For no particularly good reason, I made another muxtape, this one featuring songs naming days of the week.
So here you go: This Week's Songs.
Wire "Field Day for the Sundays"
The Negro Problem "Repulsion (Show Up Late for Work on Monday)"
Rock*a*Teens "Tuesday's Just As Bad"
Unrest "Wednesday & Proud"
The Futureheads "Thursday"
Bash & Pop "Friday Night (Is Killing Me)"
Jefferson Airplane "Won't You Try/Saturday Afternoon"
5.31.2008
5.30.2008
helpful hints for would-be criminals
From today's Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:
1. If you decide to leave your parked car blasting music - in the wake of loads of publicity about the city's new noise ordinance - it's probably better to do it somewhere other than directly across the street from a police station.
2. Also, leaving a gun stuffed between the seats of said car will increase the officers' interest in your vehicle.
3. Leaving drugs in such a vehicle is too complicated. You should instead gift-wrap them and deliver them, with a nice card bearing your name, directly to the police station. This saves the police the minor effort they had to expend of asking around to see who owned the car with the drugs, the gun, and the loud music blasting.
1. If you decide to leave your parked car blasting music - in the wake of loads of publicity about the city's new noise ordinance - it's probably better to do it somewhere other than directly across the street from a police station.
2. Also, leaving a gun stuffed between the seats of said car will increase the officers' interest in your vehicle.
3. Leaving drugs in such a vehicle is too complicated. You should instead gift-wrap them and deliver them, with a nice card bearing your name, directly to the police station. This saves the police the minor effort they had to expend of asking around to see who owned the car with the drugs, the gun, and the loud music blasting.
5.29.2008
for those folks just dying to be part of a Colin Meloy/Peter Gabriel/you three-way
An addendum to my earlier post partially about the notion of the Decemberists covering Genesis' "White Mountain" (I don't know whether they have; I'm just sayin', they should): I sloppily ended up linking to something other than the mp3 file for the Genesis track. So for those of you not obsessive about having early '70s prog CDs at your fingertips, here is the Genesis track in question - which, really, I can almost hear Meloy singing.
Genesis "White Mountain" (Trespass, 1970)
Genesis "White Mountain" (Trespass, 1970)
myBandZnameIz43
Once upon a time, someone (either Don Marquis or E.E. Cummings) figured out that if you futz around with the typography of your name, it will appear more distinctive in relation to other names. This was true then - but since every teenage poet and corporate brander has come to the same conclusion, we're now faced with a situation in which non-standard typography is nearly standard.
How standard?
One of the bands whose mailing list I'm on (The Hidden Messages) entered an "unsigned band" contest sponsored by Intel. Of the 265 bands listed, nearly one-third (78) displayed their names either in ALL CAPS, all lower-case, featuring InterCapitaliZation, runtogetherasifit'soneword, or with superfluous numerals tacked8 on4. I didn't count lower-cased or all-capped entries if they appeared to be only e-mail addresses, nor did I count intercapitalization when it's standard (surnames like "McDonald") or numbers that were relevant to the makeup of the act (such as the Bob Smith 3 if it had three members).
The breakdown:
All caps: 12
Non-standard lower-casing: 25
Non-standard intercapitalization: 9
Words run together: 23
Superfluous numerals: 9
There are some double-dippers. I think the champion is an act called (take several aspirin now; wait until they take effect to read on) ill-a-noiZe. They should have been "ill-a-noiZ3" if they'd wanted the crown for real, though.
How standard?
One of the bands whose mailing list I'm on (The Hidden Messages) entered an "unsigned band" contest sponsored by Intel. Of the 265 bands listed, nearly one-third (78) displayed their names either in ALL CAPS, all lower-case, featuring InterCapitaliZation, runtogetherasifit'soneword, or with superfluous numerals tacked8 on4. I didn't count lower-cased or all-capped entries if they appeared to be only e-mail addresses, nor did I count intercapitalization when it's standard (surnames like "McDonald") or numbers that were relevant to the makeup of the act (such as the Bob Smith 3 if it had three members).
The breakdown:
All caps: 12
Non-standard lower-casing: 25
Non-standard intercapitalization: 9
Words run together: 23
Superfluous numerals: 9
There are some double-dippers. I think the champion is an act called (take several aspirin now; wait until they take effect to read on) ill-a-noiZe. They should have been "ill-a-noiZ3" if they'd wanted the crown for real, though.
5.28.2008
two annoying consequences of computer graphics
Both of these have more to do with lazy humans than with computers - so please, take me off any Luddite mailing lists you might just have added me to, thank you.
Onward:
1. The same damned cheesy fonts everywhichwhere. Once upon a time, your small-business owner who didn't have a whole bunch of money to hire an expensive graphic artist, but who needed a sign, could probably still afford to hire a sign painter - or take the DIY approach. While the quality of the resulting work would obviously vary, at least the results (even if the business owner was a lame-ass letterer) would be distinctive, not the same cookie-cutter set of fonts now available to any business owner who can afford a computer.
2. Pixelation. This results when dull humans blow up a low-res image to a scale it was never intended to be viewed at. Quite often, there's probably a higher-res version available - but you know, you can just blow it up, and hey who'll notice that it looks like crap? Other than anyone with eyes, that is.
The upside of this is it's easy to tell the level of damn-giving a business (or individual) has. Papyrus font, pixelated graphics (especially if they're clip-art of the lamest sort), and a handful of missing or misplaced apostrophes: either the folks who put this together just don't care, or they're so insensitive to the effect that whatever they're selling, you can be sure they're not paying attention to quality there, either.
Onward:
1. The same damned cheesy fonts everywhichwhere. Once upon a time, your small-business owner who didn't have a whole bunch of money to hire an expensive graphic artist, but who needed a sign, could probably still afford to hire a sign painter - or take the DIY approach. While the quality of the resulting work would obviously vary, at least the results (even if the business owner was a lame-ass letterer) would be distinctive, not the same cookie-cutter set of fonts now available to any business owner who can afford a computer.
2. Pixelation. This results when dull humans blow up a low-res image to a scale it was never intended to be viewed at. Quite often, there's probably a higher-res version available - but you know, you can just blow it up, and hey who'll notice that it looks like crap? Other than anyone with eyes, that is.
The upside of this is it's easy to tell the level of damn-giving a business (or individual) has. Papyrus font, pixelated graphics (especially if they're clip-art of the lamest sort), and a handful of missing or misplaced apostrophes: either the folks who put this together just don't care, or they're so insensitive to the effect that whatever they're selling, you can be sure they're not paying attention to quality there, either.
5.26.2008
why we're screwed
This is truly pathetic. What's really sad here is that, as Polman points out, it takes almost no effort to find out at least the bare minimum about candidates and basic information about them. (In these folks' worldviews, also, McCain is a "maverick" and probably some sort of "moderate"...)
