Monday, September 23, 2013
An Armed Society Is a Polite Society. Because I Fucking Said So.
As I said, Roy sums this up (with links!) but this really has it all. These are the same people who line up behind every business that doesn't want to serve The Gay because FREEEEDOM!!!, but irony does not exist in Winger land. I'm not saying the Venn diagram is a perfect circle, but there's a shitload of overlap. They weren't even told they Couldn't bring their guns to get their coffee. They were just told that the owner would Prefer it if they did not. And that's got the armed and aggrieved masses all out of joint.
However, this is pretty easy when you understand how the persecuted gun nut sees this situation. Now, the average person understands that when two parties are having a conversation, and only one is armed, the unarmed party might feel a little uncomfortable. This is especially true if the parties are strangers to each other and live in a country that celebrates its FREEEEDOM every month with a mass shooting. But, Wingers can not understand this, because as near as I can tell, to a person, they view themselves as the heroes in this crazy world. They are the Thin Red Republican Line between all us peace-loving hippies and complete lawlessness.
So, when an unarmed person looks at them and thinks, "Well, there's a guy with a gun, my chances of dying just went up by some percentage from just a moment ago, And I Don't Know What that Percentage Might Be," that person is just an ungrateful hippie who doesn't understand that the Aggrieved Gun Nut is not only wearing the gun for personal protection, but Also for Your Protection, you ungrateful Peacenik! And shut up that's why. For me, the simple analogy would be, let's say, leaving your kid with a complete stranger. Now, I'd say 9 out of 10 people, hell, 99 out of 100 people, you could leave your kid with for an hour and your kid would be fine. But, do YOU want to take those odds? With your kid? How about 999 out of 1000? Of course not, because it's your kid and you don't know the potential wacko you're handing little Jimmy over to. Wingers thing that this is a matter of education. If we just understood the guns were there for our own good, we'd all just accept random people walking around with them. But no amount of education is going to make the feeling of unease go away. Ok, so I talk to one gun nut, and I determine that that particular gun nut is not dangerous. How many people do I have to talk to every day just to get my coffee? Just to feel at ease? And how do I know that one of the people I DO know didn't suddenly go nuts?
In Roy's article some nutjob has the audacity to say (paraphrasing) "Well, Tattoos make me uncomfortable, but I deal with them, why can't you deal with my Lifestyle choice?" The complaint that springs to the the normal person's mind, "Well, because Your 'lifestyle choice' might fucking kill me" really does not enter their heads. Apparently, there are photos of some of these idiots posed in booths with their guns out and their lattes in the other hand; this is a fantasy world where guns do not accidentally go off, where nobody gets shot but the target, where introducing a gun into a dangerous situation always improves the situation, where nobody unarmed dies because you can't buy a fucking cup of coffee without your fucking dick substitute on your hip. And, of course, the problem is always that you are unarmed. Uncomfortable? Arm yourself. I've been told the difference between a person with a tattoo and a person without one is that the person with the tattoo doesn't care that you don't have one. But these people care, you are not exercising a God-given right and that's your fault. An armed society is a polite society, probably because everyone's afraid to say jack shit out of fear of getting shot. That is until everyone decides to start playing the odds.
I really don't have a problem with personal ownership of firearms, but these people keep trying to portray themselves as the very picture of personal responsibility, and no doubt some of them are, but others are clearly delusional lunatics, consumed with fantasies of being the hero, or more likely, never, ever being the victim. The level of persecution and personal aggrievement is astounding with some in this crowd. Somebody's going to get shot. Try and not let it be you. But, fortunately, these people are completely predictable, and Starbuck's mild request to leave the firearms to home has brought the predictable promises of taking their gun-totin' business to establishments that by-God Understand the Fucking Constitution. So, my advice, stay out of Dunkin' Donuts, apparently that's where the armed masses now feel most comfortable.
Anyway...
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Overrated
Obviously this is a completely subjective opinion, but I think you can add some criteria to it. As my friend Pete asked, Does "overrated" simply mean, "Other people like them, but I don't"? Or is there an empirical imbalance between of their popularity & their musical talents?
And, to me, Overrated means the latter, especially when you call out a band like The Doors. Overrated or not, they are an incredibly important band and always will be. But that doesn't mean they don't suck. There are some definite criteria to this.
1) Another friend listed, "any boy band since 1984". I'm not sure what boy band pre-1984 did not suck, perhaps she was referring to Van Halen. But, while the most overrated band of all time may have originated in 1984, it just doesn't seem like nearly enough time. To be the world's truly most overrated band you must have time to have your reputation grow and flourish. You can not be a flash in the pan, and you can not be forgotten. Indeed, you must have certainly been great, or nearly so, and only the ravages of time have exposed your limitations. This, in my mind, disqualifies anyone from so recent a year as 1984. You can certainly argue for artistic decline, nearly every rock n' roll survivor suffers from decline, but that does not mean that they were not great or that their reputations were ill-deserved. Prince, to just pick one example, certainly has not maintained his quality, but it is difficult to dispute his golden age or his influence.
