In my mind, it started last July when Jim Adkisson entered a Unitarian Universalist Church in Knoxville, Tennessee and murdered two people. His four page suicide note is the rant of the archetypical angry and dispossessed man who feels his plight is the fault of "liberalism." He spent much of the final page urging other, equally dispossessed Americans not to go down alone, but to take out as many liberals as they could.
On the 4th of this month Richard Poplawski shot and killed three policemen in Pittsburgh after they were called to his home. Poplawski was a conspiracy nut by most reports. He feared new measures from the Obama administration that would take away his guns; he also spoke on various websites of how Jews were controlling the country and how we would soon descend into a race war.
There was an increase in right-wing violence and militia groups during Clinton's term as president. The Oklahoma City bombing of 1995 killed 168. Eric Rudolph bombed a gay nightclub and the 1996 Summer Olympics. But there were other crimes as well, like an increase in abortion clinic bombings and shootings. I emphasize that I'm not speaking of mainstream conservatives here, this militia activity only applies to the most extreme fringe of that movement.
Most people can watch Glenn Beck cry for his country and walk away unscathed, but there's some unstable individuals who are being pushed to the edge by this "Obama backlash." And I think it's somewhat attributable to right-wing hyperventilating and hyperbole. Both Jim Adkisson and Richard Poplawski were big fans of the most extreme talking heads for conservatism today, which also happen to have a huge megaphone. Adkisson was found to have books by Sean Hannity, Michael Savage and Bill O'Reilly. Poplawski posted Glenn Beck videos on various web sites. I am not for censorship, and my real concern is that the fuse has already been lit for a number of people who just needed a spark.
The bigger problem is, more inevitable and powerful forces are at work here. Homeland Security sent out a warning just today[1] that the recession, Obama's election, rumors of gun restrictions and the inability of returning military to reintegrate into society create a perfect environment for the rise of right-wing violence. HS, however, in no way links violence with the media. The media itself however, slow-witted as it is, has finally began to link the recent barrage of shooting sprees we have seen across the nation with our economic recession. And the killings committed for political reasons have been far outnumbered by those of the average desperate individual who just wishes to spread his pain around before he off's himself.
I'm not calling for censorship, but I have a bad feeling that a "big one" is coming down the pike. These people aren't afraid to use force and they're only pacified when we prove to be a country open-minded enough to "elect" a borderline retard to the White House.
Conservatives Love to "Tea Bag," Who Knew?
Anyone paying attention to politics right now knows of these "tea parties." Literally they Republicans are THRUSTING these sweaty, frenzied bags down the throat of the public. But seriously. First of all, it has been exposed that these aren't grassroots movements at all, but are in fact manufactured from above with the appearance of coming from below, exactly like the culture war itself.[2]
But more important to me is the tone at these rallies isn't anti-tax. There are people holding up signs at these rallies against socialism, gay marriage, immigration, evolution and questions as to whether Obama is an American citizen. These are just the worst, left over elements we saw from the McCain-Palin rallies who have co-opted a legitimate libertarian message which was largely created by Ron Paul supporters months ago. These people have no coherent message; these are sore losers plain and simple. I hope they come across much like the 9/11 truth movement.
============================
Footnotes
1. http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf
2. http://www.prwatch.org/node/8334
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Remind Me: Why Did I Vote For Obama Again?
OK, I admit, the title of this blog is a little disingenuous; I don’t (yet) regret my vote for Obama. I like the man Obama. I think his concern for people is genuine. But something is going on; something feels very “amiss,” for lack of a better word.
First some relatively minor criticisms to get out of the way. The main reason I voted for Obama was McCain appeared all too eager to start another war. But Obama sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan and essentially keeping us in Iraq another two years isn’t change.[1] I believe he’s going to be bogged down in Afghanistan for years to come. Meanwhile we’re hemorrhaging, this isn’t the time for another adventure. As Mos Def said on “Real Time with Bill Maher” last week, “I don’t care about Bin Laden, how about we fix New Orleans?” On top of this, although he closed Gitmo, Obama is allowing the CIA to continue the policy of rendition; abducting people and taking them to foreign countries where they can be held and possibly tortured.[2] Obama has kept the PATRIOT Act.[3] The Obama administration has even “threatened to halt intelligence co-operation with Britain” if they allow evidence of torture committed under the Bush administration to become public there.[4] But no one in the media wants to talk about this, they would rather discuss Michelle Obama’s arms.
But these are mere disappointments compared to these huge bailouts and the way we are throwing money around. First, lets have no illusions, Obama has surrounded himself with Wall Street-types and lobbyists, top to bottom. Take William Lynn, Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist. Obama made him Deputy Secretary of Defense.[5] As for Wall Street types, take Lawrence Summers and his “protégé” Timothy Geithner. Summers is a man who helped to get rid of the Glass-Steagall Act which was put into place after the depression, which could have helped prevent the situation we find ourselves in today through stricter regulation.
There is a blatant double standard with how this money is being used. We are literally throwing money at the banks to the point that they are trying to give it back in some cases. Hundreds of billions of dollars. Meanwhile the auto industry is asking for a mere pittance by comparison; $22B. And what are they told? They’re told that bankruptcy might be an option for them. The wizard behind the curtain tells them to go away and come back with another restructuring plan, and it better be suitable this time. And asking for concessions from the auto industry unions is common while they would have allowed $165B in bonus payouts for AIG if there hadn’t been outrage among the public.
And then Obama essentially “fires” the CEO of GM. Sure, maybe he deserved it, but it shows the different manner with which the auto industry and the banks and are being handled. Gloves off for one, kid gloves for the other. Remember the “outrage” at the CEO’s of the “Big Three” for arriving in Washington in private jets? I wonder how those bank CEO’s arrived at the White House for the cushy meeting they had with the President himself? I agree with the Republicans on this one, I don’t like the government “firing” a CEO at a private corporation, but if we are going to do it, fire some of these bankers as well. Or at least cap their pay, Obama has made it _appear_ that he’s done that, in fact what he has done in this regard is very weak.[6]
To the Republicans I say shut up about socialism. If this was socialism would do a better job of keeping up with where the money is going and how it’s being used. If this was socialism the Treasury Secretary wouldn’t give provisions allowing tax payers to give bonuses to employees at failed corporations. If this was socialism we would fire the people currently in place and take over the corporations for the benefit of everyone. What we are doing is giving money away to rich people who spent their days essentially making money out of thin air and taking stupid gambles.
