...and the beat rolls on. I hit Digg.com usually once a day, and you should too. It just gives you a shitload of links to all sorts of neat and educational recent news about politics, science, tech stuff, general stuff, whatever you like, you'll probably find something for you. There are also some web-comics that turn up fairly frequently, and a lot of them are quite good (especially the Oatmeal). Anyway, lots of good stuff, and when I'm looking for a blog topic, I'll usually find whatever pisses me off the most on Digg that day and comment on it. On this day, wow, there was no shortage of options, I actually had to make some choices!
First, I'm not done going after Rick Perry, but I'm obviously not the only one, because there were no fewer than six links to various things concerning the Governor of Texas on Digg today, ranging from reports about new ridiculous things he has said (just in the last 24 hours!) to other blogs. Apparently, he told a kid at a town-hall kind of event in New Hampshire that they teach creationism in Texas (they don't, and shouldn't). No telling if this is some misguided ploy, if he was talking without thinking, or if he just really doesn't know what they teach in the schools in his state. My favorite, though, hearkens back to the dark days when Perry said that climate change is a hoax...oh wait, that was yesterday. Anyway, one of today's Perry articles reminded me that even George W(hat-the-Fuck) Bush acknowledged the reality of global warming and the role of humanity in it, and what's more, he came out in favor of a cap-and-trade system to reduce emissions! I mean, if Bush was smart enough for that, then what's that saying about Perry?
Okay, I'm done with my whipping-boy for today, but I've got more, and this concerns many of the people I hope are reading this, at least indirectly, because it's about Ohio Senate Bill 5, the one that Governor John Kasich signed into law that killed collective bargaining rights. Okay, I'll admit that this one got by me at first, because I don't usually pay much attention to local news, but I have made a point of educating myself on it as quickly as possible. Here's the short version of the story: Kasich shoved the bill through despite massive daily protests, and now here he is today, begging to meet with union representatives to negotiate a new "compromise," and the union reps are rightly refusing. What happened in between? Oh, the pro-union organizations in the state collected something in the neighborhood of 1.3 million signatures (only 231,000 were needed) to put the issue before the voters this November, where it will surely be repealed. So, after refusing to negotiate with the labor leaders while the bill was being passed in the first place--he went to the extent of locking the doors to the state house--now Kasich comes crawling back to try to save some part of the law before it gets wiped out completely. Oh, I love social justice, but particularly in this case, because it's something that I feel strongly about, and this is the part of my blog where I get on my soapbox.
The ability to bargain collectively is an essential right for American workers. If we could trust the owners of companies, large or small, to treat their workers well without being forced to, then maybe we wouldn't need unions. However, we know that most companies do not care a lick about the well-being of their employees except insofar as they need them to be healthy enough to do their work. We know because lots of corporations operate sweatshops outside of the United States (don't think for a second that isn't still going on) and pay the workers there barely anything at all. They'd do the same here if they could, and they damn well did until the workers started to unite and revolt against the shoddy treatment, horrible working conditions, and so little pay that they weren't much more than indentured servants. This didn't even start until the late 19th century, and has been an ongoing battle ever since, with companies trying to pay their workers as little as possible and exploit them as much as possible, and many unions being forced to strike just to ensure that the workers are treated like actual people rather than slaves. Not happy with how little you make at your job? It would be even less without unions forcing state and federal labor laws. People working 9 to 5 Monday thru Friday, do you like your weekends? Thank unions for that. In this country, nobody should really be anti-union, except for the people who dole out the paychecks, and they are in the vast minority. Yet, we still have anti-union laws being forced through across the country. Well, that's our politicians bowing to their corporate masters, but we're going to see democracy actually work on this one, because most people are smart enough (barely) to realize that unions are good for just about everyone. I defy anybody to explain to me why the right to bargain collectively is not good for the working class which, last time I checked, is pretty much everybody. Why would anybody vote against anything pro-union? Do some people like being exploited by their employers? Do John Kasich and Scott Walker and people like them really think that people will stand for their bullshit anti-union laws that benefit nobody but the rich? People are getting fed up with it, and I love it. This one last thing, borrowed from politicususa.com, because I couldn't have said it any better myself: what about this Kasich guy? Has he forgotten that his father was a United States postal worker? Has he forgotten that he was educated in Ohio's public schools? U.S. postal workers and public school teachers are union workers. Governor Kasich wouldn't be where he is today without those unions. But fuck that, he got his, so it's okay for him to shit all over those people now? Boy, that really makes me want to just shove a mongoose down his throat and let a snake crawl up his ass and let 'em fight it out somewhere in between. What a colossal sack of dicks.
Friday, August 19, 2011
Thursday, August 18, 2011
The Guy on the Street
More on Rick Perry, now officially a Republican Presidential candidate...
I read today in a headline (and subsequently in the accompanying article) that Governor Perry is alleging, very publicly, that climate change is a hoax created by scientists in order to make money. Of course, what the headline should have read was: Rick Perry Claims Climate Change is Hoax Created by Scientists to Make Money so that He Can Make Money. And he will, because that will assure him more campaign contributions from those most responsible for the climate change. See, here's the basic problem: here in America, we don't believe in experts. Anybody can be an expert about anything, just so long as they heard something about the subject in question somewhere at some point in time. When anybody is allowed to say anything they damn well want, knowing that huge numbers of people will believe to them (as millions will believe Perry), it tends to devalue the actual experts. You know, the folks who went to college for four and eight and twelve years so that they can attach the title "Doctor" to their names, because that's supposed to add a little weight to their words. It should be a given that those people, the ones who actually have spent years, perhaps decades studying climate change should know a little more about it than your average guy on the street. For all intents and purposes, Perry is that guy on the street. I'd be surprised if he's spent more than several minutes in his life reading anything factual regarding climate change. Yet here he is, saying things for which he has no evidence. He says that more scientists are coming forward every day to challenge the "theory" of climate change. Well sure, if you ask a group of thousands of people, even experts, about just about anything, there will always be a few who don't buy into the widely agreed-upon view. That doesn't make them right. Even a few qualified historians will tell you that there was no Holocaust, but the vast majority agree, rightly, that there was, and the vast majority of qualified scientists agree that the climate is changing and that it is caused by humans since the Industrial Revolution.
Why is this man Perry, or anyone like him, even considered a viable presidential candidate? When people cast votes for politicians who place bluster, talking points and dubious claims over actual facts, well, that's when we end up with presidents like George W. Bush, and that's when we end up with things like a fucked-up worldwide climate, a complete lack of access to affordable or effective health care, piles of debt, pointless wars without an end in sight, and increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. I see no reason to believe that four years under President Rick Perry would be unlike any four years under President Bush the Younger. Yet, America actually considers him. What the fuck is wrong with everybody?
I read today in a headline (and subsequently in the accompanying article) that Governor Perry is alleging, very publicly, that climate change is a hoax created by scientists in order to make money. Of course, what the headline should have read was: Rick Perry Claims Climate Change is Hoax Created by Scientists to Make Money so that He Can Make Money. And he will, because that will assure him more campaign contributions from those most responsible for the climate change. See, here's the basic problem: here in America, we don't believe in experts. Anybody can be an expert about anything, just so long as they heard something about the subject in question somewhere at some point in time. When anybody is allowed to say anything they damn well want, knowing that huge numbers of people will believe to them (as millions will believe Perry), it tends to devalue the actual experts. You know, the folks who went to college for four and eight and twelve years so that they can attach the title "Doctor" to their names, because that's supposed to add a little weight to their words. It should be a given that those people, the ones who actually have spent years, perhaps decades studying climate change should know a little more about it than your average guy on the street. For all intents and purposes, Perry is that guy on the street. I'd be surprised if he's spent more than several minutes in his life reading anything factual regarding climate change. Yet here he is, saying things for which he has no evidence. He says that more scientists are coming forward every day to challenge the "theory" of climate change. Well sure, if you ask a group of thousands of people, even experts, about just about anything, there will always be a few who don't buy into the widely agreed-upon view. That doesn't make them right. Even a few qualified historians will tell you that there was no Holocaust, but the vast majority agree, rightly, that there was, and the vast majority of qualified scientists agree that the climate is changing and that it is caused by humans since the Industrial Revolution.
Why is this man Perry, or anyone like him, even considered a viable presidential candidate? When people cast votes for politicians who place bluster, talking points and dubious claims over actual facts, well, that's when we end up with presidents like George W. Bush, and that's when we end up with things like a fucked-up worldwide climate, a complete lack of access to affordable or effective health care, piles of debt, pointless wars without an end in sight, and increasing disparity between the rich and the poor. I see no reason to believe that four years under President Rick Perry would be unlike any four years under President Bush the Younger. Yet, America actually considers him. What the fuck is wrong with everybody?
Thursday, August 11, 2011
Freedom
It is both sad and terrifying to me that we have here any significant portion of the population that would even consider casting a vote in favor of someone in the mold of Sarah Palin or Michele Bachmann, but I try not to let it get to me too much because neither of these people would ever be considered electable to the office of President of the United States. But the guy that I prayed (figuratively speaking) would decide not to run, Governor Rick Perry (R-TX), appears ready to jump into the race, and he is truly a scary candidate, because he actually could win.
Even if you set everything else about Gov. Perry aside, he just looks uncomfortably like Ronald Reagan when he stands at a podium. Do we really want to relive the 1980s? It's worse than that, though...far, far worse. This is the guy who sponsored a state-wide prayer event, because God apparently looks kindly upon Texan presidential candidates (though it seemingly required a deal with the Devil to secure George W's seat in the Oval Office). Strangely, it was a calculated political move, a ploy to contrast Perry with Mitt "Book of Mormon" Romney, who is despised by the far-right wing of the GOP, and by most accounts, the event went very well for Perry--it is Texas, after all. The scary part is that the guy has enough charisma and appeal that he could be palatable to both ends of the Republican Party, and unlike Palin or Bachmann (or any other prospective opponent in the GOP), he actually has some sort of qualification: a political post that he has not abandoned, and the factual claim that his state has created more jobs than any other since the recession hit. He won't tell you that the huge majority of those jobs are of the part-time, minimum wage variety doing things like flipping burgers and running cash registers at Wal-Mart, but I guess work is work. So, on the surface Rick Perry looks downright Presidential, a legitimate challenger to Obama come November 2012, with the added bonus (for Republicans) of being less-obviously on the brink of speaking in tongues than some fellow members of his party.
But let's return, for a moment, to this day of prayer thing. We have this persistent problem in this country where some people would have us become a theocracy. We are no such thing, nor should we be. No religion should be imposed upon a person who does not want it, and no one religion should be given any kind of preference over another, or over the lack of one. It's right there in the Bill of Rights, the very first part of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In case you haven't read it, it states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Our founding fathers, much wiser men than your average American today (or in any day), saw the very obvious danger here, and they saw that it was important enough that they made it the first fucking thing they said on the subject of American rights. And because no religion can be legally established as a preferential one, it should not be an issue that enters into politics, and it should not be an arena into which any politician should enter. Similarly, voters should not allow it to enter into the equation of who they choose to vote for. Yet, there are still an alarming number of eligible voters who would not even consider voting for someone who was not a very visible and undoubted Christian, something that Rick Perry ensured would not come into question for him. Why do we continue to allow religion to factor into our politics to such an alarming extent? If Rick Perry is a Christian, I have no problem with that, as long as he puts the well-being of his country first. I can tell you this right now, though, I cannot stomach the thought of any national days of prayer or anything like that any more than I can accept the legitimacy of a politician who claims to have received a calling from God to be President or anything else. Here in these United States, we have freedom of religion, but we also have freedom from religion.
Even if you set everything else about Gov. Perry aside, he just looks uncomfortably like Ronald Reagan when he stands at a podium. Do we really want to relive the 1980s? It's worse than that, though...far, far worse. This is the guy who sponsored a state-wide prayer event, because God apparently looks kindly upon Texan presidential candidates (though it seemingly required a deal with the Devil to secure George W's seat in the Oval Office). Strangely, it was a calculated political move, a ploy to contrast Perry with Mitt "Book of Mormon" Romney, who is despised by the far-right wing of the GOP, and by most accounts, the event went very well for Perry--it is Texas, after all. The scary part is that the guy has enough charisma and appeal that he could be palatable to both ends of the Republican Party, and unlike Palin or Bachmann (or any other prospective opponent in the GOP), he actually has some sort of qualification: a political post that he has not abandoned, and the factual claim that his state has created more jobs than any other since the recession hit. He won't tell you that the huge majority of those jobs are of the part-time, minimum wage variety doing things like flipping burgers and running cash registers at Wal-Mart, but I guess work is work. So, on the surface Rick Perry looks downright Presidential, a legitimate challenger to Obama come November 2012, with the added bonus (for Republicans) of being less-obviously on the brink of speaking in tongues than some fellow members of his party.