I think part of this stems from the annoying and misguided but well-intentioned efforts of officially neutral civic patriots who, every election cycle, emphasize the importance of voting. The importance of voting, yes - but what about the importance of having the first idea about the person you're voting for?
I think part of this stems from the annoying and misguided but well-intentioned efforts of officially neutral civic patriots who, every election cycle, emphasize the importance of voting. The importance of voting, yes - but what about the importance of having the first idea about the person you're voting for?
5.24.2008
one of us will rue the day we trespassed where no wolf may tread
My guess is that this particular combination of artists hasn't featured in a single blog entry before (but let me know if you find one, 'kay?). First: Does anyone else think that "White Mountain" by Genesis really ought to be covered by The Decemberists?
More importantly (really: more important than the idea of The Decemberists covering very early Genesis? Must be damned important!): the first song from the forthcoming new Wire album has been released (courtesy Stereogum, where you can also watch a video for the single version of "Outdoor Miner"). The song is called "One of Us," and it opens the new full-length CD due in July, which will be available from Wire's own label, Pink Flag. That rhythm guitar part is a distant cousin of the one in Jonathan Richman's "Roadrunner"...which of course makes the song a slightly more closely related cousin of Wire's own "Strange" (the relation to Richman is clearer in R.E.M.'s version, since those two songs' tempos are much closer).
It's poppier than I would have expected - but maybe I shouldn't be surprised, given Bruce Gilbert's departure from the band. Then again, Wire's always played pop...and those pop explorations have often coexisted with their most abrasive, avant-garde moments. So it will be interesting to see how the new album shakes out as a whole.
Wire "One of Us" (Object 47, 2008)
More importantly (really: more important than the idea of The Decemberists covering very early Genesis? Must be damned important!): the first song from the forthcoming new Wire album has been released (courtesy Stereogum, where you can also watch a video for the single version of "Outdoor Miner"). The song is called "One of Us," and it opens the new full-length CD due in July, which will be available from Wire's own label, Pink Flag. That rhythm guitar part is a distant cousin of the one in Jonathan Richman's "Roadrunner"...which of course makes the song a slightly more closely related cousin of Wire's own "Strange" (the relation to Richman is clearer in R.E.M.'s version, since those two songs' tempos are much closer).
It's poppier than I would have expected - but maybe I shouldn't be surprised, given Bruce Gilbert's departure from the band. Then again, Wire's always played pop...and those pop explorations have often coexisted with their most abrasive, avant-garde moments. So it will be interesting to see how the new album shakes out as a whole.
Wire "One of Us" (Object 47, 2008)
5.23.2008
Punctuation Patrol!
Saving the world from typos, one apostrophe at a time! If only they had their own theme music...
5.21.2008
the divine right of cowboys
We tend to think (and many Westerners tend to think of themselves this way) of cowboys as the quintessential American individualist: dependent upon no one, self-reliant utterly...this is the image (regarded both positively and negatively) that makes "cowboy" such a resonant symbol. But insofar as modern-day ranchers are cowboys (and of course, they are that, among other things), they put your Reagan-fantasy "welfare queens" to shame with their reliance on government funding. Christopher Ketcham (in an article in the June 2008 issue of Harper's) notes that not only do most major ranchers use federal lands (national parks and forests and the like) for grazing, the cost of such grazing permits is only about a twelfth of the cost of the market rate for foraging on private lands and costs US taxpayers at least $120 million annually, with additional hidden costs driving that figure up as high as $1 billion per year. On behalf of such ranchers (who include poor folks like Ted Turner and Paris Hilton's grandpa), Ketcham notes, the US government "clears forests; plants grass; builds roads, cattle guards, and fences; diverts streams; blows up beaver dams; 'improves' habitats; monitors the health of stock; excises predators, including 80,000 coyotes; and poisons, traps, or shoots more than 30,000 prairie dogs and beavers...each year."
Worse yet, this welfare (and half of Montana's cattle, for example, are owned by only 10 percent of the state's cattle ranchers) goes to support an activity that is hugely destructive to the Western habitat. Cattle, it turns out, are grossly less-suited to the environment, and more destructive of it, than were buffalo. Had the US not driven out the original buffalo herds in favor of beef cattle (and - no small factor this - as an effective strategy to clear Native Americans from the land), and had we instead relied upon buffalo rather than cattle, the deforestation and desertification, the loss of topsoil and even species, would have been mitigated if not eliminated. To take one example, buffalo hooves are sharper than cattle's hooves, which means that their passage separates and oxygenates the soil, whereas flat cattle hooves pound it down deplete it.
So: not only are cattle ranchers welfare-dependent guzzlers at the state teat, their practices are extremely harmful...not only to the land in general but ultimately to their own livelihood.
(Introducing: vaguely associated musical selections...)
Mission of Burma "All World Cowboy Romance" (Signals, Calls, and Marches 1981)
Scott Walker "Tilt" (Tilt 1995)
Worse yet, this welfare (and half of Montana's cattle, for example, are owned by only 10 percent of the state's cattle ranchers) goes to support an activity that is hugely destructive to the Western habitat. Cattle, it turns out, are grossly less-suited to the environment, and more destructive of it, than were buffalo. Had the US not driven out the original buffalo herds in favor of beef cattle (and - no small factor this - as an effective strategy to clear Native Americans from the land), and had we instead relied upon buffalo rather than cattle, the deforestation and desertification, the loss of topsoil and even species, would have been mitigated if not eliminated. To take one example, buffalo hooves are sharper than cattle's hooves, which means that their passage separates and oxygenates the soil, whereas flat cattle hooves pound it down deplete it.
So: not only are cattle ranchers welfare-dependent guzzlers at the state teat, their practices are extremely harmful...not only to the land in general but ultimately to their own livelihood.
(Introducing: vaguely associated musical selections...)
Mission of Burma "All World Cowboy Romance" (Signals, Calls, and Marches 1981)
Scott Walker "Tilt" (Tilt 1995)
5.18.2008
for lead is the metal that my true love wore, and what's more...
Not everyone knows that Rose's initial major in college was engineering. This should shed some light on the fact that it was Rose who dragged me off to the theater to see Iron Man earlier this evening.
It was kind of fun...although it's also odd that I've seen Robert Downey Jr. play the same self-centered, smarmy, yet charming smart-ass in like three movies in a row (we saw Zodiac the other night, and of course there was his wonderful turn in A Scanner Darkly). Not a masterpiece by any means, but fun. I should state that I'm not a comics-head, and I was utterly unfamiliar with any premises of the back story beforehand. There were some implausible points: maybe I missed any explanation, but at one point a character surprises Tony Stark (Downey's character) at Stark's home...as if a tech-head multibazillionaire like Stark wouldn't have a serious security system. And the building of the first suit (what? there's a suit? and it's made of metal? How dare I give away key plot points!) took place directly under the noses of some of the apparently least suspicion-prone guards ever (poor job fit).