The paranoid conspiracy theorist in me makes connections and sees this entire crisis as just “too convenient.” Here’s how it goes for the fun of it. First of all, we have learned that all of the “wealth” we thought we had in the Bush years was essentially based on inflated housing prices and people living on debt. Meanwhile we have become an almost entirely “service-based” economy. We make nothing tangible anymore. There are two types of economies in America, the real one which includes manufacturing and the auto industry, and the “money wizards” like the banks who sit around making money out of thin air and come up with great ideas like credit default swaps. We are gradually getting rid of all our “real economy” while giving tons of money to this “fake economy” to prevent the entire house of cards from collapsing (much of the money is going overseas too, don’t forget). And since property values in the country have hit rock bottom and we are broke these banks can essentially move in and grab up the “real world.” So it’s not only a wealth transfer, it’s a property transfer and a transfer of the real and tangible for the imaginary. We are paying for our own coffin and digging our own grave.
But then that’s just the paranoid, conspiracy theorist in me, surely the world isn’t that controlled? It always comes back to the question of evil intent or incompetence, and we can only hope it’s the latter.
I think the government has to spend, and spend a lot, and that’s never pretty, but the way it’s being done really just feels wrong in almost every aspect. I find myself agreeing with Republicans when they want to slow down these huge bailouts, but the problem is whenever we oppose the same thing, they do it for all the wrong reasons. Republicans just oppose spending period, and want to give more tax cuts to the rich and hope that will magically solve our problems. That option is thoroughly discredited. In the future I don’t want to hear anything about the glories of the free market from anyone who has supported these bailouts. The free market only exists for the poor who don’t get bailouts.
-------------------------------
1. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gXhIn6Dsn59np7LYG6eYS5GubXUAD977ODC00
2. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#USA_PATRIOT_Act
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/4513620/US-accused-of-threatening-Britain-over-terrorism-torture-evidence.html
5. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1874165,00.html
6. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008703273_apbailoutexecutivepay.html
First some relatively minor criticisms to get out of the way. The main reason I voted for Obama was McCain appeared all too eager to start another war. But Obama sending 17,000 troops to Afghanistan and essentially keeping us in Iraq another two years isn’t change.[1] I believe he’s going to be bogged down in Afghanistan for years to come. Meanwhile we’re hemorrhaging, this isn’t the time for another adventure. As Mos Def said on “Real Time with Bill Maher” last week, “I don’t care about Bin Laden, how about we fix New Orleans?” On top of this, although he closed Gitmo, Obama is allowing the CIA to continue the policy of rendition; abducting people and taking them to foreign countries where they can be held and possibly tortured.[2] Obama has kept the PATRIOT Act.[3] The Obama administration has even “threatened to halt intelligence co-operation with Britain” if they allow evidence of torture committed under the Bush administration to become public there.[4] But no one in the media wants to talk about this, they would rather discuss Michelle Obama’s arms.
But these are mere disappointments compared to these huge bailouts and the way we are throwing money around. First, lets have no illusions, Obama has surrounded himself with Wall Street-types and lobbyists, top to bottom. Take William Lynn, Raytheon's recently departed top lobbyist. Obama made him Deputy Secretary of Defense.[5] As for Wall Street types, take Lawrence Summers and his “protégé” Timothy Geithner. Summers is a man who helped to get rid of the Glass-Steagall Act which was put into place after the depression, which could have helped prevent the situation we find ourselves in today through stricter regulation.
There is a blatant double standard with how this money is being used. We are literally throwing money at the banks to the point that they are trying to give it back in some cases. Hundreds of billions of dollars. Meanwhile the auto industry is asking for a mere pittance by comparison; $22B. And what are they told? They’re told that bankruptcy might be an option for them. The wizard behind the curtain tells them to go away and come back with another restructuring plan, and it better be suitable this time. And asking for concessions from the auto industry unions is common while they would have allowed $165B in bonus payouts for AIG if there hadn’t been outrage among the public.
And then Obama essentially “fires” the CEO of GM. Sure, maybe he deserved it, but it shows the different manner with which the auto industry and the banks and are being handled. Gloves off for one, kid gloves for the other. Remember the “outrage” at the CEO’s of the “Big Three” for arriving in Washington in private jets? I wonder how those bank CEO’s arrived at the White House for the cushy meeting they had with the President himself? I agree with the Republicans on this one, I don’t like the government “firing” a CEO at a private corporation, but if we are going to do it, fire some of these bankers as well. Or at least cap their pay, Obama has made it _appear_ that he’s done that, in fact what he has done in this regard is very weak.[6]
To the Republicans I say shut up about socialism. If this was socialism would do a better job of keeping up with where the money is going and how it’s being used. If this was socialism the Treasury Secretary wouldn’t give provisions allowing tax payers to give bonuses to employees at failed corporations. If this was socialism we would fire the people currently in place and take over the corporations for the benefit of everyone. What we are doing is giving money away to rich people who spent their days essentially making money out of thin air and taking stupid gambles.
The paranoid conspiracy theorist in me makes connections and sees this entire crisis as just “too convenient.” Here’s how it goes for the fun of it. First of all, we have learned that all of the “wealth” we thought we had in the Bush years was essentially based on inflated housing prices and people living on debt. Meanwhile we have become an almost entirely “service-based” economy. We make nothing tangible anymore. There are two types of economies in America, the real one which includes manufacturing and the auto industry, and the “money wizards” like the banks who sit around making money out of thin air and come up with great ideas like credit default swaps. We are gradually getting rid of all our “real economy” while giving tons of money to this “fake economy” to prevent the entire house of cards from collapsing (much of the money is going overseas too, don’t forget). And since property values in the country have hit rock bottom and we are broke these banks can essentially move in and grab up the “real world.” So it’s not only a wealth transfer, it’s a property transfer and a transfer of the real and tangible for the imaginary. We are paying for our own coffin and digging our own grave.