But let's return, for a moment, to this day of prayer thing. We have this persistent problem in this country where some people would have us become a theocracy. We are no such thing, nor should we be. No religion should be imposed upon a person who does not want it, and no one religion should be given any kind of preference over another, or over the lack of one. It's right there in the Bill of Rights, the very first part of the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. In case you haven't read it, it states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...
Our founding fathers, much wiser men than your average American today (or in any day), saw the very obvious danger here, and they saw that it was important enough that they made it the first fucking thing they said on the subject of American rights. And because no religion can be legally established as a preferential one, it should not be an issue that enters into politics, and it should not be an arena into which any politician should enter. Similarly, voters should not allow it to enter into the equation of who they choose to vote for. Yet, there are still an alarming number of eligible voters who would not even consider voting for someone who was not a very visible and undoubted Christian, something that Rick Perry ensured would not come into question for him. Why do we continue to allow religion to factor into our politics to such an alarming extent? If Rick Perry is a Christian, I have no problem with that, as long as he puts the well-being of his country first. I can tell you this right now, though, I cannot stomach the thought of any national days of prayer or anything like that any more than I can accept the legitimacy of a politician who claims to have received a calling from God to be President or anything else. Here in these United States, we have freedom of religion, but we also have freedom from religion.
Monday, August 8, 2011
Where Is This World?
This continues somewhat from my previous blog entry, since this debt debacle is ongoing, and since I like to be informed and would hope that my friends prefer to be as well.
Last Friday, credit rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded the rating of the United States treasury bonds from the top level AAA to AA+ (the U.S. rating remained the same with the other top two agencies, Moody's and Fitch, though that is, of course, subject to change). Predictably, this morning the stock market took a substantial dive, and anybody who was paying attention and knows anything about it pissed their pants a little, and people started getting even more panicky about a possible second recession (I didn't realize we had got out of the first one). Immediately, any conservative able to put together a complete sentence--there are scant few, I know--screamed that this earthquake and the subsequent shockwaves were because of the debt. To be sure, most reasonable people of any political stripe would agree that the U.S. is in far too deep, that we owe too much money to far too many countries (especially China, and I know I wouldn't want to owe China a damn Canadian penny). On the radio, I heard Bill Cunningham point out (correctly, I checked) that for every dollar the U.S. government spends, forty-three cents of it is borrowed money. That's sick, that is unquestionably out of control. There is plenty that can be responsibly done to remedy that, and there is no shortage of people to blame for it. However, as bad as the debt situation is, and despite what Republican talking heads would have you believe, it is not what caused the downgrade and the negative forecast that came with it. Don't believe me? Okay, let's go ask John Chambers, the deputy head of the Sovereign Debt Ratings Group at S&P, the guy largely responsible for the downgrade. Oh, wait, we don't have to, because Anderson Cooper at CNN already did (and I'm glad it was him, he's about the most unbiased guy working for any of the major news outlets right now). Cooper asked Chambers point blank why the S&P decided to downgrade the United States' credit rating, and Chambers replied, in no uncertain terms, that the level of debt incurred was not nearly as concerning as the unprecedented inability of our political parties to work together for the good of the country, as they seem more concerned with playing their game of political brinkmanship, seeing how far they can push each other or. Even worse, we also have the Tea Partiers seeing how far they can force the rest of the Republican Party to go and generally being completely unwilling to act in the reasonable and responsible manner that it is in no way too much to expect our elected officials to behave.
Oh, wait, didn't I read somewhere last week, before the downgrade, that the real problem we were having was the unwillingness or inability of our lawmakers to meaningfully work together? No, that's not right, I didn't read it...I fucking wrote it, right here! This is all about our political parties (all inclusive, to varying degrees) being more interested in claiming victories than accomplishing what the American people have elected them to do. One might suppose that two major political parties would, at this point, put some of their childish bickering aside and realize that it is now absolutely incumbent upon them to work cohesively to do what needs to be done, rather than what they think might be most politically advantageous. I fear that this would really be to expect far too much, even still. Doesn't it speak volumes about our politicians that they cannot realize that the best way to further their careers would be to act in accordance with the wishes of the people who voted for them in the first place?
I'm dubious about our ability to get back to the relatively secure and comfortable place we haven't been in as a country since Bill Clinton was in the White House. It's clear what needs to be done, but I think the disparity in ideas about how to do it is too great, and is being kept that way intentionally by some. We do need to bring the debt down drastically, but doing it the Tea Party way, by cutting spending on things like Medicare, Medicaid, and education, while refusing to levy greater taxes on corporations and the wealthy, is wildly irresponsible, if not downright stupid. Doing that would place an unfair burden on those least able to absorb it, particularly people of my generation, as well as my son's. We need to spend money in some places, the right places, because government jobs are jobs we desperately need. People who don't have jobs are people who aren't paying taxes or contributing to an economy that badly needs people with disposable income, or any income at all. No, cutting spending indiscriminately is not the answer. The spending we need to cut is that which is wasteful and unproductive. Jobs fall under neither category. You know what is wasteful and unproductive? Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we're not winning, and wouldn't accomplish anything if we won them anyway. Want some more? Any Senator, Representative, Governor, President, or government appointee who already has a net worth in excess of, let's say a million dollars aside from their salary as an elected official, should not be eligible to receive that salary. I haven't got the time to check it, but I would be thoroughly shocked if that did not save combined state and federal governments untold millions of dollars. That's part of the problem anyway, having that many wealthy elected officials does not make for a very representative government. Oh, to live in a world where people earn what they deserve and deserve what they earn.
Last Friday, credit rating agency Standard & Poor's downgraded the rating of the United States treasury bonds from the top level AAA to AA+ (the U.S. rating remained the same with the other top two agencies, Moody's and Fitch, though that is, of course, subject to change). Predictably, this morning the stock market took a substantial dive, and anybody who was paying attention and knows anything about it pissed their pants a little, and people started getting even more panicky about a possible second recession (I didn't realize we had got out of the first one). Immediately, any conservative able to put together a complete sentence--there are scant few, I know--screamed that this earthquake and the subsequent shockwaves were because of the debt. To be sure, most reasonable people of any political stripe would agree that the U.S. is in far too deep, that we owe too much money to far too many countries (especially China, and I know I wouldn't want to owe China a damn Canadian penny). On the radio, I heard Bill Cunningham point out (correctly, I checked) that for every dollar the U.S. government spends, forty-three cents of it is borrowed money. That's sick, that is unquestionably out of control. There is plenty that can be responsibly done to remedy that, and there is no shortage of people to blame for it. However, as bad as the debt situation is, and despite what Republican talking heads would have you believe, it is not what caused the downgrade and the negative forecast that came with it. Don't believe me? Okay, let's go ask John Chambers, the deputy head of the Sovereign Debt Ratings Group at S&P, the guy largely responsible for the downgrade. Oh, wait, we don't have to, because Anderson Cooper at CNN already did (and I'm glad it was him, he's about the most unbiased guy working for any of the major news outlets right now). Cooper asked Chambers point blank why the S&P decided to downgrade the United States' credit rating, and Chambers replied, in no uncertain terms, that the level of debt incurred was not nearly as concerning as the unprecedented inability of our political parties to work together for the good of the country, as they seem more concerned with playing their game of political brinkmanship, seeing how far they can push each other or. Even worse, we also have the Tea Partiers seeing how far they can force the rest of the Republican Party to go and generally being completely unwilling to act in the reasonable and responsible manner that it is in no way too much to expect our elected officials to behave.
Oh, wait, didn't I read somewhere last week, before the downgrade, that the real problem we were having was the unwillingness or inability of our lawmakers to meaningfully work together? No, that's not right, I didn't read it...I fucking wrote it, right here! This is all about our political parties (all inclusive, to varying degrees) being more interested in claiming victories than accomplishing what the American people have elected them to do. One might suppose that two major political parties would, at this point, put some of their childish bickering aside and realize that it is now absolutely incumbent upon them to work cohesively to do what needs to be done, rather than what they think might be most politically advantageous. I fear that this would really be to expect far too much, even still. Doesn't it speak volumes about our politicians that they cannot realize that the best way to further their careers would be to act in accordance with the wishes of the people who voted for them in the first place?
I'm dubious about our ability to get back to the relatively secure and comfortable place we haven't been in as a country since Bill Clinton was in the White House. It's clear what needs to be done, but I think the disparity in ideas about how to do it is too great, and is being kept that way intentionally by some. We do need to bring the debt down drastically, but doing it the Tea Party way, by cutting spending on things like Medicare, Medicaid, and education, while refusing to levy greater taxes on corporations and the wealthy, is wildly irresponsible, if not downright stupid. Doing that would place an unfair burden on those least able to absorb it, particularly people of my generation, as well as my son's. We need to spend money in some places, the right places, because government jobs are jobs we desperately need. People who don't have jobs are people who aren't paying taxes or contributing to an economy that badly needs people with disposable income, or any income at all. No, cutting spending indiscriminately is not the answer. The spending we need to cut is that which is wasteful and unproductive. Jobs fall under neither category. You know what is wasteful and unproductive? Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that we're not winning, and wouldn't accomplish anything if we won them anyway. Want some more? Any Senator, Representative, Governor, President, or government appointee who already has a net worth in excess of, let's say a million dollars aside from their salary as an elected official, should not be eligible to receive that salary. I haven't got the time to check it, but I would be thoroughly shocked if that did not save combined state and federal governments untold millions of dollars. That's part of the problem anyway, having that many wealthy elected officials does not make for a very representative government. Oh, to live in a world where people earn what they deserve and deserve what they earn.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
This Is Not A Democracy
For about a week now, I've been trying to find the time to get in a blog about this whole debt ceiling mess, but it's been tough. I've been juggling my regular job, home business, getting ready to move, and being a dad to a very demanding six-month-old little boy, and I just can't always get around to it, dear readers. And now that this thing we're calling a deal has been reached, I'm trying to at least comment on that, but I'm having a problem of a very different sort: no news sources, columnists, editorialists, bystanders, onlookers, rubberneckers, slack-jawed yokels or anybody of any stripe seem to be in complete agreement about what the deal accomplished, so it comes down to who you trust. And since this is the United States, I don't trust the media to keep me accurately informed (and some sources I automatically assume are outright lying to me).
The only consensus I see is that nobody is really all that happy with the outcome, and almost everybody is angry to some degree at our politicians. Liberals seem to be pissed (and rightly so) that the Democrats once again managed to show a complete lack of backbone, conservatives are saying that they're disgusted that they compromised anything at all (even though they didn't), working class and poor Americans are furious that their government has once again failed to act on their behalf, and this guy right here can't even comprehend how most of this became an issue. That's not to say that I don't understand what happened, but rather that it astonishes me (for some reason) that it was allowed to happen.
Look, kids, raising the debt ceiling has historically been pretty routine for our lawmakers, because most of them prior to this round have at least been competent enough to realize that defaulting would be disastrous, and it's too serious to fuck around with, so they just got it done and that was good enough. This time, however, we have an extremist group to deal with, one that is disproportionately vocal and demanding to how large it actually is, and this group, the Tea Party, is so desperate for anything they can cling to as a political victory that they are willing to leverage anything and make an issue out of anything. And since there isn't anything else right now, they took up this debt ceiling issue, only you can't really come out in opposition to that, because then you look like the fringe lunatic you really are. So what they did was, they basically said they wouldn't go along with it unless the Democrats agreed to cut a bunch of spending and continue letting corporations and the wealthy off the tax hook. Neither of those things has a damn thing to do with avoiding a default, but what Teabaggers lack in rationale, they more than make up for in terrifying levels of understanding of their opposition, and they knew they could count on most Americans to not put two and two together, and they knew that they could count on Democrats to back down when push came to shove. So they went ahead and lumped all this stuff together, knowing full well that nobody would attempt to say, "Hey, wait a minute here, these are separate issues, there is no reason to be dealing with them together." And sure enough, nobody said a word about it. And sure enough, the Democrats were basically forced to back down to the spending cut and tax demands in order to avoid a default.
