Arcade Fire: a delayed appraisal

Posted on by
Reply

I rarely have the opportunity to watch late night talk-shows but bizarre happenstance found me catching the same episode of Late Night with Jimmy Fallon, twice within the span of two weeks. The musical guest was The War on Drugs and I am not exaggerating when I say that the second time I saw this band perform Baby Missiles was a revelation. At that moment I realized that the ‘indie rock’ genre, as it is has been called now since the late nineties, has been absolutely ruined; it has in fact spoiled in exactly the same way that fruit spoils. Of course anytime someone makes such a bold statement, they have to prepare themselves not only for swift written and verbal reprisals, but more profoundly, to accept the fundamental incongruity or irresolvable nature of the thesis they are propounding. Yet it is the incongruity, or need to ‘prove it’ which drives every argument forward. This particular incongruity appears to me as being contingent upon two points:

Arcade Fire

Someone is gonna get blown!

1) no-one is talking about this decline
2) the culprit of this corruption is obvious, it is Arcade Fire.

Is no-one discussing this crisis simply because the blame can be localized almost entirely on the shoulders of one band? I grant you the exception that some bands have set bad precedents e.g. Interpol. And some bands have followed these precedents with an almost praiseworthy mercenary indifference to artistic integrity e.g. The Airbourne Toxic Event. But no other band rose so majestically, both critically and commercially, while simultaneously conning our facile American culture to its absolute core in the way Arcade Fire has. Hiding behind the calculated ‘outrage’ over their win at the Grammys and critics like Robert Christgau’s praise that: “The Arcade Fire are a dangerously earnest band. But they know enough to put on a joyous and sometimes silly show, without which they might be fatally earnest” lurks a band whose every song carries the emotional gravity of a friend request denied. Reading Christgau’s statement, inspired one of my rare “what would Slavoj Zizek say?” moments. Zizek would probably say: “Arcade Fire’s fundamental problem resides precisely in the fact that their music stops just short of being fatally earnest. It doesn’t go far enough.”

It is important that we address this issue now, since it is inevitable that we will collectively look back on this period of time from a (once again) culturally elevated summit and decry its mediocrity. The hipster of the nineties decried the eighties for the decline of punk rock (and its subsequent re-emergence as new wave), the perfection of smooth jazz, and of course pop-oriented ‘hair-metal’, in much the same way that today’s hipster decries grunge. As a sidebar, this contempt for particular idioms is usually supplemented by a marginal enthusiasm for something suitably esoteric, in the nineties it was ‘world music’ (see Buena Vista Social Club, the authenticity of which was gently debunked by Hugh Barker and Yuval Taylor in their book Faking It: The Quest for Authenticity in Popular Music), today it’s dub-step -Outstanding!

Perhaps the reason it’s easy to single out Arcade Fire in a way that isn’t feasible with the hair-metal bands is because heavy metal was not as ideologically pure as Indie rock; even if Iron Maiden and Judas Priest weren’t formed with the intention of playing
stadiums, the ethos of not playing stadiums was not an essential ingredient to their formation. One could argue that the paradox of Nirvana’s success hinged on the fact that Kurt Cobain so clearly ascertained the incongruity of Indie rock’s inherent defeatism i.e. why start and pursue something if success is precluded from the outset -especially if this preclusion is the formalization of the aesthetic itself? The people who hated hair- metal fell into three categories:

1) People who hate metal in general.
2) People who hate pop music (for various Holden Cauffield-like reasons).
3) Metal purists, driven by either their devotion to metal or by the aspersions that will inevitably be cast on metal by ‘outsiders’ i.e. members of groups number 1 and 2.

This hatred is sort of built into heavy metal. As a genre it thrives on being surrounded by strife. Indie rock, however, does not. The role ‘hatred’ plays in heavy metal is played by ‘indifference’ within the context of indie rock; whether it is indifference from the mainstream or scorn from resentful former fans; we can only assume an indie band has a future, commercially speaking, once it receives outright contempt. Hatred guarantees that something artistic is a viably differentiated entity, separate and worthy of dissection. People sometimes debate whether or not grunge was metal (this was the sole focus of one of Sam Dunn’s Metal Evolution episodes) and I would argue that the fact that grunge is actively hated proves that it IS metal. Sometimes an artist is hated because he or she hones in so closely on what it is that made them unique; this phenomenon is the inversion of the Shakespearian definition of tragedy, when the outstanding quality or trait which brought the hero to greatness is the cause of his downfall. One example of this would be U2’s self-righteousness; U2 has literally made an object out of their self-righteousness, but it’s too easy to hate on them, so let’s talk about Tom Waits instead. Unlike U2, I think Tom Waits is great and still relevant, but I was not surprised when I encountered a friend of a friend who hated Tom Waits. There were other people at the bar who agreed with this sentiment and I can only speculate that, outside of a genuine difference of taste, it’s the result of a kind of durational iconoclasm: because something has endured, maintaining an aesthetic consistency, it must perish.

