Continuing with the theme of really cool end-of-year countdown lists.
From the same site as the Obsolete List that I posted moments ago, I'm also enjoying a list of the 10 most awesome commercials of the decade. Although, to be fair, some of them are so epic that its hard to really call them commercials (for proof, please check out #2 and #4 on the list).
I saw a short documentary on the making of #5 in a new media class I took a few years ago. I thought it was beautiful then and I still do.
As for #7 (The Obama/Will.i.am "Yes We Can" commercial), I just have to say that I wish his entire presidency had been as good as that speech and the ad it was turned into. When he runs for re-election, and can no longer rely on such moving rhetoric and imagery, what's he going to do?
And finally, #9 is one of my all-time favorites. I only remember actually seeing it on TV once, but I've always remembered it. Also, it was apparently directed by Spike Jonze (who recently did "Where the Wild Things Are"), so that's kind of cool.
However, I'm a little sad they did not include the Nike spot that ran during last summer's Olympic Games. For the sheer feeling of that's-so-cool-it-sent-shivers-up-my-spine, it has to be one of the best of the decade. I mean, the guy at the end has no legs. NO LEGS! And he's running faster than you or I could ever hope to.
--
Monday, December 21, 2009
The Obsolete List
One of the best parts about the end of the year is all the "best of", "worst of", and "everything in between of" lists that are published. And since this is the end of a decade too (okay, maybe the decade technically goes until 2010), we get to have all those lists times ten!
One of my favorites so far, from Business Insider, a list of 21 items that have become obsolete in the past decade.
Some of them come quickly to mind (Dial-up Internet, VCRs, Fax Machines), while others are things you might not immediately think of (Pay Phones, Long Distance Charges).
In some cases the list is almost incredible to think about. For example, PDAs (with their look-at-me-I'm-so-important fake plastic pen thingys) were not really all that common at the beginning of the decade, yet have already faded well into obsolescence. (Yes, I constructed that sentence specifically so I could use that last word).
Want another example? How about paying for E-mail. Remember those disks that AOL would send you with 50 free hours of Internet if you signed up for their email? And, more amazingly, people did it. Thank you to the market for making it possible for email to be a free, ad-revenue driven service.
So have some fun and remember how much better off we are than we were ten years ago.
--
One of my favorites so far, from Business Insider, a list of 21 items that have become obsolete in the past decade.
Some of them come quickly to mind (Dial-up Internet, VCRs, Fax Machines), while others are things you might not immediately think of (Pay Phones, Long Distance Charges).
In some cases the list is almost incredible to think about. For example, PDAs (with their look-at-me-I'm-so-important fake plastic pen thingys) were not really all that common at the beginning of the decade, yet have already faded well into obsolescence. (Yes, I constructed that sentence specifically so I could use that last word).
Want another example? How about paying for E-mail. Remember those disks that AOL would send you with 50 free hours of Internet if you signed up for their email? And, more amazingly, people did it. Thank you to the market for making it possible for email to be a free, ad-revenue driven service.
So have some fun and remember how much better off we are than we were ten years ago.
--
Sunday, December 20, 2009
D.C. Cop Pulls Gun at Snowball Fight
Apparently, all it takes is a few inches of snow in Washington D.C. and all hell breaks loose.
Over the weekend a winter storm dropped some frosty white stuff over the nation's capital, and inspired a few people to start a friendly snowball fight at the corner of 14th and U streets. The first problem is that they began throwing snowballs at passing cars. The second problem is that one of those cars contained an undercover D.C. detective. The third problem is that he emerged from the car, clearly pissed off, and brandishing a sidearm (without first identifying himself either, it would appear).
Luckily, no one ended up getting shot. Also luckily, more than a few people have camera phones these days and recorded the entire absurd incident. We can only hope that Detective Baylor looses his job over this.
Obviously, the only acceptable response to snowball chucking is the threat of deadly force. If you let those hooligans get away with this, they might soon move up to throwing balled up newspaper, and then where will we be? Chaos will reign over the streets as society slips back into a Hobbsian state of nature...at least that's my guess.