2) Sticking with the 'boy band' premise, another requirement to being 'the most overrated band of all time' or the MOBAT, you have to be taken seriously in the first place. Certainly there are bands that have been critically panned but have gone on to prove their importance, Led Zepplin comes to mind as the most obvious example. But there are hundreds of bands that achieved a fairly significant level of popularity that have not, and will never, be any more than the entertaining flash-in-the-pans that they are. New Kids on the Block sure as shit bothered me when I was in the sixth grade, and they sold a kajillion records, but they were not influential (except for providing a template for future money-making-shit-shows) and they certainly were not important. The true MOBAT must have achieved, at some point, either during their heyday or later, some critical praise.
3) "Other people like them, but I don't". I must admit, this is a double-edged sword. First, it is very hard to not slap this label on your favorite band to hate. Right off the bat a couple friends put forth Rush. I must admit it is very tempting to me. I am not a fan of Rush. I have never found them captivating, and I think Geddy Lee sounds like a chimp being strangled. But, this is exactly why I am inclined to give Rush a pass. They traffic in music I believe I do not fully understand. I certainly know what I like, but even when engaging in a purely subjective enterprise, that is no reason to completely discard the objective. However, this also biases me against The Doors. I understand their music. I'm familiar with their genre and I know what their trying to do. I'm familiar with their catalog, and even now, nominating them for the MOBAT, I enjoy their music, but no where near as much as I used to.
4) While I was at a happy hour I put this question to a couple co-workers and one of them listed The Beatles. I didn't think much of it at the time, not being a huge Beatle fan, but this is another important criteria, and the one where The Doors have the best chance to take their stand against being named the MOBAT. Simply, some bands are just too influential to be the MOBAT. I'll be the first to admit that the Boomer hold on pop music drives me nuts, but that doesn't mean that they aren't right. Artists like The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and, in my mind the most important, Bob Dylan, are revered for a reason; they influenced EVERYONE. It is literally impossible to imagine the trajectory and development of rock and roll without certain people, and by definition none of those people on that list could be the MOBAT. Are The Doors on that list? I don't know. I think it could be argued, persuasively, that they are. I would certainly put people considered lesser artists on it. I personally would include Black Sabbath, Metallica, and Nirvana. People without which the pop music scene could very well look considerably different.
But for this criteria to really work you must have influenced other artists. Without conducting a search of artist interviews for mentions of Jim Morrison, let's look at their "Followed by" list from Allmusic.com. Billy Idol, Echo & the Bunnymen, Alice Cooper, The Jesus and Mary Chain, MC5, The Mission UK, The Birthday Party, Mother Love Bone, Julian Cope, Iggy Pop, Danzig, The Stooges, Jane's Addiction, INXS, Godsmack, Pearl Jam...
I don't know, if I see an Iggy interview saying Jim Morrison led him to become a singer, well, that might be something. I don't really see the MC5 as actually giving a shit. I think there is little doubt that Jim Morrison was an influential character and probably gave license to many front men dying to misbehave, but whether that translated to influence for his band is debatable. And whether it allows them escape the noose of the MOBAT is very debatable. My point is rock would've survived without most of those people, and those who were most influential from that list, I don't see having a direct link to The Doors. I think The Doors came along at the perfect time to be named the MOBAT. Early enough to matter, but late enough to not be an indisputable pioneer.
5) Of the criteria so far, this is the most subjective. Do they just suck? Some bands just do not hold up, and this is my main problem with The Doors. In my Facebook inquiry Pink Floyd was mentioned, and I must admit that I thought of them. But, and this is the subjective part, I think that The Wall has not held up well lyrically, or maybe it just means more when you're 16 than when you're 35, or maybe complaining about your mother just does not age well. But Animals, Wish You Were Here, Meddle and Dark Side of the Moon I still consider masterpieces of rock and just because I do not listen to them due to familiarity does not mean that I do not get a charge from them when I do. On the other hand, The Doors tend to bore me. They seem to have only the flimsiest grasp of the blues, Jim Morrison's lyrics, while unconventional, are not too impressive once you are familiar with Dylan's 'electric' records, and they have some of the most boring solos this side of a 4th grade recorder recital. The records, to be sure, are not bad. In fact, when The Doors do have a hit it is hard to argue with it, Roadhouse Blues, Break on Through, and L.A. Woman, in my opinion, are great pop songs, but can they carry the weight of The Doors entire reputation?
