Literally and figuratively, I have moved to a new place. Buying a house and moving south to the suburbs of DC is my excuse for not posting in such a long time--I hope that's adequate.
Since I no longer live in Charm City, I've decided to switch gears and end my writing at TheBmoreSoloist. However, I've started a fancy new blog called AndOneForBlog! This new base of operations will be a collaborative effort with a few close friends, so even if I don't post as often as I'd like, you won't be left waiting for new content.
We'll be having discussions about a wide variety of topics as each poster adds some about what they know and enjoy. Please follow the new blog if you felt this one was worth your time, and enjoy the interactions with the new crew. Thanks for reading what I've put here--I hope to continue earning your interest.
Emily Hauser, a fellow member of Ta-Nehisi Coates's commenting community, has a wonderful post on her blog today about the friends we leave behind as children. It's worth reading.
The Daily Show has been on a roll lately, with some brutal indictments of the petty horse-race journalism perpetuated by the major news networks, especially FOX. My personal favorite was Jon Stewart's surprisingly civil conversation with Mark Thiessen which, while not as vicious as Stewart's assault on Jim Cramer, certainly put Thiessen's reluctance to interact with reality on full display.
These clipse deserve to be watched again and again and again.
The National Review posted a finely researched article about the ways Democrats and Republicans enjoy decrying and utilizing judicial activism. It's worth a look as we prepare for a "whale of a fight" over whomever President Obama chooses to nominate to replace Justice Stevens.
I should have posted this a month ago, but since the topic is back in the news cycle, here's a breakdown of what the Affordable Care Act does, and when. Everyone should read it if they want to know what to expect from insurance companies in the next decade.
In norealistic scenario can Republicans repeal the Affordable Care Act. This one-dimensional thinking is what you get from a party that basis its existence on absolutes.
Since my last post, I've continued to dwell on the current state of American conservatism and the Republican Party. For months, the public has watched in stupefied awe as the sorry soldiers of the political right impotently lash out at the new political and cultural realities that have begun to eclipse their own. Tea Party protests, crooked publicity stunts from Sarah Palin, and threats against Democratic lawmakers have made it easy for people to wonder: "What the hell is wrong with these people?" However, the increasing frequency of this question’s proposition has produced a minor backlash from people who would otherwise sympathize with Republican values. These people do not condone the signs carried by Tea Party protesters, often dislike Sarah Palin, and stand aghast at the intimidation being used against Democratic politicians. More than these things however, these Lost Conservatives do not appreciate (and often take offense at) the smug boastings of Democratic—or more specifically, Obama—supporters who are certain of their righteousness in the face of GOP absurdity. The Republican Party would like everyone to believe it is not related to the Tea Party movement, but this proposition continues to confuse outside observers. The GOP seems to be making no attempts to differentiate itself, and to many people, the relationship seems too much like the hands of a puppeteer: one is drawing your attention with a suit and tie while the other engages in vandalism and political bullying. They may be playing different characters, but they're putting on the same show.
This is where the Lost Conservatives become very important. They see the Republican Party in disarray, the lunatic fringe getting highlighted because sanity doesn't sell. Lost Conservatives do not believe the Tea Party fits the image of the Republican Party, and that the upstart movement, as unseemly as it may be, does not justify a complete dismissal of the Republican Party’s dignity and integrity. They give Republican lawmakers slack because they understand that it is difficult for politicians to break the group-think that plagues our two-party system and criticize allies, especially in the face of losing votes for fear of not being conservative enough. For Lost Conservatives, "the heart of the party" is still with Reagan and the glory days of American conservatism, and Republicans will, by default, right their ways once this storm has passed. It irks them to see the Republican Party painted with such a broad brush because they used to support it and would like to support it again.
What, then, should the public be paying attention to when searching for the identity of the Republican Party? The outlandishness of the GOP cannot, by itself, be enough reason to look elsewhere since, by definition, a party’s identity can only be determined by… well, the party. To understand the GOP, the public must begin to separate conservatism from the Republican Party—we must differentiate between parties and philosophies. The basic tenets of classic American conservatism—low taxes, minimal government bureaucracy, financial stability, etc.—either do not exist as part of the current Republican Party's philosophy, or are cynically used as tools for securing reelection.