My favorite moments of the video:
- At 0:20, the gun is clearly visible in his left hand.
- At 1:16, after the crowd realizes there's no immediate danger of a snowball fight turning into the O.K. Corral, they begin to lecture the cop with "You don't bring a gun to a snowball fight". Amen.
- At 1:58, even after back-up has arrived, Baylor initiates physical contact with one of the people on the corner.
- At 2:12, he ACTUALLY ADMITS that he drew his weapon. Pardon the expression, but this is the smoking gun of the whole thing. His ass is getting fired for sure.
- At 2:47, the group of snowballers takes control of the situation, getting his name and, soon after, license plate number. Good thinking, guys.
- At 3:10, Baylor (still apparently wanting to make a bigger ass of himself, charges into the crowd after someone.
- At 3:37, he emerges from the crowd with the one guy who was clearly behind the whole thing. Good detective work, mister detective.
- At 4:00, (this might be my favorite part) someone in the crowd points out that it is, indeed, snowing, which means the heavens above are just as responsible for Baylor's Hummer being covered in snow as the people throwing snowballs.
I think he's going to regret those few minutes for the rest of his short career in the D.C. police force.
--
Over the weekend a winter storm dropped some frosty white stuff over the nation's capital, and inspired a few people to start a friendly snowball fight at the corner of 14th and U streets. The first problem is that they began throwing snowballs at passing cars. The second problem is that one of those cars contained an undercover D.C. detective. The third problem is that he emerged from the car, clearly pissed off, and brandishing a sidearm (without first identifying himself either, it would appear).
Luckily, no one ended up getting shot. Also luckily, more than a few people have camera phones these days and recorded the entire absurd incident. We can only hope that Detective Baylor looses his job over this.
Obviously, the only acceptable response to snowball chucking is the threat of deadly force. If you let those hooligans get away with this, they might soon move up to throwing balled up newspaper, and then where will we be? Chaos will reign over the streets as society slips back into a Hobbsian state of nature...at least that's my guess.
My favorite moments of the video:
- At 0:20, the gun is clearly visible in his left hand.
- At 1:16, after the crowd realizes there's no immediate danger of a snowball fight turning into the O.K. Corral, they begin to lecture the cop with "You don't bring a gun to a snowball fight". Amen.
- At 1:58, even after back-up has arrived, Baylor initiates physical contact with one of the people on the corner.
- At 2:12, he ACTUALLY ADMITS that he drew his weapon. Pardon the expression, but this is the smoking gun of the whole thing. His ass is getting fired for sure.
- At 2:47, the group of snowballers takes control of the situation, getting his name and, soon after, license plate number. Good thinking, guys.
- At 3:10, Baylor (still apparently wanting to make a bigger ass of himself, charges into the crowd after someone.
- At 3:37, he emerges from the crowd with the one guy who was clearly behind the whole thing. Good detective work, mister detective.
- At 4:00, (this might be my favorite part) someone in the crowd points out that it is, indeed, snowing, which means the heavens above are just as responsible for Baylor's Hummer being covered in snow as the people throwing snowballs.
I think he's going to regret those few minutes for the rest of his short career in the D.C. police force.
--
Congress Wastes Your Money on Vacations
Remember how incensed the members of Congress were when the executives of the major auto companies took private jets to Washington to ask for a bail-out?
I'm sensing a double-standard.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Congress spent more than $13 million on travel abroad in 2008. That number doesn't even include the costs of travel within the U.S., since Congress does not have to report the amount of money spent on domestic trips.
Listen to this description of a recent trip taken by 12 Congressmen to Edinburgh, Scotland, for a NATO conference. If this is work, sign me up.
"Besides rooms for sleeping, the 12 members of the House of Representatives rented their hotel's fireplace-equipped presidential suite and two adjacent rooms. The hotel cleared out the beds and in their place set up a bar, a snack room and office space. The three extra rooms -- stocked with liquor, Coors beer, chips and salsa, sandwiches, Mrs. Fields cookies and York Peppermint Patties -- cost a total of about $1,500 a night. They were rented for five nights.