But then that’s just the paranoid, conspiracy theorist in me, surely the world isn’t that controlled? It always comes back to the question of evil intent or incompetence, and we can only hope it’s the latter.
I think the government has to spend, and spend a lot, and that’s never pretty, but the way it’s being done really just feels wrong in almost every aspect. I find myself agreeing with Republicans when they want to slow down these huge bailouts, but the problem is whenever we oppose the same thing, they do it for all the wrong reasons. Republicans just oppose spending period, and want to give more tax cuts to the rich and hope that will magically solve our problems. That option is thoroughly discredited. In the future I don’t want to hear anything about the glories of the free market from anyone who has supported these bailouts. The free market only exists for the poor who don’t get bailouts.
-------------------------------
1. http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gXhIn6Dsn59np7LYG6eYS5GubXUAD977ODC00
2. http://www.latimes.com/news/la-na-rendition1-2009feb01,0,7548176,full.story
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama#USA_PATRIOT_Act
4. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/majornews/4513620/US-accused-of-threatening-Britain-over-terrorism-torture-evidence.html
5. http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1874165,00.html
6. http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2008703273_apbailoutexecutivepay.html
Saturday, March 14, 2009
Hey Children, What's That Sound?
I can never tell if the real world reflects my own perceptions or if my existence has become so "bubble-like" that I often see what I want to see. However, what I think I am picking up on lately is a shifting zeitgeist, a new "spirit of the age."
For lack of a better phrase, people seem "less prudish" -- inhibitions seem to have been lowered, people are more willing to openly talk about taboo subjects and “throw ink” on collectively held myths. I'm seeing things said and done by people that would have been shocking a decade ago, and no one seems to care. Some have told me that this new expression comes with an angry tinge attached to it; it's not enough to "do your own thing" people today are in your face about it.
It's as if our collective consciousness had been in a cage for a decade, a rubber band stretched to its limits. I have to think this has everything to do with the new President and the ousting of the Republican Party from power in a literal and ideological sense. But I don't think we are undergoing something entirely new, the pendulum is sweeping out the old and bringing in something else. After the cultural revolution in the late-60s there was a similar period in the early-70s. I would argue that with the economy as it is, this resembles the 30s in some sense, which was perhaps an even more radical period of history. Something's changed, and I think it has translated from the political realm into the cultural one.
There's something else I'm picking up on besides a throwing off of repression; it feels like our culture is improving in quality, and is slightly less disposable. The best word to describe the 90s was "bland" regardless of a Democratic president. "Cultural Chernobyl" indeed. The 2000s haven't been a lot better, but the Internet has really made us capable of seeking out what we want instead of what we are handed on one-way mediums like television and radio.
Regardless of the advent of the internet, this is something I've felt only in the past month. There seems to be an eagerness to delve into the subtle over the overt, the full spectrum over the primary colors. In the Bush years I could see a McDonalds being built beside old faithful and a Starbucks installed in the head of the Statue of Liberty...I don't expect that anymore. I sense some sort of "return to quality and permanence" -- less plastic and styrofoam, more concrete and steel. Instead of a mall, build a bridge. I've even toyed with the idea in my wildest dreams that the post-modern error may be concluding and we may once again have some standard for judging art and logic will again have a place in society.
Am I just wearing "hope and change"-colored glasses? Don't get me wrong, I'm a pessimist by nature, even if I know that statistically speaking it means a shorter life-span. I just can't help feel that something’s going on out there and I don't think I'm alone...
For lack of a better phrase, people seem "less prudish" -- inhibitions seem to have been lowered, people are more willing to openly talk about taboo subjects and “throw ink” on collectively held myths. I'm seeing things said and done by people that would have been shocking a decade ago, and no one seems to care. Some have told me that this new expression comes with an angry tinge attached to it; it's not enough to "do your own thing" people today are in your face about it.
It's as if our collective consciousness had been in a cage for a decade, a rubber band stretched to its limits. I have to think this has everything to do with the new President and the ousting of the Republican Party from power in a literal and ideological sense. But I don't think we are undergoing something entirely new, the pendulum is sweeping out the old and bringing in something else. After the cultural revolution in the late-60s there was a similar period in the early-70s. I would argue that with the economy as it is, this resembles the 30s in some sense, which was perhaps an even more radical period of history. Something's changed, and I think it has translated from the political realm into the cultural one.
There's something else I'm picking up on besides a throwing off of repression; it feels like our culture is improving in quality, and is slightly less disposable. The best word to describe the 90s was "bland" regardless of a Democratic president. "Cultural Chernobyl" indeed. The 2000s haven't been a lot better, but the Internet has really made us capable of seeking out what we want instead of what we are handed on one-way mediums like television and radio.
Regardless of the advent of the internet, this is something I've felt only in the past month. There seems to be an eagerness to delve into the subtle over the overt, the full spectrum over the primary colors. In the Bush years I could see a McDonalds being built beside old faithful and a Starbucks installed in the head of the Statue of Liberty...I don't expect that anymore. I sense some sort of "return to quality and permanence" -- less plastic and styrofoam, more concrete and steel. Instead of a mall, build a bridge. I've even toyed with the idea in my wildest dreams that the post-modern error may be concluding and we may once again have some standard for judging art and logic will again have a place in society.
Am I just wearing "hope and change"-colored glasses? Don't get me wrong, I'm a pessimist by nature, even if I know that statistically speaking it means a shorter life-span. I just can't help feel that something’s going on out there and I don't think I'm alone...
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
The Urban Versus the Rural, My Inner-Debate, and Hate
First, a little background:- I come from a small town called Dallas (in Georgia, not Texas) -- the parents and I first moved there in 1989 when I was 10 from a slightly larger town. Dallas had a population of 3,000 then. You could only see two other houses from our front yard, yet Dallas still wasn't a "hole in the road." Soon after we moved there the area started to grow quickly, neighborhoods popped up, followed by all the major big box stores. But still it retains the atmosphere of a small town; and you can still hear a rooster in the morning from my parent’s front porch.