It is important to acknowledge that there are many groups with vastly different objectives in most political parties; neither the Democrats nor the Republicans are always unified bodies. The whole point of having a political party is that people can represent their interests in larger numbers, thus earning individuals more bargaining power and consideration. But in an effort to salvage the image of the Republican Party, Republicans (and, to a lesser extent, Lost Conservatives) would like us to ignore the basic purpose of a political party simply because blatantly radical elements are now the primary motivators of GOP policy creation and activism.
I've said this before, and it remains true: it is up to the people who feel they have been affronted—the Lost Conservatives—to stand up and make clear who we should be listening to when we inform ourselves about Republican identity. It cannot possibly be that difficult. We live in an age where media outlets broadcast Tweets and Facebook updates as news; how hard can it really be for moderates to step up, if only momentarily, to say, "We wholly reject the paradigm of the current Republican Party, and you should not think of us this way?"
This well-intentioned quest does not bode well for our representative democracy. By forsaking their own interests while they wait for the Republican Party to welcome them back, Lost Conservatives release themselves of the burdens of their principles at a time when it would do them the most good to push these ideals as hard as possible. This behavior is irrational and hinders the recovery of the GOP. No one benefits when moderates sit back and sigh, "This too shall pass." Democracies thrive on internal conflicts driven by the self interests of various groups, and if people are willing to surrender that, I find it difficult to sympathize with them.
Democrats gain nothing from providing a home to the Lost Conservatives. Their core goals and philosophies are too different to result in a stable party. For the Lost Conservatives to regain their voice, they must retake the Republican Party. Until that happens, the stagnation of the GOP will continue, and the Lost Conservatives will be left to hold their nose and watch the Democrats fumble their way towards liberal policies that the Lost Conservatives could shape and improve if they had a larger voice.
In college, I studied the growth of the militias in the United States during the 1980s and 1990s, which culminated in the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing. Security specialists can tell you that these people have not gone away or changed their methods, and I wonder what will have to happen before Republican party members decide that they should turn down the heat on the pot of domestic resentment and violence that they brought to a boil, and now choose to conveniently leave unattended on the stove. A recent article by John Marshall states that "thankfully, nobody has been injured or killed." I wonder what the workers and victims of the February 18th attack on IRS offices in Austin, TX would say to that? Maybe we should ask for the opinions of doctors who have been killed by (ironically) pro-life activists for providing controversial--but legal--services to patients? Perhaps Marshall was referring to those who haven't been killed yet, like Tom Perrielo's brother. What will it take for people to realize that things have already gone too far?
We all know that both sides of the political spectrum have radicals and people who act out inappropriately (ELF and certain WTO protest organizationswould be reasonable comparisons), and all who participate in such thuggery should be condemned. That said, the moral equivocating of the modern GOP is disgusting, and deserves to be ridiculed not only because its leaders refuse to speak up, but because they were actively engaging in the incitement of these lunatics. We've all heard countless examples of GOP members touting ridiculous claims since the 2008 presidential race and this behavior is what differentiates the actions of current conservatives from the actions of a group like ELF: one is mainstream, and the other is not.
Christopher Hitchens, when discussing radical Islam, once asked, "Why is it that we can't get condemnation easily, or at all, when, for example, Shiaa mosques and funeral processions in Iraq are blown up Muslim fascists?" The comparison is no doubt hyperbolic, but the principle can still be applied: Public officials bear the very serious responsibility of loudly rejecting repugnant acts, regardless of how unpleasant it may be to do so, or how disconnected the acts are from a political platform. Nothing is more damaging to a democracy's political institutions and processes than misinformation, and it is for this reason that the Republican party will suffer for its alignment with the Tea Party movement.