Our government disgusts me on a near-daily basis anyway, but this is just epic. Its collective ineffectiveness and inability to work in the best interest of the country is staggering. The Republican Party as a whole is selfish, manipulative, and operates almost exclusively in defense of those who have nearly all of the money and power, just so they can collect the scraps handed down to them under the table. The Democratic Party, allegedly the champions of the little guy, who purport to work in the interests of reason, compassion, fairness and social justice, frequently lack the conviction to make good on what they promise to accomplish on behalf of those who most need and deserve the help of a functional government.
This whole ordeal has been fucking pathetic, serving only to exemplify further what is wrong with our government. Never before in our history have our politicians so thoroughly refused to act like they work for the people. This is not a democracy, folks, and continuing to call it one will only serve to someday redefine the term.
The only consensus I see is that nobody is really all that happy with the outcome, and almost everybody is angry to some degree at our politicians. Liberals seem to be pissed (and rightly so) that the Democrats once again managed to show a complete lack of backbone, conservatives are saying that they're disgusted that they compromised anything at all (even though they didn't), working class and poor Americans are furious that their government has once again failed to act on their behalf, and this guy right here can't even comprehend how most of this became an issue. That's not to say that I don't understand what happened, but rather that it astonishes me (for some reason) that it was allowed to happen.
Look, kids, raising the debt ceiling has historically been pretty routine for our lawmakers, because most of them prior to this round have at least been competent enough to realize that defaulting would be disastrous, and it's too serious to fuck around with, so they just got it done and that was good enough. This time, however, we have an extremist group to deal with, one that is disproportionately vocal and demanding to how large it actually is, and this group, the Tea Party, is so desperate for anything they can cling to as a political victory that they are willing to leverage anything and make an issue out of anything. And since there isn't anything else right now, they took up this debt ceiling issue, only you can't really come out in opposition to that, because then you look like the fringe lunatic you really are. So what they did was, they basically said they wouldn't go along with it unless the Democrats agreed to cut a bunch of spending and continue letting corporations and the wealthy off the tax hook. Neither of those things has a damn thing to do with avoiding a default, but what Teabaggers lack in rationale, they more than make up for in terrifying levels of understanding of their opposition, and they knew they could count on most Americans to not put two and two together, and they knew that they could count on Democrats to back down when push came to shove. So they went ahead and lumped all this stuff together, knowing full well that nobody would attempt to say, "Hey, wait a minute here, these are separate issues, there is no reason to be dealing with them together." And sure enough, nobody said a word about it. And sure enough, the Democrats were basically forced to back down to the spending cut and tax demands in order to avoid a default.
Our government disgusts me on a near-daily basis anyway, but this is just epic. Its collective ineffectiveness and inability to work in the best interest of the country is staggering. The Republican Party as a whole is selfish, manipulative, and operates almost exclusively in defense of those who have nearly all of the money and power, just so they can collect the scraps handed down to them under the table. The Democratic Party, allegedly the champions of the little guy, who purport to work in the interests of reason, compassion, fairness and social justice, frequently lack the conviction to make good on what they promise to accomplish on behalf of those who most need and deserve the help of a functional government.
This whole ordeal has been fucking pathetic, serving only to exemplify further what is wrong with our government. Never before in our history have our politicians so thoroughly refused to act like they work for the people. This is not a democracy, folks, and continuing to call it one will only serve to someday redefine the term.
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
Functionally Dysfunctional
I feel like talking politics today, since I haven't really done that much since my return to blog-land, and there always seems to be something going on there.
How about these folks that are being presented as potential presidential candidates by the Republican party? No, wait I'm getting ahead of myself. First, for anyone not familiar with my politics, I don't align myself with any particular party that we have in this country because I have serious issues with the way that the two major parties conduct themselves as a whole and with the way that many members of those parties behave as individuals. Neither party really resembles what either one is supposed to represent, and even worse is the fact that there are only two major parties in the first place. American politics tries to divide itself up into only two parts, black and white. They like this because it makes for an atmosphere that is very "Us versus Them", and that is ultimately what those with any power want. Divide and conquer, one of the oldest strategies of war, and make no mistake about it, politics is a battleground. The truth is, the vast majority of Americans are like myself insofar as their positions on the various political issues are a total scattershot, falling at any number of different points along the spectrum, and very few among us fit entirely as a liberal or conservative. At any rate, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and as such, I have no problem critiquing either party.
That said, on the whole I tend to me more liberal on most issues, but I have a hard time backing Democrats because they don't really represent my values much anymore, and they are far too willing to take entirely too much shit from the folks on the other side of the aisle. Democrats not named Clinton largely have little willingness to fight for what they believe in, or are too frequently bogged down in bureaucracy to actually accomplish anything. There is something to be said for being the more mature and reasonable party (they are), but there is much more to be said for being willing to actually represent your constituents (they largely do not). For that, the Democratic party has earned my ire. The Republican party, on the other hand, is a total, unfettered mess right now, for reasons I will discuss shortly.
If we're going to have a two-party system (and apparently we are, since we seem to be so resistant to having any more parties than that), then it stands to reason that one ought to represent roughly half of the political spectrum, and the other party should represent roughly the other half. If that was the way it worked, it would be relatively okay. This country is allegedly a democracy, and the way it's supposed to work is that, following the elections, all elected officials are supposed to work together for the common good and generally move in the direction indicated by those who won the elections. This usually means small steps, which is fine. It lets the American public test the proverbial waters, see if they like the new direction, and if they do, then progress will be made, however incremental. This no longer works in this country because the party to the right is deliberately stubborn to a childish degree, and the party to the left folds like a chair at every opportunity. Consequently, center-right voters back candidates who are increasingly far-right, center-left voters support candidates who are increasingly center-right, and far left voters back candidates who are increasingly moderate. All of this causes the political spectrum to shift to the right, which it undeniably has, despite the fact that the American public is actually gradually moving to the left (on the whole, though there are also elements moving to the extreme right). Want proof? Our president is a black dude. Polls show that, for the first time, a majority of Americans support gay marriage. Support for the legalization of marijuana is growing (pardon the pun). Yet our policies are, at best, spinning their wheels. The only way we can get back to having policies that reflect what the people want (which is how it is supposed to work in a democracy) is if the politicians are actually reflective of the people who elect them.
Part of the problem is the lobbyists and the special interest groups and the corrupt politicians, and those will never go away, but they can be combated to some extent by nominating candidates for public office who are actually reasonably representative of the party they supposedly stand for, which brings me back to my original point. Look at some of these potential Republican presidential candidates: Rick Santorum. Rick Perry. Herman Cain. Michele Bachmann. Tim Pawlenty. Mitt Romney. Ron Paul. Sarah Palin (maybe). Except for the latter, those are the ones who appeared at the recent Republican presidential debate. Most of these folks are severely flawed as politicians and are long-shots at best, and rightly so. The first four and Palin are extremists to varying degrees, and represent only a small slice of Republicans nationwide, let alone Americans in their entirety. Ron Paul is ideologically a libertarian, which a surprising number of Americans identify as, either in part or in whole. Paul, however, has a problem where, for every one thing he says that makes a lot of sense, he says another six that are totally ludicrous. He is an extremist in a direction all his own. For the vast majority of Americans, extremists of any stripe are unelectable, which brings us to Pawlenty and Romney. These two are essentially middle-of-the-road Republicans, and if the GOP has any sense at all (it may not), it will embrace one of these candidates, or someone like them.
As a (more or less) liberal, I would be glad to see one of the extremist candidates somehow emerge as the Republican candidate in 2012, because any of them would get slaughtered in a general election against President Obama (or almost any other Democrat, really), and it would likely be such a thorough victory that it would give Democrats almost free reign to make policy. As an American, though, I would hope to see what I would term a "normal" Republican like Pawlenty or Romney run against Obama because, while I largely am at odds with their positions, they at least would force the issues to take center stage, which would be much better for the country than the inevitable train-wreck that would ensue from someone like Bachmann or Palin challenging the incumbent. A country where one of these dangerous people can even be considered as a legitimate candidate is a frightening country indeed, but someone like Mitt Romney, even if he didn't win, would at least help to return some credibility to the Republican Party, and would help to re-align our political spectrum. Whatever party or candidate you support, isn't that something we should all be in favor of, a political system that actually functions?
How about these folks that are being presented as potential presidential candidates by the Republican party? No, wait I'm getting ahead of myself. First, for anyone not familiar with my politics, I don't align myself with any particular party that we have in this country because I have serious issues with the way that the two major parties conduct themselves as a whole and with the way that many members of those parties behave as individuals. Neither party really resembles what either one is supposed to represent, and even worse is the fact that there are only two major parties in the first place. American politics tries to divide itself up into only two parts, black and white. They like this because it makes for an atmosphere that is very "Us versus Them", and that is ultimately what those with any power want. Divide and conquer, one of the oldest strategies of war, and make no mistake about it, politics is a battleground. The truth is, the vast majority of Americans are like myself insofar as their positions on the various political issues are a total scattershot, falling at any number of different points along the spectrum, and very few among us fit entirely as a liberal or conservative. At any rate, I am neither a Republican nor a Democrat, and as such, I have no problem critiquing either party.
That said, on the whole I tend to me more liberal on most issues, but I have a hard time backing Democrats because they don't really represent my values much anymore, and they are far too willing to take entirely too much shit from the folks on the other side of the aisle. Democrats not named Clinton largely have little willingness to fight for what they believe in, or are too frequently bogged down in bureaucracy to actually accomplish anything. There is something to be said for being the more mature and reasonable party (they are), but there is much more to be said for being willing to actually represent your constituents (they largely do not). For that, the Democratic party has earned my ire. The Republican party, on the other hand, is a total, unfettered mess right now, for reasons I will discuss shortly.
If we're going to have a two-party system (and apparently we are, since we seem to be so resistant to having any more parties than that), then it stands to reason that one ought to represent roughly half of the political spectrum, and the other party should represent roughly the other half. If that was the way it worked, it would be relatively okay. This country is allegedly a democracy, and the way it's supposed to work is that, following the elections, all elected officials are supposed to work together for the common good and generally move in the direction indicated by those who won the elections. This usually means small steps, which is fine. It lets the American public test the proverbial waters, see if they like the new direction, and if they do, then progress will be made, however incremental. This no longer works in this country because the party to the right is deliberately stubborn to a childish degree, and the party to the left folds like a chair at every opportunity. Consequently, center-right voters back candidates who are increasingly far-right, center-left voters support candidates who are increasingly center-right, and far left voters back candidates who are increasingly moderate. All of this causes the political spectrum to shift to the right, which it undeniably has, despite the fact that the American public is actually gradually moving to the left (on the whole, though there are also elements moving to the extreme right). Want proof? Our president is a black dude. Polls show that, for the first time, a majority of Americans support gay marriage. Support for the legalization of marijuana is growing (pardon the pun). Yet our policies are, at best, spinning their wheels. The only way we can get back to having policies that reflect what the people want (which is how it is supposed to work in a democracy) is if the politicians are actually reflective of the people who elect them.
Part of the problem is the lobbyists and the special interest groups and the corrupt politicians, and those will never go away, but they can be combated to some extent by nominating candidates for public office who are actually reasonably representative of the party they supposedly stand for, which brings me back to my original point. Look at some of these potential Republican presidential candidates: Rick Santorum. Rick Perry. Herman Cain. Michele Bachmann. Tim Pawlenty. Mitt Romney. Ron Paul. Sarah Palin (maybe). Except for the latter, those are the ones who appeared at the recent Republican presidential debate. Most of these folks are severely flawed as politicians and are long-shots at best, and rightly so. The first four and Palin are extremists to varying degrees, and represent only a small slice of Republicans nationwide, let alone Americans in their entirety. Ron Paul is ideologically a libertarian, which a surprising number of Americans identify as, either in part or in whole. Paul, however, has a problem where, for every one thing he says that makes a lot of sense, he says another six that are totally ludicrous. He is an extremist in a direction all his own. For the vast majority of Americans, extremists of any stripe are unelectable, which brings us to Pawlenty and Romney. These two are essentially middle-of-the-road Republicans, and if the GOP has any sense at all (it may not), it will embrace one of these candidates, or someone like them.
