Tuesday, October 07, 2008
springsteen
I know there are some rabid Bruce fans who read this blog. I am a moderate Bruce fan. But I became a bit more of one this past weekend after seeing him at a rally for Obama in Philly. It was a decent show that included a good speech. Here's a transcription:
“Hello Philly,
“Hello Philly,
“I am glad to be here today for this voter registration drive and for Barack Obama, the next President of the United States.
“I’ve spent 35 years writing about America, its people, and the meaning of the American Promise. The Promise that was handed down to us, right here in this city from our founding fathers, with one instruction: Do your best to make these things real. Opportunity, equality, social and economic justice, a fair shake for all of our citizens, the American idea, as a positive influence, around the world for a more just and peaceful existence. These are the things that give our lives hope, shape, and meaning. They are the ties that bind us together and give us faith in our contract with one another.
“I’ve spent most of my creative life measuring the distance between that American promise and American reality. For many Americans, who are today losing their jobs, their homes, seeing their retirement funds disappear, who have no healthcare, or who have been abandoned in our inner cities. The distance between that promise and that reality has never been greater or more painful.
“I believe Senator Obama has taken the measure of that distance in his own life and in his work. I believe he understands, in his heart, the cost of that distance, in blood and suffering, in the lives of everyday Americans. I believe as president, he would work to restore that promise to so many of our fellow citizens who have justifiably lost faith in its meaning. After the disastrous administration of the past 8 years, we need someone to lead us in an American reclamation project. In my job, I travel the world, and occasionally play big stadiums, just like Senator Obama. I’ve continued to find, wherever I go, America remains a repository of people’s hopes, possibilities, and desires, and that despite the terrible erosion to our standing around the world, accomplished by our recent administration, we remain, for many, a house of dreams. One thousand George Bushes and one thousand Dick Cheneys will never be able to tear that house down.
“They will, however, be leaving office, dropping the national tragedies of Katrina, Iraq, and our financial crisis in our laps. Our sacred house of dreams has been abused, looted, and left in a terrible state of disrepair. It needs care; it needs saving, it needs defending against those who would sell it down the river for power or a quick buck. It needs strong arms, hearts, and minds. It needs someone with Senator Obama’s understanding, temperateness, deliberativeness, maturity, compassion, toughness, and faith, to help us rebuild our house once again. But most importantly, it needs us. You and me. To build that house with the generosity that is at the heart of the American spirit. A house that is truer and big enough to contain the hopes and dreams of all of our fellow citizens. That is where our future lies. We will rise or fall as a people by our ability to accomplish this task. Now I don’t know about you, but I want that dream back, I want my America back, I want my country back.
“So now is the time to stand with Barack Obama and Joe Biden, roll up our sleeves, and come on up for the rising.”
Thursday, September 04, 2008
email thoughts
I have been writing to some of my friends overseas for an international perspective on the election. Aussie ex-pat living in Thailand Ian Slater and I have bounced back and forth a bit over the last couple days. I wrote him this email today. I liked it, and I think it says a lot of what I am thinking about the whole thing, in very general terms. As I am too lazy to really write anything for the blog itself, I'll just copy and paste this email.
Slates--
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I didn't think it was possible that I could become as obsessed with any mainstream media event as I was with the Olympics, but, perhaps because the consequences are so great, I've been pretty much glued to this election coverage. Because of that, I could probably write several hundred screens here. I'll try to keep my thoughts in check, and then maybe go type something up for the blog.
Anyway, getting into it . . .
I generally believe that a lot of people vote from a fairly narrow perspective. The obvious one there is the pro-lifers, who would rather set fire to an ob/gyn's office than vote for a pro-choicer. Haha. You have your death penalty people, your NRA enthusiasts, etc., who vote for candidates based on those single issues.
Having lived overseas for so long, I've figured out that the motivation behind my vote is, largely, how the candidates a) view the rest of the world and b) are perceived by the rest of the world. Which, incidentally, is why I wrote to you and a handful of my other non-American friends for thoughts. I just wanted to confirm my suspicions that, yes, the majority of the rest of the world wholeheartedly supports Obama. (By the way, I trust there was no question in your mind that I am an Obama supporter.)
Saying something like "I cast my vote largely on how the candidate is perceived by the rest of the world" would no doubt get me in hot water with your standard middle American. In fact, it has before. But what I try to explain to people is that it's not so much that I am swayed by the opinion of the rest of the world, it's just that I realize that our world is so small, the value placed on our choice president so great, that I think the wrong choice by the American people can potentially reflect so badly on us and our government that I think it can actually harm us more than we even realize. Putting a guy like McCain in office tells the rest of the world that we are more or less ok with how the country has been run, both inside and out, for the last 8 years. It tells the world that we are looking for a fight. It tells the world that we are going to put our interests first, militarily and financially, and that you better get the hell out of our way. Putting the wrong guy in office can hurt us economically, can charge up terrorists, can make small countries with cowboy leaders like North Korea and Iran want to step up and get in our face. Is that making America safe? Is that protecting American interests? Is that helping our economy? I think not.
I am all for a strong America. But I think you don't have to be a bully to be strong. To take it one step further, bullies are usually bullies because they are hiding some deep-seated insecurity or weakness. And, anyway, what usually happens to bullies? They get knocked on their ass, usually by somebody much smaller.
At this point, I think that the only people who still believe that America is the undisputed heavyweight champion of the military and economic world are a small few Americans. The rest of us realize that our economy is weak, our dollar is sagging, and all of the guns in the world just aren't strong enough to win wars anymore. Perhaps we need a different approach.
There is strength in understanding, diplomacy, compassion. Obama represents those things.
Now, like you said, whether Obama has the ability or capacity to deliver on these things remains to be seen. That is definitely part of the intrigue of this election for me. And I'm sure if you ask even the staunchest Obama supporters who have fallen for him hook, line, and sinker, even they will admit, deep down, that they really have no clue if he's going to be able to accomplish what he says he's going to accomplish.
You know what, though? I'm willing to take that risk.
Or, to put it as a friend of the family put it the other day, "It's all bullshit. But I'm willing to buy Obama's line of bullshit over McCain's line of bullshit." You could probably apply that line to any election, anywhere, when you get right down to it.
One final thing. You mentioned that bit about Kennedy being unqualified, a fraud. First off, Jesus Mary & Joseph, don't let my mother hear you say that. She'd swoon.
I think a lot of other people, Americans and non-Americans, would also take umbrage to that statement. Why? Well, not necessarily because Kennedy was . . . . Kennedy. (One of the talking heads the other day said, in reference to comparisons between Barack and JFK, "Even Kennedy wasn't Kennedy." I liked that.) Anyway, getting back on track, in the world of politics today, perception is reality. It IS all bullshit. Beauracracy is so slow, the global economy is so big, world events are so out of control, that, unless a guy is extraordinarily bad, as Bush is, it would be hard for a single person anywhere on the planet, even the president of the United States of America, to fuck the world up completely. By the same token, unless he is some sort of diety, it would be hard for a president to heal all the wounds of the world. While people get pretty passionate about Barack, I don't think anybody believes that he's going to step in there and every problem is going to magically disappear.
But having said all that, I think people WANT to believe in this guy. He inspires people. He makes people want to do good. He makes people want to work to heal the problems. He makes people want to repair America's reputation in the world, he makes people want to search for solutions to environmental problems, he makes people want to search for solutions to economic problems. And that, for me, is enough. I am an optimist, and as trite as it might sound, I believe in the goodness of people, and I believe in the goodness and strength of the American people. Do I think Barack Obama can singlehandedly accomplish all that he says he is going to accomplish? Of course not. But do I believe that he can move people's hearts and minds? Yes, I do. We've had plenty of the moving of physical things these last 8 years, and not enough of moving of intangibles. I think people sense that, and I think that's why he's become so popular.
McCain is promising change, to shake Washington up. But what I think he's missing is that it's way, way beyond Washington. It's bigger than Washington, bigger than politics. Perhaps he can bring about some change in the way the governing of this country is conducted, but I don't think that's enough. He needs to bring about change in the attitudes of this country, and change in the way we view the rest of the world. Obama understands this on levels that he just doesn't get.
So there ya go, Slates. I think it got a little out of hand on me. I hope you're still reading.
I miss Thailand. Have a frosty Leo (or whatever your beer of choice is these days) for me.
peace--
RV
Slates--
Thanks for the thoughtful reply.
I didn't think it was possible that I could become as obsessed with any mainstream media event as I was with the Olympics, but, perhaps because the consequences are so great, I've been pretty much glued to this election coverage. Because of that, I could probably write several hundred screens here. I'll try to keep my thoughts in check, and then maybe go type something up for the blog.
Anyway, getting into it . . .
I generally believe that a lot of people vote from a fairly narrow perspective. The obvious one there is the pro-lifers, who would rather set fire to an ob/gyn's office than vote for a pro-choicer. Haha. You have your death penalty people, your NRA enthusiasts, etc., who vote for candidates based on those single issues.