Arcade Fire Got Time

So the War on Drugs episode of Jimmy Fallon was the moment of my epiphany, but I have to provide one more penultimate example to substantiate my complaint. About a month ago, channel surfing under the influence of Ambien, I stumbled across MTV’s ‘College’ rock channel. I saw four guys riding around on mini-scooters. The song was terrible, but for some reason my drug-addled brain was convinced this was Ben Harper. Good old Ben Harper, still at it. No one could care about this guy except maybe Eddie Vedder and yet he has existed and struggled on in the public eye for like, fifteen years. I endured the entire four minutes and thirty-six seconds of Mumford and Sons, unspeakably egregious, The Cave, not in total anticipation that this was in fact Ben Harper, but in anticipation of the moment of revelation and culpability (I am listening to The Cave right now in order to foment my irritation at this saccharine mediocrity).

Of course I had read about Mumford and Sons prior to seeing the video; a few days later, I had the pleasure of reading in the Rolling Stone cover story on The Black Keys how the Akron-based duo were overshined, in terms of popularity, at KROQ’s annual Weeny Roast, by Mumford and Sons, providing yet another example of the nightmarish quality of self-deception that has sprung out of the absurdity of Arcade Fire’s success. I am not a fan of The Black Keys, and probably never will be, but at least they evince a semblance of being a legitimate rock n’ roll band.

I say this as one who is no stranger to precocious pop. I enjoy The Smiths, Casiotone for the Painfully Alone, Kings of Convenience and own every Belle and Sebastian CD up to Dear Catastrophe Waitress (please notice I said ‘CDs’. I know vinyl is great, but having never lost my sense of fidelity to music and its attendant packaging, I’ve never felt compelled to atone for my digital sins through over-compensation). I will never deny the legitimacy of songwriters who are great at their craft yet are essentially forced into the Indie trope because of the fickle vicissitudes of pop-culture. Joe Pernice is just one such promulgation of this legitimately great, but too often overlooked brand of indie, Josh Rouse as well. I am willing to accept that this type of pop could be written off as anachronistic, but there is nothing wrong with comporting artistry to an established form, even if it is outdated i.e. Beatle-esque pop. The problem arises when the song is built around the orchestration and production and not the other way around and Arcade Fire is the band that demonstrated that this reversal was possible, in the same way that Kiss proved it possible to put the physical appearance (and marketing) of the band before the songs themselves. Whether you like the music of Kiss or Arcade Fire you have to question why the example set by one is considered pernicious and the other passable.

Hood-Internet-Arcade-Fire-Blondie

Everybody Get Blown!

If you read Michael Azzerad’s Our Band Could be Your Life, you’ll realize that prior to Nirvana breaking the alternative barrier, with their particular Pixies type of pop meets metal, it could’ve been Dinosaur Jr.’s genre-defying college rock (a “bizarre hybrid …not exactly pop, punk or rock… it was completely its own thing” according to Gerald Cosly), The Replacements’ brand of introspective by way of The Rolling Stones rock n’ roll, or even Mudhoney’s late-Black Flag-esque sludge punk. And, if Nirvana was responsible for grunge imitators like Candlebox, at least these imitators were not granted the critical amnesty the bands they were ripping off were. Anyone who attempts this earnest, anthemic music may be considered inferior to Arcade Fire musically, but equivalent in authenticity of spirit. It’s fitting that Christgau is ultimately dismissive of David Moore, the critic who wrote Pitchfork’s rave review of Funeral, originally intending to give it a 10 (the only album that I know of -and I absolutely refuse to research this- to get a 10 from Pitchfork is Modest Mouse’s The Moon and Antarctica –if I am wrong about this please do not tell me, I cannot live without hope) for ‘outgrowing’ Arcade Fire’s “emotional avoidance of indie irony” and embracing a guilty pleasure like ‘girl-pop’. The inability to seriously own up to one’s guilty pleasures is a hallmark of the current hipster climate. Years ago, in an interview with The Believer, John Darnielle pointed out the absurdity of people who like things ‘ironically’:

I don’t think that ironic-distance appreciation is actually a different or lesser appreciation. I think most of that irony is an attempt to say, “These aren’t exactly my kind of people, and I don’t picture myself sounding like that, but I still like it.” I don’t believe in ironic appreciation. I think if you like something, the core of it is you like it.

A friend of mine recounted a conversation where she was told that people should consciously bring back Adam Ant’s look; to which she deftly replied: “Aren’t we already doing that? It’s not even controversial, it’s an option.” I know it’s an overbearingly declarative statement but: we have finally reached the stage of civilization where the simulacrum brings the ‘real’ into existence.

Of course starting an article in a state of irritation, with no idea how it will end, or what decisive point you are going to make is the perfect way to begin a project that will never reach completion; something that will linger in the back of your mind, nourishing your ego as it simultaneously undercuts it. As I stated at the beginning, Arcade Fire’s success has outlasted virtually all their peers, they’ve been lauded by critics who are oblivious to the fact that they’ve written the cliff’s notes of mediocre songwriting for the next generation. In lieu of any omniscience I might claim on everything that’s happening in music right now I can only offer this defense: I’m only writing down the story of how I’ve come to this conclusion; though I’ve realized that, in a sense, it’s not so much that Arcade Fire has ruined indie rock, it’s that someone could make the argument that they have.