Fags love the city. Usually when a young gay person leaves a rural area of Georgia for Atlanta ("gay Mecca of the South"), they want to stay there. There's an "unspoken hierarchy" among friends -- who lives inside the "perimeter"/"fruit loop" and who lives in the wilderness. “Oh you live out there? Do you come in by car or by plane?” You always have to explain to these insulated souls (often non-Georgians) in which direction from Atlanta, and by how many miles away you live. But this all makes sense for a variety of reasons; in the city there’s more tolerant people, more high-paying jobs, more nightlife, there's a "gay community" and more opportunities for sex. I left Dallas in mid-2006 and moved in with my boyfriend here in Atlanta. We live in a small house a few miles from downtown.
As for myself, I suppose the city has advantages but I hate it, and I feel like it’s driving me insane.
--Driving Downtown: I would rather bob for cat shit in a deep fryer. I hate driving here; even if things are "closer" it often takes longer to get there because of traffic. Public transportation in Atlanta? Don’t make me laugh. And trying to figure out how to get somewhere in downtown Atlanta? It's not just the traffic; it's trying to find parking, trying to avoid getting lost, watching for photo-cops at every intersection and trying to avoid confusing one-way streets. A long drive in the country is a pleasure; here a short one’s a chore. In Dallas I drove almost daily, in Atlanta I go where I have to and stay in as much as possible. Someone tell me what genius invented poorly-marked one way streets?
--Pollution: When I say that there's more pollution here, I have first-hand experience -- a "sewage digester" is just outside of our neighborhood. Because of "repairs" being made to it, we could smell shit coming from this thing for the past few years, often worst during humid summer evenings. It's like a blanket of crap that literally covers the entire neighborhood for one or two days every other week. Doors and windows had to be closed tightly and try to avoid going outside as much as possible.
--Atmosphere: This is big. There are other types of pollution that come with the city. First there's either the urban blight or totalitarian architecture giving most cities the atmosphere of a post-apocalyptic wasteland on the one hand or a bland dystopian future on the other that makes me want to enter a dark room with a revolver and a bottle of hard liquor. Eyesores, graffiti, blacktop, cement, skyscrapers and garbage. Even if it's clean and safe, frankly I don’t like being around lots of people even when I am intending to get out of the house. It’s nearly impossible to just be alone. Frankly I feel a little like a prisoner here and I feel like I’m always in a crowd, to escape it I would have to drive for miles, trying to spot beauty in the city is a challenge and often is only seen in the sky itself.
--Crime: On "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs," right above air, food and drink is safety and security. This brings me to the topic of crime. There's a lot of crime here, and it has been on the rise for the past few years. The city of Atlanta has stopped hiring new police officers and has even shuttered some fire stations because of a huge budget deficit. If the boyfriend would let me or if I was forced to live here alone I would put bars on the windows and buy a gun.
--Noise: How some people are "lulled to sleep" by the sounds of the city I have no idea. ...Thanks, but I'll take crickets.
--No Nature: This goes along with the atmosphere and is another big one. For example: Behind my parents house, for over a mile there's nothing but deep, thick woods, and beyond that there’s little else. Even better, in Dallas there's something called the Silver Comet Trail*, a walking trail that spans across western Georgia to Alabama for about 60 miles, mostly through quiet forests. For someone who wants to be with nature but not drive far it's perfect, idyllic even. The irony of the situation is that here I have a walking trail that literally goes right beside this house -- however it goes right beside a semi-tractor trailer yard, ghetto apartments and finally ends at a train yard full of screeches, booms and other such racket.
Of course, there are numerous, predictable replies to this...
--"There's nothing to do in the country!" As for myself, I got out of the house infinitely more in the country than I do here, mostly because I hate to drive here. I went to the Comet Trail almost every day of the week. And while it's not exciting, driving to the 24hr Wal-Mart at 2am was a common activity as well, for no other reason than to do a little shopping and get out of the house. The point is; those are things I WANTED to do. If you complain there’s nothing to do, most likely the things you want to do hold no interest for me.
--"There's nothing but ignorant rednecks out in the country, particularly where you want to live!" First of all, that’s a stereotype, by and large, and a very arrogant view many urbanites hold. Secondly, I tend to keep to myself, and you're better suited to do that in the country where you have few neighbors. People assume that small towns are full of gossip; in fact my family as a whole hardly knows a handful of people in their town, and talks to them even less. Minding ones own business in the suburbs might be difficult, but that's not "country" -- country is where you can insert more than three sheets of paper between you and your neighbor’s house.
--"All the good jobs are in the city." This isn't true...and it still wouldn't justify living there. Many good jobs have sprung up in suburban areas these days, and downtown there's little other than service-sector jobs. Many companies have sought cheaper labor, cheaper land and lower taxes in the past few decades as the urban areas have become more upscale.
--"There's just as much crime in the country, but it's not reported as much." This is BS. You put more people in an area and you have more crime, you put less people in an area and you have less crime.
--"There's no public transportation in the country." Who uses it anyway? Just speaking of Atlanta, it’s very spread out and the public transportation we have goes nowhere interesting.
Some disclaimers:-- I'm not a romantic about the "small town atmosphere," I don't desire a white picket fence, everyone-knows-everyone situation, I would prefer to be able to see very few people and know even less. Second, I hear a lot of people talking about living in the country because they are concerned with economic or ecological collapse, lack of food, power outages, etc. Those sorts of concerns aren't on my mind at all when I think about this. Finally I wouldn’t call myself a country boy either, by which I mean I don’t hunt or fish.
It's a dilemma for me; I like my life in general, I just hate my environment more with each passing day; if that's possible. I should just be glad we aren't in an apartment in downtown, ugh, talk about a cage.
Oh well, maybe I'm just nostalgic, or maybe I just hate people. I dunno. I will say this, my parents were right for once. I thought the grass was greener, I’ve been on both sides of the fence now and I can tell ya, it isn’t.
----------------------
* See my photo's section for pictures of the trail.
Fags love the city. Usually when a young gay person leaves a rural area of Georgia for Atlanta ("gay Mecca of the South"), they want to stay there. There's an "unspoken hierarchy" among friends -- who lives inside the "perimeter"/"fruit loop" and who lives in the wilderness. “Oh you live out there? Do you come in by car or by plane?” You always have to explain to these insulated souls (often non-Georgians) in which direction from Atlanta, and by how many miles away you live. But this all makes sense for a variety of reasons; in the city there’s more tolerant people, more high-paying jobs, more nightlife, there's a "gay community" and more opportunities for sex. I left Dallas in mid-2006 and moved in with my boyfriend here in Atlanta. We live in a small house a few miles from downtown.