Having lived overseas for so long, I've figured out that the motivation behind my vote is, largely, how the candidates a) view the rest of the world and b) are perceived by the rest of the world. Which, incidentally, is why I wrote to you and a handful of my other non-American friends for thoughts. I just wanted to confirm my suspicions that, yes, the majority of the rest of the world wholeheartedly supports Obama. (By the way, I trust there was no question in your mind that I am an Obama supporter.)
Saying something like "I cast my vote largely on how the candidate is perceived by the rest of the world" would no doubt get me in hot water with your standard middle American. In fact, it has before. But what I try to explain to people is that it's not so much that I am swayed by the opinion of the rest of the world, it's just that I realize that our world is so small, the value placed on our choice president so great, that I think the wrong choice by the American people can potentially reflect so badly on us and our government that I think it can actually harm us more than we even realize. Putting a guy like McCain in office tells the rest of the world that we are more or less ok with how the country has been run, both inside and out, for the last 8 years. It tells the world that we are looking for a fight. It tells the world that we are going to put our interests first, militarily and financially, and that you better get the hell out of our way. Putting the wrong guy in office can hurt us economically, can charge up terrorists, can make small countries with cowboy leaders like North Korea and Iran want to step up and get in our face. Is that making America safe? Is that protecting American interests? Is that helping our economy? I think not.
I am all for a strong America. But I think you don't have to be a bully to be strong. To take it one step further, bullies are usually bullies because they are hiding some deep-seated insecurity or weakness. And, anyway, what usually happens to bullies? They get knocked on their ass, usually by somebody much smaller.
At this point, I think that the only people who still believe that America is the undisputed heavyweight champion of the military and economic world are a small few Americans. The rest of us realize that our economy is weak, our dollar is sagging, and all of the guns in the world just aren't strong enough to win wars anymore. Perhaps we need a different approach.
There is strength in understanding, diplomacy, compassion. Obama represents those things.
Now, like you said, whether Obama has the ability or capacity to deliver on these things remains to be seen. That is definitely part of the intrigue of this election for me. And I'm sure if you ask even the staunchest Obama supporters who have fallen for him hook, line, and sinker, even they will admit, deep down, that they really have no clue if he's going to be able to accomplish what he says he's going to accomplish.
You know what, though? I'm willing to take that risk.
Or, to put it as a friend of the family put it the other day, "It's all bullshit. But I'm willing to buy Obama's line of bullshit over McCain's line of bullshit." You could probably apply that line to any election, anywhere, when you get right down to it.
One final thing. You mentioned that bit about Kennedy being unqualified, a fraud. First off, Jesus Mary & Joseph, don't let my mother hear you say that. She'd swoon.
I think a lot of other people, Americans and non-Americans, would also take umbrage to that statement. Why? Well, not necessarily because Kennedy was . . . . Kennedy. (One of the talking heads the other day said, in reference to comparisons between Barack and JFK, "Even Kennedy wasn't Kennedy." I liked that.) Anyway, getting back on track, in the world of politics today, perception is reality. It IS all bullshit. Beauracracy is so slow, the global economy is so big, world events are so out of control, that, unless a guy is extraordinarily bad, as Bush is, it would be hard for a single person anywhere on the planet, even the president of the United States of America, to fuck the world up completely. By the same token, unless he is some sort of diety, it would be hard for a president to heal all the wounds of the world. While people get pretty passionate about Barack, I don't think anybody believes that he's going to step in there and every problem is going to magically disappear.
But having said all that, I think people WANT to believe in this guy. He inspires people. He makes people want to do good. He makes people want to work to heal the problems. He makes people want to repair America's reputation in the world, he makes people want to search for solutions to environmental problems, he makes people want to search for solutions to economic problems. And that, for me, is enough. I am an optimist, and as trite as it might sound, I believe in the goodness of people, and I believe in the goodness and strength of the American people. Do I think Barack Obama can singlehandedly accomplish all that he says he is going to accomplish? Of course not. But do I believe that he can move people's hearts and minds? Yes, I do. We've had plenty of the moving of physical things these last 8 years, and not enough of moving of intangibles. I think people sense that, and I think that's why he's become so popular.
McCain is promising change, to shake Washington up. But what I think he's missing is that it's way, way beyond Washington. It's bigger than Washington, bigger than politics. Perhaps he can bring about some change in the way the governing of this country is conducted, but I don't think that's enough. He needs to bring about change in the attitudes of this country, and change in the way we view the rest of the world. Obama understands this on levels that he just doesn't get.
So there ya go, Slates. I think it got a little out of hand on me. I hope you're still reading.
I miss Thailand. Have a frosty Leo (or whatever your beer of choice is these days) for me.
peace--
RV
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
getting back into it
Middle of the 9th. Phils have just scored 6 to go up by 3. Miraculous, kind of. I am at (what I shall always call) Pat's Pub in Haddon Twp, NJ. I turn to my buddy and say, "I hope they don't fuck it up." Thus is the plight/mindset of the consummate Philly sports fan.
Got a text this morning from Chris D. He said he loved watching Johan Santana dominate only to be foiled in the end once again.
So, moving toward "the point."
Santana is a great pitcher who often seems to find himself in the unfortunate circumstances of pitching superbly, only to have his Mets blow it and leave him with a loss or a no-decision.
Gut question: do you feel sorry for him? (Try not to let your allegiances, wherever they may be, influence your answer.)
Another scenario:
I play hoops with a bunch of guys every Monday night. Mostly, everybody is around the same skill level. Mostly, it is friendly competition. Competitive, but friendly.
There's one guy who is a little slower, a little less athletic than the rest of us. Nice guy. But slow, not a great basketball player. However, he has a little 8 foot jumper that is quite consistent. If you slack off of him, he hits it. If you get up in his face and play hard D, it is very easy to shut him down.
Again with the gut: what would you do? Would you ease up on him in light of his slightly lower skill level, or would you exploit it?
Me and a couple of the other guys have been discussing this conundrum recently. At times we think that as it is friendly competition among 30-something guys who are just trying to fend off the beer gut, it probably isn't necessary to get up in his grill and shut him down. It seems like this is unnecessarily assholish behavior that's just going to make him upset and ruin his Monday workout. But then, at other times, everybody on the court is trying to WIN, and you should do whatever you can to help your team do so, even if that means blocking this guy into next Tuesday every time he puts up a shot.
Probably, as with all things, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Play him tough sometimes, ease up sometimes. As we are all in varying stages of fitness, that's how everybody pretty much plays defense on everybody else anyway.
But the fact remains that most of us could, without exerting too much effort, shut the guy down. If we wanted to. Hence, the question.
This discussion has meandered naturally to a discussion I've had with another friend over the years regarding dodgeball on elementary school playgrounds. She is against it, I am for it. You can probably figure out the arguments for both sides if you think about them for a second, but I'll gove over them anyway.
Her: dodgeball is barbaric, lord-of-the-flies-ish. Kids don't need to get pegged by a ball at that age.
Me: the world is a tough place. They're going to get pegged, in one form or another, sooner than later. They might as well start toughening up early.
Her: there's plenty of time for that. Let them enjoy their childhood.
Me: if left to their own devices, kids will "enjoy their childhood" by playing competitive sports or, worse, being outright mean to each other. Fighting, hurling insults. We are an inherently aggressive species, and that starts off early.
Her: well, adults should not contribute to kids hurting and abusing each other by encouraging dodgeball on the playground. They should be fostering more community-centered activities.
Me: I think adults chaperoning dodgeball games is just what the doctor ordered. We ARE aggressive creatures. Rather than letting that aggression run rampant, channel it. Let the kids be competitive with each other, but teach them how to do it with rules, and respect for the game, and respect for each other.
And on and on. Obviously, I've painted my own arguments in a more positive light because, well, I am doing the writing. She ain't here to defend herself, so I am capitalizing on that advantage. Does that make me a bad person?
So to recap, think about the questions:
Do you feel sorry for a pitcher who plays well but whose team often blows it for him?
Would you play aggressively against a weaker opponent in a competitive/friendly weeknight basketball game?
What are your thoughts on dodgeball on the playground?
Got a text this morning from Chris D. He said he loved watching Johan Santana dominate only to be foiled in the end once again.
So, moving toward "the point."
Santana is a great pitcher who often seems to find himself in the unfortunate circumstances of pitching superbly, only to have his Mets blow it and leave him with a loss or a no-decision.
Gut question: do you feel sorry for him? (Try not to let your allegiances, wherever they may be, influence your answer.)
Another scenario:
I play hoops with a bunch of guys every Monday night. Mostly, everybody is around the same skill level. Mostly, it is friendly competition. Competitive, but friendly.
There's one guy who is a little slower, a little less athletic than the rest of us. Nice guy. But slow, not a great basketball player. However, he has a little 8 foot jumper that is quite consistent. If you slack off of him, he hits it. If you get up in his face and play hard D, it is very easy to shut him down.
Again with the gut: what would you do? Would you ease up on him in light of his slightly lower skill level, or would you exploit it?
Me and a couple of the other guys have been discussing this conundrum recently. At times we think that as it is friendly competition among 30-something guys who are just trying to fend off the beer gut, it probably isn't necessary to get up in his grill and shut him down. It seems like this is unnecessarily assholish behavior that's just going to make him upset and ruin his Monday workout. But then, at other times, everybody on the court is trying to WIN, and you should do whatever you can to help your team do so, even if that means blocking this guy into next Tuesday every time he puts up a shot.