While in Scotland, the House members toured historic buildings. Some shopped for Scotch whisky and visited the hotel spa. They capped the trip with a dinner at one of the region's finest restaurants, paid for by the legislators, who got $118 daily stipends for meals and incidentals.
Eleven of the 12 legislators then left the five-day conference two days early."
Oh, and its not only the 12 representative that were making the trip on our dime, it was their spouses, aides, and military liaisons, who "carry luggage, help them through customs, escort them on sightseeing trips, and stock their hotel rooms with food and liquor".
But they were there for a conference, so at least they spent some time working, right? Wrong.
"The first day there were meetings of the NATO organization's leadership. Half of the legislators, not being in the leadership, instead traveled with a group of spouses to Glasgow. There, according to a spokesman for one House member, they met with some Scottish officials.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D., N.Y.) attended the conference in Edinburgh on Friday but left at 4:30 p.m. and went to the spa. On Sunday, the third meeting day, she spent some time in the afternoon walking around Edinburgh and shopping at the House of Fraser, a department store....
...The group had a bus and a Mercedes minivan at their disposal for touring, shopping trips and transportation to dinners and the conference. The quoted rate for the two vehicles and their drivers is $2,500 a day....
...Early Monday morning, military escorts helped the 11 who were leaving early to check out, while hotel staff loaded a truck with luggage and shopping purchases. The hotel billed the delegation $200 for hauling suitcases and suit bags, seven brown boxes, a liquor box and a large white cooler."
Why stay an extra couple of days in Edinburgh when you've already finished all your shopping?
--
I'm sensing a double-standard.
According to the Wall Street Journal, Congress spent more than $13 million on travel abroad in 2008. That number doesn't even include the costs of travel within the U.S., since Congress does not have to report the amount of money spent on domestic trips.
Listen to this description of a recent trip taken by 12 Congressmen to Edinburgh, Scotland, for a NATO conference. If this is work, sign me up.
"Besides rooms for sleeping, the 12 members of the House of Representatives rented their hotel's fireplace-equipped presidential suite and two adjacent rooms. The hotel cleared out the beds and in their place set up a bar, a snack room and office space. The three extra rooms -- stocked with liquor, Coors beer, chips and salsa, sandwiches, Mrs. Fields cookies and York Peppermint Patties -- cost a total of about $1,500 a night. They were rented for five nights.
While in Scotland, the House members toured historic buildings. Some shopped for Scotch whisky and visited the hotel spa. They capped the trip with a dinner at one of the region's finest restaurants, paid for by the legislators, who got $118 daily stipends for meals and incidentals.
Eleven of the 12 legislators then left the five-day conference two days early."
Oh, and its not only the 12 representative that were making the trip on our dime, it was their spouses, aides, and military liaisons, who "carry luggage, help them through customs, escort them on sightseeing trips, and stock their hotel rooms with food and liquor".
But they were there for a conference, so at least they spent some time working, right? Wrong.
"The first day there were meetings of the NATO organization's leadership. Half of the legislators, not being in the leadership, instead traveled with a group of spouses to Glasgow. There, according to a spokesman for one House member, they met with some Scottish officials.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D., N.Y.) attended the conference in Edinburgh on Friday but left at 4:30 p.m. and went to the spa. On Sunday, the third meeting day, she spent some time in the afternoon walking around Edinburgh and shopping at the House of Fraser, a department store....
...The group had a bus and a Mercedes minivan at their disposal for touring, shopping trips and transportation to dinners and the conference. The quoted rate for the two vehicles and their drivers is $2,500 a day....
...Early Monday morning, military escorts helped the 11 who were leaving early to check out, while hotel staff loaded a truck with luggage and shopping purchases. The hotel billed the delegation $200 for hauling suitcases and suit bags, seven brown boxes, a liquor box and a large white cooler."
Why stay an extra couple of days in Edinburgh when you've already finished all your shopping?
--
Saturday, December 19, 2009
"Cadillac Tax" Hurts Everyone
Well, the Senate Democrats reached 60 votes yesterday, so they've shut the door on the potential for a Republican filibuster to stall a vote on the health care bill. It looks like a straight-party vote could come as soon as Thursday.