I was at a show last night and a song came on between the bands. My ears perked up.  I didn’t recognize the song, I recognized the singer and the style; it was Mumford and Sons. By force of sheer instinctual recognition, in the moment before conscious recognition I almost enjoyed it, granted, it is a song far less egregious than The Cave, but still. I know this band, I know this scam, just because something is recognizable doesn’t make it good. It is at this moment of liminal apprehension that we have to make a decision and emphatically say: no.

To Be Right…

Posted on by
Reply

I love always being right.
This is the central motivation behind all of my actions in life.
Note this does not mean I am right, but that I strive to be right.

To be right is to…
…give more than empty words.
…understand chaos in the universe.
…live long past the point of no return.
…transgress popular culture and get to the root of the mater.

You become pop culture as a by product.

I have spent a life of procrastination
to escape the rigors of a desk job.
I never wanted a profession that weighted on my life.
Occupation, like marriage, is a prison sentence.

To be right comes with…
…a set of skills of it’s own.
…no remorse or hard feelings.
…the understanding of why you are right.
…the bottom of a bottomless heart.

You only appear like an asshole.

Of all the ways one can live their life,
There is none better than being right.
Which of course takes in to account
more than the ignorant notion of being right.

To be right takes into consideration…
…the truth.
…the humans.
…the environment.
…the change.

A universal view can see the big picture.

Neo-cons wouldn’t know the first thing about being right.
Nor the punch drinking liberals.
The truth is not pretty,
but it shall set you free.

How to Become an Adequately Cultured Person: Introduction

Posted on by
1

The Ultimate Half-Assed DIY Guide to Well-Roundedness
The Director’s Cut
By Ian McLeod

So a lot of people write “how to be well-rounded” articles at some point or another in their writing careers. I know, I wrote the original article quite some time ago. By popular demand, it’s back, and in the parlance of our times, it is being embiggened to proportions hithertofore unseen.

Rather than one article with a few super half-assed ways to improve yourself as in the original article, this new series will go in depth into how to be amazing. Now some of you may have your doubts, and I agree–maybe all of this is full of shit.  But then I argue that any series on being well-rounded that has “shit” somewhere in the first couple paragraphs has to be somewhat different–possibly even good.

And this is a Half-Assed guide, so it’s full of shortcuts and easy ways to become cultured, or at least seem more cultured than you really are. Unlike most who give sage advice, I’m not going to give you a list of “must-read” books or “must smoke” cigars. I will give you a general idea of what does and doesn’t count.

Are You Adequately Cultured?

Cultured could Be You

Cultured Might Be You


What does “adequately cultured” mean? It’s subjective and relative, of course, but an adequately cultured person, in my estimation, can feel equally comfortable at a redneck dive bar with at least three toothless goat-buggerers called Bubba, or at some fancy shindig with people named Wendtworth Higgenbotham–or at least be able to feign comfort to the extent that he or she can schmooze with confidence.

So this series will serve as a guide about dealing with people who may be far more cultured than you are, and convincing them you are at least closer to their level than they think (and hopefully, you’ll succeed in convincing them you’re lightyears ahead of them, to gain their admiration.)  

Use this knowledge at your peril, however. I will teach you how to fake these things, but not necessarily that it is a good idea to do so. Bullshitting people is probably the stupidest thing you can do in a serious situation. But sometimes it’s just too hilarious to pass up when given the opportunity.

So why is being adequately culture important?

Let’s say you end up at an afterparty for an art showing, presumably as a favor for a friend. Your friend has abandoned you. Everyone’s talking about stuff you don’t care about, like how Salieri was underrated and that Wendtworth Higgenbotham made it into Harvard, which is positively ghastly because the Higgenbothams are a Yale family. You just can’t stop gawking at that blonde babe in the red dress who looks just as bored and horny as you are, but you just can’t get away from this group of people who are discussing things which only increase your boredom–you can’t get away to put the epic moves you learned from reading Roissy to good use on her.

No, they have you trapped in some sort of Borg tractor-beam. While you are busy committing the vile sin of lust deeply in your heart, some reject from Revenge of the Nerds accosts you to ask if you’ve read The Adventures of Roderick Random by Tobias Smollett.

First of all, you ask what the hell kind of name is Roderick Random? And second, who the hell names their kid Tobias Smollett?  Unfortunately, you don’t know anything about picaresque novels of the 18th century, so instead you say “your mom asked me that last night.”

The annoying nerd in a polo-shirt and ascot, confused, asks what business you had with his dear mother. You tell him he’s gay. He says yes, he’s “very exuberant at the moment—oh but you probably meant homosexual, in which case, no” but he still doesn’t see why that’s relevant to what business you had with his mother.

Something snaps inside and you revert to your primal nature because you have no safety net of adequate-culturedness, and you punch him in the face. He cries. The party stops. Even the guy on the piano who hates these people just as much as you do is shaking his head: “for shame, for shame.” Everyone’s staring at you, and the hot blond in red rushes over and slaps you for punching out her poor defenseless little brother.