Probably, as with all things, the answer is somewhere in the middle. Play him tough sometimes, ease up sometimes. As we are all in varying stages of fitness, that's how everybody pretty much plays defense on everybody else anyway.
But the fact remains that most of us could, without exerting too much effort, shut the guy down. If we wanted to. Hence, the question.
This discussion has meandered naturally to a discussion I've had with another friend over the years regarding dodgeball on elementary school playgrounds. She is against it, I am for it. You can probably figure out the arguments for both sides if you think about them for a second, but I'll gove over them anyway.
Her: dodgeball is barbaric, lord-of-the-flies-ish. Kids don't need to get pegged by a ball at that age.
Me: the world is a tough place. They're going to get pegged, in one form or another, sooner than later. They might as well start toughening up early.
Her: there's plenty of time for that. Let them enjoy their childhood.
Me: if left to their own devices, kids will "enjoy their childhood" by playing competitive sports or, worse, being outright mean to each other. Fighting, hurling insults. We are an inherently aggressive species, and that starts off early.
Her: well, adults should not contribute to kids hurting and abusing each other by encouraging dodgeball on the playground. They should be fostering more community-centered activities.
Me: I think adults chaperoning dodgeball games is just what the doctor ordered. We ARE aggressive creatures. Rather than letting that aggression run rampant, channel it. Let the kids be competitive with each other, but teach them how to do it with rules, and respect for the game, and respect for each other.
And on and on. Obviously, I've painted my own arguments in a more positive light because, well, I am doing the writing. She ain't here to defend herself, so I am capitalizing on that advantage. Does that make me a bad person?
So to recap, think about the questions:
Do you feel sorry for a pitcher who plays well but whose team often blows it for him?
Would you play aggressively against a weaker opponent in a competitive/friendly weeknight basketball game?
What are your thoughts on dodgeball on the playground?
Friday, July 18, 2008
yes, we can
Maybe gonna start working on this again. For now, check this out:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1yq0tMYPDJQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1yq0tMYPDJQ
Saturday, December 01, 2007
why business casuals herald the downfall of western civilization, or vice versa
I simply could not choose between these two images. Feel free to debate on which one best represents the nebulous concept of "Business Casual."
Sometime during the 1990's, IBM relaxed its legendary dress code. Out with the dark pinstripe suit and white shirt, in with the khaki and button-down look.
That, my friends, was the beginning of the end. Symbolic, yes, but isn't the beginning of the end always so? And don't the people who are living in the period usually miss it, bigtime?
Well, I didn't. Took me a few years, but I'm pretty sure I've found the exact point of the downfall of the human race as we know it. IBM, and business casuals. I will now use a diverse series of analogies ranging from fat kids to Frank Purdue chicken to illustrate my point. It all comes together, I promise.
The Japanese have a concept/expression pronounced "dara dara." Loosely translated, dara dara means or symbolizes a few ideas:
--not taking care of one's personal appearance.
--not putting one's best foot forward.
--having a generally slovenly, slacker-y attitude.
Let me offer an image of an extreme example of dara dara:
An overweight high school kid with a hat on backwards, baggy sweatshirt and jeans hanging off him, big headphones blasting in his ears, dragging his untied Nike hightops along the sidewalk as he eats a candy bar and lets the wrapper drop in his wake. That is dara dara. Got it?
So. Onto Frank Purdue.
I remember growing up there was a Frank Purdue chicken commercial that had a song which began with the line, "It's the pride of this great country, that makes it the best it can be." (I can't recall how they went from there to chicken breasts, but I suppose it doesn't matter.) Anyway, I was a young kid watching TV with two sisters from England, friends of the family who had come over to visit. I remember one of them saying something like, "you would never hear something like that in a commercial in England." The images in the ad were of a wholesome, spotless farm somewhere in the midwest. Whitebread family, sunset over the paddock.
So, to segue, in a conversation I had recently, Buddy Evan said that the most common first impression of America from the international students he used to teach was that they couldn't believe how dirty this country was. The streets of New York. They'd grown up watching films and television shows featuring a clean America. Even the gritty, street-level gang flicks didn't really give a sense of the rubbish at your feet. They were shocked at the lack of care. Granted, many of them had come from places like Korea and Japan, where cleanliness is a national pastime, but even the Europeans were taken aback.
(As a little homework assignment, next time you're walking down a city street or even through someplace like a mall parking lot, mentally calculate the number of standard-sized trash bags you could fill up with the garbage on the pavement and along the curbs of any football field-ish sized area.)
There is a LOT of talk about the pride of this great country these days, and not just in Purdue chicken commercials. It's blowing from the politician's mouths straight on down to Average Joe at the watercooler dutifully supporting the troops. Everybody's a patriot. Right?
Well, if we care so much about our country, why can't we even keep it clean? I'm not talking Singapore Immaculate here, either. I'm talking, you know, tidy. Isn't it the least we can do?
There are a lot of major problems with our country and our government our world. They are so big and so pervasive that I have a hard time even identifying them (which is why I write on this blog; it helps me to organize my thoughts). In attempting to diagnose these problems, I try to look at obvious symptoms.
Trash on the streets is an obvious symptom.
Trash on the streets tells me that there are certain things about which we no longer care. And not just appearance things. This is not a campaign to recycle. It goes much, much deeper than that.
We have plundered the earth. Plundered the damn thing. Raped and pillaged. But this is not an indictment of oil companies and mining companies and big business. It is much more personal than that.
I think I can understand why the streets are not clean. People do think about oil companies pillaging the earth on some level. And they think, "if we're destroying the planet anyway, what is one more candy wrapper going to hurt?"
Maybe they don't think about big business on a conscious level when they're eating their Snickers, but I'm certain that it plays a part.
And you know what? Who can blame them? When I envision myself telling that kid not to throw his candy wrapper on the ground, you know what answer I envision getting back?
"Why should I give a shit?"
Hmm. Why should he give a shit? Any thoughts?
Another answer I envision:
"It's not my responsibility."
Hmm. Another good point. Whose responsibility is it?
I don't like pointing fingers, but I'm going to point some fingers.
The aging segment of the population grew up on a planet that, as far as they knew, was not yet decaying. Those under, say, 20, grew up in a world that was decaying no matter what we did about it.
But there's that middle ground there. The first Earth Day celebration in 1970 put the health and appearance of the planet into the national consciousness, made it a necessary plank in the platform of every politician worth a salt.
For all practical purposes, middle-aged America should be the most environmentally conscious group of people on the planet. And, to a large extent, we are. Clap clap clap.
But this brings us to business casuals and the downfall of western civilization.
Here's what probably happened there, with IBM:
Some HR guy somewhere analyzed some statistics and figured out that people would be more productive if they didn't have to wear a three-piece suit every day. Productivity increased, but the price was appearance.
For me this begs the question of how the guys who built IBM managed to be so darn productive despite their uncomfortable pinstripe suits. Are we that weak-minded that we actually think and work better in cotton rather than wool? How much more comfortable do we need to be? How soft are you, corporate America? Shall we go to work in our pj's? How high do our workplace environment standards need to be? Is this what our Unions are defending, the right to wear business casuals? Don't give me child labor laws. Don't give me big business abuse of the common worker. Those days are long gone. At the moment, it seems like a lot of people nitpicking because we live in a country where everyone is entitled to absolutely everything, including the right to wear Dockers and Old Navy in the office. What about the guys standing in the wind and rain on top of the skeleton framework of a new IBM office building in Dubuque. How much workplace comfort do you think they have? And we're bitching about wingtips?
Now, one could argue that those guys in the pinstripe suits had a lot to do with the plundering of the earth that I talked about above. They looked good, but they made the earth ugly in the name of making a profit. Fair enough.
But this is a post Earth Day world. We know how to make business and keep things relatively clean.
To me, the decision by IBM to soften the dress code is not the cause of the downfall of western civilization, it is merely a sign of it. A big sign. A sign that says that it's ok to be dara dara. It's ok not to be 100% all the time. It's ok not to look 100% all the time. It's ok to carry yourself with a little less panache.
I'm not going to try to figure out where it started, whether it started with the people on the street throwing their garbage on the ground or with big business sinking their wells into the earth. Whether it's trickle up or trickle down is irrelevant. What matters is that it has reached the middle class, the middle aged, the masses. You're always going to have diversity on the fringes. Fascists, communists, tree-huggers, moonshiners. But when any movement reaches the meat of a society, it has truly taken hold.
Dara dara has taken hold in middle America.
Let's get back to our fat kid dribbling his candy wrapper onto the street.
Me: "Why did you let your candy wrapper fall onto the street, young man?"
Kid: "Everybody else is doing it."
