Creatures of the Ocean

Hans Zimmer is probably one of the best-known and well-liked of all the modern soundtrack composers. He has certainly done a huge amount of work, including over 100 albums. And, being such a great composer, and having such a large output of material, I naturally have a lot of albums from him that I'll recommend. So here goes.

Angels and Demons

Zimmer has two rather distinct styles; most of his albums fall into either of these two styles. The style that probably made Zimmer famous was his very strong style, with very strong themes that you could grab onto and that ran throughout the whole album. Most of the soundtracks that fall into this category are either animated movies or historical movies, such as Gladiator, King Arthur, and similar soundtracks. The other style that has developed more in the past 5 or 6 years is much more minimalistic, with the themes very subdued. Mostly these soundtracks are for darker, action-packed movies, such as Inception, Batman, and similar ones. A&D definitely falls into the second category; it's very dark, and the themes are under the surface. One of the reasons I like it so much is because of the choral style that he employs. It makes for a very powerful score overall. Definitely worth the $4 or 5 to buy it (And just because I like the soundtrack does not mean that I recommend or agree with the movie).

Science and Religion - A very long piece, coming in at over 12 minutes, but it shows Zimmer's minimalistic style quite well. You definitely need to turn up the volume on this one; it's quiet, but yet so powerful.
http://bit.ly/hHNomh

160 BPM - In my opinion, the best track that Zimmer has ever written. It's so complex and full, and yet so simple. Definitely, you need to listen to this track.
http://bit.ly/eqNzPj

Batman Begins

Batman Begins is one of Hans Zimmer's finest in my opinion; it's a dark score, but very action packed, with some awesome themes running throughout. Technically, it's a collaboration between James Newton Howard and Hans Zimmer, so there are some tracks that are obviously more thematic and emotional that JNH did, while the action-packed ones are obviously Zimmer's. The track names are all names of bat species, which is something I'd never seen done before. A very good listen overall, and highly recommended.

Eptesicus -This track is most likely one that JNH did; much more emotional and pretty than many other tracks.
http://bit.ly/14U0Z8

Molossus - Perhaps one of the best action tracks Zimmer has written; it starts out fast, and stays fast through the whole thing. You don't want to miss this track.
http://bit.ly/Jc2OU

Crimson Tide

This is one of Zimmer's older soundtracks, dating back from the 1990s. You can tell that it's a bit older because of some of the style and instruments used that were more popular in the 20th century. It's still got some great themes in it, and he even uses the tune that we have for Psalm 84B in our psalter several times throughout the album. One of my problems with the album is that it has 5 tracks, 2 of which are 18+ minutes.

Roll Tide - The closing track of the album; it brings together all the main themes, including the hymn at the very end. Pretty good overall.
http://bit.ly/10XWOO

Da Vinci Code

I didn't really enjoy this one as much as Angels and Demons, but it has some good tracks. It's not as choral heavy as Angels and Demons, but it's still pretty enjoyable. And once again, just because I like the soundtrack, does not mean I endorse the movie.

Dies Mercurii I Martius -Similar to Chevaliers de Sengreal at the beginning, but it moves into a different and equally powerful theme near the end.
http://bit.ly/hN2oE3

Chevaliers de Sengreal - If 160 BPM was the best track Zimmer has ever written, then this track is probably a close second. In fact, most people say it is his best track. Either way, it's a glorious track, and a glorious conclusion to the album. Well worth your time to listen to it.
http://bit.ly/43hV9X

Dark Knight

Like the movie, the Dark Knight is very dark and harsh at times, and even darker than Batman Begins. The Joker's theme is harsh and jagged and strange, and at first it's hard to listen to, but it's actually rather a good track, once you listen to it, and once you see the movie. This is another collaboration between JNH and Zimmer, so there are some tracks that are more Zimmer-ish than others. I would highly recommend this soundtrack; the final track, which is 15+ minutes long, is definitely worth your money alone, but since it's so long, I won't post a link to it. You should go listen to it on your own if you're interested.

Aggressive Expansion -An action-packed track, starting with Batman's theme, and then slowing down some in the middle, but coming back at the very end with the Joker's theme.
http://bit.ly/4PHgm

Watch The World Burn - A discordant track, yet it's also amazingly powerful and moving. It sounds more like one JNH would do, but I couldn't say for sure.
http://bit.ly/5X8f8

Gladiator

I'm pretty sure this album was the one that made Zimmer famous; it certainly deserves all the attention that it gets. It's a magnificent album, almost entirely orchestral, with beautiful themes, pounding action tracks, and the works. Just what you would want from any soundtrack album. This one is highly recommended for everyone, soundtrack fan or not.