This is not something that actually happened to me, but it could have. Names have been changed, it wasn’t an art showing and I never did punch the guy but I wanted to–Blondie probably wasn’t his sister, and it wasn’t Roderick Random. But it’s what would have happened if I did what I wanted to do at an unfortunate party once. It could have been me, and probably was what happened in an alternate universe.  And if it could have been me, it’s certain that it could also have been you.

Have No Fear, the Adequately Cultured Ian is here!

Never fear, I will tell you what you must do to deal with such people without bringing mothers or questions of sexual orientation into the equation. You must be able to Make It or Fake It, and by It, I mean being adequately cultured–in case you got lost in the above semi-fictitious anecdote.

In our first article, approximately one week hence, we will deal with the issues of either mastering or appearing to have mastered literature. In following articles we will delve into alcohol, tobacco, music, fine art, food, firearms, automobiles, and, if the gods smile on this endeavor and site traffic permits–much more.

Each article will be divided into Basic, Advanced, and Master Techniques. How to use each technique depends on how clever you are. Some people have to do the Basic techniques their whole lives, which means actually doing work (for the remainder of the series, these people shall be referred to as “chumps”.) But if you’ve gone through enough of the basics, or can skip them by means of your own sheer awesomeness, the Advanced Technique is for you: it means you can Fake It. A true Master has attained the ability to Make It and Fake It at the same time, which I suppose means he’s the genuine article, but I’m not totally certain–but in that ambiguity lies limitless power.  Wait, I think I’ve used that line somewhere before.

Join the Adequately Cultured Ian as he lights the lit:

TBA

Is Ron Paul the New Face of Populism?

Posted on by
1

Is Ron Paul the new face of populism?

Ron Paul’s presence in American presidential politics over the last eight years doesn’t follow the spectacle-oriented third party approach that Ross Perot inaugurated in the nineties, (this anticipation has instead been projected onto Donald Trump and Sarah Palin); instead, Paul’s candidacy has the dogged warhorse quality of Ralph Nader’s campaigns, albeit shifted to the extreme right. In the case of Nader, one might have seen the liberal concern for the poor to be a pretty clear indication of traditional populist values. As complex as the supposed tenets of populism can seem, I would consider its only consistent facet to be ballot-power which is derived from the corralling of financially deprived voters, regardless as to what the “official” or stated policies of the candidate may be. Though Paul will most likely be unable to cause the damage Perot did to Bush Sr. in 1992, or that Nader did to Gore in 2000, he is nonetheless, a visible remnant of the twentieth-century Populist movement.

Prior to the modern promulgation of Populism in the late nineteenth century, the movement existed in many forms beginning with the Populares in the Roman Republic; Julius Caesar being a prime example of a movement, aristocratic in origin, which sought senatorial power by way of public support. Since then, the term has entered the political forum under various guises. Looking beyond the alternately pejorative and exalted lights it has been viewed under, we can agree only on its regional and temporal origins. In the United States Populism originated and grew out of The U.S. People’s Party, founded in 1892, as an attempt to mobilize farmers throughout the South, West and Midwest.

Despite the voracious anti-elitist and anti-big business tone of The U.S. People’s Party’s rhetoric, there was a corresponding social conservatism, evinced by the party’s support for segregation (though not espoused by all members, it sat, paradoxically, next to their policy of granting membership to women) and fundamental respect for the tenets of Christianity (the aspect of populism which came to the fore in William Jennings Bryan’s representation of the State of Tennessee in the Scopes Trial of 1925).

The Scopes Trial appeared to be the Crucible upon which the liberal values of progress and science were pitted against the conservative values of traditionalism and religion. In his book Outgrowing Democracy, The Hungarian historian John Lukacs has referred to this conceived juxtaposition of values as being inherently false because neither of the two sides in conflict were representative of twentieth century values (Bryan was the heir of pre-Enlightenment aristocratic values and Clarence Darrow was representative of eighteenth century Enlightenment ideals), but contends that the Scopes trial “marked the final divorce of populism and progressivism”; after which populists would shift to the right and progressives toward the left.

Prior to the Scopes Trial, Frederick Jackson Turner had attempted to conjoin populism with the progressive spirit in the figure of the ‘pioneer farmer’:

The populist demand for government ownership of the railroad is of the same effort of the pioneer farmer, on his latest frontier. The proposals have taken increasing proportions in each region of western advance. Taken as a whole, populism is a manifestation of the old pioneer ideals of the native American, with the added element of increasing readiness to utilize the national government to effect its ends.

Two things catch our attention, one is the use of ‘native’ (not capitalized); Turner is speaking of the settlers and not actual Native Americans, secondly, the use of the word ‘latest’ as opposed to ‘final’; it is in this choice of words that the hidden progressive nature of populism is encoded. Turner innately grasped the idea that any ‘movement’ which is intentionally regressive would be exceptionally oxymoronic and fail.