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
people who love bruce springsteen
hello, friends,
good pal and theater maker david bradley published this piece in the philadelphia daily news and it certainly bears a reprint here.
i was at the october 6th concert in philly (my 34th!) and will be attending the show on november 11th in DC. bradley's words resonate deeply...enjoy.
michele
good pal and theater maker david bradley published this piece in the philadelphia daily news and it certainly bears a reprint here.
i was at the october 6th concert in philly (my 34th!) and will be attending the show on november 11th in DC. bradley's words resonate deeply...enjoy.
michele
Bruce Springsteen Sounds the Alarm
By David Bradley
The 2008 presidential campaign made a two-night stop at the Wachovia Center last weekend. Instead of a bevy of candidates there was a band of musicians. Instead of a smiling front-runner there was a strutting front-man. And instead of massaged messages, there was open talk of lies and lost liberties.
It wasn't Hillary or Barack or Rudy or Fred onstage. It was Bruce. Springsteen, that is, along with his comrades from the E Street Band. It was rock 'n roll not politics, but only someone who wasn't listening closely could say it was only rock 'n roll. And I liked it even more because it wasn't.
Springsteen mentioned no candidate, and, unlike the "Vote for Change" tour that backed John Kerry, offered no endorsements. Instead he used the metaphors and imagery of art to sound an alarm, singing in a new song, "Woke up Election Day, skies gunpowder and shades of gray." The song is called "Livin' in the Future," and you can tell Springsteen hopes this ominous forecast doesn't come true.
That number has a bright bounce to go with a sunny refrain: "Don't worry darlin'…none of this has happened yet." But it's a false shine, and that's the point. This song's about denial, about how we proclaim success in the face of defeat and impugn as doomsayers those who disagree.
He might not admit it, but Springsteen's framed the debate of the next year for us. It's all about telling the truth, counting the cost and living up to ideals. "Is there anybody alive out there?" screams his new song "Radio Nowhere," a tone-setter for his current tour. Saturday night, I heard it as a wake-up call to see the shadows surrounding us and hold our leaders, and ourselves, accountable.
Springsteen's music came of age alongside the betrayal of Watergate and the admission of American malaise from perhaps the last real truth-teller in the White House. But his characters didn't need a president to tell them things weren't working. They saw it in the factory and felt it behind the wheel as they raced towards a promised land fading from reach. Somehow, though, they still believed they'd get there.
If the music grew up in the dark night of the seventies, it flexed its muscle in the gleam of the eighties, against the glossy façade of Ronald Reagan's morning in America . Reagan tried to co-opt the grit of the Boss's "Born in the U.S.A. " in his 1984 campaign, blithely ignoring the cutting irony of the lyrics and embracing only the patriotic-sounding title. Springsteen's been on guard ever since, his songs less anthems of faith and more cautionary tales of surviving falsehood.
So there he was Saturday night, giving a shout-out to the Constitution in its hometown, pointing his telecaster and taking aim at the truth-twisting of those in power. But with his legendary knack for fusing rock 'n roll revival with a tent meeting for serious business, he enlarged the conversation past party or personality, which he never discussed.
Instead, he sang of a fallen soldier mourned by his buddies, a huckster illusionist ready to saw us in half and the "long walk home" between the choices we've made and the values we profess. He closed the show with " American Land ," a Seeger-esque tribute to "the hands that built the country" that are "still dyin' now." There was no mistaking the gap he sees between where we stand as a nation and where we could be.
A long time ago, the young rebels in Springsteen's songs had faith in spirits in the night, whose magic held forth the possibility of change, the idea of transformation. Saturday night, introducing the title song of his new album Magic by criticizing politicians who would turn truth into lie and lie into truth, Springsteen exposed the underside of the enchantment. "This ain't about magic," he stated, "it's about tricks."
Be warned, he seems to be saying. We're in the shadows of a precarious night, and it's an open question as to whether we can really change. Are we up for a fight or content with a show? In what will we put our faith--real transformation or hollow tricks?
Is there anybody alive out there?
David Bradley is a writer, theater artist and educator who lives in West Mount Airy
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
bulletproof glass
Michele just sent me an email about this blog which read:
update it.you have some things to say.say them.
Umm. Ok.
It's 1:00 AM Monday night. I just got back from an open mic at a bar called Fergie's, on 12th and Sansom in Philly. I played three songs accompanied by the drummer of the house band. We had never played together before, he had never heard the songs. But it went ok. Better than last week, my first performance since being back Stateside, which was less than stellar.
But the details of my music career are quite inconsequential.
Well, sort of.
I ride my bicycle through the streets a lot. I generally enjoy it. If I have my iPod in, I'm rocking out. If I don't, I'm usually either running through some of my songs, or thinking about riffs and lyrics and melodies for new ones.
So I've got an idea for a new song. It is called Bulletproof Glass. I conceived it waiting on line at the post office. A thought along the lines of "why the fuck is there fucking bulletproof fucking glass across the fucking counter at the fucking post office? Who the fuck is robbing the fucking post office?"
It was probably hot, I'd probably spent a frustrating day pounding the pavement looking for a job (speaking of, if anyone reading this would like to employ me in any capacity whatsoever, I am open) and running errands and trying to put a life together here in America. Easier said than done, and it's not even easy to say. Just looking at that sentence makes me cringe, makes me think about the DMV and other such sucky places.
So let's get back to the bike. I ride my bike.
In Sapporo, I also rode a bike. A heavy silver metal one with a basket like all the old Japanese ladies ride. I'd go blasting through the downtown area with the iPod on at all hours of day or night, in all states of consciousness, and never once worried about anything or anyone, ever. Period.
The other night I was riding along on my way to go eat Mexican food with my friends down in South Philly. I was heading into what was obviously a "rough" neighborhood. My bicycle is old, and creaky. When I've got the iPod in, I forget how much noise I'm cranking out as I barrel on and off the sidewalks. So anyway, I come up behind this black kid, probably a teenager. And I've got the earphones on but I must be making one hell of a racket, the old rusty frame straining against the tires, the pedals going round and round defying ten years beneath my parents' back deck.
So as I pass the kid, he turns, and swings. Closed fist. That is his instant, and natural, reaction. He does not hit me. He stops himself when he sees my face, when he sees that I am not . . . . I don't know who or what he thought I was. A threat, obviously. I mutter (or scream, probably, in order to hear the apology over Tupac, who I think was playing on shuffle at the time) an apology, pedal hard, and do not look back.
Moments later, I make a decision to get out of that neighborhood and onto Washington Avenue, a well-lit main drag.
Buddy Evan Young, a magazine editor and comic book writer and almost novelist, provides a startlingly accurate description of the smell of Philadelphia somewhere in the pages of his unfinished novel. I won't even attempt to reproduce it here.
The point, though, is that I would like to somehow figure out a way to describe how the streets of Philadelphia feel.
There are a great number of wonderful things about this city. Say what you want about the sports fans, but they are among the most knowledgeable in the country. The musicians at Fergie's pub on Monday nights, to a man (or woman), are kind, open, funny, welcoming. The art museum rocks, the traffic doesn't seem to bad, the skyline is well on its way.
But when I ride my bike through the city, day or night, I am afraid of almost everyone I encounter.
Perhaps I am a big pussy. Or perhaps my sense of what is safe is skewed. Perhaps I am misinterpreting multiculturalism for racism. Perhaps I have been living in Japan too long.
Let me ask a question. There is a lot of talk about rights these days. What we should be allowed to do as citizens, what our government should be allowed to do as a body. But in the year 2007, at the pinnacle of civilization and culture and technology and awareness of diversity, shouldn't everyone on the planet, and not just those in Japan and a few other countries around the world, have the basic right to walk outside of their home and go somewhere without having to worry about "rough" neighborhoods?
Travelers to foreign lands, historically, have always had to worry about safety. From the first hunter-gatherers all the way up. Fear of an unknown person or entity is a natural human reaction.
But there are very few unknowns anymore. At least not in America. We're all very well aware of whites and blacks and hispanics and Asians and other. We have a pretty good understanding of what each race is about, what they eat and how they interact with each other and how they get married. It's all right there in front of us everyday.
So why am I afraid riding my bicycle through the streets? Where does that energy come from?
Please don't tell me I've been away too long, that I don't know what "reality" is. And please don't tell me that it is only my perception of things because I've been out of the country for so many years. People who live and work in the city and have been here for a long time have told me which neighborhoods are safe and which ones are not. They've told me to watch my back, to be careful, to avoid talking to strangers. Somebody offered to buy me a can of mace, and somebody else told me that I should not be so "aggressively friendly".
I don't want to expand this into a broad comment about fear and anger and race in America, because not all the facts are in, and because I am not yet informed enough about these topics. I am simply talking about how I feel a lot of the time. And why there is bulletproof glass at Taco Bell, and at filling stations, and, as I said, at the post office. It has become, I suppose, necessary.
One final point. Living in a safe world is a basic human right. But often rights must come with responsibility.
In a word, the safety of our world is all of our responsibility. So, like, what are we going to do about it?
Friday, August 10, 2007
with no power, nothing to do
I have absolutely nothing in mind as I begin this post. No agenda, no theme. But I suppose I must start somewhere.
Michele hijacked back and posted a couple weeks ago to talk about the Senate debate on the war and to answer some of the questions I posed. I just read through that post and, once again, the part about Americans being a "cowering, inarticulate" people afraid to express any opinions for fear of pissing someone off struck me, as did the bit about America being another "failed political experiment."
Sobering thoughts indeed.