As a (more or less) liberal, I would be glad to see one of the extremist candidates somehow emerge as the Republican candidate in 2012, because any of them would get slaughtered in a general election against President Obama (or almost any other Democrat, really), and it would likely be such a thorough victory that it would give Democrats almost free reign to make policy. As an American, though, I would hope to see what I would term a "normal" Republican like Pawlenty or Romney run against Obama because, while I largely am at odds with their positions, they at least would force the issues to take center stage, which would be much better for the country than the inevitable train-wreck that would ensue from someone like Bachmann or Palin challenging the incumbent. A country where one of these dangerous people can even be considered as a legitimate candidate is a frightening country indeed, but someone like Mitt Romney, even if he didn't win, would at least help to return some credibility to the Republican Party, and would help to re-align our political spectrum. Whatever party or candidate you support, isn't that something we should all be in favor of, a political system that actually functions?
Monday, June 13, 2011
That's Not Funny
A couple weeks ago, there appeared on Cracked.com an article by Daniel O'Brien entitled I Can't Tell If the World Is Being Serious Anymore (link below):
http://www.cracked.com/blog/i-cant-tell-if-world-being-serious-anymore/
In short, do you ever see something that just makes you think, or even say, "Is that for real?" I get that a lot, more and more every day it seems. There are a couple prominent reasons for this, mostly that A) we as a culture are completely over-saturated with sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek remarks, and B) we still feel compelled to at least attempt to take everything seriously. But Ryan, I can hear you shouting at your screen, those two things run totally counter to one another! Of course they do, my friends, and that is exactly why it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern the legitimate from the farcical. It's like trying to force your eyes to look in two different directions at once; you can't do it, so you have to choose. This is either serious or it's not. This used to be okay, but the line is becoming blurred. As Mr. O'Brien points out, we now have to decide if Donald Trump or Sarah Palin is seriously going to run for President of this country, when we've got competing concepts vying for leadership in our brains. The media is trying to convince us that yes, these people are deserving of the sort of attention that is granted to actual politicians, while our common sense is screaming that these people can't even keep their crappy reality shows afloat, how could anybody actually believe that they could do any better for an entire country? Unfortunately, far too many people will assume that the collective media couldn't possibly make such an egregious mistake, so they go with that because hey, that way they won't have to actually think about it. Consequently, the rest of us are left dumbfounded that such debates even exist.
For my part, I tend to notice ridiculous creations that somehow not only find their way to the market, but actually sell in quantities significant enough that I have to re-stock them at work. Exhibit A:
http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Iron-Man-2-Edition/dp/B002VECGUU
Yes, that really is what it appears to be, the board game Operation with an Iron Man theme. When I saw that on the shelf, I actually said out loud, "Are you fucking serious?" I'm ashamed to be part of a society that looks at the already tremendous wall of board games that can be found at any department store and thinks, You know what's missing from this? A game where you operate on Tony Stark! There are a lot of very superfluous things floating around out there, and perhaps worse, a lot of things that just scream MONEY GRAB. This is one of those things that will ultimately drift under the radar of things that are laughably absurd, just because there are so many bigger, flashier, louder and more expensive things with similar amounts of absurdity, but to me, this in some way represents the zenith of the mountain (or the bottom of the pit, depending on your perspective) with regard to the ceaseless garbage that is the primary export of the United States. Of course, I've thought this before, and somehow it manages to keep getting more appalling. And people wonder why I'm so cynical--it's because the things that are meant to be humorous have become formulaic and repetitive, and the things that are supposed to be serious are just a joke.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/i-cant-tell-if-world-being-serious-anymore/
In short, do you ever see something that just makes you think, or even say, "Is that for real?" I get that a lot, more and more every day it seems. There are a couple prominent reasons for this, mostly that A) we as a culture are completely over-saturated with sarcasm and tongue-in-cheek remarks, and B) we still feel compelled to at least attempt to take everything seriously. But Ryan, I can hear you shouting at your screen, those two things run totally counter to one another! Of course they do, my friends, and that is exactly why it is becoming increasingly difficult to discern the legitimate from the farcical. It's like trying to force your eyes to look in two different directions at once; you can't do it, so you have to choose. This is either serious or it's not. This used to be okay, but the line is becoming blurred. As Mr. O'Brien points out, we now have to decide if Donald Trump or Sarah Palin is seriously going to run for President of this country, when we've got competing concepts vying for leadership in our brains. The media is trying to convince us that yes, these people are deserving of the sort of attention that is granted to actual politicians, while our common sense is screaming that these people can't even keep their crappy reality shows afloat, how could anybody actually believe that they could do any better for an entire country? Unfortunately, far too many people will assume that the collective media couldn't possibly make such an egregious mistake, so they go with that because hey, that way they won't have to actually think about it. Consequently, the rest of us are left dumbfounded that such debates even exist.
For my part, I tend to notice ridiculous creations that somehow not only find their way to the market, but actually sell in quantities significant enough that I have to re-stock them at work. Exhibit A:
http://www.amazon.com/Operation-Iron-Man-2-Edition/dp/B002VECGUU
Yes, that really is what it appears to be, the board game Operation with an Iron Man theme. When I saw that on the shelf, I actually said out loud, "Are you fucking serious?" I'm ashamed to be part of a society that looks at the already tremendous wall of board games that can be found at any department store and thinks, You know what's missing from this? A game where you operate on Tony Stark! There are a lot of very superfluous things floating around out there, and perhaps worse, a lot of things that just scream MONEY GRAB. This is one of those things that will ultimately drift under the radar of things that are laughably absurd, just because there are so many bigger, flashier, louder and more expensive things with similar amounts of absurdity, but to me, this in some way represents the zenith of the mountain (or the bottom of the pit, depending on your perspective) with regard to the ceaseless garbage that is the primary export of the United States. Of course, I've thought this before, and somehow it manages to keep getting more appalling. And people wonder why I'm so cynical--it's because the things that are meant to be humorous have become formulaic and repetitive, and the things that are supposed to be serious are just a joke.
Saturday, June 4, 2011
A Job Well Done
This hasn't been prompted by anything in particular except another article I came across on Digg with a list of things not to do as a guest in a restaurant (I've seen at least a few of these, all written by waiters/waitresses). I've never been a server, never worked in food service, and I hope to keep it that way because I probably wouldn't be very good at it, and I'd hate to have so much of my income be dependent on my ability to be nice to people. That said, I feel a very strong urge to side with and defend these folks because I've worked for nearly a decade in retail, and as such I have extensive experience with customers who have no idea what is reasonable to expect from whomever is providing you with your service, and even worse, people who have never had to do such a job before and therefore have no idea how much it sucks anyway, even without having someone be shitty to you.
I know most of the people who will read this have had such a job, because the only place I advertise is on Facebook, and most of the people who populate my Facebook are current and former co-workers, so presumably this is just preaching to the choir, but I feel compelled to remark on this anyway because it seems like every time I go out anywhere, I see some customer service worker being treated badly for no reason they deserve, and I'm frequently tempted to say something; I should start doing so, I've never been one to keep my mouth shut about anything. For those of you who do not know, customer service workers typically make somewhere in the neighborhood of minimum wage, which wouldn't be enough to scrape by on even if you worked 60 hours a week (and if you're making minimum wage, you almost certainly are employed part-time, and not full-time). It's even tougher on waiters and waitresses, who typically make two bucks and change every hour, and are forced to rely on tips for the rest.
I know I have at least one friend who demands nearly flawless service and has unreasonable standards everywhere he goes to shop or eat; he does not work anywhere near customers, and only experiences one side of the exchange. The fact of the matter is, anybody working in any type of guest service is probably trying to work on several different things at the same time, sometimes with multiple customers, and they just cannot do everything all at once. Even worse, if a customer does have a complaint, they tend to make it personal. This is beyond unfair, because whatever the problem is, it is rarely the fault of the poor front-line workers, and even worse, our hands are tied to defend ourselves because almost anything we say, no matter how right or how justified, could get us fired from our crappy job.
Every bit as bad is the guy who fails to appreciate a job performed well. This applies more to the waiters and waitresses who, as mentioned before, rely so much on tips. Oh, you may protest, but it's their job to do well, that doesn't deserve an extra reward. To which I would reply, are you fucking serious? Have you got any idea how thankless it is to work anywhere in the service industry? It feels good to have someone tell you that you've done a good job, and I'm not talking about when a superior tells you that. That just feels hollow and forced, just something they tell you so they can feel better about themselves and look good on the HR report. What really means something is when a customer tells you that you've done a good job, because why the hell would they say that if it wasn't true? A couple weeks ago, Audrey and I went out to a nice sit-down restaurant for dinner, and our waiter was just exceptional. I'm sure the dude does a good job for just about everyone who sits at one of his tables, but probably not nearly enough people tell him so, either in words or with their tips. I made a point of telling him that he did a great job, and left him a tip above the standard 15%. I don't exactly have a bunch of extra money or anything, so I couldn't afford to leave as much as I would have liked, but the guy knew that I valued his hard work. You know these folks don't get that as much as they deserve, so hey, next time...no, every time you go out and you get good service, let 'em know. I mean, wouldn't you like that if you were in their place?
I know most of the people who will read this have had such a job, because the only place I advertise is on Facebook, and most of the people who populate my Facebook are current and former co-workers, so presumably this is just preaching to the choir, but I feel compelled to remark on this anyway because it seems like every time I go out anywhere, I see some customer service worker being treated badly for no reason they deserve, and I'm frequently tempted to say something; I should start doing so, I've never been one to keep my mouth shut about anything. For those of you who do not know, customer service workers typically make somewhere in the neighborhood of minimum wage, which wouldn't be enough to scrape by on even if you worked 60 hours a week (and if you're making minimum wage, you almost certainly are employed part-time, and not full-time). It's even tougher on waiters and waitresses, who typically make two bucks and change every hour, and are forced to rely on tips for the rest.
I know I have at least one friend who demands nearly flawless service and has unreasonable standards everywhere he goes to shop or eat; he does not work anywhere near customers, and only experiences one side of the exchange. The fact of the matter is, anybody working in any type of guest service is probably trying to work on several different things at the same time, sometimes with multiple customers, and they just cannot do everything all at once. Even worse, if a customer does have a complaint, they tend to make it personal. This is beyond unfair, because whatever the problem is, it is rarely the fault of the poor front-line workers, and even worse, our hands are tied to defend ourselves because almost anything we say, no matter how right or how justified, could get us fired from our crappy job.
Every bit as bad is the guy who fails to appreciate a job performed well. This applies more to the waiters and waitresses who, as mentioned before, rely so much on tips. Oh, you may protest, but it's their job to do well, that doesn't deserve an extra reward. To which I would reply, are you fucking serious? Have you got any idea how thankless it is to work anywhere in the service industry? It feels good to have someone tell you that you've done a good job, and I'm not talking about when a superior tells you that. That just feels hollow and forced, just something they tell you so they can feel better about themselves and look good on the HR report. What really means something is when a customer tells you that you've done a good job, because why the hell would they say that if it wasn't true? A couple weeks ago, Audrey and I went out to a nice sit-down restaurant for dinner, and our waiter was just exceptional. I'm sure the dude does a good job for just about everyone who sits at one of his tables, but probably not nearly enough people tell him so, either in words or with their tips. I made a point of telling him that he did a great job, and left him a tip above the standard 15%. I don't exactly have a bunch of extra money or anything, so I couldn't afford to leave as much as I would have liked, but the guy knew that I valued his hard work. You know these folks don't get that as much as they deserve, so hey, next time...no, every time you go out and you get good service, let 'em know. I mean, wouldn't you like that if you were in their place?
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Top 10 Cover Songs Better Than the Original
Going back down the musical path today, with a top ten list of cover songs that are better than the original version. This list reflects my opinions, with a brief attempt at justification for each. I based my list on some combination of quality of the song as a whole, quality of the cover, and disparity between the original and the cover (that is, how much better the cover is than the original). First, a few honorable mentions:
"Drive" by Deftones (originally by The Cars)
"Knockin' on Heaven's Door" by Guns N' Roses (originally by Bob Dylan)
"Whiskey in the Jar" by Metallica (originally by Thin Lizzy)
"Head Like A Hole" by AFI (originally by Nine Inch Nails)
"New York Groove" by Ace Frehley (originally by Hello)
10.
“Heroes”
Originally By: David Bowie
Improved Upon By: The Wallflowers
Most songs would sound better with Jakob Dylan singing them anyway, but it’s the whole package here. When you can give a song a unique sound even when compared to Bowie, you’ve really accomplished something.
9.
