Metal - Still for Pariahs

I don't listen to NPR. That should be obvious by now. Sometimes they have interesting things, but there is enough good stuff on conservative talk radio to keep my attention. Once I found "All Things Considered" interesting, but that was before I discovered Rush.

In any case, being cultural elites, the high gods at NPR decided to put together a list of the most important songs of the 20th century. Having a clue about such things, especially the last third part of the century, I started to look for Stairway. Wasn't there. I went to the preliminary list. It wasn't there, either. Maybe something from Sabbath? Nope, nada. ANY metal act? Nope, absolutely nothing.

But, what was listed included things like a minimalist composition from 1971 (no one listens to minimalism today except for wierdos). Talking Heads made the list. So did some musicals from the 1960's - after people stopped listening to them. An album from Bruce Springstein made the list - from 1975. Nirvana made the list - they do belong there, as well as the Ramones. And Elvis did as well. And I'm sure the stuff from before 1950 is fairly accurate.

Interestingly, Madonna's "Like a Virgin" made the preliminary list - but not the final. Same with "Billy Jean" from Jacko. While these songs are disposable, these two songs are largely the granddaddys of the garbagy pop that's out there today. While not of the highest quality, they are competently written and composed, and being so influential, they belong on the top 100 for these reasons alone.

And of the most interest, there is nothing from the Beatles - as a group, or individually. On either the preliminary list, or the final. This is really puzzling, because they are what turned "Rock and Roll" into "Rock."

In any case, this shows the thinking of our cultural elites - and the problems of keeping culture centrally controlled, as cultural elites like to do. Some of the most brilliant stuff never appears on their radar. But some of the garbage is considered "brilliant." (See my post from 1 1/2 years ago On Art). Take Stairway, inarguably the #1 song of the 20th century. All cultural critics ignore this. Despite the fact that it is so complex, it is not taught until an individual reaches the very top reaches of guitar skills - at least to the point where skills can no longer be taught. This song made #1 charts for over three decades after it was written. I guess this is the problem of not releasing it as a single. But on the other hand, the greatness of this song came by the fact that it was never heavily pushed, but constantly, and consistently, demanded, over three decades, on Rock stations. It is one of those songs you recognize right away as good, and needs no real marketing (in fact, Led Zeppelin worked consciously to not only market Zoso, but to hide it as best as they could).

Or, take Iron Man. Led Zeppelin might be the first metal band, or Black Sabbath could be. Another song that drew inspiration for the next generation of metalheads - who then inspired the next generation, and so on, until you get the variety of genres of today. Iron Man borders that level of music known as "classic". Sure it's not "classical" music, which is chamber music, but a "classic" is something that stands the test of time. And what better way to stand the test of time than to have it become a favorite of football marching bands on brass instruments, 35 years after that album hit the charts? (And for another song that never became a single?) In 100 years, if brass bands are still at football games, will it still be played? Given these songs stay around a long time, I don't see why it would be taken off the playlist.

Or, take Free Bird. While not metal, it certainly was huge, and can easily be turned into a metal song. What is this song about? Not about fornication, like so many pop standards are about. Instead, it gave a new pride to the southern male after the horrors of Jim Crow. It let him be proud of his Confederate roots, but without any racist undertones. It basically allowed southerners to be proud rebels again, stripped of their bigotry. And this entered into political voting patterns, where one could vote as a southerner. This new southern mentality has a huge part of American voting patterns that one needs to understand in order to understand American politics, which NPR apparently does not.

In any case, metal is one of the biggest music phenomon in the last two generations. It has been consistently loud and angry, aimed largely at a working class audience. Most people who become musical critics never come from such backgrounds. Instead, they often come from upper middle class backgrounds, and think that musicians like the Talking Heads are super geniuses. The closest they ever got to metal may have been Aerosmith, or Bon Jovi, or Poison (at least that is how they were all marketed) They think that those smelly rockers in the parking lot with Motorhead blasting out of their muscle cars are basically losers who have nothing to contribute toward society. 20 years later, those smelly rockers often are ignorant contractors, such as carpenters or plumbers, unlike the refined, college-educated music critics, so they still know nothing about musical subtleties. They tend to not even know such things like, well, band like Iron Maiden gave a history lesson with each song (and Bon Jovi, Poison, and Aerosmith gave yet another lesson in fornication with every song). But nonetheless, because they have some kind of art degree, they are experts, and are entitled to be critics. And because they are experts, they also are experts on tax policy, too. Because what do smelly former-metalhead plubers or carpenters making six figures need to wastefully spend all their money on? It needs to go to the less fortunate, and to fund "culture" as well (after all, you need high taxes to pay good salaries to get good music critics, especially since they make about 1/3 of those less-educated workers, right???)