Has anyone read anything serious about the fall of the Roman Empire recently? Or the fall of any empire, really. I haven't, but I'm guessing that there are checkpoints along the way to the downfall of any political, economic, and cultural juggernaut, and I'm wondering how many of those America has passed. Perhaps someone could do some reading and enlighten us. Or maybe I'll do some myself.
As far as people being cowering and inarticulate goes, hmm. Obviously, I am not an expert on the current state of America (which is why I pose so many questions in this blog), but, at least from the things that I read and from the people who respond here, I don't think people are necessarily inarticulate. I think people genuinely don't know what to believe anymore. Let me explain.
Every once in a while, when I gain a flash of interest in politics, I do this little thing where I try to put myself in a vacuum, a vacuum free of all other thoughts and influences and prejudices. And then I think of issues. War. Abortion. Health care. Social services. Etc. Whatever's on my mind, whatever issues I think need to be addressed in any functioning society.
So I go into my little vacuum. Actually, wait. Just as I'm about to go into my little vacuum, I think about what will be my guiding light once inside, because that shit gets fucking dark. So my guiding lights are love and compassion, usually. Something along those lines. So I go into my vacuum and say to myself, "Right. So what's your stance on the war?"
Then I answer myself. "Love and compassion, love and compassion. Well, love and compassion would dictate that we supply all of our troops currently in Iraq with food, clothing, medical supplies, and building supplies. We send them out into the country and have them rebuild destroyed structures along the way. We then re-write the budget so that a chunk of the funds that have gone toward the war effort will now be distributed to those who have lost loved ones. In the meantime, George Bush and his entire staff, along with every member of Congress and every participant in the coalition of the willing, go to Iraq to publically apologize for the unexplained invasion. Once every building has been rebuilt and finances have been distributed evenly to all parties (which could take several years and several billion dollars, but then again, so will the ongoing war), we begin working on changing the hearts and minds of the people who have been hurt or wronged. We establish goodwill running both ways, perhaps we even form a communication system for the parents of dead American soldiers and the relatives of dead Iraqis. Anything to bridge the gaps of fear and hatred and distrust."
So. How does all that sound? Reasonable? No?
Why not? It's more than just love and compassion. It offers practical solutions to the problems. It has a financial component. We're spending all this money on the war anyway, why not redirect it to a more positive solution? It addresses the issues of health care and infrastructure in Iraq. And it will likely reduce terror. Everybody wins.
I like my vacuum.
But then reality sets in, and I start telling myself, "this is impossible. Nobody would go for it." Even you readers of this blog, you who are critical of the war and of the administration, you who are compassionate and free-thinking and "liberal", are no doubt thinking something like 'this guy is fucking nuts.' Or if you're not thinking that, you're thinking that it is impossible, that it will never work.
This, I think, is the problem. On some level, we all agree that my plan is crazy. But that is because we do not, at the moment, believe that something like that is possible. This, I think, is part of the reason why, like I said above, we don't know what we believe. Every ideal we have gets muddled and squashed down by world politics and Red States and Blue States and bureaucracy. Rather than thinking in our vacuums, we are thinking about everything in relation to everything else. Or, worse, we are thinking in terms of everything that runs against what we believe and hope in our hearts.
That, my friends, is fucking bullshit.
I am a believer in the politically-incorrect but aptly-named Great Man Theory. That people come along every so often, people with conviction who are willing to stick to their ideals at all cost, and dramatically change the course of human history. Sometimes they're good guys and gals, sometimes they're bad guys and gals. But they stick to what they see in their hearts in their own little vacuum, and they make it happen in reality.
Now, I realize that even the good guys and gals probably had casualties along the way. And I also realize that if there are 6 million idealists running around the planet bumping into each other, there will be as much conflict around the globe as there is right now.
However, you gotta start somewhere. Think about this question: what is your guiding light? What guides you when you are inside your vacuum thinking about issues that matter? Forget about reality for a second. Decide who you are and what you believe, regardless of whether it is practical or not. That's all for today, class dismissed.
an insight into your humble narrator, as expressed by hunter s. thompson
"At first I was tempted to laugh it off, to give him as hard a time as I could and let him do his worst. But I didn't, because I was not quite ready to pack up and move on again. I was getting a little too old to make powerful enemies when I held no cards at all, and had lost some of my old zeal that had led me, in the past, to do what I damn well felt like doing, with the certain knowledge that I could always flee the consequences. I was tired of fleeing, and tired of having no cards. It occurred to me one evening, as I sat by myself in Al's patio, that a man can live on his wits and his balls for only so long. I'd been doing it for ten years and I had a feeling that my reserve was running low."--The Rum Diary
Sorry to be so sporadic. More to come soon.
Sorry to be so sporadic. More to come soon.
Monday, July 23, 2007
dead rock stars/condoleeza's rice
Well folks, utterly EPIC weekend. And I don’t throw that word around lightly. One for the ages, one reminiscent of the Bangkok days. Let’s get right into it.
Started off Thursday, actually. Me and Cowboy Rob Pinckney took our guitars up to local ex-pat watering hole TK6 for a short-notice set. The place was packed, people weren’t listening too much, but we steamrolled through some of my originals, some of his Johnny, Willie, and CCR covers, we did Brown Eyed Girl, and ended up with a half-assed version of Hotel California. I actually suggested we play Tequila Sunrise, but he was well into the intro before I got around to telling him it was the wrong song, and by then it was too late.
So I told myself that after the set, I’d have two beers, and then head home, as Saturday was the monthly Dead Rock Stars event (http://www.myspace.com/deadrockstarssapporo), an evening of five local bands organized by the gentleman spies. Jon and Andy of the spies asked me to do a couple solo acoustic sets between bands. It’s kind of a big thing in town, so I didn’t want to get too messed up Thursday night and lose my voice.
Movie cut: me banging along on the bartop at 3:30 AM as American Andrew blasts his iPod through the TK6 sound system rocking everything from Ray Charles to Zep to GN’f-in’R. Awesome night. Salsa dancing with this American girl who claimed to be a lesbian but I have my doubts. I ran screaming before I did anything remotely unfaithful to my special lady friend. Just throwing that out there. I am many things, but adulterous is not one of them.
At any rate. Slept in Friday, regrouped, hydrated, had an early one, home before 2:00.
A couple of the boys from my former place of employment, Hokkaido Outdoor Adventures (aka HOA) (http://www.rafting-hoa.co.jp/) were coming into town for the Dead Rock Stars and for the international party at a club called Mole later on. We started off with a few afternoon lukewarm ones at the beer garden in the park in the middle of town (more on that later, as well) before heading over to club 810 for the music.
First band was ok, my first set was ok. Video footage pending, perhaps.
The next act was an all girl band. Right away you could tell they were something special. HOA boy Jesse fell instantly in love with the drummer, HOA boy Jarad chose the guitar player. The singer was a chubby little thing in quasi Gothic Lolita attire, couldn’t have been more than four foot ten, but man did she hold the stage. Then on the last song, the guitar player, a hot little thing with perfectly straight, soft, smooth black hair flying everywhere, was rolling around on the floor Hendrix style, wailing, soloing, and doing a damn good job of it musically. I turned to Montana Jon, who was smoking a cigarette watching with a smile on his face waiting patiently to take the stage next, and said to him, “You have many things in your band, but what you do not have is hot Japanese girls rolling around on the floor playing lead guitar.”
The spies were good. Jon and Andy are both up around 6’5”, and their music is as towering as their stature. They went through a slick set of what Jarad referred to as “dirty rock”, closing with the ever-rousing “Conoleeza’s Rice”. Jon’s vocals are a little muffled on their myspace page, but check out the lyrics on all four songs (http://www.myspace.com/thegentlemanspies). There’s some good writin’ in there.
For my second set, spies drummer Makoto pulled up a tom-tom and played along with me. As the next band set up and I was tuning up behind the screen, I ran through the chords and changes and rhythms of the three songs I would play. Makoto and I had only met once before, and had never jammed. But man did he rock it. He was right there with me, picking up steam as we went. I was a little drunker, the crowd was a little drunker, when I got to the second half of my politically-charged “Miss America”, the sweat was pouring off of me and I was in the zone. People responded. Closed with “She’s So Lovely”, a song that is becoming so popular that it is asked for by name almost every time I pick up a guitar. My special lady friend, who put the “lovely” in “She’s So Lovely”, was almost as much in the spotlight as me. Great fun, great set.
The next band up was fronted by a heavyset Japanese dude with sweaty, straggly hair and big fuck-off pork chop sideburns. They were good, but, in retrospect, they were just a prelude to the final act.
I don’t know if I could quite describe these guys without accompanying video footage. When they opened, their lead singer, a five foot two, 110 pound Japanese guy in skintight red pants and a skintight red top with a butterfly collar, came out on stage and stood there smoking a cigarette, just staring at everybody. It was exciting. Cool, funny. Girl drummer, guys on bass and guitar.
Maybe we should skip to the last song. Red dude in the corner behind the amps screaming unintelligibly into the mic. Drummer holding steady. Bass player CROWD SURFING on the shoulders of two of the probably less than 50 people in the place. Guitar player has his axe laid across the metal bars in front of the stage, strings down, feedback screaming, and, in a very realistic fashion, making humping motions using the instrument as an extended phallus.