As for myself, I suppose the city has advantages but I hate it, and I feel like it’s driving me insane.
--Driving Downtown: I would rather bob for cat shit in a deep fryer. I hate driving here; even if things are "closer" it often takes longer to get there because of traffic. Public transportation in Atlanta? Don’t make me laugh. And trying to figure out how to get somewhere in downtown Atlanta? It's not just the traffic; it's trying to find parking, trying to avoid getting lost, watching for photo-cops at every intersection and trying to avoid confusing one-way streets. A long drive in the country is a pleasure; here a short one’s a chore. In Dallas I drove almost daily, in Atlanta I go where I have to and stay in as much as possible. Someone tell me what genius invented poorly-marked one way streets?
--Pollution: When I say that there's more pollution here, I have first-hand experience -- a "sewage digester" is just outside of our neighborhood. Because of "repairs" being made to it, we could smell shit coming from this thing for the past few years, often worst during humid summer evenings. It's like a blanket of crap that literally covers the entire neighborhood for one or two days every other week. Doors and windows had to be closed tightly and try to avoid going outside as much as possible.
--Atmosphere: This is big. There are other types of pollution that come with the city. First there's either the urban blight or totalitarian architecture giving most cities the atmosphere of a post-apocalyptic wasteland on the one hand or a bland dystopian future on the other that makes me want to enter a dark room with a revolver and a bottle of hard liquor. Eyesores, graffiti, blacktop, cement, skyscrapers and garbage. Even if it's clean and safe, frankly I don’t like being around lots of people even when I am intending to get out of the house. It’s nearly impossible to just be alone. Frankly I feel a little like a prisoner here and I feel like I’m always in a crowd, to escape it I would have to drive for miles, trying to spot beauty in the city is a challenge and often is only seen in the sky itself.
--Crime: On "Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs," right above air, food and drink is safety and security. This brings me to the topic of crime. There's a lot of crime here, and it has been on the rise for the past few years. The city of Atlanta has stopped hiring new police officers and has even shuttered some fire stations because of a huge budget deficit. If the boyfriend would let me or if I was forced to live here alone I would put bars on the windows and buy a gun.
--Noise: How some people are "lulled to sleep" by the sounds of the city I have no idea.
--No Nature: This goes along with the atmosphere and is another big one. For example: Behind my parents house, for over a mile there's nothing but deep, thick woods, and beyond that there’s little else. Even better, in Dallas there's something called the Silver Comet Trail*, a walking trail that spans across western Georgia to Alabama for about 60 miles, mostly through quiet forests. For someone who wants to be with nature but not drive far it's perfect, idyllic even. The irony of the situation is that here I have a walking trail that literally goes right beside this house -- however it goes right beside a semi-tractor trailer yard, ghetto apartments and finally ends at a train yard full of screeches, booms and other such racket.
Of course, there are numerous, predictable replies to this...
--"There's nothing to do in the country!" As for myself, I got out of the house infinitely more in the country than I do here, mostly because I hate to drive here. I went to the Comet Trail almost every day of the week. And while it's not exciting, driving to the 24hr Wal-Mart at 2am was a common activity as well, for no other reason than to do a little shopping and get out of the house. The point is; those are things I WANTED to do. If you complain there’s nothing to do, most likely the things you want to do hold no interest for me.
--"There's nothing but ignorant rednecks out in the country, particularly where you want to live!" First of all, that’s a stereotype, by and large, and a very arrogant view many urbanites hold. Secondly, I tend to keep to myself, and you're better suited to do that in the country where you have few neighbors. People assume that small towns are full of gossip; in fact my family as a whole hardly knows a handful of people in their town, and talks to them even less. Minding ones own business in the suburbs might be difficult, but that's not "country" -- country is where you can insert more than three sheets of paper between you and your neighbor’s house.
--"All the good jobs are in the city." This isn't true...and it still wouldn't justify living there. Many good jobs have sprung up in suburban areas these days, and downtown there's little other than service-sector jobs. Many companies have sought cheaper labor, cheaper land and lower taxes in the past few decades as the urban areas have become more upscale.
--"There's just as much crime in the country, but it's not reported as much." This is BS. You put more people in an area and you have more crime, you put less people in an area and you have less crime.
--"There's no public transportation in the country." Who uses it anyway? Just speaking of Atlanta, it’s very spread out and the public transportation we have goes nowhere interesting.
Some disclaimers:-- I'm not a romantic about the "small town atmosphere," I don't desire a white picket fence, everyone-knows-everyone situation, I would prefer to be able to see very few people and know even less. Second, I hear a lot of people talking about living in the country because they are concerned with economic or ecological collapse, lack of food, power outages, etc. Those sorts of concerns aren't on my mind at all when I think about this. Finally I wouldn’t call myself a country boy either, by which I mean I don’t hunt or fish.
It's a dilemma for me; I like my life in general, I just hate my environment more with each passing day; if that's possible. I should just be glad we aren't in an apartment in downtown, ugh, talk about a cage.
Oh well, maybe I'm just nostalgic, or maybe I just hate people. I dunno. I will say this, my parents were right for once. I thought the grass was greener, I’ve been on both sides of the fence now and I can tell ya, it isn’t.
----------------------
* See my photo's section for pictures of the trail.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Music Selection in Brick-and-Mortar Stores Today, A Nostalgic View
One of the strange things I have done for about 10 years is save all of my receipts, except for gas or food purchases. Why? Part habit, part practical reasons (returns) and a smidge of nostalgic reasons. Well, the latter caused me to go through a big pile of receipts that's still at my parent’s house last time I was there. I realized that DAMN I spent a lot of money at Borders Bookstore in my college years. I would bet that I slowly transferred them a few thousand dollars in a few years.
I have many fond memories of going to Borders after or between classes, that was essentially what I DID with my spare time. Other people hung out with friends or went somewhere, I went to look through books, and browse the classical music section. I'd often discover some new composer (thanks NAXOS!) and listen to it on the way back to school, and then read a review(s) of the disc in the computer lab if I had time. Let just put it this way: I was in heaven, and this normally cost less than $10, especially if it was on the budget label NAXOS. This was all helped by how I would try to save on things like food; back then, as now I would prefer to spend money on something tangible.