I will say this: Stark's last line and the credits that follow immediately thereafter? Best filmic punchline ever. And stay through the credits. (Because if you can give the name of at least four accountants involved with the making of the film, you get free admission to the sequel! Credits-bloat: when will it end?)
It was kind of fun...although it's also odd that I've seen Robert Downey Jr. play the same self-centered, smarmy, yet charming smart-ass in like three movies in a row (we saw Zodiac the other night, and of course there was his wonderful turn in A Scanner Darkly). Not a masterpiece by any means, but fun. I should state that I'm not a comics-head, and I was utterly unfamiliar with any premises of the back story beforehand. There were some implausible points: maybe I missed any explanation, but at one point a character surprises Tony Stark (Downey's character) at Stark's home...as if a tech-head multibazillionaire like Stark wouldn't have a serious security system. And the building of the first suit (what? there's a suit? and it's made of metal? How dare I give away key plot points!) took place directly under the noses of some of the apparently least suspicion-prone guards ever (poor job fit).
I will say this: Stark's last line and the credits that follow immediately thereafter? Best filmic punchline ever. And stay through the credits. (Because if you can give the name of at least four accountants involved with the making of the film, you get free admission to the sequel! Credits-bloat: when will it end?)
5.17.2008
why the metric system never caught on in the US
When I was a kid, I remember a big push (from my math teachers in particular) to get everyone to become familiar with the metric system. I remember baseball stadiums (even those not in Canada) suddenly sprouted metric measurements on their outfield fences. Unfortunately, when those signs said things like "106.68 m," they reinforced the notion that the metric system required a nerdy precision, what with carrying things out to a couple-few decimal places. This was completely unnecessary, since in most cases we do not need an exact measurement. I doubt that your typical outfield fence that says "350 ft." is exactly 350 feet - it may be 350 feet give or take a few inches, and given that the fences are rarely curved in such a manner as to be equidistant from home plate, at one point in the "350 ft." sign they will be 349 feet and 6 inches and at the other end of the sign maybe 350 feet and 4 inches.
What should have been emphasized wasn't conversion but familiarity. We really don't need to know most measurements to the centimeter, and it would have been far more effective to know that a meter is a little longer than a yard, a kilometer's a little less than two-thirds of a mile, etc. - but beyond that, we become familiar with these units in reference to what they measure. We're all used to 2-liter beverage containers, for example (for some reason, that measurement took hold). And if we got used to how fast 80 kph felt, or how long it took to drive 125 km on the freeway, who cares about conversion?
5.14.2008
Abraham and Isaac, Bush and his 9-iron
Not that there should be any doubt that George W. Bush is a man of character...but as you've no doubt read by now, Bush is saying that after hearing about the August 2003 Baghdad bombing that killed UN official Sergio Vieiro de Mello, he made a tremendous and near-superhuman sacrifice for his nation: he gave up golf.
I'm sure the parents of a soldier killed by a roadside bomb, or maimed and paralyzed for life, feel so much better knowing that the Commander-in-Chief will never again pilot a putt across the green, or be the decider in resolutely telling his caddy which club to use. "My daughter lost both her legs and faces lifelong treatment for psychological trauma...but her leader, he'll never yell 'fore!' again." Bush's noble gesture proves the depth of his compassion and the greatness of his soul.
Unless, of course, he's lying again, and he didn't give up golf so much as cut back a bit, and didn't so much do it for the troops as because he has a bad knee. But who could even think such a thing of our brave leader?
I'm sure the parents of a soldier killed by a roadside bomb, or maimed and paralyzed for life, feel so much better knowing that the Commander-in-Chief will never again pilot a putt across the green, or be the decider in resolutely telling his caddy which club to use. "My daughter lost both her legs and faces lifelong treatment for psychological trauma...but her leader, he'll never yell 'fore!' again." Bush's noble gesture proves the depth of his compassion and the greatness of his soul.
Unless, of course, he's lying again, and he didn't give up golf so much as cut back a bit, and didn't so much do it for the troops as because he has a bad knee. But who could even think such a thing of our brave leader?
people who really, truly need a life
Or at least a little lesson in the difference between "fiction" and "reality." Then again there's the Scientologists...
5.12.2008
misery complaints self-pity injustice
Soft Cell is unfairly labeled a one-hit wonder - that hit being of course "Tainted Love" - when in fact, its debut album Non-Stop Erotic Cabaret is, top to bottom, a classic album. What's surprising is how often it's (mis)interpreted as a typical '80s blast of hedonism (I suppose its danced-up, E'd-out remix, Non-Stop Ecstatic Dancing, might contribute to that impression) when it's at least a rather jaundiced portrait of the allure of such hedonism - and ultimately, I think, a blast at the oversold and commercialized market for human emotions of the early '80s.
We'll start with the hit: "Tainted Love" is, of course, a cover - but Soft Cell's genius is to stuff all the outright emotional exhibitionism of its Northern Soul source into a claustrophobic box, from which Marc Almond's emotive but tense vocal can tease out the intertwinings of desire and repulsion that is the song's (and its album's) subject matter. Somewhat unfashionably for the '80s and its post-punk rejection of classic-rock tropes, Non-Stop Erotic Cabaret is a narrative (or "concept album" if you insist on being all '70s about it), although rather than delineate either a story or a set of interlinked vignettes (the typical approaches), Soft Cell focuses its narrative on the moments of its main character's life. He's an average guy, with a steady but dull middle-class job in advertising or sales or some such, with a wife and a home and a kid blah-blah-blah, but he's getting restless. "Frustration" opens the album and, in its amusingly exaggerated laundry list of the narrator's hidden desires, sets the tone. The sleaze is balanced by a real desperation, but the aim of desire seems, well, tainted by images drawn from films, ads, and other media. The cover of the CD shows band members Marc Almond and David Ball in leather jackets, appearing to be illuminated solely by the neon lights spelling out the band's name and album title. Almond holds a crumpled envelope halfway out of his jacket - what is it? Drugs? Illicit photos? The back cover (of the CD issue, anyway - not sure what the original LP looked like) displays a night-time commercial strip with signs advertising peep shows, "sex literature," and "cinematic sex," with a blurred figure walking past the signs. The imagery is all very second-hand - but in this case, I think that plays directly into the narrator's borrowed notions of decadence. Throughout, the lyrics are unclear as to which scenes actually take place and which are fantasies ("isn't that...you on the screen?" "Be quiet - that's not me!"), and the logical, narrative sequence of the last three tracks (divorced and alone in "Bedsitter", subject to blackmail ("Secret Life"), ending the affair in "Say Hello, Wave Goodbye") seem out of sequence, as if some of it is merely what the narrator fears or imagines rather than what actually happens.