I continue to hear GOP leaders and friends question the necessity or benefits to speaking out against violence, and it saddens me to think that they really don't feel the urgency behind quelling the outrage of their political friends. What's going on right now is not political activism--it's Quixotic intimidation disguised as patriotic rebellion against the windmill of federal government:
Successful governing (that is, the creation and enforcement of public policies) requires all parties involved in the process to maintain a certain level of sincerity in order to be taken seriously. In America, there is currently no such agreement between the left and right. Until that basic trust has been re-established, (starting with a mass renunciation of violence and vandalism by Republican politicians) the GOP will continue to be a party that bases its entire existence on the infantile tantrum it has thrown over being out of power. In the mean time, thepotcontinuestoboil.
Distressing news recently came from the world of underground rap and hip-hop. El-P announced via the Def Jux Web site that he was effectively shutting down the label. Many of the emcees who made their home with Def Jux during its 10-year run will likely end up with great deals elsewhere, but to see such an immense group of talent get broken up is still upsetting.
I'm currently reading Bruce Feiler's newest book "America's Prophet," but it has nothing to do with my choice for today's song. Aesop Rock's just been in my head. I'll be posting about Feiler's book soon, though. Enjoy:
Somewhere, Ronald Reagan is smiling. In the last several days, two different groups of scientists announced that they were able to shoot down something speeding through the air with a laser.
Let me repeat that: human beings can now shoot things out of the sky with lasers.
On February 12th, Boeing announced that it had successfully shot down a ballistic missile during a firing range test of its new airborne laser system. The Cold War is over, but apparently that doesn't mean we've collectively stopped thinking about the danger of long-range missiles. How this will affect the way we talk with or about Iran and North Korea remains to be seen, but I imagine our Iranian policies will be mostly unchanged.
Iran doesn't have nuclear weapons yet, and both Israel and the United States have had other anti-ballistic missile defense systems for quite some time. The United States seems to be more concerned with preventing Iran and North Korea from selling their technology to other hostile governments or militant groups, and these new systems do nothing to prevent that. However, these defenses drain a good deal of power from the threat of a nuclear attack, which makes saber-rattling from both countries even less intimidating than it already is.
On a different note, scientists working with the Intellectual Ventures Lab released video of a new system they've developed to fight malaria by frying mosquitoes in flight. The system is so sensitive that it detects the wing speed of things that pass in front of it, and fries only the female mosquitoes as they go by. This lessens (or possibly eliminates) the threat of diseases carried by mosquitoes, since only the females bite. Below is the video release by IV Lab, shot at 6,000 frames per second.
Plenty ofnotablepersonalities used the storms that recently hit the mid-Atlantic to bolster their claims that climate change is a hoax or, at the very least, an exaggeration. Given that the scientific community was still trying to get its bearings after Climate-gate, it was the perfect time to pounce
Unfortunately for these skeptics, Fred Pearce at the Guardian has been helping to clarify what actually happened with Climate-gate. His piece exposes (again?) many global warming detractors as the intellectual slobs we suspected they are.
...it's that politics is exhausting. It takes a certain level of stamina to follow the details of multiple stories as complex as health care reform, the daily grind of Congress, or the Obama administration's fluctuating feelings on where to try terror suspects for their crimes. The internet has made it extremely easy to find other people's analyses, but finding raw information and synthesizing it to create meaningful posts on a regular basis is something I just haven't gotten the grip of yet. Duties and desires exist outside of the blogosphere, and I'm still trying to find the proper balance between the things I need to do and the things I'd like to get better at.
In short, my apologies for going on an unexpected hiatus for a whole week.
My goals for this blog have changed since it began several months ago. Originally, it was a way for me to organize my thoughts about current events while trying to train myself to write in a professional way on a more regular basis. Now I find that this blog is more of a cathartic thing, allowing me to release energy built up over the course of a day or week as I follow the news. There are a lot of things I'd like to be an expert on: Congressional procedures, political prospects for 2010 and 2012, the Torture Memos, the Arab-Israeli conflict... the list goes on and on.
Over the course of the coming months, my schedule will become increasingly busy, and my time to sift through the hundreds of stories brought to me by Google Reader will diminish further. When I do write, however, I hope to do so as an expert about the topic, even if that means I don't have something posted the day an event takes place. I'm not a newspaper, and blogs suffer when the writers try to be things they are not.