Anyway, in those days (2000-2004) the classical music selection was quite large, or at least large enough to where I could look through it for an hour once or twice a week without seeing too much of the same thing. But today it's hardly a shell of its former self. The last time I was in a Borders I covered the entire classical section in maybe 15 minutes, and it was hardly something I would return to pick through on a daily basis. I have to think that before long it will be like the classical section in a Best Buy -- which no one EVER bothers to look at. I mean, who really wants a grab bag CD of "The Best Romantic Adagios," random parts of random works by random composers and unknown performers?
According to "common wisdom" classical music is now purchased online more than ever before.* And while it's true that you can get more online than in any store, there's something about being able to BROWSE. There's something about making a new discovery and holding the item in your hand, looking it over. Sure I can and do browse online, but I can tell you 99 times out of 100 I won't buy it there, one reason is I hate waiting for it to arrive. For me the store acquired a sense of "place," it was somewhere I wanted to go, I liked the atmosphere, it fit in with my day, and in those days I had money and was willing to spend it.
I'm not blaming Borders, the reasons for this disintegration are numerous: One is that classical music isn't popular, and thus is the first to go in a store with limited shelf-space.** Make way for things that will sell...like trinkets that cause the store to look more like a "gift shop" than a bookstore.
There are other reasons, but one that gets little attention is that most people don't need more than one recording of a particular work that they like. I'm the opposite; I enjoy different "interpretations" or "renderings" if it's a favorite work. While there's probably hundreds of different recordings of Beethoven's 5th (to name a purely popular title), one will get most people by. And on top of this, since classical music doesn't tend to get old (and the composers are dead and not producing anything new) there's not as much incentive to explore more.
I'd be interested in anyone else's opinion on this; I have a feeling that this is the overall trend across the country. I visited Amoeba Music in San Francisco about 2 years ago where I was very impressed by the selection, but then it's probably the biggest new and used music store in the country.
============
*A lot of classical music is also downloaded by both legitimate (e-music, amazon.com mp3) and illegitimate (torrent, p2p, etc.) means today. Ironically, as far as downloads go, the legit means are often compressed and lower quality than the illegit means which are often in CD quality.
**I remember a report in 2006 that said classical music sales grew over every other genre of music, this is probably due in part to "classical crossover" -- in other words, classically trained singers like Andrea Bocelli or Josh Groban who might as well be Yanni or John Tesh as far as I'm concerned.
I have many fond memories of going to Borders after or between classes, that was essentially what I DID with my spare time. Other people hung out with friends or went somewhere, I went to look through books, and browse the classical music section. I'd often discover some new composer (thanks NAXOS!) and listen to it on the way back to school, and then read a review(s) of the disc in the computer lab if I had time. Let just put it this way: I was in heaven, and this normally cost less than $10, especially if it was on the budget label NAXOS. This was all helped by how I would try to save on things like food; back then, as now I would prefer to spend money on something tangible.
Anyway, in those days (2000-2004) the classical music selection was quite large, or at least large enough to where I could look through it for an hour once or twice a week without seeing too much of the same thing. But today it's hardly a shell of its former self. The last time I was in a Borders I covered the entire classical section in maybe 15 minutes, and it was hardly something I would return to pick through on a daily basis. I have to think that before long it will be like the classical section in a Best Buy -- which no one EVER bothers to look at. I mean, who really wants a grab bag CD of "The Best Romantic Adagios," random parts of random works by random composers and unknown performers?
According to "common wisdom" classical music is now purchased online more than ever before.* And while it's true that you can get more online than in any store, there's something about being able to BROWSE. There's something about making a new discovery and holding the item in your hand, looking it over. Sure I can and do browse online, but I can tell you 99 times out of 100 I won't buy it there, one reason is I hate waiting for it to arrive. For me the store acquired a sense of "place," it was somewhere I wanted to go, I liked the atmosphere, it fit in with my day, and in those days I had money and was willing to spend it.
I'm not blaming Borders, the reasons for this disintegration are numerous: One is that classical music isn't popular, and thus is the first to go in a store with limited shelf-space.** Make way for things that will sell...like trinkets that cause the store to look more like a "gift shop" than a bookstore.
There are other reasons, but one that gets little attention is that most people don't need more than one recording of a particular work that they like. I'm the opposite; I enjoy different "interpretations" or "renderings" if it's a favorite work. While there's probably hundreds of different recordings of Beethoven's 5th (to name a purely popular title), one will get most people by. And on top of this, since classical music doesn't tend to get old (and the composers are dead and not producing anything new) there's not as much incentive to explore more.
I'd be interested in anyone else's opinion on this; I have a feeling that this is the overall trend across the country. I visited Amoeba Music in San Francisco about 2 years ago where I was very impressed by the selection, but then it's probably the biggest new and used music store in the country.
============
*A lot of classical music is also downloaded by both legitimate (e-music, amazon.com mp3) and illegitimate (torrent, p2p, etc.) means today. Ironically, as far as downloads go, the legit means are often compressed and lower quality than the illegit means which are often in CD quality.
**I remember a report in 2006 that said classical music sales grew over every other genre of music, this is probably due in part to "classical crossover" -- in other words, classically trained singers like Andrea Bocelli or Josh Groban who might as well be Yanni or John Tesh as far as I'm concerned.
Thursday, January 15, 2009
My Emotional Journey Back to Music and the Lack of "Emotional Range" in Music Today
After a 2-3 year hiatus I have started listening to classical music again. The reasons I stopped were a combination of depression and the more practical fact that I had been moved into a new environment where I drove my car less -- that's where I had listened to music most. Over the past few months I've started listening again, and the memories and emotions flow back at a rate that's often a challenge to face, more on that later.
I wasn't raised on classical music, I was first drawn to it for it's complexity of sound; both in the number of instruments and the resulting range of colors and the complexity of form. That's the main reason I am drawn back to it, but another reason now more than ever is the complexity of emotion. Many complaints can be made of popular music today, but the one I will make is that the emotional range is both limited and overt, there’s nothing very subtle out there. Rock and "Alternative" today has a spectrum of happy, sad and pissed-off; and it's the same throughout the song, its one big episode. There's no ever-changing kaleidoscope of emotion.
