Muse Moments

This is part three of what is, so far, a 3-part process.

I couple of months ago I was listening to Map of the Problematique by Muse.  There is a moment in this song (at 2.18) that I love, and I texted my friend Joe Williams, as follows "When listened to at the appropriate volume, 2.18 in Map of the Problematique is the greatest moment in any Muse song.  Discuss."  That was part one.

Joe soon listened to his whole Muse collection and came up with a shortlist of 13 moments that should be considered.  He didn't include anything from the latest album (The 2nd Law) because he didn't know it well enough.  That was part two.

Now I have ranked these 13 moments, as follows.  (Are you beginning to realise why Joe and I get on so well?)

13.  Cave 4.06
12.  Hysteria 0.21
11.  Unnatural Selection 6.26
10.  Bliss 3.07
9.  Resistance 3.43
8.  Citizen Erased 1.26
7.  Muscle Museum 3.41
6.  City of Delusion 2.55
5.  Stockholm Syndrome 2.37
4.  Starlight 3.25
3.  New Born 4.45
2.  Time is Running Out 1.46
1.  Map of the Problematique 2.18

As you can see, I still believe 2.18 in Map of the Problematique to be the greatest.  It's simply enormous.  It scares me a little bit.  You can listen to it here (it's actually at 2.22 in this video).
Interestingly, as I listened to these songs, I found that in some cases, these weren't even my favourite moments in the songs.  For example, I rate 1.37 in New Born more highly than 4.45.  I rate 2.44 in Stockhom Syndrome more highly than 2.37.  I rate 1.30 in Muscle Museum higher than 3.41.  Citizen Erased has several moments (3.16, 3.49, 4.11) at least on a par with 1.26.  1.42 in Unnatural Selection is up there with 6.26.  2.45 in Hysteria could challenge 0.21.
However, these were the 13 moments that were provided, so these are the ones I have ranked.

Reaction to Katie Hopkins

Recently, Katie Hopkins was slated on social media for her comments made in this video.

I have two main things to say.

Contrary to 90% of the population, I can see where she is coming from.  As a teacher, I know or have known thousands of kids.  Most people probably know up to a hundred.  There are names that I, as a teacher, am wary of.  If I see a list of names, there may be some that make me think 'I need to watch that kid'.  My wariness may turn out to be completely misplaced, but there are some names that tend to be more troublesome than others.  Of course, all kids are individuals, but it is nevertheless a fact that there are certain names that are more likely to be trouble than other names.

In fact, surnames can be even more significant.  Sometimes surnames can indicate a child's likely background and therefore what they might be like.

This is not to say that I would treat kids with such names any differently in practice (I wouldn't stop my child from being friends with someone just because of their name) but, as far as I can tell, from a relatively large sample of teenagers, there are some names that tend to cause more trouble than others.  There are, of course, exceptions - this is a generalisation at best.  I disagree with Katie Hopkins' decision to stop her children being friends with kids with certain names, but her decision is, at least, based on generalisations that are true.

My second point is that we all judge kids (and adults) in ways that we shouldn't.  By their names, their clothes, their accent, vocabulary, address, friends, car, house etc.  The people who are so angry with Katie Hopkins for making assumptions about people based on their names should have a look at the assumptions they themselves make about people based on these things.

There you go.  Shoot me down if you want.

2 further thoughts on tennis

I posted a couple of thoughts on tennis after Wimbledon 2011.  Here are two more thoughts.

1. I am not a fan of the winning celebration where players fall on their back on the court.  It doesn't look natural.  It looks like they do it because they've seen other players do it and copy them.  Nadal might have been the first to do it, I'm not sure.  But it looks like an unnatural movement, it looks fake.
2. This year I started supporting Radwanska, after the Brits had been knocked out, because I like the way she makes shots and relies more than technique than physique.  This is something I've been pondering for a while.  I think it's why I tended to support Federer over Nadal.  I am not such of a fan of players who seem to rely slightly more on physique, because it is a more generic ability, which can be applied to sport in general, whereas technique is more sport-specific.  This is not to say that Nadal has poor technique or that Federer and Radwanska are unfit or weak.  It is simply to say that I appreciate the technique that is specific to a sport more than the physique that is more general.