My golden rule--never get too personal!--will still stand, but I (and as a consequence, my blog) will benefit from not forcing myself to write about dreary, serious things all the time. Thus far, I have been quite passionate about the topics this blog has addressed, and I will continue to be attached to them, but I hope to inject my personal interests into more of my posts from now on.
I hope everyone continues to read and enjoy The Baltimore Soloist as I try to retool my writing habits. And, as always, please pass this site on to your friends and family if you feel I deserve it.
Andrew Sullivan agrees that the Chicken Little act put on by pro-choice supporters before the Super Bowl was a bit too much.
On a lighter note, congratulations to the New Orleans Saints for their epic Superbowl win over the Indianapolis Colts. Here's Tracy Porter's gnarly interception that really put it away for the Saints. I found out yesterday that an interception being run back for a touchdown is known as a "pick six." Football slang is great.
I know I'm a little late with this, but my initial skepticism of the Daily Kos/Research 2000 poll that made such a splash among internet commentators last week kept me from talking about it until today. After examining the methodology behind the study, I'm much more comfortable accepting it as legitimate. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight.com provides some great analysis.
If nothing else, this study proves once again how good the Republican party was at controlling its brand and its message. As silly as some of these responses may seem, they stem from strict party discipline among Republican lawmakers and a desire to gain an advantage over President Obama by any means necessary. The Republican modus operandi continues to be peddling demonstrably false statements.
Even more telling than the responses are the questions. That Republicans overwhelmingly believe some of the things being asked is simply mind-boggling. (One note--make sure to look at the scale of the Y-axis when looking at each graph on Nate Silver's page. The graphs can be misleading without careful reading.) Overall, the differences in responses from one GOP supporter to the next are negligible. Only non-White persons answering questions about racism or Obama's birthplace had significantly different answers than their White counterparts. And this is where things get complicated.
Since the presidential race in 2008, the GOP has been desperately trying to change the way it looks to the American people, but this survey shows how badly it is failing. Republican opinion is now a feedback loop built on paranoia and stereotypes. The irony of course is that, like anyone else, GOP members resent being stereotyped because it detracts from their ability to look like a party that truly fits the entire country. This survey has exposed (again) how much Republican concentration goes into keeping cultural norms and social mores in place, and how unconcerned party members are with formulating policy that does anything else.
Until the Republican party gets serious about solving problems and not chasing figments of its imagination, it will continue to be a miserable afterthought in the minds of serious problem solvers.
Good news from the court system this week. First, a military appeals court found "no reversible errors in the decision of the lower court" in the convictions of two perpetrators of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. Then, yet another terrorist was brought to justice in civilian court. Two points for the good guys.
The courts can handle these cases--they've been doing so for many years. That some people can't bring themselves to trust the court system they live under doesn't mean the United States shouldn't default to civilian trials for these thugs.
We're going to do a test. Get a piece of paper and something to write with, or just open up a new Word document. Once you're ready and without hovering to see the URL, click on the link below and write down the first five words that come to your mind. Don't think--just react and write.
...A nicebedtime story that will smash your hopes for cooperative government like a six-year old with a baseball bat in a field of fireflies. I can't say this is unexpected, but it still hurts to read.
You'll find a calm tone and plenty of statistics throughout William Saletan's discussion about the odds of women and fetuses surviving the same situation Pam Tebow encountered when she was pregnant with Tim. Like I mentioned yesterday, we can't turn away from the lurid details that make us squirm, and this article will help you get used to them.
Jessica Grose has a nice rebuttal to Lori Gottlieb's unabashedly ego-stroking "Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough." I haven't read the book, but I did read the article it's based on, and I was unimpressed. Authors should be smart enough to know when they're projecting and not writing solid, research-based content.
Based on discussions about the anti-abortion ad featuring Tim Tebow scheduled to air during the upcoming Superbowl, it's hard to believe that the New Orleans Saints and the Indianapolis Colts had such memorable seasons this year. Nobody seems to remember. Commentary shifted from "Which high-quality quarterback will win a ring for their team?" to "HOLY SHIT, ABORTION!" in less than a week. Jason Fagone of Slate.com posted a fantastic profile of Tebow yesterday, and it reminded me of just how bizarre "discussions" about abortion are in this country.