Take Sibelius' "Night Ride and Sunrise," even if you've never heard it I think you will understand what I am getting at. To me it has three sections -- it begins with a exuberant, bouncy repeated theme on strings, eventually joined by a serious, "folk-like" theme on woodwinds which rides above but is driven by the turbulence below. The mood is extremely serious, exciting, driven, dark and entirely life-affirming. This climaxes like a whirlwind and then slowly disintegrates into the second, short middle section which is pure beauty; long, slow melodies on strings come at you like waves of pure emotion. The third section begins quietly with low pizzicato strings and short, playful woodwind motifs, later noble brass chords play under the introduction of the "Sunrise" theme introduced on woodwind. Variations of this carry us to grand but not bombastic climax.
This all takes place in 15 minutes. When's the last time you heard anything like that on the radio?
While there are emotions in classical music which you can't exactly label, there's also soundscapes and emotions which I can get close to "defining," and will list below. I don't find anything in music today that is expressing these neglected and complicated emotions the human spirit is capable of feeling.
A Nocturnal World
Shostakovich - Symphony 6 Movement 1
Honegger - Symphony 2 Movement 2
Sibelius - Symphony 3 Movement 2
Debussy - Nocturnes for Orchestra
Mahler - Symphony 7
Respect for the Rugged and Coldness of Nature
Vaughan Williams - Symphony 7
Sibelius - Symphonies 4, 6 and 7
Bax - Almost all the Symphonies
Rautavaara - Cantus Arcticus
The Nostalgic
Vaughan Williams - Symphony 5 Movement 3
Moeran - Symphony in Gm
Realistic Reflections on Death and Dying
Mahler - Symphony 9 Movement 4
Shostakovich - String Quartet 15
Beethoven - String Quartet 16
Rachmaninov - Isle of the Dead
Giddy/Exuberant
Lilburn - Symphony 1 Movement 1
Milhaud - Many of the Symphonies
"Transcendental"
Bantok - Hebridean Symphony Movement 1
Vaughan Williams - Symphony 9
Bach - Toccata and Fugue in Dm, Fantasia and Fugue in Gm
Bruckner - The Symphonies
Mahler - Symphony 10
Sad but Noble
Elgar - Symphony 2 Movement 3, Cello Concerto
Mahler - Symphony 5 Movement 5
Dramatic but Noble
Atterberg - Symphony 7 Movement 1
Dvorak - Symphony 9
Fevered and Stark
Bartok - String Quartets
Chavez - Symphony 5 Movement 1
Shostakovich - Symphony 4 Movement 1
Pettersson - Late Symphonies
Sessions - Late Symphonies
Penderecki - Symphonies
Pastoral
Vaughan Williams - The Lark Ascending, In the Fen Country
Beethoven - Symphony 6 (of course!)
Darkness and Desolation
Sibelius - Symphony 4
Shostakovich - Symphony 8, String Quartet 8
Tchaikovsky - Symphony 6 Movement 4
Miaskovsky - Symphony 13
Pettersson - Almost Anything
Tubin - Almost Anything
These descriptions are all very general of course; each of the pieces above contains a world of its own.
When I say that this is an emotional journey for me personally, I am serious. I could not say how many memories are invested in some of this music. This isn't disposable art, I could listen to this stuff my entire life, and thus the memories within it go way back. You don't notice it, but music incorporates itself into you're life without your awareness. If you're depressed like I was, more emotion often isn't the medicine for it. People who don't think classical music is the most emotional and can even be the darkest music out there have only heard Mozart and Beethoven. Composers of the 20th century (Modern period) produced music that, to me at least, really "speaks" in a very realistic way that can't be brushed aside as emotional excess like we have today.
I'm not going to say that people are emotionally simplified now because I am still drawn to this music and I think its part of human nature to have a sensibility for more than just a few colors, however I do think it requires patience.
I wasn't raised on classical music, I was first drawn to it for it's complexity of sound; both in the number of instruments and the resulting range of colors and the complexity of form. That's the main reason I am drawn back to it, but another reason now more than ever is the complexity of emotion. Many complaints can be made of popular music today, but the one I will make is that the emotional range is both limited and overt, there’s nothing very subtle out there. Rock and "Alternative" today has a spectrum of happy, sad and pissed-off; and it's the same throughout the song, its one big episode. There's no ever-changing kaleidoscope of emotion.
Take Sibelius' "Night Ride and Sunrise," even if you've never heard it I think you will understand what I am getting at. To me it has three sections -- it begins with a exuberant, bouncy repeated theme on strings, eventually joined by a serious, "folk-like" theme on woodwinds which rides above but is driven by the turbulence below. The mood is extremely serious, exciting, driven, dark and entirely life-affirming. This climaxes like a whirlwind and then slowly disintegrates into the second, short middle section which is pure beauty; long, slow melodies on strings come at you like waves of pure emotion. The third section begins quietly with low pizzicato strings and short, playful woodwind motifs, later noble brass chords play under the introduction of the "Sunrise" theme introduced on woodwind. Variations of this carry us to grand but not bombastic climax.
This all takes place in 15 minutes. When's the last time you heard anything like that on the radio?
While there are emotions in classical music which you can't exactly label, there's also soundscapes and emotions which I can get close to "defining," and will list below. I don't find anything in music today that is expressing these neglected and complicated emotions the human spirit is capable of feeling.