I have had two misconceptions. The first is that metal is dead. Because rock'n'roll is essentially dead. Well, I'm wrong. I don't like much contemporary metal, but that's an issue of taste. But the thing is, metal is constantly evolving and going off into several, several new directions. And more importantly, metal is constantly getting plenty of waves of teenage members. Just like country music, metal is replenishing it's fan base. Critics always want to proclaim it dead. They tried to do so 30 years ago - and it came back bigger than ever. They did so circa 1991, and it still survived. The appeal of metal is that it's essentially loud-hard-fast, and because it is so panned by the cultural elite, you are a pariah - hence a badass - if you like the stuff. In a way, in certain areas of this country, country music has an outcast factor too, which may help to bring in new listeners as well. By the elites consistently looking down on it, this is the way that many teenagers can tell the establishment to fuck off. Sure rap, especially gangsta rap, does the same thing, but the establishment is now taking a liking to it - because they want to be down wit da bros. Every other form of music invented in the 20th century has been accepted by the elite, even the most voicifirously anti-establishment of forms, punk rock (which really ceased to exist, de-facto, after the Pistols broke up)

The other misconception I have had is that I thought that society has accepted some forms of metal by now. Well, I'm wrong. 40 years after it's founding, the elites still want to run from all forms of metal - except maybe Bon Jovi, who is an embarassment to any self-respecting metal head (at least Jon Bon Jovi found a clever way to get back at the metalhead community - with a "Have a Nice Day" tour symbolized by a happy face. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to learn a bit about irony and subtlety).

More importantly, what this shows is that cultural elites have no place in a democratic society such as ours. Even in 1976, while Led Zeppelin was so popular that both Ford and Carter were trying to play up Zeppelin affiliations to win votes, as advised by their consultants (Ford's daughter proclaimed them her favorite band, and Jimmy talked about listening to Stairway all night while working in the Georgia Statehouse), they were hated by everyone, even the Rock press. And interestingly, members of this group did not understand how Nixon won the election of 1972 because they knew no one who voted for him (he won with 61% of the vote) - they thought this a stolen election. If they knew no one who voted for Nixon in 1972, they did not understand why McGovern was so feared and reviled, and so not only do they not understand the issues that America favors, but do not understand what makes America tick. As they do not understand the concerns of everyday Americans, they are in no position to design policy that determines the behavior of ordinary Americans.

Cultural tastes and political concerns go hand-in-hand. Ordinary people with common tastes often have similar opinions on the most important issues. And such positions are often deemed "simplistic." For the answers to policies are often simplistic - the costs of implementation are often greatly exceeded by the benefits. Cultural elites often see everything through sophisticated lenses, and they have a too-complex view of the world.

Now, while it may seem trivial that "Stairway" didn't make NPR's most important songs of the century, the lesson is that is a big sign that the people at NPR really miss what is important, and may not understand the process of societal-economic-political evolution. They are missing several of the tools needed to evaluate change - tools that people living ordinary lives, working ordinary jobs, get from an every-day existence. You don't get these tools by working for a major media outlet in Manhatten (while living in a rent-controlled apartment there). Hence, while they might be interesting to listen to, and while they have sophisticated educations, it if for these very reasons that what they say should be taken with many, many grains of salt.

Metal - Still for Pariahs

I don't listen to NPR. That should be obvious by now. Sometimes they have interesting things, but there is enough good stuff on conservative talk radio to keep my attention. Once I found "All Things Considered" interesting, but that was before I discovered Rush.

In any case, being cultural elites, the high gods at NPR decided to put together a list of the most important songs of the 20th century. Having a clue about such things, especially the last third part of the century, I started to look for Stairway. Wasn't there. I went to the preliminary list. It wasn't there, either. Maybe something from Sabbath? Nope, nada. ANY metal act? Nope, absolutely nothing.

But, what was listed included things like a minimalist composition from 1971 (no one listens to minimalism today except for wierdos). Talking Heads made the list. So did some musicals from the 1960's - after people stopped listening to them. An album from Bruce Springstein made the list - from 1975. Nirvana made the list - they do belong there, as well as the Ramones. And Elvis did as well. And I'm sure the stuff from before 1950 is fairly accurate.

Interestingly, Madonna's "Like a Virgin" made the preliminary list - but not the final. Same with "Billy Jean" from Jacko. While these songs are disposable, these two songs are largely the granddaddys of the garbagy pop that's out there today. While not of the highest quality, they are competently written and composed, and being so influential, they belong on the top 100 for these reasons alone.