Like so many other things in America, the topic of abortion tends to act like a full moon shining on someone afflicted by lycanthropy: it changes sane and rational people, capable of sympathy and empathy, into rapacious creatures that lash out at whoever crosses their path. An ounce of credibility or attention given to one side over the other demands retribution by the opposing faction, and any trend towards civility is an affront to their dignity. The issue at hand has already been blown a bit out of proportion--Facebook and Twitter feeds are piled high with angry comments about CBS's decision to run the ad, so it's important to remember that the scope of this affair is really much narrower than people would like to think.
Tim Tebow had an exceptional career in college football, and attention has been split between his stats and the bible verses he writes into his eye black. Tebow's future in passive proselytizing may be in question, but he is unconcerned with the controversy surrounding the ad that he helped create. And why should he be? According to CBS, the ad will not "mention the word abortion." But that hasn't stopped pro-choice groups from campaigning against CBS. Jemhu Greene, president of the Women's Media Center, told EPSN that "An ad that uses sports to divide rather than to unite has no place in the biggest national sports event of the year -- an event designed to bring Americans together."
Don't get me wrong. I'm a pro-choice liberal born and raised in the suburbs outside Washington, D.C., and understand (but disagree with) the impulse to decry this ad as an all-out assault on the traditions of neutral advertising, especially since CBS has chosen to run Tebow's ad, but rejected an ad for a gay dating site. Pro-choice supporters seem oblivious to the incredible irony of their uncontrollable urge to act like their homes have been set on fire by a 30-second commercial addressing a choice someone made about a pregnancy. Being pro-choice does not mean that someone concerned about their pregnancy must have it terminated. Pro-choice supporters everywhere are doing a disservice to their cause by reacting negatively to an ad that utilizes their ideas. More seriously, pro-choice advocates risk depicting themselves as being in favor of abortion as the only viable option for a pregnancy.
CBS may have made the wrong decision about running Tebow's ad, but that's a completely different discussion than the one most people are having. Indeed, I think it's a discussion most people don't feel like putting much effort into. It's fair to assume that the message in the ad is fairly passive, and that's probably why the ad was allowed to run. CBS is well aware of the consequences of letting "offensive" material get on the air, especially after the furor over the infamous 2004 Superbowl nip-slip and this Snickers ad from 2007. The network knows it's audience, and is choosing what it shows accordingly.
The temptation to oversimplify abortion is immense, but when you're discussing the benefits and drawbacks of a process that involves cleaning out the contents of a woman's uterus, it's vital that people refuse to shy away from the gritty details that make them uncomfortable. Abortion often ends up getting discussed in the abstract, resulting in a series of bizarre analogies that never effectively address the specific details that need to be hammered out for each side to understand where the other is coming from. If we ever expect to be civil with each other, people on both sides of the debate need to stop showing their fangs every time someone with different ideas is opening their mouths to talk.
The commercial being shown during the Superbowl will draw no more than a shrug from the vast majority of viewers. If pro-choice activists want to turn this into a fight, they'll get one, but it will be an uphill battle. The general public doesn't want to politicize the Superbowl, and people will be irritated if pro-choice antagonists press the issue hard enough to ruin the fun for the rest of us.
I'll end with a quick tip for everyone. Calm down, have a seat, grow up, and pass the chips. The game is on.
FiveThirtyEight.com's Nate Silver posted several charts detailing the language used in State of the Union speeches going back to President Kennedy. It's a gold mine for people nerdy enough to be interested in such things, and it says a great deal about what each speaker thought was important at the time.
I particularly enjoy the numbers shown in the "Process" chart. Even with the gaps in data, it's safe to say the terms Democrat, Republican, and bipartisan were practically absent from State of the Union speeches until 1994, when Bill Clinton was faced with the prospect of a very hostile Congress. Funny how the potential for conflict with another party tends to change your tone.
Andrew Sullivan at the Atlantic posted a great piece today that helps re-focus the discussion over health care reform. His excerpt from the New York Times fact check of Obama's discussion with GOP members yesterday was particularly interesting:
Republican leaders had said all along that expanding health insurance coverage was not a main goal of their bill, because they viewed it as unaffordable. Instead, they had focused on narrowly tailoring their bill to reduce health care costs.