I've avoided writing much about the health care debates so far, but I've got a serious problem with one particular part of the Senate's health plan: the so-called "Cadillac Tax" on high-end health care plans (which the Democrats plan to use to help pay for the higher costs of insuring everyone else).
Why? In essence, the Senate is saying that people who have these "Cadillac" plans have too much health insurance. Now, since those people are paying for their own plans with the money they are making at their jobs, who has the right to tell them that they have purchased "too much"? It's funny that they are using the metaphor of a nice car to categorize those health plans, because this is the same (from a political theory point of view) as saying to someone who owns a literal Cadillac that they have too nice of a car. Why should the rich be allowed to have Cadillacs (or Cadillac health plans) when other people have Hondas or Fords (or the equivalent vehicle-metaphor health coverage)?
I guess those evil rich people (you know, the ones who own business and employ people) just don't deserve their rich cars, big homes, and cushy health plans unless the rest of us can have them too. Never mind that they are purchasing those things from their own funds. Philosophically, this seems like a bad way to justify anything except socialism.
But wait, there's more. In reality, an excise tax on the biggest and best health plans will hurt the middle class more than the rich. Megan McArdle explains:
"Taxing their health care plans is not going to cause the executives to consume less health care; traders earning millions of dollars a year are unlikely to forgo an MRI because it might cost nearly as much as they dropped on wine last Saturday night. You might be able to get their back office folks and the secretaries to cut back a little, but those folks are pretty well paid."
The bottom line is that if you tax the rich (aka - the employers), it will mean higher costs for everyone who works below them. This is the step that the Democrats always forget about. Patricia Murphy takes a deeper look at how this plan to "tax the wealthy" will actually hurt everyone else a lot more:
"Obama said he did not want the tax to hit middle-class families, but when the bill emerged from the Senate Finance Committee in September, it proposed charging insurance companies and a 40 percent excise tax for high-dollar -- but not exactly gold-plated -- plans. The bill now calls for the tax to apply to plans exceeding $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, for the cost of combining health savings accounts, medical, prescription drugs, dental, vision, etc. The tax is charged to insurance companies, but it is widely assumed they would pass it on to employers....
...Beth Umland, the research director for Mercer (an employee benefits consulting firm), explained that although the "Cadillac tax" is targeted at high-dollar plans, the cost of insurance plans is primarily driven by the age, gender, health and location of a company's workers, not the lifestyle they enjoy.
"Plans that trigger the excise tax are not necessarily generous plans," she said. "Small employers offer significantly less-generous plans than large employers, but just as many small employers are going to trigger the tax." Plans for workers in dangerous professions, like steelworkers, also have higher-cost plans because they experience more work-related health problems."
In other words, an excise tax on business owners will be passed down in the form of lower real wages to all the employees. That means that union workers making $40,000 a year (or so) are going to get hit by those costs as well. The Democrats are trying to tax the evil rich people who own businesses, produce things, and create jobs, but they are inadvertently going to skewer the middle and working classes as well. No one wins.
On one hand, it's kind of funny that union members (who played a big role in sweeping the Democrats into power in 2006/08) are now getting screwed by the party they usually support. On the other hand, it's political suicide for the Democrats to alienate one of their major bases of support.
--
I've avoided writing much about the health care debates so far, but I've got a serious problem with one particular part of the Senate's health plan: the so-called "Cadillac Tax" on high-end health care plans (which the Democrats plan to use to help pay for the higher costs of insuring everyone else).
Why? In essence, the Senate is saying that people who have these "Cadillac" plans have too much health insurance. Now, since those people are paying for their own plans with the money they are making at their jobs, who has the right to tell them that they have purchased "too much"? It's funny that they are using the metaphor of a nice car to categorize those health plans, because this is the same (from a political theory point of view) as saying to someone who owns a literal Cadillac that they have too nice of a car. Why should the rich be allowed to have Cadillacs (or Cadillac health plans) when other people have Hondas or Fords (or the equivalent vehicle-metaphor health coverage)?