A Nocturnal World
Shostakovich - Symphony 6 Movement 1
Honegger - Symphony 2 Movement 2
Sibelius - Symphony 3 Movement 2
Debussy - Nocturnes for Orchestra
Mahler - Symphony 7
Respect for the Rugged and Coldness of Nature
Vaughan Williams - Symphony 7
Sibelius - Symphonies 4, 6 and 7
Bax - Almost all the Symphonies
Rautavaara - Cantus Arcticus
The Nostalgic
Vaughan Williams - Symphony 5 Movement 3
Moeran - Symphony in Gm
Realistic Reflections on Death and Dying
Mahler - Symphony 9 Movement 4
Shostakovich - String Quartet 15
Beethoven - String Quartet 16
Rachmaninov - Isle of the Dead
Giddy/Exuberant
Lilburn - Symphony 1 Movement 1
Milhaud - Many of the Symphonies
"Transcendental"
Bantok - Hebridean Symphony Movement 1
Vaughan Williams - Symphony 9
Bach - Toccata and Fugue in Dm, Fantasia and Fugue in Gm
Bruckner - The Symphonies
Mahler - Symphony 10
Sad but Noble
Elgar - Symphony 2 Movement 3, Cello Concerto
Mahler - Symphony 5 Movement 5
Dramatic but Noble
Atterberg - Symphony 7 Movement 1
Dvorak - Symphony 9
Fevered and Stark
Bartok - String Quartets
Chavez - Symphony 5 Movement 1
Shostakovich - Symphony 4 Movement 1
Pettersson - Late Symphonies
Sessions - Late Symphonies
Penderecki - Symphonies
Pastoral
Vaughan Williams - The Lark Ascending, In the Fen Country
Beethoven - Symphony 6 (of course!)
Darkness and Desolation
Sibelius - Symphony 4
Shostakovich - Symphony 8, String Quartet 8
Tchaikovsky - Symphony 6 Movement 4
Miaskovsky - Symphony 13
Pettersson - Almost Anything
Tubin - Almost Anything
These descriptions are all very general of course; each of the pieces above contains a world of its own.
When I say that this is an emotional journey for me personally, I am serious. I could not say how many memories are invested in some of this music. This isn't disposable art, I could listen to this stuff my entire life, and thus the memories within it go way back. You don't notice it, but music incorporates itself into you're life without your awareness. If you're depressed like I was, more emotion often isn't the medicine for it. People who don't think classical music is the most emotional and can even be the darkest music out there have only heard Mozart and Beethoven. Composers of the 20th century (Modern period) produced music that, to me at least, really "speaks" in a very realistic way that can't be brushed aside as emotional excess like we have today.
I'm not going to say that people are emotionally simplified now because I am still drawn to this music and I think its part of human nature to have a sensibility for more than just a few colors, however I do think it requires patience.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Night Owls Unite, Fuck Early Birds
There's nothing I hate more than the inherent double standard people have about sleeping hours. It’s like there are certain hours of the day you are supposed to be awake and productive and others where you should be asleep. Deviate from those and you are stereotyped and often hounded for it.
What pisses me the fuck off is how people don't mind waking you up if it's say, noon or 2pm. They will blast a TV or stereo, they have no qualms about it and often will laugh and say "Oh, you were STILL asleep?!" Yes, you stupid fucking dumbass motherfucker! I WAS, past-tense, WAS!
But if I woke them up at 2am -- well that’s a totally different story, you see, that’s not "OK," they have every right to sleep at that time because that’s when you’re supposed to sleep. That's when the "good people" are in bed, only "bad people" are awake at "ungodly hours." *
I tend to be a very nocturnal person, my body just won't stay on a schedule of going to bed at 11pm for any regular period, at least that’s been the story since my mid-college years. I tend to be the most energetic around 12-6am I'm not sure if you'd call it insomnia, but I really drag when I first get up but then I never feel like going to bed. I have to force myself to bed, usually right about the time I feel Im getting stuff done and could keep on forever.
I've always felt more productive and better, psychologically at evening and night. I like to go places at night which are normally crowded in the day -- supermarkets, walking trails, etc. I guess I do prefer to avoid people, but I don’t think that’s why I’m a night person. The calm, dark quiet just goes with my personality. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it as long as you're still getting 8 hours and take vitamins if you don't get a lot of sun, which I also prefer to avoid. (I'm a "white boy" and that’s all there is to it.)
Its the same way with me and rainy days -- its not that sunny days make me depressed, but rainy days give me a strange, almost giddy happiness sometimes that I can't express exactly. Someone give me a reason why rain is depressing?
---
* Note: I don't drink, I'm not a partier at all. These days I prefer to stay home than go out to a bar. Neither am I one of these people who wears a badge on their sleeve of how FEW hours of sleep they get each night, as if it were something to be proud of. I knew some people like that in college, to these people I say you are killing yourself at a young age, we can tell you’re loopy and you’re more likely to have a car accident, congradu-fucking-lations.
What pisses me the fuck off is how people don't mind waking you up if it's say, noon or 2pm. They will blast a TV or stereo, they have no qualms about it and often will laugh and say "Oh, you were STILL asleep?!" Yes, you stupid fucking dumbass motherfucker! I WAS, past-tense, WAS!
But if I woke them up at 2am -- well that’s a totally different story, you see, that’s not "OK," they have every right to sleep at that time because that’s when you’re supposed to sleep. That's when the "good people" are in bed, only "bad people" are awake at "ungodly hours." *
I tend to be a very nocturnal person, my body just won't stay on a schedule of going to bed at 11pm for any regular period, at least that’s been the story since my mid-college years. I tend to be the most energetic around 12-6am I'm not sure if you'd call it insomnia, but I really drag when I first get up but then I never feel like going to bed. I have to force myself to bed, usually right about the time I feel Im getting stuff done and could keep on forever.
I've always felt more productive and better, psychologically at evening and night. I like to go places at night which are normally crowded in the day -- supermarkets, walking trails, etc. I guess I do prefer to avoid people, but I don’t think that’s why I’m a night person. The calm, dark quiet just goes with my personality. And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with it as long as you're still getting 8 hours and take vitamins if you don't get a lot of sun, which I also prefer to avoid. (I'm a "white boy" and that’s all there is to it.)
Its the same way with me and rainy days -- its not that sunny days make me depressed, but rainy days give me a strange, almost giddy happiness sometimes that I can't express exactly. Someone give me a reason why rain is depressing?
---
* Note: I don't drink, I'm not a partier at all. These days I prefer to stay home than go out to a bar. Neither am I one of these people who wears a badge on their sleeve of how FEW hours of sleep they get each night, as if it were something to be proud of. I knew some people like that in college, to these people I say you are killing yourself at a young age, we can tell you’re loopy and you’re more likely to have a car accident, congradu-fucking-lations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)