The Battle - The theme running throughout this track is similar to the Planets (so similar that Zimmer got sued over it), but it's still an excellent track.
http://bit.ly/ffGqgw

Patricide - Mostly strings in this track; it's really one of the most beautiful tracks on this CD. It's extremely powerful.
http://bit.ly/dQoeUg

These are just the beginning...there's more to come that I can recommend from Zimmer, so stay tuned.

For the past month or so, most of my writing energy has been spent on the final essay for my English Comp class, which is a research/proposal paper. I turned it in Thursday, and decided that, since I don't have anything else to post, and since some of you all have heard about this paper, I thought you all might like to read it. We were supposed to find a law, at any level, and write a paper proposing some change to it, or proposing a new law that should be enacted. You'll probably figure out what my paper is on as you read it (if you read it, that is...). And of course, since I just turned it in and haven't gotten it back yet, there may be some errors in it (especially the works cited page...). And it's also having trouble with formatting transferring from Word to here, so I apologize for any problems. Anyway, here tis.

“This Land Is Your Land, This Land Is My Land.”

The question of whether the government should have the ability to take over private land for their own uses is one that has troubled many throughout the history of the United States. Judging by the large amounts of lawsuits carried out every year to attempt to stop government annexation and the multitude of lawyers who make their living from eminent domain cases, it is a prominent issue. Governments wanting to take land generally start with purchase negotiations; if these do not work, they forcefully seize the property from the owner. However, because eminent domain does not provide proper compensation, fulfill the public use clause, and is used unjustly, in addition to numerous other minor reasons, it should have greater restrictions placed on the situations in which the government can use it.

There are numerous instances of eminent domain being used to force people off of their land, with not enough compensation, in order to make way for something that is not really for the public use. One of the main examples of the abuse of the government’s ability to seize land is the Tennessee Valley Authority’s use of eminent domain to take thousands of acres of land from long established families. Frances Dorward investigates this case at length in her book Dam Greed. The TVA was an organization established by the government to reduce flooding in the Tennessee Valley, and was given the authority to use eminent domain to do so. Even though most of the families in the area that was taken were poor, they had been in that location for many generations (Dorward 10). The families were given no assistance in moving, or in finding a new location to which to move. 16,500 acres of farm land were grabbed by TVA and sold to private organizations with large profits for TVA for the purpose of “revitalizing” the community; in this case, it meant building golf courses and large houses on what was formerly farm land passed down through the generations (Dorward 16). Supposedly, this would be for the public use and would help build the economy in the area. However, as is the obvious case, the land that was used for building houses was not really put to the public use. In addition, it is difficult to justify seizing so much land simply so rich people can play golf and build fancy houses on it, at the cost of poor farmers being evicted from their only means of living. 14,400 acres of the land taken over through eminent domain by TVA were flooded when a dam was built on the Little Tennessee River (Dorward 16). It is also difficult to understand how flooding fulfills the public use clause, and even though it may have prevented some flooding downstream, all of the land that was built up for generations was flooded permanently. Entire towns were submerged under the lake created by TVA; they were not even allowed time to move the graves, which are now submerged (Dorward 16). This is just one of many examples of the abuse of the government’s ability to seize land in the recent past. Occurrences similar to this happen often even today, showing a real need for change in eminent domain laws.

According to the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the government is allowed to use eminent domain to take over property with two requirements: just compensation for the property gained and the land must be for the public use. However, the Constitution does not state what just compensation is. Thus, the question of just compensation has become one of the main issues in court cases. As Milton Pearl states in “Background of Need for Review of Procedures In, and Compensation for, Real Property Acquisitions,” just compensation has been more or less classified by the judicial system as being the amount that will be “the dollar equivalent of the property taken” (2). This is generally defined as the market value of the property, which is further classified as being the price that the owner would sell for during normal circumstances (Pearl 2). However, eminent domain is far from normal circumstances. The damages that result from the taking of the property are not taken into account when determining market value, since these are deemed “consequential damages” (Pearl 3). And, although the government is required under the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 to give financial aid for the relocation of displaced individuals, the money provided is usually not adequate, as was discovered by the Government Accountability Office during its survey of how eminent domain was being used in the various states and cities (GAO 8). On the other hand, as Pearl states, there is no real way to determine how much the re-located parties should be paid, if all the factors are taken into account (Pearl 10-11). Still, Pearl admits that it is unanimously agreed, although privately, that these extra damages and costs should be compensated, though the government should not provide private parties with money above their costs (Pearl 6). Thus, the government’s ability to confiscate private land should be limited so as to avoid this matter.