The lynchpin in my analysis of populism as it relates to the popularity of Ron Paul lies in the fact that, Populism, in the 1890s, was able to transcend traditional political lines before finally being absorbed into The Democratic Party during the early part of the twentieth century, in much the same way that Paul himself, has been absorbed into The Republican Party. An interesting distinction lies between ‘ideals’ or ‘values’ being absorbed into a national political party one hundred years ago and the ‘personage’ or ‘icon’ of those same values being assimilated today.  It almost seems as if The Republican Party would not have intellectual jurisdiction over Libertarian values unless there was an avatar of Libertarianism present to espouse them.

The paradoxical nature of Ron Paul’s candidacy doesn’t represent a short-circuit in populism i.e. a candidate whose policies actually contradict the interests of his followers as much as it represents an evolution of Populism itself and the growing fissure between medium and message -sign and signifier. Sam Tanehaus indirectly sums up the symbolism of Ron Paul’s placement in the Republican party, by way of describing the general crisis of the GOP’s self-perpetuating contradiction in his article, Will the Tea Party Get Cold? (The New York Review of Books, March 8, 2012):

It’s leading figures, in office and in the media, continue to espouse an antigovernment ideology that in reality attracts very few voters, even on the right. More accurately, today’s self-identified conservatives embrace movement rhetoric but not movement ideology -at least not when it is cast as policy.

Ron Paul’s candidacy is not a threat to The Democratic Party, it is however the representation of a total crisis of conscience for The Republican Party. For the last twenty years The Republican Party has conceded its ‘morally’ conservative social policies to a radically capitalist agenda (see The Rolling Stone article How the GOP became the party of the rich by Tim Dickinson). Ron Paul is the embodiment of this radical economic strategizing, completely detached from the usually attendant moral platitudes.

For the first time since Grover Norquist seized the reigns of The Republican Party, party members are now aware of the apodictic bifurcation of their two stated passions: unchecked, unregulated free market capitalism on one hand, moral and religious grandstanding on the other. Politically speaking, they are contingent upon each other, though no-one has brought their respectively autonimous natures into the light of day with the sheer precision Paul has.

It seems that the Republican Party is more comfortable with the incongruity presented by the Neo-Conservative movement, which seeped into it during the eighties; this particular incongruity being: the simultaneous promotion of both war and democracy. The viablity of Neo-Conservativism is in one sense the turning of the tables on early twentith-century Marxists (like Bernstein) who insisted that democracy was contingent upon socialist economic practice, and, more profoundly, a refutation of Plato’s advocacy of an anti-democratic Republic where war would be the exception and not the rule. Taken in this context one could plausibly argue that the Neo-Conservatives are keeping with the spirit of Heraclitus, who claimed:

“War is father of all, king of all. Some it makes gods, some it makes men, some it makes slaves, some free… We must realize that war is universal, and strife is justice, and that all things come into being and pass away through strife.”

Perhaps it is Ron Paul’s stated opposition to military intervention, not his stance on social issues (gay marriage, legalization of drugs etc.) that has been his biggest obstacle to acceptance within the Republican mainstream. Elite groups working within the party to guide its ideology are nothing new and the extent of Paul’s success is not evidence as to how much elites will allow, but an indication of the limit of Populism’s power to short-circuit this Iron Rule of Oligarchy (a term for elite-based oranizationalism coined by Robert Michels in 1911).

We must keep in mind that when we talk about the stemming of Paul’s popularity, if it is in fact the work of top-level Republicans (the elite), and it is not accomplished by diminuation of Paul’s character, so much as it is an act of obfuscation in regards to the aforementioned crisis of conscience which Paul represents. The fact that The People’s Party would be resurrected by anti-war activists in 1971 as a radically liberal party is evidence that the rhetoric of Populism is not only detached from the inferred political message, but that Populism itself is pure medium, and in this sense Ron Paul speaks the language of Populism.

The Failure of Conservatism: A Polemic

Posted on by
10

by Ian McLeod

–With Thanks And Highest Regards to the Late Mr. Nock

Whilst I’m occasionally mistaken for a conservative, as I have a preference for economic freedom and have some (but certainly not all) traditional cultural views, I am not a conservative because I have no desire to see my personal or cultural views legislated on anyone–and in fact reject every attempt even to legislate them on me or anyone else, as I believe the fictitious King Pausole’s laws are the only laws worth having: first “hurt no man,” then “do as you please.”

Conservatism is an utter failure in America, as this election cycle has proven.  Once more Ron Paul has been destroyed by the Republican Party machine, and three identical candidates vie for a meaningless title. That was predictable.  I am nominally a supporter of Paul, but I did not vote in the Alabama Primary and nor will I vote this November, except perhaps to write in “Zombie-Eisenhower” if I am feeling particularly cheeky on that Tuesday morn.  But this cycle, I realized something whilst reading Facebook comments and news articles and blogs all across the Internet: the Ron Paul supporters do not realize how spurious their own opinions are, because they share one thing in common (if only tangentially) with the Party Establishment.  While they are True Believers and the Establishment is not, this is true of the vast majority of Conservative voters (not the elected officials or media figureheads.)  Conservative voters are gullible, not because they are idiots but because they are maleducated (because most Americans are maleducated, regardless of political affiliation).