And of the most interest, there is nothing from the Beatles - as a group, or individually. On either the preliminary list, or the final. This is really puzzling, because they are what turned "Rock and Roll" into "Rock."

In any case, this shows the thinking of our cultural elites - and the problems of keeping culture centrally controlled, as cultural elites like to do. Some of the most brilliant stuff never appears on their radar. But some of the garbage is considered "brilliant." (See my post from 1 1/2 years ago On Art). Take Stairway, inarguably the #1 song of the 20th century. All cultural critics ignore this. Despite the fact that it is so complex, it is not taught until an individual reaches the very top reaches of guitar skills - at least to the point where skills can no longer be taught. This song made #1 charts for over three decades after it was written. I guess this is the problem of not releasing it as a single. But on the other hand, the greatness of this song came by the fact that it was never heavily pushed, but constantly, and consistently, demanded, over three decades, on Rock stations. It is one of those songs you recognize right away as good, and needs no real marketing (in fact, Led Zeppelin worked consciously to not only market Zoso, but to hide it as best as they could).

Or, take Iron Man. Led Zeppelin might be the first metal band, or Black Sabbath could be. Another song that drew inspiration for the next generation of metalheads - who then inspired the next generation, and so on, until you get the variety of genres of today. Iron Man borders that level of music known as "classic". Sure it's not "classical" music, which is chamber music, but a "classic" is something that stands the test of time. And what better way to stand the test of time than to have it become a favorite of football marching bands on brass instruments, 35 years after that album hit the charts? (And for another song that never became a single?) In 100 years, if brass bands are still at football games, will it still be played? Given these songs stay around a long time, I don't see why it would be taken off the playlist.

Or, take Free Bird. While not metal, it certainly was huge, and can easily be turned into a metal song. What is this song about? Not about fornication, like so many pop standards are about. Instead, it gave a new pride to the southern male after the horrors of Jim Crow. It let him be proud of his Confederate roots, but without any racist undertones. It basically allowed southerners to be proud rebels again, stripped of their bigotry. And this entered into political voting patterns, where one could vote as a southerner. This new southern mentality has a huge part of American voting patterns that one needs to understand in order to understand American politics, which NPR apparently does not.

In any case, metal is one of the biggest music phenomon in the last two generations. It has been consistently loud and angry, aimed largely at a working class audience. Most people who become musical critics never come from such backgrounds. Instead, they often come from upper middle class backgrounds, and think that musicians like the Talking Heads are super geniuses. The closest they ever got to metal may have been Aerosmith, or Bon Jovi, or Poison (at least that is how they were all marketed) They think that those smelly rockers in the parking lot with Motorhead blasting out of their muscle cars are basically losers who have nothing to contribute toward society. 20 years later, those smelly rockers often are ignorant contractors, such as carpenters or plumbers, unlike the refined, college-educated music critics, so they still know nothing about musical subtleties. They tend to not even know such things like, well, band like Iron Maiden gave a history lesson with each song (and Bon Jovi, Poison, and Aerosmith gave yet another lesson in fornication with every song). But nonetheless, because they have some kind of art degree, they are experts, and are entitled to be critics. And because they are experts, they also are experts on tax policy, too. Because what do smelly former-metalhead plubers or carpenters making six figures need to wastefully spend all their money on? It needs to go to the less fortunate, and to fund "culture" as well (after all, you need high taxes to pay good salaries to get good music critics, especially since they make about 1/3 of those less-educated workers, right???)

I have had two misconceptions. The first is that metal is dead. Because rock'n'roll is essentially dead. Well, I'm wrong. I don't like much contemporary metal, but that's an issue of taste. But the thing is, metal is constantly evolving and going off into several, several new directions. And more importantly, metal is constantly getting plenty of waves of teenage members. Just like country music, metal is replenishing it's fan base. Critics always want to proclaim it dead. They tried to do so 30 years ago - and it came back bigger than ever. They did so circa 1991, and it still survived. The appeal of metal is that it's essentially loud-hard-fast, and because it is so panned by the cultural elite, you are a pariah - hence a badass - if you like the stuff. In a way, in certain areas of this country, country music has an outcast factor too, which may help to bring in new listeners as well. By the elites consistently looking down on it, this is the way that many teenagers can tell the establishment to fuck off. Sure rap, especially gangsta rap, does the same thing, but the establishment is now taking a liking to it - because they want to be down wit da bros.