"Entertain me, I'm as blank as can be," the narrator bleats...followed shortly thereafter by "do you think we'll be paid?" He regrets the passing of his youth (in the song of that name) - yet everything he does feels empty, unfulfilling ("fill 'em up, knock 'em down," the lyrics to "Entertain Me" repeat, the same riff circling endlessly around jeering crowd noise and an at-times intentionally inept vocal performance), and so it's on to the next thing.
The CD concludes with a song often mischaracterized as merely "sentimental" or "romantic," "Say Hello, Wave Goodbye." Musically, and especially melodically, it surely is - but the lyrics are a bit less so: its second verse, for example, is manipulatively cruel, with the guy following the classic script of trying to make his would-be-ex hate him instead of want him: "I'll find someone who's not going cheap in the sales / a nice little housewife... / who won't keep going off the rails." Still, Almond sells the narrator's situation: despite his dissatisfaction, he's found something that moves him, that opens him up. Compare the pinched, tense vocal performance of "Frustration" with the unafraid melodrama of this track: even if the narrator's life is in ruins, and the sleazy world he's explored mostly a ploy to sap both his money and his soul, the music here argues that however corrupted and corroded there's something worthwhile here beyond the arid routine of our narrator's earlier life. As a lyricist Almond is smart enough to contrast this hint of submerged worth with what is really a rather desperate situation, just as its liberatory potential is quite well hidden underneath the sordid marketization of desire the album's well-drowning in.
Musically, the sheen now associated with early '80s synth-pop is largely missing: not only are the synths rather downmarket and grungy, acoustic instruments play a large role (some particularly sleazy sax and clarinet work appear at key places), and Almond's tendency to sing slightly sharp is exploited to give the album a strangely unhinged air (most evident in the wordless falsetto in the fade to "Seedy Films"). Ultimately neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of '80s-style decadence, Non-Stop Erotic Cabaret instead looks it in the eye and tries to honestly assess it. It acknowledges the reality and desperation of the cloistered emotional space allotted to a typical middle-class young man...but recognizes (in a phrase from a much more overtly political band of the era) the "dirt behind the daydream" in the purported happy ever-after.
Soft Cell "Frustration"
Soft Cell "Youth"
Soft Cell "Entertain Me"
Soft Cell "Say Hello, Wave Goodbye"
—Non-Stop Erotic Cabaret (1981)
We'll start with the hit: "Tainted Love" is, of course, a cover - but Soft Cell's genius is to stuff all the outright emotional exhibitionism of its Northern Soul source into a claustrophobic box, from which Marc Almond's emotive but tense vocal can tease out the intertwinings of desire and repulsion that is the song's (and its album's) subject matter. Somewhat unfashionably for the '80s and its post-punk rejection of classic-rock tropes, Non-Stop Erotic Cabaret is a narrative (or "concept album" if you insist on being all '70s about it), although rather than delineate either a story or a set of interlinked vignettes (the typical approaches), Soft Cell focuses its narrative on the moments of its main character's life. He's an average guy, with a steady but dull middle-class job in advertising or sales or some such, with a wife and a home and a kid blah-blah-blah, but he's getting restless. "Frustration" opens the album and, in its amusingly exaggerated laundry list of the narrator's hidden desires, sets the tone. The sleaze is balanced by a real desperation, but the aim of desire seems, well, tainted by images drawn from films, ads, and other media. The cover of the CD shows band members Marc Almond and David Ball in leather jackets, appearing to be illuminated solely by the neon lights spelling out the band's name and album title. Almond holds a crumpled envelope halfway out of his jacket - what is it? Drugs? Illicit photos? The back cover (of the CD issue, anyway - not sure what the original LP looked like) displays a night-time commercial strip with signs advertising peep shows, "sex literature," and "cinematic sex," with a blurred figure walking past the signs. The imagery is all very second-hand - but in this case, I think that plays directly into the narrator's borrowed notions of decadence. Throughout, the lyrics are unclear as to which scenes actually take place and which are fantasies ("isn't that...you on the screen?" "Be quiet - that's not me!"), and the logical, narrative sequence of the last three tracks (divorced and alone in "Bedsitter", subject to blackmail ("Secret Life"), ending the affair in "Say Hello, Wave Goodbye") seem out of sequence, as if some of it is merely what the narrator fears or imagines rather than what actually happens.
"Entertain me, I'm as blank as can be," the narrator bleats...followed shortly thereafter by "do you think we'll be paid?" He regrets the passing of his youth (in the song of that name) - yet everything he does feels empty, unfulfilling ("fill 'em up, knock 'em down," the lyrics to "Entertain Me" repeat, the same riff circling endlessly around jeering crowd noise and an at-times intentionally inept vocal performance), and so it's on to the next thing.
The CD concludes with a song often mischaracterized as merely "sentimental" or "romantic," "Say Hello, Wave Goodbye." Musically, and especially melodically, it surely is - but the lyrics are a bit less so: its second verse, for example, is manipulatively cruel, with the guy following the classic script of trying to make his would-be-ex hate him instead of want him: "I'll find someone who's not going cheap in the sales / a nice little housewife... / who won't keep going off the rails." Still, Almond sells the narrator's situation: despite his dissatisfaction, he's found something that moves him, that opens him up. Compare the pinched, tense vocal performance of "Frustration" with the unafraid melodrama of this track: even if the narrator's life is in ruins, and the sleazy world he's explored mostly a ploy to sap both his money and his soul, the music here argues that however corrupted and corroded there's something worthwhile here beyond the arid routine of our narrator's earlier life. As a lyricist Almond is smart enough to contrast this hint of submerged worth with what is really a rather desperate situation, just as its liberatory potential is quite well hidden underneath the sordid marketization of desire the album's well-drowning in.
Musically, the sheen now associated with early '80s synth-pop is largely missing: not only are the synths rather downmarket and grungy, acoustic instruments play a large role (some particularly sleazy sax and clarinet work appear at key places), and Almond's tendency to sing slightly sharp is exploited to give the album a strangely unhinged air (most evident in the wordless falsetto in the fade to "Seedy Films"). Ultimately neither a condemnation nor an endorsement of '80s-style decadence, Non-Stop Erotic Cabaret instead looks it in the eye and tries to honestly assess it. It acknowledges the reality and desperation of the cloistered emotional space allotted to a typical middle-class young man...but recognizes (in a phrase from a much more overtly political band of the era) the "dirt behind the daydream" in the purported happy ever-after.