Indeed, the Paul supporters, who are closest to traditional conservatives of yore, have a massive blind-spot. Again, and so I don’t seem as if I’ve gone Leftist, I find Progressives are equally maleducated, but do have an advantage in that they spend absolutely no time looking back to learn from history except to heap guilt on people who personally have nothing to do with dead and buried atrocities.

Now I understand that Ron Paul is a libertarian trapped in a Republican’s body.  Believe me, I’ve been a reader of his for the better part of a decade: I was down with Ron Paul long before he was cool (I write this with utmost irony and sarcasm, of course.)  But, you see, the Constitution itself is an anti-libertarian document.  Why he hearkens back to it so much and with such fervor is beyond me at this point.  People and their blind spots.  The definition of mal-education.

You see, the Constitution was the product of a cynical coup d’Etat by the urban, mercantilist, creditor class (who happened to own vast tracts of land across the several states, and were owed quite a bit of money after they bankrolled that little revolution.  The Madisonians and Hamiltonians were Madisonians and Hamiltonians precisely because stood to benefit most from centralization.  Principle had nothing to do with it.)  My question thus is, why do you call for a return to constitutional principles if those very principles are simply the enhancement and centralization of government power?  Does revering a document which was itself the product of unprincipled opportunism not seem nonsensical, if not immoral?  It’s a self-contradiction.

As we all know, this coup was led by Madison and Hamilton and perpetrated while Jefferson was in France.  Patrick Henry “smelt a rat in Philadelphia, and it was tending towards Monarchy” and made it a point to no-show to the Convention.  Sam Adams joined him.

In any case, the Constitutional Convention was convened under the false pretense of hammering out some irregularities in the original Articles of Confederation.  Its stated purpose was not to replace the government entirely, but to make the Confederation run more smoothly.  But as soon as it was convened, Madison, Hamilton, John Jay, and their cronies changed the agenda and the end result is what we have today: the Constitution of the United States.  The only “framing” the framers of the Constitution did was of the terms of the debate–for the Federalists it had little to do with grandiose ideas or heart-felt principles, as it boiled down to power and money.  And like most astute politicians, they were able to sell the public down the river in the name of “national defense” and “general welfare.”  John Jay really laid out the agenda the most truthfully, and while I despise what he did I will not issue a damnatio memoriae for sharing the same birthday with him simply because he was honest about it:  “The people who own the country should run the country.”   That was the spirit behind the Constitution.

Oh sure, you can blame Lincoln, or Wilson, or Roosevelt, or Taft, or Obama for all the problems today–but the blame truly lies on the Constitutional Convention itself.  The Presidents and Congresses and Courts have simply played the hand they’ve been dealt.  It is important to remember that the document was not sent to the Continental Congress or the State Legislatures to be vetted before it was put directly to a popular vote–an odd thing for a country which only a few years prior was so determined not to succumb to the perils of democracy.

Now, if you’d prefer actual limitations on the power of central government, then acknowledge that the power of the purse itself must be returned to the state governments, as under the Articles of Confederation, with all the hardships and limitations that necessarily accompany it.  Easy war, expansionism, imperialism, and your favored social issues will, by default become impossible to accomplish legislatively through the heavy hand of central government–but at least so will the legislative goals of your opponents, who are consistently better at manipulating the masses than you are.

The thrust of this is simple: anything less than pure antifederalism is mere posturing.  You wish to “restore the Constitution” when in reality the Constitution is fine, it is working precisely as it was designed.  It was designed to replace a loose-knit confederation that was more similar to Switzerland than to Britain at first–a confederation with painfully explicit limitations of powers with a centralized Federal-National government with only very weak powers.  The Bill of Rights was, and is merely a Trojan horse–a sugar-coating to make the bitter pill of nationalism palatable.    There was far more freedom and individual liberty under the Articles of Confederation.  It was a flawed document, no doubt, but it erred on the side of the Everyman and of State and Local governments, rather than play with the fire of centralization.  Conservatives and Progressives in America today are identical: you only differ in how much fire with which you’re willing to play.  Neither of you question the wisdom of playing with fire in the first place, and for that you should be damned.

You conservatives should be less shocked and offended when the Supreme Court “legislates from the bench.”  The Supreme Court, in fact, is doing precisely what a body of unelected lifetime appointees with unlimited power is designed to do.  Jefferson saw it coming, and was dismayed.

You fail to see that an intentionally vague legal document is a dangerous thing.  In vagary there is unlimited power to be seized.  Progressives understand this better than you do.  Indeed, Progressives are better at interpreting the “original intent” of the Constitution than any Strict Constructionist, as the “original intent” was an unprincipled power-grab by the moneyed class sold as increased security and better services at the expense of both social and individual liberty (the irony, the irony!)  It would have been worse from the outset if not for the antifederalists who demanded a Bill of Rights to mitigate the damage from the inevitable compromises which ensued during the surprise convention.  But even then, the Bill of Rights was a “go along to get along” measure, a bone already sucked dry of its marrow thrown to the antifederalists and Jeffersonians to keep the entire country from Balkanizing outright (as Washington predicted it would.  Indeed, Washington believed the Constitution would not last 20 years.  It probably would have been better if he were right.)