The debate over health insurance has really gotten away from people, and this piece deserves to be read.
President Obama was in Baltimore today to take questions from GOP party members about a variety of issues. I'd be willing to bet my job that Republicans are trying to develop a time machine that allows them to go back and remove the cameras from the room. For the GOP, this event ended with results similar to a no-holds-barred street brawl between an infant and Mickey from "Snatch."
In approximately 70 minutes, Barack Obama reinforced three things many people already know, but rarely get much press:
He is incredibly smart. Smarter than his opponents (and often allies) understand or appreciate.
He is a pragmatist first, and a Democrat second.
He will not suffer simpletons who skew reality to prevent him from moving forward with an agenda that they could otherwise be helping with.
What the president needs, is to do this sort of thing as often as possible, in front of larger audiences. In an era where Fox news is hands down the most trusted media outlet in the country (specifically "because of its lack of neutrality"), it's pretty clear that the GOP establishment has a stranglehold on the resources needed to craft and broadcast a message that people adhere to for long periods of time.
Thought his instincts may tell him to shun it, Obama needs to begin using the celebrity status he holds with the American public. In my view, he is the best option the Democrats have of getting an undiluted message to voters who want to see progress. As president, he can hold talks like this or give speeches during prime viewing hours to talk directly with the people through a venue they won't shy away from. I think this is an unfortunate necessity given what I've discussed before about Obama's attempts to get Congress to do its job without the Executive Branch coddling it every step of the way.
Americans don't watch C-SPAN, where a majority of the debates over health care reform legislation have been shown. They don't read the White House blog, or keep up with where the funds from the stimulus bill are being spent. Americans watch the people who stir up the most controversy. Obama's cool dismemberment of the GOP today is something Americans would love to see, but not something that would force him to sacrifice his scaled-back view of managing the legislative process.
Since the rise of the Tea Party protests, Republicans have profited politically on the feedback loop of anger they create. The tactic works like this:
Republican talking heads run with a sound bite about health care reform being a mortal threat to grandmothers everywhere.
People across the country rush into the streets with angry signs and slogans with considerable help from Republican organizations.
Republican politicians stonewall legislation on the basis that they're doing what voters want them to do.
Repeat steps 1-3 ad nauseum.
The Obama that came out swinging against the bullshit being pitched to him by GOP lawmakers could easily break the cycle I described above. Furthermore, he is someone Americans would love to watch (again). I understand the impetus to stay out of the limelight, but it's time for Obama to show he has some teeth while he's still taken seriously. The longer he waits to start taking his message directly to the American people, the more time his status will dwindle and wane in the minds of Americans with short attention spans. That is to say, nearly everyone.
The California Supreme Court issued a ruling yesterday that allows warrants to be issued for suspects identified by their DNA profile if a name is unavailable. I'm not a lawyer, but this strikes me as a step in the right direction. The federal courts already approved the idea of a DNA database, and this ruling will help prosecute crimes that would otherwise go unpunished because of statutes of limitations.
It will be interesting to see whether or not this ruling is cited as precedent for future cases. The decision upheld the conviction of a man whose DNA was mistakenly entered into a DNA database, which then revealed him as the offender in another crime. In addition, it was California's state constitution that allowed made this ruling viable; in the Golden State, prosecution begins when a warrant is issued.
The New Orleans Saints are going to their first Superbowl in the team's history. Regardless of how you feel about that, the incredible bond between that team and the city it represents is undeniable. From the head coach all the way down to the third-string kicker, the New Orleans Saints know exactly what they bring on their shoulders to each game, and that's helped them stay classy all season. Peyton Manning may be playing the best football I've ever seen, but I hope the Saints go all the way. We're in for one hell of a Superbowl.
The footage below shows Saints fans watching the very last play of the game and then the rush into Bourbon Street. People will remember this forever. Warning: keep your sound down. It gets messy.