Soft Cell "Frustration"
Soft Cell "Youth"
Soft Cell "Entertain Me"
Soft Cell "Say Hello, Wave Goodbye"
—Non-Stop Erotic Cabaret (1981)
5.11.2008
the bitter end
One of the more annoying phenomena of media memes is the way their repetition can sometimes utterly drain out actual content. It's like a variation of the game of "telephone" - only instead of a simple circle, we have concentric layers of repetition so that the same message gets distorted and repeated and amplified.
One of my commenters the other day referred to Obama's "racist 'Bittergate' comment (against Pennsylvania's working-class)." And of course I knew what that referred to - since I haven't been living in a cave - but I found myself thinking, wait, what actually did Obama say? Here's a transcript (scroll down). In context, I fail to see what's "racist" about Obama's infamous remark, and I also think it's a rather serious distortion to characterize it as being "against" the working class. The first few paragraphs make clear that Obama is responding to the argument that the white working class will not vote for him as a black man: so the whole reason he's even focusing on white working-class people is that context. You cannot respond to criticism about your support among the white working class without, duh, talking about the white working class. That's not racist; that's responding to the question put before you.
Second, it's clear that, whatever the truth of Obama's characterization and however unfortunate his choice of words (more on that later), he's sympathetic toward the situation of poor whites - who have, he notes, essentially gotten the shaft or been ignored over the years. So to characterize his remarks as being "against the working class" is quite a stretch.
The two words Obama shouldn't have used? "Cling" - which implies a sort of mindlessness that does verge on insulting, although many other connotations are nowhere near so negative (if you describe someone suffering from cancer as "clinging to life," you're not saying they're mindless or misguided to do so) - and, of course, "religion." (Maybe "guns" - but for the gun crowd, saying anything at all about guns except "yee-haw" is a negative.) It's the inclusion of "religion" among guns, xenophobia, and (oddly) "anti-trade sentiment" that got him into trouble. I think I know what he means - and I'm pretty sure Jesus himself said something against people who rely merely on the letter of religion rather than actually helping people - but certainly, it was poorly phrased.
Is "bitter" a problem? Politically, that seems to be what people have latched onto...even though it seems obvious that if you take a group of people who've been screwed over, some of them, even many of them, are indeed going to be bitter. But saying so falls into the same category of political mistake as Jimmy Carter's infamous "malaise" comment: it seems that a politician must, like Eric Idle's "crucifee" (so the credits have it), always look on the bright side of life and be a walking Successories poster. Actually pointing out that people might be pessimistic - or indeed "bitter" - is such a buzzkill.
Or we could use our beloved leader's old metric: looking at Obama's "bitter" remark and Clinton's "hard-working white voters" remark, who's a "divider" and who's a "uniter"? Obama's comment came in a context of (a) addressing perceived problems he might have in connecting to white working-class voters and (b) saying that that cynicism is itself a part of the problem, while acknowledging that this problem needed to be addressed. Clinton, on the other hand, wasn't addressing policy or voters' concerns directly; she was (a) claiming that she had broader support than Obama and (b) driving a wedge between Democrats who favored her and those who favored Obama, trying to raise fear among the latter that they were harming the Democrats' chances. Clinton's remarks might have been more charitably interpretable if she had the lead Obama actually has...but coming from her nearly-eliminated position, they sound rather more desperate...and ultimately divisive. If Obama's guilty of anything, it's a poor choice of words, which may reflect a lack of understanding of working-class psychology. But between Clinton and Obama, who's had more actual contact with the working class? Obama was a community organizer...and Clinton? A couple-few photo ops since she's been a candidate.
And that makes it even weirder (or rather, less plausible) that "Bittergate" has been spun into the pre-existing notion of Obama as "elitist" (which itself, of course, ties into the bizarro-world notion of liberals as elitists. Because, of course, people like Bush - whose father was President, whose grandfather was a Senator - and Cheney, with his Halliburton billions - are simple working men). Apparently it's "elitist" because Obama isn't himself a working-class white man...or perhaps it's "elitist" because what the hell is a Harvard grad doing talking about working-class whites? And yet Dick Cheney can respond to several years of two-thirds majority of the populace being dissatisfied with the Iraq situation with an arrogantly disdainful "so?" - and that's not elitist. Because Dick Cheney - he's a man of the people.
One of my commenters the other day referred to Obama's "racist 'Bittergate' comment (against Pennsylvania's working-class)." And of course I knew what that referred to - since I haven't been living in a cave - but I found myself thinking, wait, what actually did Obama say? Here's a transcript (scroll down). In context, I fail to see what's "racist" about Obama's infamous remark, and I also think it's a rather serious distortion to characterize it as being "against" the working class. The first few paragraphs make clear that Obama is responding to the argument that the white working class will not vote for him as a black man: so the whole reason he's even focusing on white working-class people is that context. You cannot respond to criticism about your support among the white working class without, duh, talking about the white working class. That's not racist; that's responding to the question put before you.
Second, it's clear that, whatever the truth of Obama's characterization and however unfortunate his choice of words (more on that later), he's sympathetic toward the situation of poor whites - who have, he notes, essentially gotten the shaft or been ignored over the years. So to characterize his remarks as being "against the working class" is quite a stretch.
The two words Obama shouldn't have used? "Cling" - which implies a sort of mindlessness that does verge on insulting, although many other connotations are nowhere near so negative (if you describe someone suffering from cancer as "clinging to life," you're not saying they're mindless or misguided to do so) - and, of course, "religion." (Maybe "guns" - but for the gun crowd, saying anything at all about guns except "yee-haw" is a negative.) It's the inclusion of "religion" among guns, xenophobia, and (oddly) "anti-trade sentiment" that got him into trouble. I think I know what he means - and I'm pretty sure Jesus himself said something against people who rely merely on the letter of religion rather than actually helping people - but certainly, it was poorly phrased.
Is "bitter" a problem? Politically, that seems to be what people have latched onto...even though it seems obvious that if you take a group of people who've been screwed over, some of them, even many of them, are indeed going to be bitter. But saying so falls into the same category of political mistake as Jimmy Carter's infamous "malaise" comment: it seems that a politician must, like Eric Idle's "crucifee" (so the credits have it), always look on the bright side of life and be a walking Successories poster. Actually pointing out that people might be pessimistic - or indeed "bitter" - is such a buzzkill.
Or we could use our beloved leader's old metric: looking at Obama's "bitter" remark and Clinton's "hard-working white voters" remark, who's a "divider" and who's a "uniter"? Obama's comment came in a context of (a) addressing perceived problems he might have in connecting to white working-class voters and (b) saying that that cynicism is itself a part of the problem, while acknowledging that this problem needed to be addressed. Clinton, on the other hand, wasn't addressing policy or voters' concerns directly; she was (a) claiming that she had broader support than Obama and (b) driving a wedge between Democrats who favored her and those who favored Obama, trying to raise fear among the latter that they were harming the Democrats' chances. Clinton's remarks might have been more charitably interpretable if she had the lead Obama actually has...but coming from her nearly-eliminated position, they sound rather more desperate...and ultimately divisive. If Obama's guilty of anything, it's a poor choice of words, which may reflect a lack of understanding of working-class psychology. But between Clinton and Obama, who's had more actual contact with the working class? Obama was a community organizer...and Clinton? A couple-few photo ops since she's been a candidate.