“Across the Universe”
Originally By: The Beatles
Improved Upon By: Fiona Apple
I can’t actually justify this one, I just think it sounds better with a female vocalist, particularly Apple’s. Her voice seems to wander its way across the universe in question with a wonderful sort of ease.
8.
“Psycho Killer”
Originally By: Talking Heads
Improved Upon By: Velvet Revolver
The Talking Heads were certainly influential due to an unconventional sound, but few of their songs were as good as their potential. Velvet Revolver filled that potential gap and then some. Not to mention, Scott Weiland might actually be a psycho killer.
7.
“Higher Ground”
Originally By: Stevie Wonder
Improved Upon By: Red Hot Chili Peppers
This one is actually close, and I certainly have no qualms with Wonder’s original. The Chili Peppers maintain the funk, but give the song a relentless aggression that it had previously lacked.
6.
“All Along the Watchtower”
Originally By: Bob Dylan
Improved Upon By: Jimi Hendrix
Such an obvious choice, but also so prominent that I couldn’t leave it off such a list. I’m hardly critical of Dylan, but his rendition simply struck me as lackluster, while Hendrix quite simply blew it out of the water.
5.
“Easy”
Originally By: Commodores
Improved Upon By: Faith No More
Of two Faith No More-performed covers (the other being “War Pigs”), this is the more widely-heard, but its unexpectedness gives it the edge. Such a far cry from their usual sound, this is another that shouldn’t have worked, but against all odds emerged as the better rendition.
4.
“Ring of Fire”
Originally By: Johnny Cash
Improved Upon By: Social Distortion
Shouldn’t a song called “Ring of Fire” be a little harder-hitting than your average country tune? Social D stepped up to the plate to fill in what was missing from this one. The original is rightly famous, but the lesser-known cover is far, far better.
3.
“The Boys of Summer”
Originally By: Don Henley
Improved Upon By: The Ataris
Not a thing wrong with the original here, but the Ataris give it some much needed energy and turn it into the kind of song you blast at full volume while driving with the windows down.
2.
“Turn the Page”
Originally By: Bob Seger
Improved Upon By: Metallica
“Whiskey in the Jar” was also in heavy consideration, but Metallica’s version of “Turn the Page” is the more emotionally powerful, a far cry from Seger’s laid-back offering of a song that really demands a heartfelt performance.
1.
“Hurt”
Originally By: Nine Inch Nails
Improved Upon By: Johnny Cash
Cash hit such a nerve with this cover that Trent Reznor proclaimed that “this song ain’t mine anymore.” Enough said.
"Drive" by Deftones (originally by The Cars)
"Knockin' on Heaven's Door" by Guns N' Roses (originally by Bob Dylan)
"Whiskey in the Jar" by Metallica (originally by Thin Lizzy)
"Head Like A Hole" by AFI (originally by Nine Inch Nails)
"New York Groove" by Ace Frehley (originally by Hello)
10.
“Heroes”
Originally By: David Bowie
Improved Upon By: The Wallflowers
Most songs would sound better with Jakob Dylan singing them anyway, but it’s the whole package here. When you can give a song a unique sound even when compared to Bowie, you’ve really accomplished something.
9.
“Across the Universe”
Originally By: The Beatles
Improved Upon By: Fiona Apple
I can’t actually justify this one, I just think it sounds better with a female vocalist, particularly Apple’s. Her voice seems to wander its way across the universe in question with a wonderful sort of ease.
8.
“Psycho Killer”
Originally By: Talking Heads
Improved Upon By: Velvet Revolver
The Talking Heads were certainly influential due to an unconventional sound, but few of their songs were as good as their potential. Velvet Revolver filled that potential gap and then some. Not to mention, Scott Weiland might actually be a psycho killer.
7.
“Higher Ground”
Originally By: Stevie Wonder
Improved Upon By: Red Hot Chili Peppers
This one is actually close, and I certainly have no qualms with Wonder’s original. The Chili Peppers maintain the funk, but give the song a relentless aggression that it had previously lacked.
6.
“All Along the Watchtower”
Originally By: Bob Dylan
Improved Upon By: Jimi Hendrix
Such an obvious choice, but also so prominent that I couldn’t leave it off such a list. I’m hardly critical of Dylan, but his rendition simply struck me as lackluster, while Hendrix quite simply blew it out of the water.
5.
“Easy”
Originally By: Commodores
Improved Upon By: Faith No More
Of two Faith No More-performed covers (the other being “War Pigs”), this is the more widely-heard, but its unexpectedness gives it the edge. Such a far cry from their usual sound, this is another that shouldn’t have worked, but against all odds emerged as the better rendition.
4.
“Ring of Fire”
Originally By: Johnny Cash
Improved Upon By: Social Distortion
Shouldn’t a song called “Ring of Fire” be a little harder-hitting than your average country tune? Social D stepped up to the plate to fill in what was missing from this one. The original is rightly famous, but the lesser-known cover is far, far better.
3.
“The Boys of Summer”
Originally By: Don Henley
Improved Upon By: The Ataris
Not a thing wrong with the original here, but the Ataris give it some much needed energy and turn it into the kind of song you blast at full volume while driving with the windows down.
2.
“Turn the Page”
Originally By: Bob Seger
Improved Upon By: Metallica
“Whiskey in the Jar” was also in heavy consideration, but Metallica’s version of “Turn the Page” is the more emotionally powerful, a far cry from Seger’s laid-back offering of a song that really demands a heartfelt performance.
1.
“Hurt”
Originally By: Nine Inch Nails
Improved Upon By: Johnny Cash
Cash hit such a nerve with this cover that Trent Reznor proclaimed that “this song ain’t mine anymore.” Enough said.
Monday, May 23, 2011
Holy Shit
You know what kinds of stories I've been seeing a lot of as I stumble my way across the bleak wasteland that is the internet over the last couple days? No, of course you don't, stop pretending like you can read my mind or access the web yourself! Oh, wait, you can do that last one, I suppose...
At some point in the last week or so, you've probably heard the name Harold Camping. Sound familiar? It should. He's that guy that said the world was going to end this past Saturday and Jesus was going to come back and take him and 199,999,999 other people off to paradise while the rest of us were boned (except for anybody in New Jersey at the time, for whom there would have been no discernible change). So, um...well, that didn't happen so much, which predictably resulted in lots of not-so-subtly-tongue-in-cheek news articles making observations about how the world had failed to end. What inexplicably happened alongside these pieces, however, was the cropping up of a lot of sympathy for all of those (literally) poor folks who emptied their bank accounts and sold their possessions to promote awareness of the coming rapture or to throw one last great big hedonistic party/orgy (one of those things being somewhat less pious than the other). Just one question here, if I may: what the fucking fuck?!
Is this for real? Are we really expected to feel sorry for these people? If you know me, you know that I suffer fools not at all, and these people are fools. Of course, many people are suckered in by religion in some form every single day, but not nearly so visibly or with such devastating consequences. So, some people in the media would have us feel sympathetic for these impossibly naive folks? They will get none from this dude. However, they may receive from me an offer to purchase a bridge in Brooklyn, or perhaps to monetarily assist me in freeing an imprisoned Nigerian prince.
At some point in the last week or so, you've probably heard the name Harold Camping. Sound familiar? It should. He's that guy that said the world was going to end this past Saturday and Jesus was going to come back and take him and 199,999,999 other people off to paradise while the rest of us were boned (except for anybody in New Jersey at the time, for whom there would have been no discernible change). So, um...well, that didn't happen so much, which predictably resulted in lots of not-so-subtly-tongue-in-cheek news articles making observations about how the world had failed to end. What inexplicably happened alongside these pieces, however, was the cropping up of a lot of sympathy for all of those (literally) poor folks who emptied their bank accounts and sold their possessions to promote awareness of the coming rapture or to throw one last great big hedonistic party/orgy (one of those things being somewhat less pious than the other). Just one question here, if I may: what the fucking fuck?!
Is this for real? Are we really expected to feel sorry for these people? If you know me, you know that I suffer fools not at all, and these people are fools. Of course, many people are suckered in by religion in some form every single day, but not nearly so visibly or with such devastating consequences. So, some people in the media would have us feel sympathetic for these impossibly naive folks? They will get none from this dude. However, they may receive from me an offer to purchase a bridge in Brooklyn, or perhaps to monetarily assist me in freeing an imprisoned Nigerian prince.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Make the Best of It
First, at least glance at this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven
In an interview with the UK Guardian, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking discusses his belief that heaven or an afterlife is nothing more than a "fairy story" for people who fear death. Well, who am I to argue with the smartest guy on the planet? Certainly, Dr. Hawking is not the first person to say that there is no God or anything related to that, but this is a dude who is so off-the-charts brilliant that when he posits something, you would do well to listen and consider.
This is a subject which I often discuss, and could have written about at any time, but this presented me an opportunity to emphasize a particular point. Dr. Hawking says that he does not fear death, but that he is in no hurry to die, either, adding that we as humans should seek the greatest value of our action. I've suggested this myself on a number of occasions, though I say it in a different context. Let me explain.
Where Dr. Hawking has increasingly become an outspoken atheist, I find myself to be more in the agnostic camp. When it comes to God, my thinking is that I don't know and can't know whether there is a God or, if there is, what his/her/its nature is. Frankly, I have not seen any convincing evidence either for or against, and that is what I overwhelmingly base my beliefs on. If I have a good reason to believe something, then I am likely to believe it. However, my agnosticism has little bearing on the way I live my life from day to day. My behavior is much more influenced by my philosophical leanings. I am an existentialist of sorts, and more specifically, an absurdist and discordian.
In the absence of any concrete evidence in favor of or against the existence of a God, my personal feeling is that life and the universe is devoid of any inherent meaning (which, if true, would seem to preclude the existence of God, but again, I don't know). However, true to the absurdist way of thinking, it is my belief that a person can give meaning to his or her life through her actions; or, as Dr. Hawking put it, one should seek the greatest value of your action. In short, do something worthwhile! It doesn't really matter what someone else says you should do in order for your life to be important or meaningful, it matters what is important to you. For me, it isn't important that I try to force myself to believe in something that strikes me as imaginary, a man-made fable meant to frighten people into complacency and submission. What is important to me is my ability to draw my own conclusions based on observation and reason. I see no sense in grasping at straws when it simply isn't necessary. There are perfectly good facts presented to us on a daily basis; we need only not ignore them. And where there are no facts, there is no need to fear the dark. There is no monster waiting to grab you there. Just deal with the fact that you can't know everything, just like everybody else. Not everything has to have a pretty picture painted over it. You're here, that's all, just make the best of it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/may/15/stephen-hawking-interview-there-is-no-heaven
In an interview with the UK Guardian, renowned physicist Stephen Hawking discusses his belief that heaven or an afterlife is nothing more than a "fairy story" for people who fear death. Well, who am I to argue with the smartest guy on the planet? Certainly, Dr. Hawking is not the first person to say that there is no God or anything related to that, but this is a dude who is so off-the-charts brilliant that when he posits something, you would do well to listen and consider.
This is a subject which I often discuss, and could have written about at any time, but this presented me an opportunity to emphasize a particular point. Dr. Hawking says that he does not fear death, but that he is in no hurry to die, either, adding that we as humans should seek the greatest value of our action. I've suggested this myself on a number of occasions, though I say it in a different context. Let me explain.
Where Dr. Hawking has increasingly become an outspoken atheist, I find myself to be more in the agnostic camp. When it comes to God, my thinking is that I don't know and can't know whether there is a God or, if there is, what his/her/its nature is. Frankly, I have not seen any convincing evidence either for or against, and that is what I overwhelmingly base my beliefs on. If I have a good reason to believe something, then I am likely to believe it. However, my agnosticism has little bearing on the way I live my life from day to day. My behavior is much more influenced by my philosophical leanings. I am an existentialist of sorts, and more specifically, an absurdist and discordian.
In the absence of any concrete evidence in favor of or against the existence of a God, my personal feeling is that life and the universe is devoid of any inherent meaning (which, if true, would seem to preclude the existence of God, but again, I don't know). However, true to the absurdist way of thinking, it is my belief that a person can give meaning to his or her life through her actions; or, as Dr. Hawking put it, one should seek the greatest value of your action. In short, do something worthwhile! It doesn't really matter what someone else says you should do in order for your life to be important or meaningful, it matters what is important to you. For me, it isn't important that I try to force myself to believe in something that strikes me as imaginary, a man-made fable meant to frighten people into complacency and submission. What is important to me is my ability to draw my own conclusions based on observation and reason. I see no sense in grasping at straws when it simply isn't necessary. There are perfectly good facts presented to us on a daily basis; we need only not ignore them. And where there are no facts, there is no need to fear the dark. There is no monster waiting to grab you there. Just deal with the fact that you can't know everything, just like everybody else. Not everything has to have a pretty picture painted over it. You're here, that's all, just make the best of it.