I guess those evil rich people (you know, the ones who own business and employ people) just don't deserve their rich cars, big homes, and cushy health plans unless the rest of us can have them too. Never mind that they are purchasing those things from their own funds. Philosophically, this seems like a bad way to justify anything except socialism.
But wait, there's more. In reality, an excise tax on the biggest and best health plans will hurt the middle class more than the rich. Megan McArdle explains:
"Taxing their health care plans is not going to cause the executives to consume less health care; traders earning millions of dollars a year are unlikely to forgo an MRI because it might cost nearly as much as they dropped on wine last Saturday night. You might be able to get their back office folks and the secretaries to cut back a little, but those folks are pretty well paid."
The bottom line is that if you tax the rich (aka - the employers), it will mean higher costs for everyone who works below them. This is the step that the Democrats always forget about. Patricia Murphy takes a deeper look at how this plan to "tax the wealthy" will actually hurt everyone else a lot more:
"Obama said he did not want the tax to hit middle-class families, but when the bill emerged from the Senate Finance Committee in September, it proposed charging insurance companies and a 40 percent excise tax for high-dollar -- but not exactly gold-plated -- plans. The bill now calls for the tax to apply to plans exceeding $8,500 for individuals and $23,000 for families, for the cost of combining health savings accounts, medical, prescription drugs, dental, vision, etc. The tax is charged to insurance companies, but it is widely assumed they would pass it on to employers....
...Beth Umland, the research director for Mercer (an employee benefits consulting firm), explained that although the "Cadillac tax" is targeted at high-dollar plans, the cost of insurance plans is primarily driven by the age, gender, health and location of a company's workers, not the lifestyle they enjoy.
"Plans that trigger the excise tax are not necessarily generous plans," she said. "Small employers offer significantly less-generous plans than large employers, but just as many small employers are going to trigger the tax." Plans for workers in dangerous professions, like steelworkers, also have higher-cost plans because they experience more work-related health problems."
In other words, an excise tax on business owners will be passed down in the form of lower real wages to all the employees. That means that union workers making $40,000 a year (or so) are going to get hit by those costs as well. The Democrats are trying to tax the evil rich people who own businesses, produce things, and create jobs, but they are inadvertently going to skewer the middle and working classes as well. No one wins.
On one hand, it's kind of funny that union members (who played a big role in sweeping the Democrats into power in 2006/08) are now getting screwed by the party they usually support. On the other hand, it's political suicide for the Democrats to alienate one of their major bases of support.
--
Thursday, December 17, 2009
At Least "Global Warming" Has A Sense of Irony
No matter which side of the Global Warming debate you're on (fun fact: there's actually five sides), you have to admit that this is pretty funny. The day before Obama is supposed to arrive in Copenhagen to discuss how we can "solve" the climate change problem, the city has been hit by four inches of snow.
Maybe you're saying to yourself: four inches doesn't sound like much. Copenhagen is in Denmark, which is part of Scandinavia, and it's always cold and snowy there, right?
Not so fast. Unlike Norway or Sweden, Denmark is known for rather mild winters. According to the BBC, Copenhagen's average temperature in December is between 34 and 40 (Fahrenheit). The country has not had a "white Christmas" (as defined by the Denmark Meteorological Institute) for 14 years, and has only had seven in the past century.
Maybe you're saying to yourself: four inches doesn't sound like much. Copenhagen is in Denmark, which is part of Scandinavia, and it's always cold and snowy there, right?
Not so fast. Unlike Norway or Sweden, Denmark is known for rather mild winters. According to the BBC, Copenhagen's average temperature in December is between 34 and 40 (Fahrenheit). The country has not had a "white Christmas" (as defined by the Denmark Meteorological Institute) for 14 years, and has only had seven in the past century.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Bring Bush Back?
Public Policy Polling has released their Presidential approval ratings for December, and Obama remains in favor with just under half of the population (49%, the same as in November), but the most stunning result is that 44 percent of those polled said they would rather have Bush back in office (50 percent said they prefer Obama to Bush).