The place was electrified. All the way through, musically, they were absolutely tight, but loose and creative and jamming all at the same time. They did all originals, I think, but their sound ranged from power punk to modern rock to 60’s pop and everything in between. People in the crowd were screaming, jumping up and down, hugging each other. Cowboy Rob was just as into it as the little goth chick in the corner. The bass player was in a white suit with a floral button-down shirt. He would occasionally come to the front of the stage, stare directly into the lights with a murderously serious expression on his face, hold the beat with one hand, and open the jacket to reveal a mismatched floral pattern on the inside lining. He did it three or four times, and every time he did it, the place, inexplicably, erupted. The singer at one point went flat as a board and fell straight back, knocking over the guitar player and banging both of their heads into the PA. I swear people were comparing them to The Doors.
So they finally all threw down their instruments, and the three guys did this little quasi a capella thing at the end while the drummer kept a beat, and then they threw the microphones down and let feedback ring for a full minute or two before the sound guys cut the power.
Host Jon, ever gracious and humble, hopped up on stage, picked the mic off the floor, and delivered the only line that could have come after such a performance.
“People wonder why we don’t headline our own shows.”
You know, I was going to continue on with a recount of the events of the rave party we went to afterwards, and then of drinking at Rad Brother’s, Sapporo’s resident dirty foreigner bar, until 7:00 AM, and then getting up at 11:00 and going directly to the beer gardens for another 10 hour drinking session, but most of you have probably if not participated in such debauchery, heard stories about it. You didn’t even have to live in Bangkok.
I was also going to make some point about music being one of the two international languages that everyone can understand, but it’s Tuesday morning 9:30 AM, and I’m still sort of too hungover to think properly. But there is a point in there. I could understand very little of what little red dude in that closing band was saying, but it was just as powerful and moving as any set I’ve ever seen. Conversely, quite a few Japanese people were dancing along to my upbeat acoustic numbers and to the gentleman spies’ set, and both my music and theirs is very lyric-oriented and therefore would be almost unintelligible to even the sharpest of Japanese English speakers.
But, like I said, I’m just too hungover. I guess that’s what being 32 is all about. Two-day hangovers.
The other most effective international language, in my personal experience, and since you asked, is sports. Maybe more on that next time.
Started off Thursday, actually. Me and Cowboy Rob Pinckney took our guitars up to local ex-pat watering hole TK6 for a short-notice set. The place was packed, people weren’t listening too much, but we steamrolled through some of my originals, some of his Johnny, Willie, and CCR covers, we did Brown Eyed Girl, and ended up with a half-assed version of Hotel California. I actually suggested we play Tequila Sunrise, but he was well into the intro before I got around to telling him it was the wrong song, and by then it was too late.
So I told myself that after the set, I’d have two beers, and then head home, as Saturday was the monthly Dead Rock Stars event (http://www.myspace.com/deadrockstarssapporo), an evening of five local bands organized by the gentleman spies. Jon and Andy of the spies asked me to do a couple solo acoustic sets between bands. It’s kind of a big thing in town, so I didn’t want to get too messed up Thursday night and lose my voice.
Movie cut: me banging along on the bartop at 3:30 AM as American Andrew blasts his iPod through the TK6 sound system rocking everything from Ray Charles to Zep to GN’f-in’R. Awesome night. Salsa dancing with this American girl who claimed to be a lesbian but I have my doubts. I ran screaming before I did anything remotely unfaithful to my special lady friend. Just throwing that out there. I am many things, but adulterous is not one of them.
At any rate. Slept in Friday, regrouped, hydrated, had an early one, home before 2:00.
A couple of the boys from my former place of employment, Hokkaido Outdoor Adventures (aka HOA) (http://www.rafting-hoa.co.jp/) were coming into town for the Dead Rock Stars and for the international party at a club called Mole later on. We started off with a few afternoon lukewarm ones at the beer garden in the park in the middle of town (more on that later, as well) before heading over to club 810 for the music.
First band was ok, my first set was ok. Video footage pending, perhaps.
The next act was an all girl band. Right away you could tell they were something special. HOA boy Jesse fell instantly in love with the drummer, HOA boy Jarad chose the guitar player. The singer was a chubby little thing in quasi Gothic Lolita attire, couldn’t have been more than four foot ten, but man did she hold the stage. Then on the last song, the guitar player, a hot little thing with perfectly straight, soft, smooth black hair flying everywhere, was rolling around on the floor Hendrix style, wailing, soloing, and doing a damn good job of it musically. I turned to Montana Jon, who was smoking a cigarette watching with a smile on his face waiting patiently to take the stage next, and said to him, “You have many things in your band, but what you do not have is hot Japanese girls rolling around on the floor playing lead guitar.”
The spies were good. Jon and Andy are both up around 6’5”, and their music is as towering as their stature. They went through a slick set of what Jarad referred to as “dirty rock”, closing with the ever-rousing “Conoleeza’s Rice”. Jon’s vocals are a little muffled on their myspace page, but check out the lyrics on all four songs (http://www.myspace.com/thegentlemanspies). There’s some good writin’ in there.
For my second set, spies drummer Makoto pulled up a tom-tom and played along with me. As the next band set up and I was tuning up behind the screen, I ran through the chords and changes and rhythms of the three songs I would play. Makoto and I had only met once before, and had never jammed. But man did he rock it. He was right there with me, picking up steam as we went. I was a little drunker, the crowd was a little drunker, when I got to the second half of my politically-charged “Miss America”, the sweat was pouring off of me and I was in the zone. People responded. Closed with “She’s So Lovely”, a song that is becoming so popular that it is asked for by name almost every time I pick up a guitar. My special lady friend, who put the “lovely” in “She’s So Lovely”, was almost as much in the spotlight as me. Great fun, great set.
The next band up was fronted by a heavyset Japanese dude with sweaty, straggly hair and big fuck-off pork chop sideburns. They were good, but, in retrospect, they were just a prelude to the final act.
I don’t know if I could quite describe these guys without accompanying video footage. When they opened, their lead singer, a five foot two, 110 pound Japanese guy in skintight red pants and a skintight red top with a butterfly collar, came out on stage and stood there smoking a cigarette, just staring at everybody. It was exciting. Cool, funny. Girl drummer, guys on bass and guitar.
Maybe we should skip to the last song. Red dude in the corner behind the amps screaming unintelligibly into the mic. Drummer holding steady. Bass player CROWD SURFING on the shoulders of two of the probably less than 50 people in the place. Guitar player has his axe laid across the metal bars in front of the stage, strings down, feedback screaming, and, in a very realistic fashion, making humping motions using the instrument as an extended phallus.
The place was electrified. All the way through, musically, they were absolutely tight, but loose and creative and jamming all at the same time. They did all originals, I think, but their sound ranged from power punk to modern rock to 60’s pop and everything in between. People in the crowd were screaming, jumping up and down, hugging each other. Cowboy Rob was just as into it as the little goth chick in the corner. The bass player was in a white suit with a floral button-down shirt. He would occasionally come to the front of the stage, stare directly into the lights with a murderously serious expression on his face, hold the beat with one hand, and open the jacket to reveal a mismatched floral pattern on the inside lining. He did it three or four times, and every time he did it, the place, inexplicably, erupted. The singer at one point went flat as a board and fell straight back, knocking over the guitar player and banging both of their heads into the PA. I swear people were comparing them to The Doors.
So they finally all threw down their instruments, and the three guys did this little quasi a capella thing at the end while the drummer kept a beat, and then they threw the microphones down and let feedback ring for a full minute or two before the sound guys cut the power.
Host Jon, ever gracious and humble, hopped up on stage, picked the mic off the floor, and delivered the only line that could have come after such a performance.
“People wonder why we don’t headline our own shows.”
You know, I was going to continue on with a recount of the events of the rave party we went to afterwards, and then of drinking at Rad Brother’s, Sapporo’s resident dirty foreigner bar, until 7:00 AM, and then getting up at 11:00 and going directly to the beer gardens for another 10 hour drinking session, but most of you have probably if not participated in such debauchery, heard stories about it. You didn’t even have to live in Bangkok.
I was also going to make some point about music being one of the two international languages that everyone can understand, but it’s Tuesday morning 9:30 AM, and I’m still sort of too hungover to think properly. But there is a point in there. I could understand very little of what little red dude in that closing band was saying, but it was just as powerful and moving as any set I’ve ever seen. Conversely, quite a few Japanese people were dancing along to my upbeat acoustic numbers and to the gentleman spies’ set, and both my music and theirs is very lyric-oriented and therefore would be almost unintelligible to even the sharpest of Japanese English speakers.
But, like I said, I’m just too hungover. I guess that’s what being 32 is all about. Two-day hangovers.
The other most effective international language, in my personal experience, and since you asked, is sports. Maybe more on that next time.
Speaking of next time, while I appreciate Michele's thoughts on the re-hijack, like I said, I'm in no condition to address them at the moment. But the dialogue is open, let's keep it up.
Rock out with the cock out, people! You might get hit by a bus today.