6) And that brings me to the final point. What is the gap between ability and reputation. Certainly another subjective criteria, but not as much as #5. Here I think is where one could argue for Rush taking home the MOBAT. In my mind The Doors are still widely popular. If a band acheieved widespread critical importance, and a loyal fan base, but cannot deliver the goods when you crank them up on your home stereo, do they not deserve to be called overrated? But, here again, I am applying my own teenage worship of Jim Morrison. Maybe no one gives a shit. Maybe the world has moved on. Maybe, somehow, inexplicably, Rush records are flying off the shelves. Two decades have passed since I listened to The Doors with anything approaching attention (until tonight), perhaps you can no longer find posters of Jim and his youthful, iconic torso in your local Spencer's. Despite my current ambivalence towards The Doors, that does make me a little sad. But, no doubt, those who seek The Doors will still find them.
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
You say 'Apocalypse' like it's a bad thing...
Sunday, July 10, 2011
Some people don't understand other people
So you would think that Democrats would want to promote a Republican who has high negatives instead of one who is gaining momentum. Not in this case.
It seems that Sarah Palin has replaced George W. Bush has the person many liberal Americans love to hate. That has benefited Michele Bachmann, who is getting compliments aimed at bolstering her candidacy at Palin's expense. Democrats well understand that the GOP does not have room for both women in the primary fray. They would split the Tea Party vote.
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
Travel wear - Do's and Do not's.
God says that men flying around on airplanes in women’s clothing, even if their penises are covered, might as well be flying around naked.
On June 9, a man boarded a U.S. Airways flight from Fort Lauderdale to Phoenix, dressed in women’s panties, a bra, and thigh-high stockings.
No U.S. Airways employee at the Fort Lauderdale airport asked him to cover himself. Nor did any flight attendant ask him to do so. And obviously, no one demanded that he get off the plane.
I have to say, I'm a little sympathetic to Prager's point here. I wouldn't want some middle-aged guy in panties and a tank-top sitting next to me on an airplane. Hell, I wouldn't want most middle-aged women seated next to me in bra and panties. Hell, I usually don't want Anyone sitting next to me on an airplane regardless of his or her personal fashion sense.
Now, I get that as a columnist you often take small events and use them to make a larger point about society, and it's using this common technique that Prager makes himself look like the small-minded ass-hole I have little doubt he is. He continues:
The decline of American civilization since the 1960s has been so fast and so dramatic that it takes one’s breath away.
That a woman speaking on behalf of a major airline can say with a straight face that her airline allows anyone dressed or undressed to fly on its airplanes, so long as they do not expose their genitals, perfectly encapsulates this decline.
The only question is: How did we get here?
For one thing, the concept of decency is dying. I suspect that if an adult were to say to a group of randomly chosen American college students that this man indecently exposed himself and should not have been allowed to fly, that adult would be (a) not understood (what does “indecent” mean?) or (b) roundly condemned for intolerance and bigotry.
Hippies! Damn dirty hippies. This is what is so funny to me about people like Prager. One person acts like a selfish prick and it all goes back to the 60s, when the dirty hippies totally ruined everything. First, the idea that decency is dying has been a theme since well before the 60s. It's called getting old, Prager, you prick. As you get older you have less fun (if you ever did) and everyone having fun seems indecent. Second, I love the blanket statement, that college students would approve of this. I personally suspect they would hand Airport Man a ping-pong ball and ask him to totally come party at the beer pong championship! And my opinion is just as valid, because, I, like Prager, didn't actually ASK any fucking college students what they might think if this guy was trying to waltz onto their flight.
But, the truly great thing about this story is that if you click the link to it on Prager's article, you find things go even deeper.
So, basically, a black kid with his underwear sticking out couldn't get on the plane, because one airline screener decided it was inappropriate. And one middle-aged white dude got on wearing women's underwear because another airline employee decided to not give a shit. Of course, Prager makes no mention of the guy who DID get sidelined from his flight due to questionable fashion sense, because it would totally get in the way of his wingnut narrative about the hippies who totally destroyed America.Six days before a college football player was arrested at San Francisco International Airport in a dispute that began when a US Airways employee asked him to pull up his sagging pants, a man who was wearing little but women's undergarments was allowed to fly the airline, a US Airways spokeswoman conceded Tuesday.
A photo of the scantily clad man was provided to The Chronicle by Jill Tarlow, a passenger on the June 9 flight from Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to Phoenix. Tarlow said other passengers had complained to airline workers before the plane boarded, but that employees had ignored those complaints.
But, given the situation, I believe we can come to only one conclusion, America is completely tolerant, except when we're busy being intolerant, and it all really depends on which asshole is on duty at the check-in desk.
Anyway...