And that makes it even weirder (or rather, less plausible) that "Bittergate" has been spun into the pre-existing notion of Obama as "elitist" (which itself, of course, ties into the bizarro-world notion of liberals as elitists. Because, of course, people like Bush - whose father was President, whose grandfather was a Senator - and Cheney, with his Halliburton billions - are simple working men). Apparently it's "elitist" because Obama isn't himself a working-class white man...or perhaps it's "elitist" because what the hell is a Harvard grad doing talking about working-class whites? And yet Dick Cheney can respond to several years of two-thirds majority of the populace being dissatisfied with the Iraq situation with an arrogantly disdainful "so?" - and that's not elitist. Because Dick Cheney - he's a man of the people.
5.10.2008
reel in the quaker
Clinic is shaping up to be a band rather like the Fall (although nowhere near as prolific, nor as volatile), in that what seems at first to be a very particular, limited sound actually proves to be quite fertile ground. Within its spectrum of outmoded rhythms, pawnshop instruments, and a sort of steampunk/surrealistic aesthetic, the band keeps finding new variations, new ways to tweak its handful of preferred sounds, structures, and moods. Their latest album Do It! is a good example: while neither "Shopping Bag" nor "Mary and Eddie" seem to depart that far from prior Clinic fare, each in its own way adds a little something to the mix.
"Mary and Eddie" is more obvious about this: while Clinic have occasionally evoked a sort of pagan faux-folk sound, the melodica-and-percussion opening (which reminds me of Syd Barrett's "The Scarecrow") and acoustic basis of the track almost sounds like the sort of thing that might have featured in the soundtrack of The Wicker Man...except for the odd synth blurps in the background, the distorted electric guitar...and the foghorn in lieu of bass guitar. But the modal feel of the tune, built on an open fifth that occasionally alternates with a similar interval a whole step below, typifies that sort of style despite the amped-up intensity of attack the song develops.
"Shopping Bag" is a more typical Clinic sound, in this case the revved-up raver, its energy curiously contained rather than released. The chromatic diversions are the aural equivalent of a train tipsily risking derailment by taking a curve far too fast, and before and during the final verse a deranged sax seemingly full of helium quacks wildly in the background. Yet there's something deliberate about the song, about the idea of abandon rather than abandon itself.
I think that tension between a certain distance, which might be irony, or which might be either a form of rock'n'roll neoclassicism or a postmodern take on same, and the looseness and uninhibitedness that characterizes the rock'n'roll tropes Clinic play with, is what gives the band its unique and pungently hermetic flavor.
Clinic "Mary and Eddie" (Do It! 2008)
Clinic "Shopping Bag" (Do It! 2008)
"Mary and Eddie" is more obvious about this: while Clinic have occasionally evoked a sort of pagan faux-folk sound, the melodica-and-percussion opening (which reminds me of Syd Barrett's "The Scarecrow") and acoustic basis of the track almost sounds like the sort of thing that might have featured in the soundtrack of The Wicker Man...except for the odd synth blurps in the background, the distorted electric guitar...and the foghorn in lieu of bass guitar. But the modal feel of the tune, built on an open fifth that occasionally alternates with a similar interval a whole step below, typifies that sort of style despite the amped-up intensity of attack the song develops.
"Shopping Bag" is a more typical Clinic sound, in this case the revved-up raver, its energy curiously contained rather than released. The chromatic diversions are the aural equivalent of a train tipsily risking derailment by taking a curve far too fast, and before and during the final verse a deranged sax seemingly full of helium quacks wildly in the background. Yet there's something deliberate about the song, about the idea of abandon rather than abandon itself.
I think that tension between a certain distance, which might be irony, or which might be either a form of rock'n'roll neoclassicism or a postmodern take on same, and the looseness and uninhibitedness that characterizes the rock'n'roll tropes Clinic play with, is what gives the band its unique and pungently hermetic flavor.
Clinic "Mary and Eddie" (Do It! 2008)
Clinic "Shopping Bag" (Do It! 2008)
5.08.2008
Hillary "Bull" Clinton: Respectable, Hard-Working White People Ain't Gonna Vote for No Nigra
Via the Angry Black Woman. As a commenter at that site pointed out, what really clinches it is that "hard-working." If she doesn't know who she's talking to with that comment, she's too naive to be elected. And the last thing HRC is is naive.
Before this campaign, I didn't really like Hillary Clinton, but I thought that right-wingers' bizarre animosity for her was unfathomable. Not that I agree with that crowd, but the tenor of her campaign over the last month or so has made their perspective a bit more understandable. Their anti-feminism is intolerable - but their suspicion that Clinton will do or say anything to get elected seems more and more accurate every day.
Before this campaign, I didn't really like Hillary Clinton, but I thought that right-wingers' bizarre animosity for her was unfathomable. Not that I agree with that crowd, but the tenor of her campaign over the last month or so has made their perspective a bit more understandable. Their anti-feminism is intolerable - but their suspicion that Clinton will do or say anything to get elected seems more and more accurate every day.
5.04.2008
the deal
I remember a couple of years ago, when it seemed possible that Condoleezza Rice might consider a run for the Republican nomination for president, wondering what would happen to bigots everywhere if Obama were the Democratic nominee and Rice the Republican. My prediction was, essentially, suddenly there'd be an "electable" third-party candidate...a white guy, of course. Obviously (obviously), this candidate would not be a racist (of course not) or someone who thought a woman shouldn't run the country (how could you think it?) but merely an alternative, a man who felt compelled to run because, you know, his points of view were not being represented, and those perspectives, he was certain, were held by a significant number of Americans. Nothing to do with racism or sexism, no sir.
That didn't happen, obviously...but it's interesting to watch the potentially impending collapse of the Obama campaign, in that while no one is actually playing that proverbial race card, it's strictly coincidental that all those other cards being played (The Stranger, The Crypto-Muslim, The Rookie, The Secret Radical) keep sticking to it in the political deck.
And of course, all of those cards are forming a lovely straight flush in the Jeremiah Wright imbroglio...and anyone counting cards can guess what that fifth card is. And the poor Democrats (not the candidates, of course - to point this out would be unsporting), trying to nail McCain with Rev. Hagee, who blamed Katrina on gay pride parades, or McCain's speech at Liberty University in 2006, home of Jerry Falwell, for whom 9-11 was divine payback for abortion, feminism, homosexuality, and, uh, the ACLU: those cards don't stick, they're clean as the new-fallen snow - must be some sort of tar or something on those Obama cards that they keep falling together like that.