Monday, May 2, 2011
Reasonable Doubt
The big news today (well, last night, but I can't always get to this immediately) is that the U.S. military special forces finally tracked down and killed Osama bin Laden. This is great news and justice has been done and all is right with the world and U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!
Oh, wait, that's not what I meant to say about it at all. Everyone else seems pretty thrilled about all this; for my part, I'm skeptical, at least. I mean, it's not like the U.S. government has ever lied to its people or anything (insert massive sarcasm there). I'm not saying that's the case here, but my general assumption is that the government does much more lying than truth-telling, so...maybe this was just something President Obama and his guys drew up to fill in a slow news day and bump up his numbers in the polls. Maybe. That's not particularly an indictment of the president or anything. That wouldn't be drastically different from measures taken by any politician to improve their appearance to the public. That's all politics is now, just a game. Then again, maybe it's legit. Maybe we really did get him, maybe the whole thing went down just as the major news sources are reporting (except for Fox News, which congratulated George W. Bush...I'm pretty sure he didn't have anything to do with whatever happened over there). I guess nobody would ever know the difference, since the whole thing was all "top secret" and happened halfway around the world and they're saying the guy has already been buried at sea. And they say there are pictures which they might release, because it's not like convincing photos can be faked or anything. Really, am I wrong to be so dubious of anything my government tells me?
Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that all the news reports are accurate, at least on the major details. Even at that, I'm having a hard time really caring all that much about this. It's interesting that it happened now, after all this time, but on the whole...who really still cares? Does this actually change anything? Nah, not really. And I wouldn't be that excited if it did. I know that this isn't a popular thing to say, even now, but didn't we kind of have it coming? I don't mean that I condone the 9/11 attacks; far from it. What I am saying is, we really should have seen it coming. You know, the whole giving a bunch of weapons to this guy back in the 1980s. And then we act all surprised when he goes after us? Come on man, he was a terrorist back then too! Yeah, that doesn't make him a good guy, and yeah, he deserved probably a lot worse than what his fate ultimately was, but it makes it hard to look at the United States as a wholly undeserving victim, and it makes it hard for me to look at this as a win of any kind.
Oh, wait, that's not what I meant to say about it at all. Everyone else seems pretty thrilled about all this; for my part, I'm skeptical, at least. I mean, it's not like the U.S. government has ever lied to its people or anything (insert massive sarcasm there). I'm not saying that's the case here, but my general assumption is that the government does much more lying than truth-telling, so...maybe this was just something President Obama and his guys drew up to fill in a slow news day and bump up his numbers in the polls. Maybe. That's not particularly an indictment of the president or anything. That wouldn't be drastically different from measures taken by any politician to improve their appearance to the public. That's all politics is now, just a game. Then again, maybe it's legit. Maybe we really did get him, maybe the whole thing went down just as the major news sources are reporting (except for Fox News, which congratulated George W. Bush...I'm pretty sure he didn't have anything to do with whatever happened over there). I guess nobody would ever know the difference, since the whole thing was all "top secret" and happened halfway around the world and they're saying the guy has already been buried at sea. And they say there are pictures which they might release, because it's not like convincing photos can be faked or anything. Really, am I wrong to be so dubious of anything my government tells me?
Let's just suppose, for the sake of argument, that all the news reports are accurate, at least on the major details. Even at that, I'm having a hard time really caring all that much about this. It's interesting that it happened now, after all this time, but on the whole...who really still cares? Does this actually change anything? Nah, not really. And I wouldn't be that excited if it did. I know that this isn't a popular thing to say, even now, but didn't we kind of have it coming? I don't mean that I condone the 9/11 attacks; far from it. What I am saying is, we really should have seen it coming. You know, the whole giving a bunch of weapons to this guy back in the 1980s. And then we act all surprised when he goes after us? Come on man, he was a terrorist back then too! Yeah, that doesn't make him a good guy, and yeah, he deserved probably a lot worse than what his fate ultimately was, but it makes it hard to look at the United States as a wholly undeserving victim, and it makes it hard for me to look at this as a win of any kind.
Saturday, April 30, 2011
Top Ten Reasons Your Music Sucks
Please note, I will cheerfully agree that there are probably exceptions to all of these, and I’m probably more aware of them than you are, but feel free to argue.
10. I Can’t Understand a Goddamn Word You’re Saying
Unless you were one of the first to do this (say, Nirvana), you just sound like you are very, very drunk, and nobody wants to hear a drunk person try to sing. Alternately, you are just screaming random syllables because you are a terrible lyricist and you’re trying to hide that fact by being a terrible vocalist.
9. You Appear On American Idol
Okay, great, you can sing (maybe). But you’re not interested in actually being a musician. You just wanna churn out a bunch of commercialized garbage and be rich and famous. You are a disgrace to everything recognized as legitimate music, and you are wasting whatever little bit of talent you have.
8. You Stole Somebody Else’s Cover and Tried to Pretend Like It Was Your Own Interpretation
Seriously Chris Daughtry, what were you thinking? As though you didn’t suck enough to begin with.
7. You’re Just Imitating a Much More Talented Band or Musician
For the love of Clapton, if you’re going to sound like absolute shit anyway, at least take a chance and make it an original kind of shit. And if you’re trying to sound like Nickelback…well, either aim higher or get a new hobby.
6. Your Entire Catalogue of Songs Sounds Exactly the Same
I’m looking directly at you, AC/DC. And quit acting so damn proud of it, it isn’t an accomplishment to write one decent, catchy song, then just keep releasing it over and over again every six to twelve months. No, the point of music isn’t to just keep reinventing yourself constantly, but fucking evolve a little!
5. You Have Every Right to Make Terrible Music, But You’re Abusing the Privilege
Incidentally, who keeps buying Jack Johnson’s albums? You’re only encouraging him to keep making them, people!
4. You Just Keep Sampling Other Songs
It’s getting harder and harder for rappers and hip-hop artists to pretend like they’re actually making original music (if you can even call it music). Taking what used to be a good song and ruining it by rapping over it about your guns and your bling and your bitches is not actually a good way to make anyone mistake you for a talented musician.
3. You Are Chad Kroeger
No, I will not stop making fun of Nickelback, they are fully deserving of every criticism levied upon them. They are the embodiment of everything that is wrong with rock music today. I know it’s probably already post-trendy to bash Nickelback by now, and I don’t even care. They are just that awful.
2. I Can’t Understand a Goddamn Word You’re Saying, Part 2
Are you singing about God? Stop it. Just…stop it. Statistically speaking, six people are listening to you in the entire world, everybody else has just tuned you out. One out of every ten words you say is Jesus, and the other nine are all…blurrah? Bracking? Borlet? Is it even a word?
1. You Are Trying to Sound Like You Don’t Fit Into A Single Genre
You know who the best and most successful musicians are? The ones who know what they are about and stick to what they are good at. If you’re trying to mash up about six different genres, it’s probably because you’re not good enough at any one of them, and you just end up sounding like Kid Rock.
10. I Can’t Understand a Goddamn Word You’re Saying
Unless you were one of the first to do this (say, Nirvana), you just sound like you are very, very drunk, and nobody wants to hear a drunk person try to sing. Alternately, you are just screaming random syllables because you are a terrible lyricist and you’re trying to hide that fact by being a terrible vocalist.
9. You Appear On American Idol
Okay, great, you can sing (maybe). But you’re not interested in actually being a musician. You just wanna churn out a bunch of commercialized garbage and be rich and famous. You are a disgrace to everything recognized as legitimate music, and you are wasting whatever little bit of talent you have.
8. You Stole Somebody Else’s Cover and Tried to Pretend Like It Was Your Own Interpretation
Seriously Chris Daughtry, what were you thinking? As though you didn’t suck enough to begin with.
7. You’re Just Imitating a Much More Talented Band or Musician
For the love of Clapton, if you’re going to sound like absolute shit anyway, at least take a chance and make it an original kind of shit. And if you’re trying to sound like Nickelback…well, either aim higher or get a new hobby.
6. Your Entire Catalogue of Songs Sounds Exactly the Same
I’m looking directly at you, AC/DC. And quit acting so damn proud of it, it isn’t an accomplishment to write one decent, catchy song, then just keep releasing it over and over again every six to twelve months. No, the point of music isn’t to just keep reinventing yourself constantly, but fucking evolve a little!
5. You Have Every Right to Make Terrible Music, But You’re Abusing the Privilege
Incidentally, who keeps buying Jack Johnson’s albums? You’re only encouraging him to keep making them, people!
4. You Just Keep Sampling Other Songs
It’s getting harder and harder for rappers and hip-hop artists to pretend like they’re actually making original music (if you can even call it music). Taking what used to be a good song and ruining it by rapping over it about your guns and your bling and your bitches is not actually a good way to make anyone mistake you for a talented musician.
3. You Are Chad Kroeger
No, I will not stop making fun of Nickelback, they are fully deserving of every criticism levied upon them. They are the embodiment of everything that is wrong with rock music today. I know it’s probably already post-trendy to bash Nickelback by now, and I don’t even care. They are just that awful.
2. I Can’t Understand a Goddamn Word You’re Saying, Part 2
Are you singing about God? Stop it. Just…stop it. Statistically speaking, six people are listening to you in the entire world, everybody else has just tuned you out. One out of every ten words you say is Jesus, and the other nine are all…blurrah? Bracking? Borlet? Is it even a word?
1. You Are Trying to Sound Like You Don’t Fit Into A Single Genre
You know who the best and most successful musicians are? The ones who know what they are about and stick to what they are good at. If you’re trying to mash up about six different genres, it’s probably because you’re not good enough at any one of them, and you just end up sounding like Kid Rock.
Thursday, August 26, 2010
For the Money
Maybe I'm playing in shark-infested waters a bit here, but I've got a complaint about the company I work for, Target. I want to stress, though, that I am not displeased with the store that I work at or the people I work with. That stuff is fine. It's not fine, however, that the top executives of Target Corp. decided that it's okay to donate a bunch of money to a far-right and severely anti-gay-rights candidate for political office in Minnesota. Now, as big corporations go, Target has a reputation of being fairly benign and moderately progressive, certainly when compared to a company like Wal-Mart. This is a pretty significant misstep, though. I'm not suggesting that Target made this campaign contribution in an effort to anger the gay community and their supporters; I don't know whether or not that factored into the decision. I am sure that it was at least primarily a business decision, since Republican candidates like to do things like give huge tax breaks to billion-dollar corporations.
A lot of people are protesting Target, to the point that there is a boycott in effect against the company. I would suggest that this is misdirected anger. Whether I agree with the company's decision or not is not the point. This is nothing new, big companies have been donating money to political candidates for as long as there have been political candidates, and often those candidates have been much more controversial than this one. Target, and any other company that does so, is merely operating within the confines of the law, since the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can more or less pour as much money into a campaign as they want. That, my friends, is what we should be protesting. Political alignments aside, a corporation is not a person, and should not be allowed to act as one. This is further evidence that the United States is not a government by the people, for the people. Rather, it is by the money, for the money.
Everyone is all up-in-arms about Target's choice of candidates to support, and I think they should have opted for one who is not attempting to deny the rights of a huge group of Americans. What seems to be eluding everyone, however, is that this shouldn't even be an issue, because corporations shouldn't be allowed to act as individual people. We should be protesting the Supreme Court for their flawed decision.
A lot of people are protesting Target, to the point that there is a boycott in effect against the company. I would suggest that this is misdirected anger. Whether I agree with the company's decision or not is not the point. This is nothing new, big companies have been donating money to political candidates for as long as there have been political candidates, and often those candidates have been much more controversial than this one. Target, and any other company that does so, is merely operating within the confines of the law, since the Supreme Court ruled that corporations can more or less pour as much money into a campaign as they want. That, my friends, is what we should be protesting. Political alignments aside, a corporation is not a person, and should not be allowed to act as one. This is further evidence that the United States is not a government by the people, for the people. Rather, it is by the money, for the money.