I'll deal with the all the bullshit being thrown around the airwaves about the election results from Massachusetts some time in the near future—too much going through my head right now to write a coherent post—but if you're desperate to dive into a heap of depressing news, Andrew Sullivan has done a great job of compiling reactions and predictions on the futures of where health care, the Obama administration, and the Democratic majority. All I'll say about it tonight is regardless of what side of the aisle you're on, know that right now it's best to calm down and wait to see what happens next.
Before the election intruded into everyone's life, I'd been planning to do a post about the music I listen to these days, and how that's changed from my mentality in high school and college. I followed through with that tonight to get my mind off the election and give you a respite from the mayhem.
Throughout myteenage years, I was a magnificent music snob. Most likely due to the way my father always put music on a pedestal, I was convinced that my opinions were bulletproof gospel. When it came to the business of critiquing tunes I had some seemingly impressive credentials, included taking five months of weekend lessons for guitar in 8th grade, studying two years of music theory classes in high school, and maintaining a strong attachment to guitar's role in rock music. In reality, my opinions usually stemmed from preconceived notions of rock's superiority to other genres, and intense devotion to the days when guitar solos were the be-all and end-all of artistic talent.
Since my experience with music has practically never included producing original work, I gradually came to the realization that, aside from being an avid consumer of music, I didn't really have a basis for my opinions, and it showed in my clumsy rebuttals of friends who offered me a taste of whatever pop singles or rap albums were coming out.
College provided me with endless halls full of people blasting different sounds from their desks, and I quickly focused on music as a point of bonding. Going into my freshman year, my favorite bands were Rage Againstthe Machine, Incubus, and Pink Floyd. I quickly added bands like Tool, Audioslave, JohnMayer, and Porcupine Tree to my playlists, and enjoyed a personal golden age of rock for two or three years.
John Mayer, whose album "Continuum" is possibly the best overall record of the last 20 years, had a particularly strong influence on where I looked next for music, though I could never have guessed where my interests would lead me. I began to place more value on lyrics and less on just musical composition, which gave my ears a slew of new musical choices. Thanks to Last.fm, I quickly found my days paced to the beats of Jurassic 5, Mos Def, AesopRock, Jay-Z, RobSonic, El-P, Cannibal Ox, Blackalicious, Gift ofGab, and yes, Notorious B.I.G. It took me a while to adjust my listening habits to fully appreciate rap and hip-hop; form follows function, and songs from those genres are constructed differently than what I'd been used to.
I gradually grew to enjoy the stories and raw sentiments offered up by these artists, even if I couldn't relate to them directly. At a very primitive level, there's something attractive about the bravado and swagger put in focus by many rap artists. It's not always something I seek out, but I also can't deny that on my way home from a bad day at work, I'll crank all sorts of nonsense that puts confidence back in my stride.
It's fun to peek into rap culture, which revels in creating slang for the sake of rhythm, or turning one or two words into complex analogies for larger ideas. (Aesop Rock's nickname "Bazooka Tooth" comes from his incredible ability to rap with explosive intensity, but fits into rhythms much better than a long sentence.) Rap is all about how much you can say, and each beat and word are placed with a specific purpose. To help explain some of the unique aspects of rap that keep me interested, here's "Raspberry Fields" by Cannibal Ox:
The first 11 seconds of the song are just as important as the middle and end; the beat immediately sets listeners up to expect something ominous and powerful. Vast Aire, the first rapper to speak, follows through for the audience, dropping some hefty ideas and challenges in the first 30 seconds that he raps:
"If at first you don't succeed, try, try again.
Step up to the mic, and die again.
This is the next lifetime and you wanna battle?
Either you like reincarnation or the smell of carnations.
The sample's the flesh and the beat's the skeleton.
You got beef, but there's worms in your Wellington.
I'll put a hole in your skull and extract the skeleton.
Oh my God, he said a word twice! I'm Vaste Aire. I'm twice as nice."