Conservatism in America fails precisely because it deifies the very thing which created all the problems about which Conservatives frequently complain.  You look to a history that never was as you are too blinded by your romantic messianic visions of “founding fathers” or “framers” to see that they were people..  Some of them were great men, and most of them did great things, but as with most people who find themselves with far too much power and influence, they–especially Hamilton’s ilk but Jefferson was no saint either–used their power and influence to their own ends.  They were human.  There is no excuse over 200 years hence, for the wool to remain over your eyes.  Why do you hold it there in the first place?

As you Conservatives look to a history that never was, your only comfort is that Progressives look to a future that will never be (but bless their hearts, they try.)

Politics in America is merely the blind leading the blind, and as great Suleiman the Wise wrote three-thousand years ago, both will inevitably fall to destruction.

The Story

Posted on by
Reply

There is always a story. For a writer, and thereby meaning anyone who has a running inner monologue circling their Grey-matter, there is always a story. Maybe even two or three. Sometimes there are so many stories bidding for attention that the mere though of writing any one of them becomes a terrifying task.

Which is where I have been for the last year or so. Could be more. It’s hard to tell when
One is out there having fun in the warm California sun. However the real issue is the golden idol sized case of writer’s block.

Though even as I type that statement, I’m in full knowledge of how stupid an excuse it sounds. Writer’s block is what my friend calls “White Problems”. No one cares if you can’t place words on a page. No one but your overactive super-ego.

The small tiny voice that drones on and on, like an over-protective mother. Yet procrastination comes on strong like a good drug. Dopamine flooding into the context of the cortex.

Television, the New Age Nanny, becomes visual junk food where everyone is a clown or king with big pearly whites, all the better to eat your soul with, my drear.

Though one comes back to the place where it all started. A chair, computer, desk, and an Oxford comma for good measure. Speakers turned up to 11. Elton John belting out homogenized tunes through a lisp.

Outside the world falls apart bit by bit. Predicted and prescribed entropy for a rapidly decaying society on the cliffs of time.

You want meaning, You won’t find meaning here. We’re all tapped out and the bunghole is dry. Inebriation gives way to realization. It’s better to have the bottle in front of me than to have a frontal inspection at the airport.

There is no depth, no substance. We are all only skin and knee deep in a river of shit. Tempering our resolve. There are two ways out of Shaw-shank, five hundred feet of feces or the body bag.

The choice is yours to make and suffer the consequences. The decision becomes, at least in part, the story.

 

 

The Politics Of Words

Posted on by
1

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” ~Constitution of the United States of America.

The first sentence of The U.S. constitution contains what appears to be a grammatical error. When the published copy of the Constitution was hung up for the world to see. The union of politics and words became further interlinked, as they have always been.

Thomas Jefferson’s use of “more perfect” has sparked the literary mind. One school of thought offers perfect is total unison, nothing could ever be more perfect. To be more perfect would mean what ever was perfect was never perfect until the point it was perfect.

Another school of thought offers “more perfect” is correct grammar as perfect is an exaggerated word. Nothing is ever perfect and to have the sense of entitlement to use perfect invites the use of “more perfect”.

No matter which school of thought you fall into, we learn about the nature of grammar from our constitution. The laws and rules of grammar are debated, changed, and tangible.

A writer must understand why he uses one word or another, as a politician must understand why he votes for one bill or another. When a writer goes to print, his job is to defend his word. When a Politician goes to vote, his job is to defend his vote.

If a writer’s grammar is weak, he will look like a fool to the literary world. If a Politician is uninformed, he will look like a fool to the televised public. We can see many places were the life of a politician and a writer have intertwined skills sets.

Grammar has politics of its own. One filled with strange rules and amendments.

In the beginning, there was “I Am.” The prefect sentence with a noun and an action. “I”, the noun, states a person place or thing and “am” ,an action, denotes a state of existing. “I am” means I exist, only with less letters.

The job for a writer is to explain themselves in a way that pays tribute to the first sentence. Writers pay tribute in many different ways. Hemingway was known for his understated use of words, while Twain offered verbose alternatives to “I Am.”

Both authors are debated and they both could defend their use of words. They knew the politics of words.

In the coming installments, we shall explore the politics of words. No system is free from politics. The infusion of free will leads to interaction and inevitably to politics.

Politics are the process by which people choose to make decisions. Similarly, grammar is the process by which people choose to communicate.

Grammar and Politics are subjective and we all fear the day when acronyms like “TTYL” and “LOL” find their way into our spell check as the day when a politician’s abuse of our freedoms finds its way into our law.

How would such a change occur? Through the debate of people who understand the subtle nuances and it’s time for us to join the debate.