Also important is that independents chose Obama over Bush at a rate of 54-39 percent, actually a small margin when you consider how Obama seemed to dominate the independent vote in last year's election. (Full cross-tabulation available here)
This proves one of three things:
1. Obama (and by extension, the Democrats) are in serious trouble for 2010/12.
2. People have really quicken forgotten how much they actually disliked Bush (the "time heals all wounds" hypothesis).
3. Polls can be crazy sometimes.
Okay, it's probably some combination of all three things.
But still, it has to be seriously unnerving for the Democrats to realize that such a large portion of the population would actually prefer to have Bush back in office instead of Obama. Remember, during the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election, even the Republicans were trying to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the President. That's how politically lethal the public dis-taste for the 43rd President was just a little more than a year ago.
And yeah, PPP is a legitimate pollster. In last year's election, their polls came closer to actual results than Real Clear Politics, Zogby, or Rasmussen in swing states (see the sidebar on their blog).
--
Also important is that independents chose Obama over Bush at a rate of 54-39 percent, actually a small margin when you consider how Obama seemed to dominate the independent vote in last year's election. (Full cross-tabulation available here)
This proves one of three things:
1. Obama (and by extension, the Democrats) are in serious trouble for 2010/12.
2. People have really quicken forgotten how much they actually disliked Bush (the "time heals all wounds" hypothesis).
3. Polls can be crazy sometimes.
Okay, it's probably some combination of all three things.
But still, it has to be seriously unnerving for the Democrats to realize that such a large portion of the population would actually prefer to have Bush back in office instead of Obama. Remember, during the run-up to the 2008 Presidential election, even the Republicans were trying to put as much distance as possible between themselves and the President. That's how politically lethal the public dis-taste for the 43rd President was just a little more than a year ago.
And yeah, PPP is a legitimate pollster. In last year's election, their polls came closer to actual results than Real Clear Politics, Zogby, or Rasmussen in swing states (see the sidebar on their blog).
--
Monday, December 7, 2009
On the Front Lines
The front lines of the War on Christmas, that is.
After years of defending the words "Merry Christmas" from the assault of the words "Happy Holidays", the tide may be beginning to turn.
This year, the defenders of Christmas are on the attack against those who would replace their most important name of a Holy Day in December with a generality designed to be as politically correct as possible. Their weapon of choice: an online ratings system for retailers.
The website allows users to rate their Christmas shopping experience, from Friendly, to Negligent, to Offensive. Other potential Christmas shoppers, it is hoped, will change their shopping plans so they spend their money at places like Bass Pro Shops (97% Friendly), K-Mart (82% F), or Sears (79% F), instead of Old Navy (60% Offensive), Best Buy (76% O), or GAP (85% O).
I think there's a second interesting conclusion to be drawn. Taking a look at the places that seem to respect Christmas versus those that prefer general Holiday cheer, I'd say there's a calculated move on the part of management to stress (or un-stress) the "Christmas" aspect of their holiday sales.
The costumers at Old Navy and GAP are far more likely to desire a P.C. attitude (or at least less likely to be angered by it) than the shoppers at Bass Pro Shops or Cabela's. I'm generally in favor of saying whatever you want to say (although I don't really care for "Happy Holidays" personally), but if the stores are doing what they think will best satisfy their costumers, I'm going to count that as the market doing its job.
--
After years of defending the words "Merry Christmas" from the assault of the words "Happy Holidays", the tide may be beginning to turn.
This year, the defenders of Christmas are on the attack against those who would replace their most important name of a Holy Day in December with a generality designed to be as politically correct as possible. Their weapon of choice: an online ratings system for retailers.
The website allows users to rate their Christmas shopping experience, from Friendly, to Negligent, to Offensive. Other potential Christmas shoppers, it is hoped, will change their shopping plans so they spend their money at places like Bass Pro Shops (97% Friendly), K-Mart (82% F), or Sears (79% F), instead of Old Navy (60% Offensive), Best Buy (76% O), or GAP (85% O).
I think there's a second interesting conclusion to be drawn. Taking a look at the places that seem to respect Christmas versus those that prefer general Holiday cheer, I'd say there's a calculated move on the part of management to stress (or un-stress) the "Christmas" aspect of their holiday sales.
