Things I Love: cover songs

I'm resurrecting the "Things I Love" series that I started a while back so I can discuss in depth something I mentioned in the comments section of one of my Idol posts. I love cover songs. If you considered cover songs to be their own genre, I'd choose them over any other. It might have something to do with familiarity- that perhaps it's easier to like a song you already kinda know over something brand new. It might be the "They're fans just like us!" feeling you get when you hear one of your favorite bands playing the songs of another. It might be the appreciation you feel whenever someone presents something to you in a way you hadn't previously considered possible.

But I believe the thing I like most about cover songs is that deep down, it's what we all really want to do. Every time you sing a song- whether it's along with the radio, in the shower, or just in your head- you're covering it yourself. Every one of us with some musical talent has picked up a guitar or sat down at a piano to play a song we like. Some of us learned to play those instruments just for that purpose. When we hear cover songs, it justifies that feeling we all have when we hear a good song- that the best way to express our affection for the song is to belt it out and make it our own. Every cover song is a tribute to the original, and every one we hear encourages us to keep doing what we do- paying tribute in our own way. (Just without the royalties).

Up next: What makes a great cover song? Stay tuned. (pun intended)

If it weren't for Myrtle Beach, I'd restart their secession movement for them

With no disrespect to any of the fine citizens of South Carolina, I'd like to express my disappointment with something I read today. It was in a column about SC gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley and her statements from her website about her faith. (Haley is a Christian, and goes to great lengths on her site emphasizing that point.) The column reports that the SC constitution contains the requirement that "No person shall be eligible to the office of Governor who denies the existence of the Supreme Being."

From a constitutional law standpoint, I find it hard to believe that a state constitution can so directly contradict the federal constitution's stated right of freedom of religion. But aside from the legality of the requirement, I have grave concerns with the limitations it puts on the citizens of the state. The requirement does not go so far as to impose a belief system upon citizens of the state, but it does limit the positions that citizens without certain belief systems can hold.

I believe in "the Supreme Being", but also respect the right of others not to. I also don't see how an argument can be made that the governing ability of one who does not believe would be lesser in any way than one who does. The record shows that believing in a Supreme Being doesn't exactly keep you off the Appalachian Trail, if you know what I mean.

What do we want? REPLAY! When do we want it? NOW!

By now you've no doubt heard of the umpire who screwed up and cost that guy a perfect game. (I'm leaving out the details not because I don't care but because they don't matter here.) The aftermath was the feel good story of baseball so far this year- guy screws up, guy owns up to his screw-up, affected parties forgive him, all is well.

All that making nice somewhat diffused the furor over the mistake and diverted the attention from the obvious issue- that baseball needs more replay. The argument of purists is that mistakes are part of the game, that the role of the umpire is essential to the integrity of baseball and makes the game what it is.

That's horsecrap. There's no industry out there that accepts mistakes as part of doing business. Umpires do their best to make the right call, but sometimes make a mistake. If there is an immediate way to evaluate the umpire's judgment, why not use it? When that immediate method (replay) is already being used and broadcast to viewers in real time, it displays the flaws and calls into question whether the outcome of the contest is legitimate.

Here's one group of people who deserve replay the most- gamblers. The outcome of the game in question here (the near-perfect game) was not affected by the missed call. But no doubt there are games that either have or will have their outcomes affected by a mistake. If a wager is lost despite visible evidence that it should have been won, it becomes an unfair loss (or a contrary illegitimate win) to the gambler involved.

Tennis has been using the electronic eye system for years. It does not replace but supports the line judges and the chair umpire in their jobs. It works. I've never heard a tennis purist, commentator, or player bemoan the system. They're happy that the calls are being made consistently and fairly for all players.

The technology exists to correct these flaws. There's no reason not to institute it now, in fairness to all. Too bad it's too late for Armando Galarraga (you know, that guy.)