The other misconception I have had is that I thought that society has accepted some forms of metal by now. Well, I'm wrong. 40 years after it's founding, the elites still want to run from all forms of metal - except maybe Bon Jovi, who is an embarassment to any self-respecting metal head (at least Jon Bon Jovi found a clever way to get back at the metalhead community - with a "Have a Nice Day" tour symbolized by a happy face. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to learn a bit about irony and subtlety).

More importantly, what this shows is that cultural elites have no place in a democratic society such as ours. Even in 1976, while Led Zeppelin was so popular that both Ford and Carter were trying to play up Zeppelin affiliations to win votes, as advised by their consultants (Ford's daughter proclaimed them her favorite band, and Jimmy talked about listening to Stairway all night while working in the Georgia Statehouse), they were hated by everyone, even the Rock press. And interestingly, members of this group did not understand how Nixon won the election of 1972 because they knew no one who voted for him (he won with 61% of the vote) - they thought this a stolen election. If they knew no one who voted for Nixon in 1972, they did not understand why McGovern was so feared and reviled, and so not only do they not understand the issues that America favors, but do not understand what makes America tick. As they do not understand the concerns of everyday Americans, they are in no position to design policy that determines the behavior of ordinary Americans.

Cultural tastes and political concerns go hand-in-hand. Ordinary people with common tastes often have similar opinions on the most important issues. And such positions are often deemed "simplistic." For the answers to policies are often simplistic - the costs of implementation are often greatly exceeded by the benefits. Cultural elites often see everything through sophisticated lenses, and they have a too-complex view of the world.

Now, while it may seem trivial that "Stairway" didn't make NPR's most important songs of the century, the lesson is that is a big sign that the people at NPR really miss what is important, and may not understand the process of societal-economic-political evolution. They are missing several of the tools needed to evaluate change - tools that people living ordinary lives, working ordinary jobs, get from an every-day existence. You don't get these tools by working for a major media outlet in Manhatten (while living in a rent-controlled apartment there). Hence, while they might be interesting to listen to, and while they have sophisticated educations, it if for these very reasons that what they say should be taken with many, many grains of salt.

Ironic? Well, at least it's funny

Global warming produces snow!

http://www.nashuatelegraph.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070317/NEWS02/203170340/-1/sports

In any case, what do clergy know about climatic science? When conservative clergy involve themselves in an issue, they argue from a scriptural perspective. They don't pretend to be scientists. These people do - in what appears to be contradictory evidence.

In any case, what exactly will the hike of several hundred loonies add to a debate?

My view about income taxes

I don't like them. That should be fairly obvious by now.

In any case, I'll be short this time.

Here is background. The Democrats in Olympia want to impost an income tax in Washington State. To do so, one needs a constitutional amendment - such a tax was ruled unconstitutional way back in 1935. Stare Decisis says we cannot have one - unless we make changes. Which requires a 2/3 vote.

This was the genius of our founding fathers - they designed a system to kill legislation. Bad legislation. In their mind, legislatures were to make small changes over time - basically, tinker with institutions that need tinkering. Not to lead revolutions. Which is why we have supermajorities to change legislative rules, several layers of government to approve something, courts to overturn things.

This was tattered a bit in the 1910's, and the 1930's, but largely, the structure is still in place.

Despite the fact that Democrats love taxes, they are afraid to impose an income tax in Washington State. Because Republicans might start running the place again. A temperate observer of Olympia, John Postman, writes about this stuff on his blog (actually, he is a reporter with the Seattle Times, so he gets paid to write about this stuff). He mentioned that Democrats are only slowly coming out of the shadows.

Well, a bunch of Seattle types really want an income tax. Because they want more taxes. If they could, they would tax 134% of your income - and demand more. Their is no such thing as a logical roof on levels of taxation - basically, supply-side economics is complete and utter bunk (even though Keynesian economics does agree with supply-side economic theory when marginal tax rates go into the stratosphere).

I responded - here is what I wrote:

There are of course four problems with the state income tax:
1) Washington is already a highly taxed state. We're in the top ten. This will push us even higher.2) And is the value of our services in proportion to our level of taxes? Ha!3) As mentioned above, the sales tax will incrementally increase, to match the nearly 9% it is today.4) There is always this concern about regression. My saying is "regression, schmregression." Government services under a sales tax are applied equally. Sure, if you're rich, you might get a nicer street and the police have better response times, but you are already paying more than someone else into the system. Even under a regressive system.There has been this absurd idea about equality of conditions floating around for 200 years. And this idiotic idea has been the source of the biggest miseries over the last 200 years. Sure the rich pay less as a percentage of income, but they pay much more in sales tax as well. And unlike an income tax, it is very difficult to cheat and find exceptions in the sales tax system (you can't dodge a sales tax when you are buying a $60,000 car, for example - even if you buy in Oregon).The thing is, we all get benefit from government services. Hence, we should all pay for government services. And yes, the rich will pay more for said services. But it allows for everyone to contribute. In reality, the true regressive nature of taxation comes in that those who pay the least get the higher proportion of benefits compared to what they contribute toward the system.

