to research. But maybe the approach and general philosophy behind research can and should sometimes be of greater importance than who can dump the most money into a problem (and the foreseeable profit that can be made from a discovery).

Murder trials, then and today

About a week ago, George Zimmerman spoke to Fox News in an interview regarding the Trayvon Martin shooting, where he expressed having no regrets.  When pressed further by interviewer Sean Hannity, he stated "I feel it was all God's plan."

Interestingly, I happen to be researching Charles Julius Guiteau at the moment.  Guiteau was the assassin who shot President Garfield and during his trial used the following defense: 

I thought the Deity and I had done it, sir. I want it distinctly understood that I did not do that act in my own personality. I unite myself with the Deity, and I want you gentlemen to so understand it. I never should have shot the President on my own personal account. I want that distinctly understood.  (Source).

Guiteau's defense tried to use the insanity plea (Guiteau himself claimed he was perfectly sane, but was insane when God told him to shoot the President; his lawyers did not make the distinction).  Nearly everyone at the time, including religious leaders, agreed that Guiteau had no divine inspiration for such a pointless act and the debate centered around whether he was either insane or a self-obsessed, evil assassin.  I have not seen the reactions to Zimmerman's statement, but I wonder if the number of people who believe him is comparatively higher or lower than those who believed Guiteau?  That could be a depressing statistic.

Charles Rosenberg, author of The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau, argued that had Guiteau shot any other man (or had he simply wounded the President), he would have been committed to an asylum and not executed.  I'm not 100% convinced that Zimmerman isn't slightly "out there" anyway, but I wonder if his defense will change if it begins to appear he can't get out of this one using the "Stand Your Ground" law?  I'm not really trying to compare the two trials other than to point out a similarity in statements, but at least you could say that in both cases they ended up being not as open-and-shut as you would think.  And as you guys are well aware I'm always looking for excuses to talk about history.

Anyway, here's some general interest facts/quotes I've found regarding Guiteau.  I'm of the opinion he was insane but still sane enough to know what he was doing.  There's some though who still think it was all an act or that he was completely sane if admittedly a little odd.

• Charles Guiteau: "It was transitory mania that I had; that is all the insanity that I claim."

• Guiteau, in response to why he bought the particular pistol he did:  "I do not claim that I was to do the specific act; but I claim that the Deity inspired me to remove the President, and I had to use my ordinary judgment as to ways and means to accomplish the Deity's will."  He later hinted that he believed the ivory-handled pistol he bought would look better in a museum one day.

• Guiteau: "The Deity uses certain men to serve Him. He is using this honorable court, and this jury, and all these policemen, and these troops to serve Him and to protect me."

• Guiteau, in response to whether he killed the President: "The doctors killed him; I did not kill him."

• Guiteau: "I presume the President was a Christian, and that he will be happier in Paradise than here."

• Mr. Porter [prosecution]: "Was one of your purposes in removing the President to create a demand for your book?"
• Guiteau:  "Yes, sir; with the modification that I have previously stated--to preach the gospel as set forth in the book."

• In his autobiography that he sent to the New York Herald while in prison awaiting trial, Guiteau added the footnote: "I am looking for a wife. I want an elegant Christian lady of wealth, under thirty, belonging to a first class family... I am fond of female society, and I judge the ladies are of me, and I should be delighted to find my mate."

• George M. Beard, neurologist for the defense, regarding Guiteau's mental state: "All the links of the chain are there, but they are not joined, but rather tossed about hither and thither, singly, like quoits."

• In response to Guiteau's self-written defense, one asylum superintendent described it as "...bearing the same relation to ordinary reasoning that the scenery and incidents of a nightmare bear to ordinary life."

• Before and after the assassination, Guiteau claimed that his ideas in a speech entitled "Garfield vs. Hancock" were what allowed the Republican Party to win the presidency.  During the trial, it was discovered that the speech was originally for Ulysses S. Grant, who was seeking a third term but had been defeated by Garfield in the Republican convention.  When Garfield got the nomination, Guiteau simply crossed out Grant's name and wrote Garfield's above it.  He only gave the speech once, to a handful of citizens in New York.

Sources:
The Trial of the Assassin Guiteau by Charles E. Rosenberg
Garfield by Allan Peskin

"Excerpts from the Trial Transcript: Cross-Examination of Charles Guiteau" at http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/guiteau/guiteautranscriptguiteaucrossx.html

Conspiracy!

As Stanek and Andrew are probably well aware of by now, I work in an office with some pretty hardcore Republicans - every day they listen to Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh on the radio, complain about the liberals and certain minorities in the city, etc. etc. Usually I just tune it out and concentrate on my work (I have a handy pair of headphones and an iPhone with a lot of Beatles music on it which has been instrumental in preventing migraines), and they have always been more than pleasant towards me personally so I can't really complain. But a few days ago they mentioned something to me that struck me as overwhelmingly ridiculous. According to them, the conservative radio shows that they listen to have been stressing that businesses are ready to hire again and are sitting on "piles of money", however they want to see how the next presidential election turns out because they're scared that President Obama might win again.