But don't blame the Republicans (or wannabe Republican VP candidate Clinton) for that: they're colorblind, you know.
That didn't happen, obviously...but it's interesting to watch the potentially impending collapse of the Obama campaign, in that while no one is actually playing that proverbial race card, it's strictly coincidental that all those other cards being played (The Stranger, The Crypto-Muslim, The Rookie, The Secret Radical) keep sticking to it in the political deck.
And of course, all of those cards are forming a lovely straight flush in the Jeremiah Wright imbroglio...and anyone counting cards can guess what that fifth card is. And the poor Democrats (not the candidates, of course - to point this out would be unsporting), trying to nail McCain with Rev. Hagee, who blamed Katrina on gay pride parades, or McCain's speech at Liberty University in 2006, home of Jerry Falwell, for whom 9-11 was divine payback for abortion, feminism, homosexuality, and, uh, the ACLU: those cards don't stick, they're clean as the new-fallen snow - must be some sort of tar or something on those Obama cards that they keep falling together like that.
But don't blame the Republicans (or wannabe Republican VP candidate Clinton) for that: they're colorblind, you know.
savings are big when you rob the pig!
This one Rose caught: Earlier editions of this article (fourth entry down) read as follows:
The victim was walking in the 2200 block of W. Mitchell St. about 9:25 p.m. last night when he first noticed the men in a grey Chevy Impala. He was soon approached by the men, who demanded his values and began to strike him...
Rose thinks it might be "some zany religious nuts"; my theory is they're testing to see whether potential victims have any values. Or perhaps they're missing their own and are hoping to borrow someone else's. I suppose neither possibility is all that different from, say, mandating kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance: "Your values - now!"
The victim was walking in the 2200 block of W. Mitchell St. about 9:25 p.m. last night when he first noticed the men in a grey Chevy Impala. He was soon approached by the men, who demanded his values and began to strike him...
Rose thinks it might be "some zany religious nuts"; my theory is they're testing to see whether potential victims have any values. Or perhaps they're missing their own and are hoping to borrow someone else's. I suppose neither possibility is all that different from, say, mandating kids to say the Pledge of Allegiance: "Your values - now!"
5.02.2008
doubling and trebling the locks on the door
Two related, somewhat obscure Wire songs. The first, "Ally in Exile," was among the tracks prepared for but never recorded in studio for what would have been the Wire album to follow 154; instead, the band broke up (for the first time). Many of those tracks (but not this one) found their way onto Colin Newman's first two solo albums. The only released version of this song, though, is the live recording released on the Document and Eyewitness CD. The CD is oddly sequenced: although the bulk of the disc features the band's rather bizarre and avant-garde final performance (of version I of the band, anyway), the first 7 tracks are from a more conventional performance the year before, in July of 1979. (Correct your ID3 tags now!).
The song appeared to have been forgotten...but apparently not completely, for twenty years later, after having re-formed and re-disbanded and then re-formed again, the basic situation of "Ally," as well as the two rhymes characterizing its chorus ("-ill" and "-ival"), showed up in a track with almost no musical resemblance to "Ally," entitled "Art of Persistence." (If you stretch your ears you might imagine that some of the more discordant and odd chord sequences in "Ally" are reflected in the drop to the oddly voiced "A" chord near the end of the chorus of "Persistence"...but really, many Wire songs use unconventional chord sequences or voicings.) This was recorded during the band's initial rehearsals for its Royal Festival Hall reunion, but perhaps the reason it wasn't developed further (the recording is subtitled "1st Draft") is that sonically and compositionally it really doesn't fit what Wire Mk. III eventually became as newer songs developed.
In fact, "Persistence" sounds to me quite a bit like a late Joy Division or early New Order song, in its chord sequence, voicing, and rhythm. I'm guessing that aspect felt just a bit too backward-looking, particularly given Wire's momentous decision to "cover" its own older songs, a practice the band had generally eschewed in the past.
Apparently "Ally in Exile" itself was revised in a few performances on that 2000 tour (some reviews here), crossbred with aspects of "Art of Persistence." I haven't heard recordings of that version (if anyone knows of any, pass 'em on to me and I'll post them).
Wire "Ally in Exile" (Document and Eyewitness, 1980 - track recorded 1979)
Wire "Art of Persistence (1st Draft)" (Third Day, 2000 - track recorded 1999)
The song appeared to have been forgotten...but apparently not completely, for twenty years later, after having re-formed and re-disbanded and then re-formed again, the basic situation of "Ally," as well as the two rhymes characterizing its chorus ("-ill" and "-ival"), showed up in a track with almost no musical resemblance to "Ally," entitled "Art of Persistence." (If you stretch your ears you might imagine that some of the more discordant and odd chord sequences in "Ally" are reflected in the drop to the oddly voiced "A" chord near the end of the chorus of "Persistence"...but really, many Wire songs use unconventional chord sequences or voicings.) This was recorded during the band's initial rehearsals for its Royal Festival Hall reunion, but perhaps the reason it wasn't developed further (the recording is subtitled "1st Draft") is that sonically and compositionally it really doesn't fit what Wire Mk. III eventually became as newer songs developed.
In fact, "Persistence" sounds to me quite a bit like a late Joy Division or early New Order song, in its chord sequence, voicing, and rhythm. I'm guessing that aspect felt just a bit too backward-looking, particularly given Wire's momentous decision to "cover" its own older songs, a practice the band had generally eschewed in the past.
Apparently "Ally in Exile" itself was revised in a few performances on that 2000 tour (some reviews here), crossbred with aspects of "Art of Persistence." I haven't heard recordings of that version (if anyone knows of any, pass 'em on to me and I'll post them).
Wire "Ally in Exile" (Document and Eyewitness, 1980 - track recorded 1979)
Wire "Art of Persistence (1st Draft)" (Third Day, 2000 - track recorded 1999)
5.01.2008
politics, sex, and religion
I often find that my students, like seemingly most Americans, tend to think in terms of individuals. It's often nearly impossible for them to think in collective terms; their whole conceptualization of reality involves mental examples of individuals in particular circumstances rather than the circumstances' effects on people collectively.
This can have some serious consequences. An example: it's easy enough to argue for the death penalty if you only think of it in terms of a murderer and how he should be punished. (I happen to think this is still morally wrong, but the argument is easier to make.) But the problem with this line of thinking is that laws, such as the death penalty, are not made to apply to individuals; they are policy, to be applied to all people who fit a particular circumstance. Who defines whether a particular person fits that circumstance? Courts, judges, juries, etc.