The Fifth Amendment also requires that the land acquired by the government through the use of eminent domain must be publically used. However, unlike the just compensation clause, as Miceli and Segerson note in their article “Private Property, Public Use, and Just Compensation: The Economics of Eminent Domain,” the courts have not made a clear definition of what is meant by “public use” (5). Generally, courts have ruled that economic development is for the public good; in addition, they have also decreed that the taking of land for private use fulfills the public use clause (6). As an example, Miceli and Segerson discuss the court case Poletown Neighborhood Council vs. City of Detroit, wherein the Michigan Supreme Court ruled that an entire neighborhood could be destroyed in order to allow a General Motors assembly plant to move in, arguing that the public use condition was fulfilled with the jobs and tax revenue that would be generated (6). This is just one example out of many that shows how the public use clause is subverted to allow the government to acquire land and sell it to private organizations. Simply because a project will have some general, unknown economic benefit to the community does not mean that it is for public use.

Land taken through eminent domain is often used for the profit of the government. As shown by the survey taken by Matthew Cypher and Fred Forgey in their article “Eminent Domain: An Evaluation Based on Criteria Relating to Equity, Effectiveness, and Efficiency,” 49% of the time, the land is sold to real estate developers, while only 33% of the time is the land retained by the government (261). In addition, as a result of their survey, Cypher and Forgey discovered that the property tax revenue from the land seized by the government increased after it was obtained (266). Thus, the government gains profits from their use of eminent domain because of the tax revenue generated. Although this was most likely not the main reason why eminent domain was used, it was almost certainly an incentive. Also, as noted in the example used earlier of the Tennessee River Authority’s land grab, profits can be made by the government when they acquire land for less than its true worth and then sell it for more than its proper value. The government can also gain profits through sales tax revenue, as noted in the GAO’s report (31). As pointed out in their report, “there is a tendency for cities to use eminent domain to remove manufacturing companies and replace them with retail businesses to collect increased sales revenue” (31). Since the city does not get much, if any, sales tax from manufacturing companies, by taking over their land and selling it to retail businesses that will bring in sales tax revenue, the city is gaining large profits. These are only a few out of many ways that eminent domain can be used to profit the government.

There are many other problems with eminent domain, as the Government Accountability Office found in its report. One of these is the decrease in small businesses that results from the use of eminent domain in urban areas (5). In most cases when the government confiscates land and then gives that land to private owners, larger businesses are put onto the land where many small businesses used to be located. Thus, the numerous small business owners that owned property in an area are put out of business and forced to relocate, while a large, privately owned, company takes over. Another problem that is referred to in the GAO’s report is that the land acquired by eminent domain will often sit unused for many years (5). A government will take over an area of land and then clear it of all structures, but then, due to financial difficulties, legal issues, or other problems, the land that could have been used productively will simply sit unused. A prime example of this is at Oklahoma State University. There, as Joe Drape and Thayer Evans recount in the New York Times article “Financial Straits of Boosters Hit Athletic Programs,” billionaire T. Boone Pickens donated millions of dollars to the University for several projects (par. 1). These projects included completely renovating the football stadium and building an entire athletic village (par. 1). To prepare for the future sports complex, OSU entered into negotiations with all the house owners in an area several blocks long. Only in a couple of cases were they forced to use eminent domain to acquire the land; however, the story is still relevant. They proceeded to move all the houses off of the land, leaving it empty and devoid of any buildings. However, when Pickens gave the money to the university, he put it into hedge funds. During the financial crisis in 2009, these lost over $1 billion (par. 2). Now, as OSU’s athletic director admitted, the massive athletic village will have to wait until they can get more money (par. 3). Until then, the land that once held homes for many people sits unused. This is often the case when eminent domain is used to gain possession of land; the land is cleared, and then, because of legal or financial issues, it simply sits vacant. Yet another minor problem that people often note about eminent domain is that it breaks up long standing communities. This is mentioned in the GAO’s report, where it is listed as one of the problems that eminent domain causes when the government takes over land (5). When the government seizes land, they often do so without respect to who is currently living on the land. In the case of the Tennessee Valley, the families that were removed had been living there for many generations. Yet those communities that had been cared for and carefully shaped for long years were broken up, the land that was cultivated torn up in a matter of months. These are just a few of the other minor problems that are caused by the use of eminent domain.