This helped put into words a suspicion I've always had about the Republican party. Maybe my theory is nothing new (Stanek can probably answer that better than I can and I find it hard to believe that nobody has connected the dots here), but considering that business owners and corporate executives are almost exclusively Republican, aren't they essentially holding the economy hostage to support their preferred political party? If what these conservative radio shows are arguing is true, and I don't know if it is or even that they actually said it (and I'm sure as hell not going to re-listen to their shows to find out), then the economy is supposedly getting better but business owners are holding it back because Obama is president. This creates a pretty interesting self-fulfilling prophecy among conservatives who think Democrats are bad for the economy. How can economic strength ever be used to gauge the effectiveness of a Democratic president when businesses are willing to cripple the economy until a Republican is elected? And I know what conservatives would say in response: "Democrats are innately bad for business so employers are just protecting themselves." But all that does is bypass the issue and fuel the self-fulfilling prophecy to carry on.

Again, I have no idea how true this is or if Rush or Glenn Beck even made this argument. However, it still makes me wonder about businesses manipulating the economy for political reasons in general. And as I said before I don't expect this to be all that revolutionary of an idea, but I am interested in what you guys think or know. At least it makes me more confident that President Obama is doing a better job than people seem to think.

P.S. - This is the 200th post at the Speakeasy! Grab a beer and celebrate.

My Bad

My apologies to the Cleveland Indians for the jinx. If it's any consolation, the Colorado Rockies are in town and since they are my other favorite team that means the Indians should have about a 50-50 chance of snapping right out of this cool streak.

State Symbols

Utah recently designated the nation's first official state firearm , choosing the Browning M1911 pistol. I say Ohio shows everyone who's got the bigger balls (figuratively and literally) and makes their state firearm "the Dictator" from the American Civil War.

I don't know if the Dictator could technically be classified as a "firearm", but then again choosing a state firearm is ridiculous anyway so who cares.

Twisted History

A few months ago, Stanek messaged me with an interesting observation: it's curious to see all the nostalgia these days for a supposed "time before corporations" in American history when we consider that we are a country that was literally founded by one (that's not his argument verbatim, just my summation of it). I know almost nothing about economics so I won't comment on American corporate history here. However, I've always been one to keep an eye out for tidbits that fly in the face of the generic, vague, or flat-out false "facts" about U.S. history that get thrown around, especially those used for political arguments (what I call "twisted history"). It's not that I'm a buff for alternate history or that I go out of the way to find any facts I can that support my own opinion, but I do keep the door open while reading for when those facts do happen to show up. And at the very least if it turns out that I'm wrong then my own views on history will have been challenged for the better.

Thus, with all the generalized comments these days about returning to a time in American history when the government never told us what to do and that the states should be calling the shots, it made me laugh when I caught this brief mention in Ira Berlin's Many Thousands Gone: The First Two Centuries of Slavery in North America of South Carolina telling its citizens what to do:

"...other strictures were added, including limitations on movement of slaves and penalties against white persons who traded with slaves. A recapitulation of these laws in the 1691 slave code forbade slaveowners from giving slaves Saturday mornings free, 'as hath been accustomed formerly.'" (page 68)

To me, there is something incredibly ironic about the government of South Carolina, of all places, not only attempting to force its citizens to do something (that is, be more cruel to their slaves) but also trying to control the free market. But to be fair, Berlin shows throughout the book that the north had its share of reprehensible laws regarding slavery and individual rights too. This passage in particular caught my eye:

"Often the punishment meted out to free blacks drove them back into bondage, as the Pennsylvania law enslaved free blacks found to be without regular employment, and who "loiter[ed] and misspen[t]" their time." (page 187)

Freed blacks being enslaved for not spending their time the way the state thinks they should... I understand the different mindset whites had back then towards African Americans but regardless, that is a pretty significant showing of just how intrusive state governments could be back then. Of course libertarians might argue that government at any level should stay out of our lives, whereas I would counter that that's likely one of the ways slavery got started in the first place.

Anyway, I don't really have an overall argument here. It is generally true that government was less intrusive in 18th and 19th centuries. The examples I pointed out were also from the colonial era, although to me it's a hard argument to say colonial governments were any more intrusive than early American state governments. Additionally, these laws are hundreds of years old and have little to do with the governments they are associated with today; if conservatives in South Carolina or Pennsylvania want little or no government interference today then that's their political ideology. I just like pointing out that governments at all times and in all places have had a tendency to try and tell people what to do, for better or for worse. In many instances in addition to the two that I listed, things weren't as hands off and "free to do as you please" in the previous centuries as certain people like to believe. Ironically, you would think that having a system of slavery would make that self-evident...