Everyone is all up-in-arms about Target's choice of candidates to support, and I think they should have opted for one who is not attempting to deny the rights of a huge group of Americans. What seems to be eluding everyone, however, is that this shouldn't even be an issue, because corporations shouldn't be allowed to act as individual people. We should be protesting the Supreme Court for their flawed decision.
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Someone Else's Problem
Let me present you with a scenario, dear friends. Have you ever let a friend or family member borrow something of yours? Maybe it's something small, a book or a DVD or a t-shirt, or maybe it's something big, like your car. It's someone you like and trust with your stuff, obviously, or you wouldn't let them borrow it in the first place, but they manage to betray your trust anyway. Your book is returned with crayon drawings all over it, your DVD is scratched, your t-shirt has a big ketchup stain on it, or your car looks like it might have turned into a Transformer and been blown up several times. Did your friend or relative offer to fix or replace the item that became damaged while in their possession? Oh, they did? That's awesome, they have a sense of accountability!
Or how about this one: you're over at a friend's house, and the two of you are playing video games. You're getting your ass kicked, and your temper gets the best of you. You throw the controller at the TV, but your aim is terrible and it goes into the fish tank instead. The controller is all waterlogged and will never work properly again. What do you do? Do you just leave without saying a word, leaving your friend with one fewer working controller than they previously had? Wait, what? That's exactly what you would do? Holy shit, stop reading this blog right now and go drink some bleach!
If you're a friend of mine, though (and if you're reading this blog, you probably are), then you probably aren't that terrible. Good for you. Some people, however, have not learned that there are proper ways to act in society, and those are the sorts of people who will break something that belongs to you and then won't take responsibility for what they did. Surely someone or something else is to blame! And even if it is my fault, why should I have suffer the consequences? That's the kind of thinking that too damn many people seem to have now, and I'll tell you exactly why: nobody is willing to tell someone when they're behaving like a jackass, and being stupid doesn't hurt like it should, so these folks just plain don't know that actions are supposed to have consequences!
Apparently it's not okay for parents to punish their children anymore, because it's not politically correct or some bullshit, and now we are seeing the results of that course of non-action: children who have never been made to clean up their mess, because they see that once they make the mess, nothing will happen to them, and someone else will clean it up for them. And then we all wonder why so many people are turning out to be massive dickbags. If there was a direct correlation between acting like an idiot/asshole and being dead, well, there would be corpses lining the streets.
Or how about this one: you're over at a friend's house, and the two of you are playing video games. You're getting your ass kicked, and your temper gets the best of you. You throw the controller at the TV, but your aim is terrible and it goes into the fish tank instead. The controller is all waterlogged and will never work properly again. What do you do? Do you just leave without saying a word, leaving your friend with one fewer working controller than they previously had? Wait, what? That's exactly what you would do? Holy shit, stop reading this blog right now and go drink some bleach!
If you're a friend of mine, though (and if you're reading this blog, you probably are), then you probably aren't that terrible. Good for you. Some people, however, have not learned that there are proper ways to act in society, and those are the sorts of people who will break something that belongs to you and then won't take responsibility for what they did. Surely someone or something else is to blame! And even if it is my fault, why should I have suffer the consequences? That's the kind of thinking that too damn many people seem to have now, and I'll tell you exactly why: nobody is willing to tell someone when they're behaving like a jackass, and being stupid doesn't hurt like it should, so these folks just plain don't know that actions are supposed to have consequences!
Apparently it's not okay for parents to punish their children anymore, because it's not politically correct or some bullshit, and now we are seeing the results of that course of non-action: children who have never been made to clean up their mess, because they see that once they make the mess, nothing will happen to them, and someone else will clean it up for them. And then we all wonder why so many people are turning out to be massive dickbags. If there was a direct correlation between acting like an idiot/asshole and being dead, well, there would be corpses lining the streets.
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
The Real Tragedy
We've been having an issue with our internet connectivity recently, so apologies for my absence of however long I've been gone from here. Lucky for you, I'm back now! And I'm here to talk about this Mosque at Ground Zero business, so I'm jumping right into that.
Basically, it's a lot of bullshit. Well, you know, just like every other goddamn thing. I'm not talking about building a mosque (it's actually an Islamic cultural center, which happens to include a mosque), and I'm not even talking about building a mosque at or near Ground Zero, or opening it on 11 September. None of those things alone is bullshit. However, combining all of them into one big fucking event, well, that is a considerable amount of bullshit. Frankly, I don't care if it pisses people off that they're doing it; the only reason it bothers me is because that's the WHOLE GODDAMN REASON THEY'RE DOING IT. I mean, you're just asking for a shitstorm if you're going to be either insensitive or unaware enough to open a mosque anywhere in the vicinity of Ground Zero on 11 September. I don't particularly direct attacks at Muslims more than anybody of any other faith, but this is just stupid. You don't go and plan something like that and not realize that people are going to get pissed, so you must be doing it intentionally. And it's so easy, because then you can just say, hey, this is America, freedom of religion and all that, and if you're opposed to this, you're a racist or a bigot or whatever and you're trying to take away our rights. By doing this, you are just looking to start a fight, and you fucking know it.
By the same token, there's nothing illegal or even particularly immoral about it, so we need to not be making an issue of that. Maybe it is legitimately insensitive to some people, almost certainly the decision to put that thing where you want to put it and open it on that particular day is in poor taste, so if you want to say that, then fine. I'll support that. As usual, my real complaint is just that people are acting like idiots on both sides of this issue. It would have been the smart and decent thing to at least open the damn thing a day later or whatever, but they didn't do that. The folks opposed to this thing could've just shrugged and figured, whatever, it ultimately doesn't affect me, I'll let it go, but they're not, because some people just have to make it a point to be offended by something or other on a regular basis. Are you people just bored or something? Go find something constructive to do, like poking a hornet's nest. I hope someone flies a plane into the side of your fucking head, and I'll have the good sense to not put up a library or a university or a museum at the site of the horrible wrong done against your stupidity.
Basically, it's a lot of bullshit. Well, you know, just like every other goddamn thing. I'm not talking about building a mosque (it's actually an Islamic cultural center, which happens to include a mosque), and I'm not even talking about building a mosque at or near Ground Zero, or opening it on 11 September. None of those things alone is bullshit. However, combining all of them into one big fucking event, well, that is a considerable amount of bullshit. Frankly, I don't care if it pisses people off that they're doing it; the only reason it bothers me is because that's the WHOLE GODDAMN REASON THEY'RE DOING IT. I mean, you're just asking for a shitstorm if you're going to be either insensitive or unaware enough to open a mosque anywhere in the vicinity of Ground Zero on 11 September. I don't particularly direct attacks at Muslims more than anybody of any other faith, but this is just stupid. You don't go and plan something like that and not realize that people are going to get pissed, so you must be doing it intentionally. And it's so easy, because then you can just say, hey, this is America, freedom of religion and all that, and if you're opposed to this, you're a racist or a bigot or whatever and you're trying to take away our rights. By doing this, you are just looking to start a fight, and you fucking know it.
By the same token, there's nothing illegal or even particularly immoral about it, so we need to not be making an issue of that. Maybe it is legitimately insensitive to some people, almost certainly the decision to put that thing where you want to put it and open it on that particular day is in poor taste, so if you want to say that, then fine. I'll support that. As usual, my real complaint is just that people are acting like idiots on both sides of this issue. It would have been the smart and decent thing to at least open the damn thing a day later or whatever, but they didn't do that. The folks opposed to this thing could've just shrugged and figured, whatever, it ultimately doesn't affect me, I'll let it go, but they're not, because some people just have to make it a point to be offended by something or other on a regular basis. Are you people just bored or something? Go find something constructive to do, like poking a hornet's nest. I hope someone flies a plane into the side of your fucking head, and I'll have the good sense to not put up a library or a university or a museum at the site of the horrible wrong done against your stupidity.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
You Got No Right
Just a brief rant here, because it's late-ish, but I want to get it out while I'm thinking about it. I know I occasionally talk about sports on here, and this pertains to sports, but it's kind of a common sense thing as well. One of the startling trends in the NFL recently is players holding out, refusing to report to training camp, preseason games and, occasionally, regular season games until their demands to have their contracts restructured are met. Their reasoning is that the team will have to pay them, because they are impact players, and the team will be substantially weaker without their services, and the pressure will mount on the team from the fans to just give the player whatever they want, so that the team will not suffer. The current big case of this involves New York Jets cornerback Darrelle Revis, a phenomenal player, perhaps the best in the league at his position. Revis' current contract is for three more years, and would pay him about a million dollars this season. He is believed to be asking for a contract in the neighborhood of ten years and $160 million.
Putting aside, for a moment, my personal belief that no athlete, professional or otherwise, should be paid $160 million or anything close to it, it can be easily argued that Revis ought to be among the most well-compensated players at his position. In an ideal world, each player would be paid in accordance with their contributions, and his are significant. In reality, though, a good player is paid essentially whatever he wants, because he will always be able to find a team that wants his services enough to give him what he wants. In this sort of system, the player has all of the leverage, because he plays to the fans, appeals to their desire to put the best possible team on the field, and it's easy for them to protest to the team to give him the money, because it's easy to spend money that's not yours. So if a player such as Darrelle Revis believes that he is not being adequately compensated, it is easy for him to say that he is going to hold out, that he will not play for the team until his demands are met. Of course, the team could always turn around and paint the player as greedy and ungrateful (they would be right), but that sours the relationship between the team and the player, and for whatever reason, the fans don't care, they just want that good player to be on their team!
You know what we call it at any other job if you decide you aren't being paid enough, so you're not going to show up until you get a raise? We call it, your ass is fired! We call it, breach of contract! That's not exactly right either, workers ought to be able to collectively bargain to improve their wages and/or working conditions, but your average worker is not complaining if he's making a million bucks a year (not that you ever see that). My real gripe here is not that players are demanding to be paid more money than you or I can even conceive of as a real number (though that is another disturbing trend itself). The real issue is that Darrelle Revis or whatever other player is holding out agreed to that original contract! If they are not happy with the contract, they should not have signed it in the first place. If they signed it anyway, they have no right to complain and should garner no sympathy from anybody. That player should damn well live with the contract he agreed to, be happy that he is still being paid so handsomely, and negotiate for more when that contract runs out.
You are not allowed to complain about a situation that you caused yourself to be in! That's the lesson for today, kids.
Putting aside, for a moment, my personal belief that no athlete, professional or otherwise, should be paid $160 million or anything close to it, it can be easily argued that Revis ought to be among the most well-compensated players at his position. In an ideal world, each player would be paid in accordance with their contributions, and his are significant. In reality, though, a good player is paid essentially whatever he wants, because he will always be able to find a team that wants his services enough to give him what he wants. In this sort of system, the player has all of the leverage, because he plays to the fans, appeals to their desire to put the best possible team on the field, and it's easy for them to protest to the team to give him the money, because it's easy to spend money that's not yours. So if a player such as Darrelle Revis believes that he is not being adequately compensated, it is easy for him to say that he is going to hold out, that he will not play for the team until his demands are met. Of course, the team could always turn around and paint the player as greedy and ungrateful (they would be right), but that sours the relationship between the team and the player, and for whatever reason, the fans don't care, they just want that good player to be on their team!
You know what we call it at any other job if you decide you aren't being paid enough, so you're not going to show up until you get a raise? We call it, your ass is fired! We call it, breach of contract! That's not exactly right either, workers ought to be able to collectively bargain to improve their wages and/or working conditions, but your average worker is not complaining if he's making a million bucks a year (not that you ever see that). My real gripe here is not that players are demanding to be paid more money than you or I can even conceive of as a real number (though that is another disturbing trend itself). The real issue is that Darrelle Revis or whatever other player is holding out agreed to that original contract! If they are not happy with the contract, they should not have signed it in the first place. If they signed it anyway, they have no right to complain and should garner no sympathy from anybody. That player should damn well live with the contract he agreed to, be happy that he is still being paid so handsomely, and negotiate for more when that contract runs out.
You are not allowed to complain about a situation that you caused yourself to be in! That's the lesson for today, kids.
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
In Retrospect
It isn't new that some people out there are shouting about President Obama being un-American or anti-American, but it has become even more prevalent recently in light of the President's decision to place himself on the unpopular side of several issues. These include his backing of the U.S. Justice Department's decision to fight the Arizona immigration law, the health care bill, the stimulus package, and his ban on deepwater oil drilling.