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
mess o' potamia, more
hello, friends,
i am hijacking back tonight because i've spent the last two hours watching the senate debate on the iraq war and needed to chime in on a couple of brother rob's questions and thoughts.
okay, how many of you knew that the senate was pulling an all nighter? as steven colbert pointed out, they are preempting things like the infomercial for the "magic bullet," a "very special episode of BLOSSOM" and coverage of the NHL rookie training camp.
what a great time to debate this war, between the hours of 11PM and 4AM. usually, i am listening to coast to coast AM with george noorie.
i guess, to answer rob's question about the difference between democrats and republicans is that there is none. i am squarely behind barack obama, but i also am frustrated by the fact that NO ONE is asserting themselves fully to say "stop the nonsense."
i'm currently listening to washington state senator maria cantwell, who is asking for a pull-out. she is asking for a public presentation of what a senator's opinion might be, and i agree whole-heartedly. stand up and reflect the opinion of what the people elected you to express. are we really being spun that much that there is actually a question. everyone i know wants out -- am i really in the minority?
what is the fear of just calling a vote and putting the question to the mat?
there is such a sense of apprehension, an overwhelming sense of fear here, rob, that no one is able to a) articulate their opinion b)hold fast to that opinion and c)accept being wrong or pissing people off that we are a complacent, cowering and inarticulate people.
what was once the great "american experiment" has turned into yet another example of the tyranny of power. we are no better than any other of the failed political experiments.
whew.
i dare you all to keep watching this debate and challenging your elected officials to reflect your opinion.
gotohellifyouhatefreedom,
volansky
i am hijacking back tonight because i've spent the last two hours watching the senate debate on the iraq war and needed to chime in on a couple of brother rob's questions and thoughts.
okay, how many of you knew that the senate was pulling an all nighter? as steven colbert pointed out, they are preempting things like the infomercial for the "magic bullet," a "very special episode of BLOSSOM" and coverage of the NHL rookie training camp.
what a great time to debate this war, between the hours of 11PM and 4AM. usually, i am listening to coast to coast AM with george noorie.
i guess, to answer rob's question about the difference between democrats and republicans is that there is none. i am squarely behind barack obama, but i also am frustrated by the fact that NO ONE is asserting themselves fully to say "stop the nonsense."
i'm currently listening to washington state senator maria cantwell, who is asking for a pull-out. she is asking for a public presentation of what a senator's opinion might be, and i agree whole-heartedly. stand up and reflect the opinion of what the people elected you to express. are we really being spun that much that there is actually a question. everyone i know wants out -- am i really in the minority?
what is the fear of just calling a vote and putting the question to the mat?
there is such a sense of apprehension, an overwhelming sense of fear here, rob, that no one is able to a) articulate their opinion b)hold fast to that opinion and c)accept being wrong or pissing people off that we are a complacent, cowering and inarticulate people.
what was once the great "american experiment" has turned into yet another example of the tyranny of power. we are no better than any other of the failed political experiments.
whew.
i dare you all to keep watching this debate and challenging your elected officials to reflect your opinion.
gotohellifyouhatefreedom,
volansky
Saturday, July 14, 2007
cherry poppin' anonymous
As the sort of non-response from anonymous was the first comment I've received since I took over the blog, I feel obligated acknowledge it.First off, thanks. Much appreciated. Glad to know people are out there.
That said, I realize that "responding to jackass Volansky blog" falls well below items like "go to work," "feed the cat," and "fight for truth and justice" on most people's daily To Do list, so I don't get hurt or upset if no comments come through. Also, I understand that it was a long hiatus between Michele's last post and my first one, so I'm sure many people moved on to younger, more vibrant, attractive blogs. Perhaps this blog needs to buy one of these:
There is no substitute.
At any rate. A handful of emails have come through, so I know people are reading. If you have time, post a comment, if not, whatever. I'll get over it.
In other news, some buddies and I got together Friday night to do a bit of live music at a local bar, a place called Brian Brew. It was very casual, but if it did have a name, it would have been something like "White Men With Acoustic Guitars". Montana Jon and English Andy of The Gentleman Spies (http://www.myspace.com/thegentlemanspies) played a fun blend of covers and originals, including a strong version of the L. Cohen song "Hallelujah", a song that was made immortal by J. Buckley. After the Spies were done, Cowboy Rob Pinckney, farrier-cum-entertainer, hit us with some CCR, some Johnny, and some Willie. I closed with a set of mostly originals, but originals that have become familiar enough to the locals that there is some singing along. I also did my well-worn acoustic version of "Sweet Child O'Mine" that probably would have Axl & Slash rolling in their graves if they were dead. So that was that. Fun night out.
As Monday is a national holiday, I will momentarily be heading out the door to go camping with my special lady friend. Just the two of us, some trees, a fire, and an obnoxious amount of alcohol. Jealous?
Enjoy the weekend, folks!
Thursday, July 12, 2007
gimme da fuckin' keys, cocksucker
I like music. Listening to it, reading about it, talking about it. I play a bit of guitar and sing and write some songs, and enjoy it.
I check Rolling Stone’s website almost every day. It’s my pipeline to American music, American culture. (I’ve been living outside of America off and on for several years.) I read the feature stories, read the reviews. So the other day I clicked on a video clip where two members of the RS staff reviewed a couple albums. One was the new Velvet Revolver and I forget what the other one was. Anyway. They were sitting in like a conference room discussing Weiland’s vocals and Slash’s guitar, playing snippets from a cd player behind them and talking about the music.
They had some good things to say about it and some bad things. But what struck me most was that the two of them had this underlying tone of smugness throughout the whole thing. It’s like they were reviewing the record, but at the same time they were kind of acting like they were too cool to be reviewing the record. Like somewhere just below the surface, they were making fun of the whole thing. Does that make sense?
So, like Chazz Palmentieri at the end of The Usual Suspects, I began to put together clues from Rolling Stone articles I’ve read over the years, and from other blogs I’ve stumbled upon, and from other interviews with people in the artistic and entertainment industry. What I’ve realized is that that smugness was not an isolated incident.
I’ve spent a lot of years teaching junior high school students. One clear behavioral pattern that children in that age group all over the world share is the desire for privacy. Their bodies are changing and they are shy about showing them, their minds are changing and they are hesitant to offer opinions. Junior high school kids love to pass little folded-up notes in class and keep secrets from their friends.
In the process of teaching, I’ll often play communicative activities in which I ask the kids various questions. One activity focused largely on pop culture, sports, and entertainment. Who’s your favorite baseball player? Who’s your favorite singer? Perhaps because of the privacy thing, when I ask kids who their favorite singer or movie star or pop star is, they’ll often hmm and haw, will be shy about saying a name. It’s not that they don’t have a favorite, they just don’t want to look stupid by saying someone not cool or unattractive.
Of course young adults in America talk about music and movies and singers and bands and all that. They offer opinions and say what they like and don’t like.
But I see that smugness everywhere, that too-cool-for-school attitude. (I have heard of this thing called a "hipster", but I'm not quite clear on what it is. However, I do feel like this hipster thing is related to this smugness somehow.) I don’t see it as cool at all, though. I see it as kind of insecurity about looking stupid for saying they like a certain band or singer. The smugness deflects being identified with that group or style of music, waters down the true opinion, like a defense mechanism.
A few points on this. First off, this is a strictly American and British phenomenon. I interact with people from all over the world. Most of my close friends at the moment are Australian, Kiwi, and Canadian, and no matter how many times I meet one of them, I am struck by how genuine they are, especially when it comes to basic likes and dislikes. Many Americans and Britishers, on the other hand, when you ask them their thoughts on a bar or club, sports team, or cultural icon, will give you an answer, but a snide remark will linger just there, just in case.
Now, to be perfectly honest, I don’t care much about this in itself. If people want to make fun of bands, go for it. But I don’t see it as a strictly cultural thing. I see it as a symptom of a larger unwillingness to identify with anyone or anything that might be unacceptable to someone else. I see it as a symptom of an inability or unwillingness to take personal responsibility for beliefs. What I worry about is that if people are afraid to take a stand on a musician that they like, what hope do they have of holding fast on issues that matter?
Questions: is it easier to identify yourself with something trivial like a favorite band, or something serious like a political ideal? It’s hip to bash Bush these days, hip to stop global warming. Those are safe. But what about unsafe, divisive issues? What about the war in Iraq, for example? I am utterly opposed to violence, I don’t even kill mosquitoes, but I have yet to hear a convincing plan for the withdrawal of troops from the area that will not result in millions of Iraqis slaughtering one another. What do you think about this and other serious matters? I would imagine that the smugness disappears when more pressing issues come up, but do you think people really believe what they say, or is the smugness replaced by another similar defense mechanism that absolves them from really having to go to bat for something they believe? Do you stand firm in your own opinions, or do you waver depending on the situation or the people with whom you’re talking? Have your basic principles or ideals changed as you’ve gotten older? Is it easy or hard for you to express your opinions? Do you temper your opinions with some sort of defense mechanism?
I’m not pointing fingers here. I wonder if I do the same thing in barroom conversations and in other more formal arenas. My opinions shift as much as anybody’s. But this raises another question. We give shit to politicians who waver, but we also give shit to politicians who hold their ground in the face of heavy opposition or overwhelming disagreement. Why is that? Which do you think is less appealing?