This is a pretty keen observation, if you ask me!

One last note: The funny thing is, that, a generation ago, "moderate" Republicans were pushing for income taxes in their respective states! This is probably why an actual "moderate" Republican deserves to be listed on the endangered species list.

Dump Ann? I don't think so

Well well well...

A bunch of "conservative" and "progressive" bloggers have gotten together and demanded that CPAC dump Ann. And these so-called "conservatives" will boycott CPAC if she shows up.

First thing's first.

I don't get all excited about the conservative subculture. Although I am one, I think there are too many intellectually shallow individuals in it. Which explains why Sean Vanity has much higher ratings than Michael Medved (an equilivent for leftists would be Air America listeners vs NPR listeners) - they are on at the same time. And I certainly don't get all excited about CPAC. I couldn't care less what they do - except maybe elect conservatives. But that's besides my point. These doofuses have gotten to excited about being "conservative" and have now forgotten why American conservatism got started in the first place (to reduce government to it's proper role, to defeat America's enemies, and to maintain a nation that honors God).

So, I don't give a ratt's ass at to who speaks there or not.

However, I often respond negatively to boycotts (see the title of my blog). Especially by those who are intellectually-confused dolts, like these bloggers are. Hence, I would like to get in my car and drive to hear Ann speak at CPAC - although I never read her columns (I'm busy right now reading a book called "Rise and Fall of the British Empire"). But I do not live on the east coast - no where near it, in fact, given I am from the left coast. So, despite the fact I would like to go there, I am not going to drive there overnight.

Yes, she used the word "faggot." Kinda like using the word "nigga". But not like when Dick Turbin says something, or Jim McDimwitt, or any one of those Hollywood idiots. Or many, many others on the left. And, she apologized - she said that she didn't mean to compare homosexuals with John Edwards - that would be mean (to the homosexuals). Of course, now I have to fear from a libel suit from John Edwards, since he likes to sue, sue, sue (which is what he would like to name his daughter!)

Remember, too, that one of the top sex columnists in America is addressed "Hey faggot!" So it's not such a derogatory term. I met him once, by the way - but at a Republican convention, of all places. Just like I ran into Krist Novoselic at - of all places - a Grange convention. Yes, my life is pretty boring!

And note that there is no equivicoval denunciation of the Ann Coulter of the left, Jabba the Hut.

Ann is merely the strongest acid-pen commentator since Mencken (no, Walter Lippman was not the hot shit of all columnists - he was a buttmunch who was best friend with "da man" of the 1920's, Lamont, Ned Lament's great grandpappy). People do not tolerate this - mainly because Ann comes from the right (Mencken was more toward the left). Possibly she even beats the pants off of Mencken - she certainly writes that brilliantly. And most Americans couldn't care less what Ann states - they are too busy raising their children, or playing Nintendo, or paying inordinate amounts of attention to NBA All-Star games in Vegas, or focusing on Brittany morphing herself into Jacko's wife.

Speaking of taking their pants off, I think some of these so-called "conservatives" do want to do that and go to bed with some leftists. I don't see any other motivations to do so. I can't figure out any other reason why - except that, well, they all want her (some leftists want her, too, in that way - look deeply in this blog - cajunjew.blogspot.com - and you'll see what I'm talking about). However, what they see in someone who looks like an aging bimbo, is beyond me (I said she looks like an aging bimbo - I didn't say she was one - duh). In any case, as my mommy told me when I was five "don't pick that up! - you have no idea where it's been!"

Oh yea - I have all her books. She is one of the few ideologues whose books I purchase (besides Michael Savage). Junk food is sometimes tasty, and it's good sometimes to have intellectual junk food. I don't normally buy books from people like, say, Jabba the Hut, or Sean Vanity. It's not like they have anything to say.

In sum, these turncoats need to realize they are all turncoats and apologize to Ann immediately. And maybe penance like this - As one guy said "She is so fine, I would crawl, butt-naked, on my hands and knees, five miles, over broken glass and rusty nails just to lick the dick of the last guy who fucked her." Ok, I certainly would never do that, but maybe this is what all these traitors need to do, otherwise they will make such ideological conversions that they will find themselves leading anti-war protests and demanding the United States self-destruct.