My personal feelings about these issues aside, there are clearly deep flaws in the thinking that Mr. Obama's positions make him anti-American in any way. Most significantly, it should be noted that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. The President's positions might not be popular today, but that doesn't mean that he is making the wrong decisions. So often, the long-term implications of the actions of a President are not seen until much, much later, even far beyond his term. It looked like a fine idea back in the 1980s for President Reagan to authorize the sale of weapons to places like Iran and Afghanistan, and to give military training to people like Osama bin Laden. That worked out real well for us, didn't it? Conversely, it didn't look too good to some folks back in the 1930s when President Franklin Roosevelt spent lots of government dollars to fund some public work programs that would allow people to be employed and earn an honest wage. It was more than a decade before the country started to see the positive effects of this course of action.
My point is, why are we so averse to giving Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt here? I mean, he's a pretty smart dude, and he's got a lot of other smart people working with him. Maybe, just maybe, he knows what he's doing here. Maybe he's a little more qualified to be making these decisions than your average person. Maybe we should consider that he's more well-informed on these issues than the guy standing in line at Wal-Mart, struggling with the complex tasks of paying for his microwave burritos while trying not to drool on himself. The President might be in the minority, but perhaps the minority has a better idea about what's good for the country than do the drooling masses. Again, I'm not saying positively that the President is right on all counts here. What I am saying is that we did elect this guy President of our country, maybe we should try to see what impact his decisions actually have before we do crazy things like calling him anti-American. I know that everyone and everything in our society today demands instant gratification, but the truth is, nothing gets fixed overnight. So often, we don't appreciate what our leaders accomplish until they are long gone, and then it's too late, our impatience has already bested us. So let us remember the lessons about what is popular and what is right, so that we do not make knee-jerks out of ourselves.
My personal feelings about these issues aside, there are clearly deep flaws in the thinking that Mr. Obama's positions make him anti-American in any way. Most significantly, it should be noted that what is popular is not always right, and what is right is not always popular. The President's positions might not be popular today, but that doesn't mean that he is making the wrong decisions. So often, the long-term implications of the actions of a President are not seen until much, much later, even far beyond his term. It looked like a fine idea back in the 1980s for President Reagan to authorize the sale of weapons to places like Iran and Afghanistan, and to give military training to people like Osama bin Laden. That worked out real well for us, didn't it? Conversely, it didn't look too good to some folks back in the 1930s when President Franklin Roosevelt spent lots of government dollars to fund some public work programs that would allow people to be employed and earn an honest wage. It was more than a decade before the country started to see the positive effects of this course of action.
My point is, why are we so averse to giving Mr. Obama the benefit of the doubt here? I mean, he's a pretty smart dude, and he's got a lot of other smart people working with him. Maybe, just maybe, he knows what he's doing here. Maybe he's a little more qualified to be making these decisions than your average person. Maybe we should consider that he's more well-informed on these issues than the guy standing in line at Wal-Mart, struggling with the complex tasks of paying for his microwave burritos while trying not to drool on himself. The President might be in the minority, but perhaps the minority has a better idea about what's good for the country than do the drooling masses. Again, I'm not saying positively that the President is right on all counts here. What I am saying is that we did elect this guy President of our country, maybe we should try to see what impact his decisions actually have before we do crazy things like calling him anti-American. I know that everyone and everything in our society today demands instant gratification, but the truth is, nothing gets fixed overnight. So often, we don't appreciate what our leaders accomplish until they are long gone, and then it's too late, our impatience has already bested us. So let us remember the lessons about what is popular and what is right, so that we do not make knee-jerks out of ourselves.
Monday, August 2, 2010
The Fuckin' Truth
I'd been scanning the headlines every day, looking for something that really ruffled my feathers, but it had been in vain until I ran across this story today, in regards to one Jennifer Keeton. Ms. Keeton is a student at Augusta State University in Georgia, and is seeking a graduate degree in counseling from the school. However, Ms. Keeton seems not to be interested in meeting the school's requirements to earn her degree. You see, both national standards and common sense hold that, to earn a degree in counseling, students have to recognize and accept differences among their future clients, including cultural diversity and points of view different from their own. Ms. Keeton, though, has the obvious roadblock of having a Bible-based bias, an allegation which she does not dispute. Among her beliefs are that homosexuals suffer from what she terms "identity confusion". Needless to say, this was a source of concern for the university, which required that she attend diversity training, among other things. She has thus far refused, choosing instead to enlist the help of the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal organization, to sue the university for, she claims, being forced to renounce her religion.
Legally, it's a tough one: freedom of religion versus the national standards we hold our counselors to. That's no little thing. We're talking about people who are supposed to do their best to help others who are struggling with any number of personal issues. Of course, not every person is the same, and as such, counseling sessions would be most effective when tailored to each person's particular needs. If you are a counselor and a patient or client is coming to you for help, they do not want or need to be preached at. If that was what they were looking for, they would go to a church or a synagogue or a mosque or whatever. Ms. Keeton isn't interested in any of that, though. She doesn't want to help people in the way that they need. She has said that she believes "the Bible's teaching is true for all people and it shows the right way to live." The program's associate director indicated that Ms. Keeton believes that she possesses a special knowledge about the way that other people should live their lives, and that others should conform their values to hers.
It appears to me that the issue at hand is not Ms. Keeton's beliefs, but her insistence that they are the only valid ones, which is in direct conflict with the standards of the American School Counselor Association. To be perfectly blunt about it, this woman is in the wrong place for what she wants to do. She wants the prestige of a graduate degree, but is clearly unwilling to meet the requirements. If she wants to offer Bible-based counseling, then she needs to attend a school which limits itself to such teachings, and find a job at a similar place, where everyone will know that she isn't an actual counselor, but just another person who wants to tell people how they are supposed to be living their lives. As an aside, I would frankly be appalled to learn that a counselor I was entrusting myself to had failed so thoroughly to address her own issues.
This is a persistent problem that we have in this country, the inability to call a spade a spade. Ms. Keeton doesn't want to be a real counselor, she wants to be a Christian counselor who calls herself a real counselor. We want to say that the idiots among us have learning disabilities. They can't just be stupid. We somehow pass off those people on Jersey Shore as TV stars, but they're not. They're just an obnoxious orange douche circus. I could go on, but you get the point. We're addicted to euphemisms, and for some reason, we've become okay with that. Let's not be okay with that. It's intellectually dishonest, and it makes you look like a real big piece of equine posterior, and that's the fuckin' truth.
Legally, it's a tough one: freedom of religion versus the national standards we hold our counselors to. That's no little thing. We're talking about people who are supposed to do their best to help others who are struggling with any number of personal issues. Of course, not every person is the same, and as such, counseling sessions would be most effective when tailored to each person's particular needs. If you are a counselor and a patient or client is coming to you for help, they do not want or need to be preached at. If that was what they were looking for, they would go to a church or a synagogue or a mosque or whatever. Ms. Keeton isn't interested in any of that, though. She doesn't want to help people in the way that they need. She has said that she believes "the Bible's teaching is true for all people and it shows the right way to live." The program's associate director indicated that Ms. Keeton believes that she possesses a special knowledge about the way that other people should live their lives, and that others should conform their values to hers.
It appears to me that the issue at hand is not Ms. Keeton's beliefs, but her insistence that they are the only valid ones, which is in direct conflict with the standards of the American School Counselor Association. To be perfectly blunt about it, this woman is in the wrong place for what she wants to do. She wants the prestige of a graduate degree, but is clearly unwilling to meet the requirements. If she wants to offer Bible-based counseling, then she needs to attend a school which limits itself to such teachings, and find a job at a similar place, where everyone will know that she isn't an actual counselor, but just another person who wants to tell people how they are supposed to be living their lives. As an aside, I would frankly be appalled to learn that a counselor I was entrusting myself to had failed so thoroughly to address her own issues.
This is a persistent problem that we have in this country, the inability to call a spade a spade. Ms. Keeton doesn't want to be a real counselor, she wants to be a Christian counselor who calls herself a real counselor. We want to say that the idiots among us have learning disabilities. They can't just be stupid. We somehow pass off those people on Jersey Shore as TV stars, but they're not. They're just an obnoxious orange douche circus. I could go on, but you get the point. We're addicted to euphemisms, and for some reason, we've become okay with that. Let's not be okay with that. It's intellectually dishonest, and it makes you look like a real big piece of equine posterior, and that's the fuckin' truth.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
A Side of Fries
Tuned in to listen to Bill Cunningham briefly today in the car. For those of you who aren't from the Cincinnati area, Bill Cunningham is our local version of Rush Limbaugh. Anyway, he was whining today about something I've been hearing a lot about lately, the controversy over extending unemployment benefits, which has historically been done in times of financial difficulty. Our president is a proponent of extending these benefits, as are most in his party, which means the Republicans are throwing a fit. The argument against extending unemployment benefits seems to be primarily that paying people who aren't working encourages them to continue to not work.
Now, I can't honestly say that there aren't some people who fall into that category, but I don't know too many unemployed people who enjoy being unemployed, and I know a whole bunch of people who complain that they are severely underemployed (that is to say, they aren't working as many hours as they want to be working, because the hours aren't there to be worked). I fall into this latter group myself. Most people don't want a handout, they want to be paid, but they want to earn it. Don't get me wrong, I like my free time, but I want to work, damn it!
If you're in the camp of those who don't want to extend unemployment benefits, or even worse, want to end it altogether, what is your defense for this position? Probably, it's something like, It'll get these people off their butts and back into the work force again! Well, golly, that sure is a great argument. Oh, except for the part where there are five unemployed people for every available job right now. Math was never my strong suit, but that doesn't seem like a situation where there are just a bunch of lazy people who don't want to work. It seems a lot more like a situation where there just AREN'T ENOUGH GODDAMN JOBS.
Strangely enough, when our President wants to create new jobs (for instance, he just proposed adding 20,000 new IRS agents), people start screaming that we don't need that! Seriously? Let me explain, briefly, why that is exactly what we need. 20,000 new jobs for the government means 20,000 more people earning a living wage, something that will pay for their home, their food, their car, and all of that stuff for their family, with a little left over. That means 20,000 more people with DISPOSABLE INCOME, which is a crucial little thing that capitalism thoroughly depends upon. When people don't have disposable income, they stop buying things, and the economy crashes. Is this crystal-fucking-clear, people?
Once more: there are actually people out there who want people to get off of unemployment and get out there and get a job, yet they bitch and moan when somebody tries to create jobs for some of these people. Look, you can't have it both ways, folks. That's called a double standard, and I see so much of that, you'd think you can just drive down to McDonald's and order a Double Standard Value Meal for lunch! Hot molasses! That value meal should come with a side of Logic Fries and a nice tall glass of Shut the Hell Up!
Now, I can't honestly say that there aren't some people who fall into that category, but I don't know too many unemployed people who enjoy being unemployed, and I know a whole bunch of people who complain that they are severely underemployed (that is to say, they aren't working as many hours as they want to be working, because the hours aren't there to be worked). I fall into this latter group myself. Most people don't want a handout, they want to be paid, but they want to earn it. Don't get me wrong, I like my free time, but I want to work, damn it!
If you're in the camp of those who don't want to extend unemployment benefits, or even worse, want to end it altogether, what is your defense for this position? Probably, it's something like, It'll get these people off their butts and back into the work force again! Well, golly, that sure is a great argument. Oh, except for the part where there are five unemployed people for every available job right now. Math was never my strong suit, but that doesn't seem like a situation where there are just a bunch of lazy people who don't want to work. It seems a lot more like a situation where there just AREN'T ENOUGH GODDAMN JOBS.
Strangely enough, when our President wants to create new jobs (for instance, he just proposed adding 20,000 new IRS agents), people start screaming that we don't need that! Seriously? Let me explain, briefly, why that is exactly what we need. 20,000 new jobs for the government means 20,000 more people earning a living wage, something that will pay for their home, their food, their car, and all of that stuff for their family, with a little left over. That means 20,000 more people with DISPOSABLE INCOME, which is a crucial little thing that capitalism thoroughly depends upon. When people don't have disposable income, they stop buying things, and the economy crashes. Is this crystal-fucking-clear, people?
Once more: there are actually people out there who want people to get off of unemployment and get out there and get a job, yet they bitch and moan when somebody tries to create jobs for some of these people. Look, you can't have it both ways, folks. That's called a double standard, and I see so much of that, you'd think you can just drive down to McDonald's and order a Double Standard Value Meal for lunch! Hot molasses! That value meal should come with a side of Logic Fries and a nice tall glass of Shut the Hell Up!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