In order to address these problems that eminent domain causes, more laws need to be passed within all the states in America limiting and defining in what specific cases the government can use eminent domain. Following the patterns and examples given in the GAO’s report, laws need to be passed that prohibit the government from selling private land that was seized by eminent domain to other private parties, unless it is for revitalizing blighted communities or for public utilities or rights of way (GAO 39-40). This would prevent the subversion of the public use clause that is running rampant currently. Additionally, laws should be passed to prevent the government from using eminent domain simply to gain additionally tax income, whether property or sales tax. Laws such as these would prevent the government from using eminent domain for their own profit, which is an unjust use. To stop the subversion of the just compensation clause, laws such as the one passed in Missouri are needed; this law necessitates that the government give more than the market value of the property, as well as paying 50% extra for property that the same family has owned for over 50 years (GAO 40-41). If laws such as these were passed in all 50 states, the government would not be able to abuse eminent domain as easily as presently.

Proponents of eminent domain may object that there are some beneficial uses for the government’s ability to seize land, and thus it should be left alone. It is true that, if it is used justly, with proper compensation paid, if the acquired land is put into public use, such as for highways and preventing blight, and if it does not displace long standing communities, then eminent domain can be a helpful tool. Using eminent domain for revitalization projects can also be helpful. For instance, when an area is blighted and so run down that few people can live there anymore, eminent domain may be the only way to rebuild the area. Of course, the current residents must be given just compensation and given help with relocation in this case. The government must also be careful with blight designations, so as not to adversely affect communities that are not actually blighted. This is why eminent domain should not be eliminated entirely; it only needs to have restrictions placed on it, because it is so problematic and has so many loopholes.

Others may object that restricting the government’s ability to take land is not a feasible solution to the problem. However, as shown by statistics found by the Government Accountability Office show, there has been a definite increase in the laws limiting the ability of state and city governments to use eminent domain. During the period from 2005 to 2006, alterations to eminent domain laws were enacted in 29 states in America (GAO 5). If laws could be passed to restrict eminent domain in 29 states in one year alone, then surely it would not be difficult to add similar laws in the other 21 states. Passing laws such as these would not be complicated, since the common person generally approves of placing restrictions on the government’s ability to take land.

The wording that establishes the government’s right to seize land requires only that just compensation be given and that the land be put to a public use. The just compensation requirement, as defined by the courts, is the market value of the property. However, this does not take into account all the variables that a person selling the property would take into account, as well as not providing sufficient funds for relocation. Additionally, the definition for “public use” has been taken very broadly. These and the other problems mentioned in this paper show that eminent domain needs to be restricted to revitalizing blighted communities, public utilities, and rights of way. Without further restrictions on eminent domain, the government will continue to abuse its power to gain their own ends without regard for the public good.

Works Cited

Cypher, Matthew L., and Fred A. Forgey. “Eminent Domain: An Evaluation Based on Criteria Relating to Equity, Effectiveness, and Efficiency.” Urban Affairs Review 39.2 (2003): 254-268. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. http://uar.sagepub.com/content/39/2/254

Dorward, Frances. Dam Greed. Books.google.com. Bloomington: Xlibris, 2009. Web. 1 Apr. 2011. http://books.google.com/books?id=nS2SgSwONF0C&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false

Drape, Joe, and Thayer Evans. “Financial Straits of Boosters Hit Athletic Programs.” The New York Times. New York Times, 20 Oct. 2008. Web. 2 Apr. 2011. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/21/sports/21boosters.html?_r=1&em

Miceli, Thomas, and Kathleen Segerson. “Private Property, Public Use, and Just Compensation: The Economics of Eminent Domain.” University of Connecticut Department of Economics Working Paper No. 12, 2007. Web. 31 Mar. 2011. http://www.econ.uconn.edu/working/2007-12.pdf

Pearl, Milton A. Background of Need for Review of Procedures in, and Compensation for, Real Property Acquisitions. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961. Print.

United States. Government Accountability Office. Eminent Domain: Information About Its Uses and Effect on Property Owners and Communities Is Limited. 2006. Web. 30 Mar. 2011. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-28/pdf/GAOREPORTS-GAO-07-28.pdf