The costumers at Old Navy and GAP are far more likely to desire a P.C. attitude (or at least less likely to be angered by it) than the shoppers at Bass Pro Shops or Cabela's. I'm generally in favor of saying whatever you want to say (although I don't really care for "Happy Holidays" personally), but if the stores are doing what they think will best satisfy their costumers, I'm going to count that as the market doing its job.
--
One-hit, Wonderful.
Daniel Pewter's song "Bad Day" was named the one-hit wonder of the decade by Billboard Magazine, which makes me wonder if its better to be remembered for one bad day than for nothing at all?
He beat out "Lean Back", by the Terror Squad, and "Butterfly", by Crazy Town, for the honor (?). All of which proves a point I've been thinking about for quite some time.
All in all, this wasn't the best decade for one-hit wonders, at least not when compared to the nineties, which brought us the likes of "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" by the Proclaimers, "Breakfast at Tiffany's" by Deep Blue Something, and "The Freshmen" by The Verve Pipe, to say nothing of "Steal My Sunshine" (Len), "Mambo Number 5" (Lou Bega), "Closing Time" (Semisonic), "She's So High" (Tal Bachman), "Save Tonight" (Eagle Eye Cherry), "What its Like" (Everlast), "Tubthumping" (Chumbawamba), "The Impression That I Get" (The Mighty Mighty Bostones), "Sunny Came Home" (Shawn Colvin), "How Bizarre" (OMC), "No Rain" (Blind Melon), "Insane in the Brain" (Cypress Hill), "Rump Shaker" (Wrecks-n-Effect), and even "Here Comes The Hotstepper" (Ini Kamoze).
Honestly, there were so many great one-hit wonders in the 90s, that if I had to pick only 50 songs to listen to for the rest of my life, probably 25 of them would be listed somewhere on this page.
(and yes, the general point of this post was just for me to rattle off my knowledge of 1990s music)
As for Powter, he has at least one more partial day in the sun. I was curious about what he has been doing since the release of "Bad Day" in 2005, and apparently he released an album last year (entitled, appropriately, Under The Radar). The only single on that album, "Next Plane Home", reached only #39 on the U.S. pop chart.
Then again, a sure sign that you will always be relevant in American pop culture is to have your song covered by Alvin and the Chipmunks:
--
He beat out "Lean Back", by the Terror Squad, and "Butterfly", by Crazy Town, for the honor (?). All of which proves a point I've been thinking about for quite some time.
All in all, this wasn't the best decade for one-hit wonders, at least not when compared to the nineties, which brought us the likes of "I'm Gonna Be (500 Miles)" by the Proclaimers, "Breakfast at Tiffany's" by Deep Blue Something, and "The Freshmen" by The Verve Pipe, to say nothing of "Steal My Sunshine" (Len), "Mambo Number 5" (Lou Bega), "Closing Time" (Semisonic), "She's So High" (Tal Bachman), "Save Tonight" (Eagle Eye Cherry), "What its Like" (Everlast), "Tubthumping" (Chumbawamba), "The Impression That I Get" (The Mighty Mighty Bostones), "Sunny Came Home" (Shawn Colvin), "How Bizarre" (OMC), "No Rain" (Blind Melon), "Insane in the Brain" (Cypress Hill), "Rump Shaker" (Wrecks-n-Effect), and even "Here Comes The Hotstepper" (Ini Kamoze).
Honestly, there were so many great one-hit wonders in the 90s, that if I had to pick only 50 songs to listen to for the rest of my life, probably 25 of them would be listed somewhere on this page.
(and yes, the general point of this post was just for me to rattle off my knowledge of 1990s music)
As for Powter, he has at least one more partial day in the sun. I was curious about what he has been doing since the release of "Bad Day" in 2005, and apparently he released an album last year (entitled, appropriately, Under The Radar). The only single on that album, "Next Plane Home", reached only #39 on the U.S. pop chart.
Then again, a sure sign that you will always be relevant in American pop culture is to have your song covered by Alvin and the Chipmunks:
--
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