Are courts and judges, the legal system generally, the humans who ultimately make the decisions that make that system run, all entirely infallible? Of course they're not - which means that a policy that allows state execution of people convicted of certain crimes needs to face this fact: such a policy will, inevitably, require the state to kill innocent people. In other words, if you are in favor of the death penalty, you believe it's okay for the state to kill innocent people.
And if you do believe this - say, because you think the death penalty has deterrent value - just how different are you from a murderer...who, of course, usually has a "reason" for his crimes...even if we sensible, ethical people would never accept it. But if it's okay to kill innocent people for some particular reason - if the state endorses and enacts this position - then on what grounds are we to deny a murderer (an actual one - not merely an accused one) his interpretation of right and wrong and that his victim didn't deserve killing? Only on the grounds that the state reserves to itself the power of life and death. But should we support a state whose claim to justice rests ultimately only in power, only in its claims to be beyond the ethical principles it compels the rest of us to live under? Isn't such a state merely masking brute force under a rather flimsy veil of reasoning?
As an aside: it's curious to me that people who back the death penalty most often call themselves "conservatives," and regarding other political questions tend to believe that "that government governs best which governs least," or even that government usually messes up whatever it touches. Except, apparently, in its deliberations over guilt or innocence when the accused's life is at stake: then, suddenly, the state can do no wrong and can be relied upon, trusted, and expected to impose its power over the people. How's that "conservative" again?
But then, your everyday conservatives are hardly philosophically consistent. Take another issue, abortion. A typical definition of the "moderate" anti-abortion position allows exceptions in cases of rape. (By the way: the usual phrasing is "except in cases of rape or incest," which - given that we're usually talking about father/daughter or other adult male relative/minor female incest - is utterly redundant.) In fact, the absolutist position is more consistent. Why - if you truly believe life is sacred and begins at conception - would you even consider an exception in cases of rape? Terrible, tragic, horrible for the woman...but if you truly believe we're talking about a life here, of course you can't countenance an exception.
Your so-called moderately conservative anti-abortionists, though, will. Why? In most cases you're going to hear something along the lines that a pregnancy resulting from rape isn't the woman's "fault" (they may even actually say "and so she shouldn't be punished for it"). And that, of course, gives the game away: the position of such "moderates" position is not based on sacred life beginning at conception, but on making sure women don't misbehave - and, in fact, on forcing them to "keep their child" as punishment for their sexual transgressions. I can see no other possible line of reasoning by which the "rape" exception makes any sense when it's coupled with an otherwise thoroughgoing prohibition on abortion. (It should be obvious that if you're in favor of choice, there's no such dilemma.)
So how's that conservative again? The state is supposed to compel a woman to give birth, both as punishment for her failure to toe the line sexually and as discouragement to others (as in the idea that, say, sexual education or available birth control - or, indeed, the availability of abortion - will encourage "sexual misbehavior" on the part of women. Who, of course, become pregnant in consensual sex all by themselves...since the force of this moral fervor rarely is directed at any men).
And of course, the screaming discord between "life is sacred" and "let the state occasionally kill innocent people" is hardly worth talking about. Nearly as obvious as the rather prominent role of selfish convenience and moral intolerance in the conservative viewpoint.
This can have some serious consequences. An example: it's easy enough to argue for the death penalty if you only think of it in terms of a murderer and how he should be punished. (I happen to think this is still morally wrong, but the argument is easier to make.) But the problem with this line of thinking is that laws, such as the death penalty, are not made to apply to individuals; they are policy, to be applied to all people who fit a particular circumstance. Who defines whether a particular person fits that circumstance? Courts, judges, juries, etc.
Are courts and judges, the legal system generally, the humans who ultimately make the decisions that make that system run, all entirely infallible? Of course they're not - which means that a policy that allows state execution of people convicted of certain crimes needs to face this fact: such a policy will, inevitably, require the state to kill innocent people. In other words, if you are in favor of the death penalty, you believe it's okay for the state to kill innocent people.
And if you do believe this - say, because you think the death penalty has deterrent value - just how different are you from a murderer...who, of course, usually has a "reason" for his crimes...even if we sensible, ethical people would never accept it. But if it's okay to kill innocent people for some particular reason - if the state endorses and enacts this position - then on what grounds are we to deny a murderer (an actual one - not merely an accused one) his interpretation of right and wrong and that his victim didn't deserve killing? Only on the grounds that the state reserves to itself the power of life and death. But should we support a state whose claim to justice rests ultimately only in power, only in its claims to be beyond the ethical principles it compels the rest of us to live under? Isn't such a state merely masking brute force under a rather flimsy veil of reasoning?
As an aside: it's curious to me that people who back the death penalty most often call themselves "conservatives," and regarding other political questions tend to believe that "that government governs best which governs least," or even that government usually messes up whatever it touches. Except, apparently, in its deliberations over guilt or innocence when the accused's life is at stake: then, suddenly, the state can do no wrong and can be relied upon, trusted, and expected to impose its power over the people. How's that "conservative" again?
But then, your everyday conservatives are hardly philosophically consistent. Take another issue, abortion. A typical definition of the "moderate" anti-abortion position allows exceptions in cases of rape. (By the way: the usual phrasing is "except in cases of rape or incest," which - given that we're usually talking about father/daughter or other adult male relative/minor female incest - is utterly redundant.) In fact, the absolutist position is more consistent. Why - if you truly believe life is sacred and begins at conception - would you even consider an exception in cases of rape? Terrible, tragic, horrible for the woman...but if you truly believe we're talking about a life here, of course you can't countenance an exception.
Your so-called moderately conservative anti-abortionists, though, will. Why? In most cases you're going to hear something along the lines that a pregnancy resulting from rape isn't the woman's "fault" (they may even actually say "and so she shouldn't be punished for it"). And that, of course, gives the game away: the position of such "moderates" position is not based on sacred life beginning at conception, but on making sure women don't misbehave - and, in fact, on forcing them to "keep their child" as punishment for their sexual transgressions. I can see no other possible line of reasoning by which the "rape" exception makes any sense when it's coupled with an otherwise thoroughgoing prohibition on abortion. (It should be obvious that if you're in favor of choice, there's no such dilemma.)
So how's that conservative again? The state is supposed to compel a woman to give birth, both as punishment for her failure to toe the line sexually and as discouragement to others (as in the idea that, say, sexual education or available birth control - or, indeed, the availability of abortion - will encourage "sexual misbehavior" on the part of women. Who, of course, become pregnant in consensual sex all by themselves...since the force of this moral fervor rarely is directed at any men).
And of course, the screaming discord between "life is sacred" and "let the state occasionally kill innocent people" is hardly worth talking about. Nearly as obvious as the rather prominent role of selfish convenience and moral intolerance in the conservative viewpoint.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