The first two lines are an open invitation to anyone who wants to challenge Vast Aire's claim of lyrical superiority. He even suggests that the target of his verse has tried to challenge him before, and failed. This is a common theme in rap songs, and it paves the way for that aura of confidence to come through later. Next we hear a comparison of losing rap battles to dying. Vast Aire is making it clear that a thorough defeat is sure to befall anyone who challenges him. The personification (or at least animation) of the samples and beats gives Vast Aire further strength as a rapper, suggesting his work is as complex as a living body. The last three lines undermine the competition's credit and confidence by suggesting that they have no real strength behind their arguments.
It doesn't matter that Vast Aire isn't actually battling with anyone in real time. The calculated dramatic arrogance of what he's saying is important—it's the critical piece that allows you to enjoy the music. Coupled with the change in beats (starting around 1:41 the music stutters and repeats, reflecting Vast Aire as he revels in victory), this sentiment turns the song into a powerhouse of rugged nerve and recklessness; a perfect mix for those looking for heavy beats or a dose of confidence. It doesn't matter that the lyrics are full of threats and profanity. Focusing on those parts of rap prevents listeners from appreciating the lightning-quick elegance of what each rapper has to say. If you really can't get past it, groups like Jurassic 5 and Blackalicious take pride in avoiding the "gangsta" style.
Even though I've expanded my musical comfort zones considerably, practically all of my favorites are horribly dated. If I listen to the radio at all, my first reaction to most of what I hear still includes a wrinkled nose and furrowed brow, but I relax a lot faster than I used to, and I reach to change the channel less than before. A commenter on one of TNC's blogs recently said "There's a reason there's a bandwagon," and they're right. It took me 20 years, but I realized that being stuck-up about music is ridiculous. The experience is supposed to be personal, and it's supposed to make you feel something. In a way, choosing what music to listen to is like choosing which beer to drink. Sometimes you're in the mood for something fancy, and other times you want the cheapest thing possible. The objective is the same—personal satisfaction.
This post is admittedly a really silly, unhelpful part of the discussion about Haiti, but I feel that it's important, even in the midst of crises, to parse the words of those who have regular access to large audiences. Perhaps my feelings are motivated by the fact that Robertson has always seemed like such a vile creature, while Glover has been an innocuous character in American culture, but I feel strongly that Robertson's comments are worse than Glover's for several reasons.
In case you missed it, here's Pat Robertson discussing the earthquake that hit Haiti on January 12:
Robertson's comments are infuriating, but just in case you thought religious zealots were the only ones exploiting this situation, someone on Ta-Nehisi Coates's blog recently posted these comments by Danny Glover. They're a nice reminder that there are people in every direction who use horrendous situations to further their causes.
My interpretation of Glover's remarks focused on the idea that Glover views events like this as predictable based on how poorly we treat the earth, but that the event itself was uncontrollable. Was it predictable? Maybe. Was it predictable because we pump CO2 into the air? Absolutely not. "This is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm sayin'?" was Glover trying to say "If we treat the earth badly, we'll see more disasters like this." He's obviously confused about what causes earthquakes and global warming, but his problems don't seem to extend beyond confusion or willful ignorance. Glover's emotional response was unrefined and poorly informed, but at its core portrays the Haitians as innocent victims who had no active role in their plight.
Robertson, on the other hand, espouses a view that strikes me as incredibly self-serving. Robertson uses events like this to reinforce his worldview, and since he helps define the way people perceive God and His works, Robertson positions himself perfectly to either profit from this disaster, look legitimized, or both. That's selfishness on a scale unfathomable by most people.
Glover is (incorrectly) trying to get people to band together to better the world, whereas Robertson is writing off the people of Haiti as a lost cause that finally got what was coming to them. Robertson is providing the people who think like him another soap box on which to stand and proclaim that they know it all; that they are the greatest. Glover gains no fame, glory, or cash from his comments, but Robertson surely gets plenty by looking like someone who understands God far better than others. That difference--the portrayal of innocent versus guilty victims to further a cause--is frustrating in both cases, but it should be clear why Robertson strikes me as so much more conniving and devious.
If you want to help Haiti, send money. The manpower and materials needed there are far too specialized to make donated clothes or time useful. UNICEF and the Red Cross are sure bets for your gifts. Texting the word "Haiti" to 90999 is also a quick way to help; it adds $10 to your phone bill and the money goes directly to the Red Cross.