Will close for now. Nobody seems to have taken up the question about Democrats and Republicans, but that’s fine. If I get answers, I’ll be glad to address them. If not, I’ve got plenty more where this came from, so I’ll just continue to bash away.
Take care, peeps. Have a good one.
I check Rolling Stone’s website almost every day. It’s my pipeline to American music, American culture. (I’ve been living outside of America off and on for several years.) I read the feature stories, read the reviews. So the other day I clicked on a video clip where two members of the RS staff reviewed a couple albums. One was the new Velvet Revolver and I forget what the other one was. Anyway. They were sitting in like a conference room discussing Weiland’s vocals and Slash’s guitar, playing snippets from a cd player behind them and talking about the music.
They had some good things to say about it and some bad things. But what struck me most was that the two of them had this underlying tone of smugness throughout the whole thing. It’s like they were reviewing the record, but at the same time they were kind of acting like they were too cool to be reviewing the record. Like somewhere just below the surface, they were making fun of the whole thing. Does that make sense?
So, like Chazz Palmentieri at the end of The Usual Suspects, I began to put together clues from Rolling Stone articles I’ve read over the years, and from other blogs I’ve stumbled upon, and from other interviews with people in the artistic and entertainment industry. What I’ve realized is that that smugness was not an isolated incident.
I’ve spent a lot of years teaching junior high school students. One clear behavioral pattern that children in that age group all over the world share is the desire for privacy. Their bodies are changing and they are shy about showing them, their minds are changing and they are hesitant to offer opinions. Junior high school kids love to pass little folded-up notes in class and keep secrets from their friends.
In the process of teaching, I’ll often play communicative activities in which I ask the kids various questions. One activity focused largely on pop culture, sports, and entertainment. Who’s your favorite baseball player? Who’s your favorite singer? Perhaps because of the privacy thing, when I ask kids who their favorite singer or movie star or pop star is, they’ll often hmm and haw, will be shy about saying a name. It’s not that they don’t have a favorite, they just don’t want to look stupid by saying someone not cool or unattractive.
Of course young adults in America talk about music and movies and singers and bands and all that. They offer opinions and say what they like and don’t like.
But I see that smugness everywhere, that too-cool-for-school attitude. (I have heard of this thing called a "hipster", but I'm not quite clear on what it is. However, I do feel like this hipster thing is related to this smugness somehow.) I don’t see it as cool at all, though. I see it as kind of insecurity about looking stupid for saying they like a certain band or singer. The smugness deflects being identified with that group or style of music, waters down the true opinion, like a defense mechanism.
A few points on this. First off, this is a strictly American and British phenomenon. I interact with people from all over the world. Most of my close friends at the moment are Australian, Kiwi, and Canadian, and no matter how many times I meet one of them, I am struck by how genuine they are, especially when it comes to basic likes and dislikes. Many Americans and Britishers, on the other hand, when you ask them their thoughts on a bar or club, sports team, or cultural icon, will give you an answer, but a snide remark will linger just there, just in case.
Now, to be perfectly honest, I don’t care much about this in itself. If people want to make fun of bands, go for it. But I don’t see it as a strictly cultural thing. I see it as a symptom of a larger unwillingness to identify with anyone or anything that might be unacceptable to someone else. I see it as a symptom of an inability or unwillingness to take personal responsibility for beliefs. What I worry about is that if people are afraid to take a stand on a musician that they like, what hope do they have of holding fast on issues that matter?
Questions: is it easier to identify yourself with something trivial like a favorite band, or something serious like a political ideal? It’s hip to bash Bush these days, hip to stop global warming. Those are safe. But what about unsafe, divisive issues? What about the war in Iraq, for example? I am utterly opposed to violence, I don’t even kill mosquitoes, but I have yet to hear a convincing plan for the withdrawal of troops from the area that will not result in millions of Iraqis slaughtering one another. What do you think about this and other serious matters? I would imagine that the smugness disappears when more pressing issues come up, but do you think people really believe what they say, or is the smugness replaced by another similar defense mechanism that absolves them from really having to go to bat for something they believe? Do you stand firm in your own opinions, or do you waver depending on the situation or the people with whom you’re talking? Have your basic principles or ideals changed as you’ve gotten older? Is it easy or hard for you to express your opinions? Do you temper your opinions with some sort of defense mechanism?
I’m not pointing fingers here. I wonder if I do the same thing in barroom conversations and in other more formal arenas. My opinions shift as much as anybody’s. But this raises another question. We give shit to politicians who waver, but we also give shit to politicians who hold their ground in the face of heavy opposition or overwhelming disagreement. Why is that? Which do you think is less appealing?
Will close for now. Nobody seems to have taken up the question about Democrats and Republicans, but that’s fine. If I get answers, I’ll be glad to address them. If not, I’ve got plenty more where this came from, so I’ll just continue to bash away.
Take care, peeps. Have a good one.
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
opening remarks
Michele tells me that I'm not allowed to actively advocate the overthrow of the American government on her blog. Fair enough. So let me go on record and say that I am not advocating the overthrow of the American government.
In fact, I'm not really political at all. Or at least I don't pay much attention to American politics. However, I have noticed that this blog contains a fair bit of political content, so I feel obliged to honor that as the surrogate poster. And what I'd like to do is open up the floor for comments, suggestions, or, most importantly, instruction in the workings of the current American system. Down to basics. I would like this blog to be more interactive, like those exhibits at the Franklin Institute, or a petting zoo. An evil petting zoo.
I thought it might be good to provide a few questions, easy questions, and then people can provide answers, and then we can go from there.
First off, what is the difference between a Democrat and a Republican? I have a pretty good idea of what they've represented historically, but what about now?
Please think about and respond to that.
Finally, I'll likely not keep this thing strictly political. It just occurred to me about a week ago to start doing this, so I haven't completely thought out what I would like to say in the sacred intellectual common ground of the internet, but I'd imagine I'll post on a wide variety of topics. Feel free to give suggestions.
Thanks! Have a great day!
Tuesday, July 10, 2007
hijack
Hello, my name is Rob Volansky. I am Michele's younger brother. I will be taking over the blog indefinitely. Please read and enjoy. Have a nice day!
Monday, June 25, 2007
for now...
it seems as though the dissertation, school, life in all of its wonderful incarnations and dramaturgy has taken its toll on the blog and it is now time to call it a day, at least for now.
you can still reach me at my email address, but i can't handle the pressure of knowing that i've not been able to post.
i trust you will understand.
go forth, fight the good fight and always remember --
gotohellifyouhatefreedom,
volansky
Saturday, March 31, 2007
leaving, part two.
sitting in the lounge at manchester airport, having woken up at odark-thirty. i slept in the car ride over and now one side of my hair is smushed.
the day is going to be a long one.
i didn't want to leave the UK without mentioning that, as part of our travels in and around hull on tuesday and wednesday, helen and i went and visited the william wilberforce house in hull.
pause pause.
well, you can't avoid him these days.
he was the fellow who, in 1807, convinced the british to abolish slavery. this year is the 200th anniversary (the actual day was march 25, so my visit was really timely) and events are happening all over to mark it. you can visit the website for a complete run-down of the history, celebrations and impact wilberforce had.
the movie, AMAZING GRACE, is the story of wilberforce's efforts. i was sort of ambivalent about seeing it, but now i will.
and i urge you to sign the petition to stop the institution of slavery that still exists around the world today.
off now to find some chocolate homewheats for the lizard queen...hours more to go before i arrive back in the city of brotherly love.
kisses to all.
gotohellifyouhatefreedom,
volansky
Friday, March 30, 2007
leaving hull
hello, friends,
well, despite the fact that i was "warned" about the connection between eternal damnation and the city of hull, i've had a rather good week.
helen and i attempted to see the beverly minster...it ACTUALLY looks like this:
despite our smugness and helen's vast knowledge of the hierarchy of the church of england, it does not look like this:
the two do share a striking similarity (and, let's be honest, all big churches look pretty much the same), but we were just plain wrong. sigh. no wonder we are friends -- shared lack of directional abilities.
i've just finished my last module for the week and frankly, just in time. i am REALLY tired, having not slept much here. the bed in my room is a single and, since i'm used to a big queen, i've been waking myself up after whacking my arm on the wall.
oy.
i've also had little luck in finding some presents for you good, kind people, but the entire country shuts down around 5, which is when my classes have ended. it becomes like an instant ghost town. it is odd, but, once again, confirms why there is no more british empire.
really anxious to get home, and, luckily for me, i got bumped up to 'world traveller plus' in my seating, which gives me more legroom and space. and i got an exit row, so perhaps i'll sleep there. and of course, who can forget the "free drinks on overseas flights?" can anyone say "bloody mary."
all in all, it was a good trip and i feel really prepared to dig right on in on my dissertation. i do miss the girl -- i dreamt last night that she saved the life of a duck and was part of a car burglarly in which both my friend jeannie and my cel phone were taken. crazy where the brain goes...
right then, i'm off for a nap. then fish and chips for dinner.
and a 6:15 departure for manchester airport.
hope to see you all soon -- and much much love.
gotohellifyouhatefreedom,
volansky
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)