Count of Monte Cristo

Posted on by
1

1

Monte Cristo Sandwhich

Monte Cristo

Two thick bits of Holla
Two Slices of Turkey
And two thin hunks of ham

Two melted Holy swiss
One on top and bottom
Served with sugar and jam

2

Monte Cristo Sandwhich

Monte Cristo

Two thick bits of Holla
Two Slices of Turkey
And two thin hunks of ham

Two melted Holy swiss
One on top and bottom
Served with sugar and jam

3

Monte Cristo Sandwhich

Monte Cristo

Two thick bits of Holla
Two Slices of Turkey
And two thin hunks of ham

Two melted Holy swiss
One on top and bottom
Served with sugar and jam

 

 

Gay Step in the Right Direction

Posted on by
Reply

My Fellow Americans,

Sam's Your Uncle Cover

Sam's Your Uncle

I start by asking you to imagine your wedding day. Loved ones gathered around a white building to celebrate the love, you and your spouse share. A minister stands proudly at the alter to join a pair of pew members in holy matrimony.

Certainly the mental picture of Marriage is a part of the American dream. Though that dream continues to be little more than pipe illusions for many Americans. Yet that utopia is not entirely up in smoke.

This week, the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Proposition 8, Eliminates Rights of Same-Sex Couples to Marry, to be unconstitutional.

Judge Stephen Reinhardt said “Prop 8 serves no purpose, and has no effect, other than to lessen the status and human dignity of gays and lesbians in California, and to officially reclassify their relationships and families as inferior to those of opposite-sex couples,”

And while a portion of us might be outraged, his step marks a giant leap for the intent of our constitution.

Many of us appear to forget the intention of our constitution and the glory of our country. We are the land of the free! Free to decide which church we decide to worship at and who that church considers for marriage.

Far too often we see the image of Homosexuals taking their marital vows on the steps of city hall or in Vegas style chaplains. We are quick to forget that many homosexuals are active members of congregations. Their religion, outside from your opinion of their faith, is of equal importance under the law.

“All men are created equal.”

The United States’ Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal, whether they were born on our planet or another. While We, as the American Government, can only dictate the laws of the people who are born within the boarders of the U.S.A.

Same sex couples

Marry them soon

Therefore our Constitution was written with the intent that all American Men, as meaning humans, are equal under our laws. To further our understanding, a Bill of Rights was added to further protect the intent of a free land.

Our first amendment states that congress shall pass no law against religion or prohibit their free exercise. In the first amendment we can see how the “Defense of Marriage Act” is unconstitutional.

US Citizen -N.- A person born in the United States, or naturalized, holding a US passport.

Now these people make me mad enough to eat my Star spangled top hat. And don’t even mention the problems Ellen and JC Penny are having with the One Million(rounded to the nearest million) Moms.

Though the sad spice in the mix of happiness of this week’s news becomes that homosexuals continue to be denied their religious right to get hitched in the eyes of their God and Government.

As long as this continues, the American Dream is only that. A factious facade granted to no one. Not only for Gays but for the rest of the population who may one day want to live a life that is different from our social norms.

The good book says “Treat thy neighbor as you would be treated.” Do you wanted to be told your religion is stupid? Do you want to be told your relationships are inferior?

The correct answer to both questions is no. Yet so many of the bible thumpers are quick to limit the freedom of others. A great paradox is their religion is based upon free will.

To further our perspective of these crimes against humanity, those who support actions to limit civil freedoms from their fellow countrymen are dividing our country’s unity.

In a time of this depression, we are constantly asked to bring unity and those who divide us are the true terrorist. I, as a symbol of your faded glory, believe we should do everything in our power to restore the rights of all Americans.

Americans be warned. You are for the rights of all Americans or you should be on the first buss to Guantanamo.

Until next time, talk about united civil rights with someone.
Uncle Sam

Irish Guilt

Posted on by
Reply

“Oh I Am, what happened last night?”

After a night drenched in liberated spirits, some people say the worst part is the hangover. The pound of gray matter against the skull. The explosive reaction to sunlight reflected off white walls. The ache from every joint in the body. Surly, each aliment is hell but nothing compares to the guilt.

“No, really. What did I do?”

The answer to this question turned Bukowski dark and left Ireland sedated by the British. The real curse of the Irish. Not the limp of a dink, as if a fault of the phallus is a curse to the over populated. Nothing compares to the conjured ghosts of shot glass past, summoned forth to reap their havoc in slighted mental shows. Lamp shade nightmares bubble to the surface and join the heart upon the sleeve.

“Really? Am I that daft?”

Children learn by one burn from the stove’s hot top. I do this every weekend and add mental retardation to the list of my deficiency. Doubly so as the splintered bits of recollection are collected from the editing floor. A strip here, a segment there, drama displayed in a 50 foot horror show, “Attack of the Drunken Boob”.

“I am never getting out of bed.”

Doom and Gloom are kiddy rhymes in the bed of shattered memories. Broken conversation take demonic faces and laugh with a Jackal’s jowl. Worst than a bad acid trip, the flashes flood back to the cortex in uncontrollable spasms. Watch thy own self fallen down the bottom of the barrel.

“Or ever drink again!”

More promises to break in the weeks, days, hours, and minutes to come. The hair of the dog eases the pain and temporarily breaks the lycanthrope curse. I can stand on my hind legs and walk like a man. Free to take one down, pass it around, and wake to more horror in the morning.