Observe, the most terrifying thing I've seen recently. From an article at salon.com.

When Gustave Gilbert, a psychologist who interviewed the Nuremberg prisoners, talked to Hermann Goering, the former leader of the Third Reich's Luftwaffe, Goering volunteered that it was relatively easy to persuade a populace to go to war. As quoted in Gilbert's book "Nuremberg Diary," Goering said: "It is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship."

Gilbert disagreed with Goering's analysis. "There is one difference," he answered. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars." But Goering held his ground: "Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

  posted by Matthew @ 3:01 PM

 
Will people tell me if this 'shout out' thing is working effectively?

  posted by Matthew @ 3:07 AM

 
A desultory philippic.

Alien Ant Farm, while they upped the tempo and roughened the edges of Michael Jackson's hit Smooth Criminal, were contributing nothing to the progress of music (popular or otherwise) with their cover. But at least they upped the tempo and roughened the edges. I'm listening to the radio more than I used to these days, and I find myself on NPR far more often than not, because everything that's playing is utter shit. There's a cover by the Ataris of Don Henley's song The Boys of Summer that is practically indistinguishable from the original. And just today I heard a cover of the Sixpence None the Richer song There She Goes by the Las that I would have thought was the original, if not for the fact that I knew hadn't I hadn't gone eight fucking years back in time. Since when was it a legitimate move to be a relatively unknown band (the Ataris and the Las are not frequent nor longtime visitors to the Billboard charts, and neither was Alien Ant Farm, for that matter) and get significant or even any airplay on the radio by just picking up a pop song fake book and making a xerox cover of someone else's successful song? How is that fair when there are thousands of artists trying to get their break with their own, new material that is significantly better? I have nothing against covers, so long as the new artist adds something to the song. Jeffrey Gaines interpretation of the Peter Gabriel hit In Your Eyes was interesting in its own right, so I don't resent the popularity it gained him. How is it possible that fucking kareoke gets you played on the radio? That's utter horseshit.

Is it a surprise to anyone that I not only despise the American Idol program, but also am embarrassed to live in a country that could make it into such a phenomenon? I can only hope that the dismal, awe-inspiring, Hindenburg-level disaster of the movie From Justin to Kelly (which almost certainly won't even make back half of its miniscule $15 million budget) will help the healing process of our country's collective idea of what constitutes entertainment, and what - on the other hand - constitutes crap.

I love how strong my opinions are when I'm not arguing with anyone directly. Well, perhaps that's worded poorly. I find it humorous (in a sick way) how ineffectively I can defend my position against nearly any kind of direct intellectual confrontation, particularly against people whom I hold in positions of particular respect and/or friendship. For example, my uncle over last weekend who asked me how I could rationalize the "stealing" that was constituted by my collection mp3s.

At the time, I waffled. I admitted the error of my ways (but made no claim to one day mend them) and quickly shifted the topic. In retrospect, I would have said something like this.

Characterizing the act of downloading mp3s as "theft" is a gross misrepresentation and dramatic oversimplification of a complicated, intricate issue. This is exactly what the RIAA has decided to do, and if one were to listen solely to their propaganda - as I am confident that most of the country has done - one would think that this is the extent of things. However, there are a number of arguments to be made that have yet to see the light of day in any significant public forum that show that the issue is hardly as simple as the RIAA would have us believe.

The best place to start is this pair of articles written by a musician who has had two top ten hits in the past, though she is now forgotten for the most part, Janis Ian. She has some excellent points to make.

First of all, a few of the numerous reasons I hate the RIAA. I'm willing to put a good deal of money on the fact that they are as adept (if not more so) at the dissolution of deceptive information as the current presidential administration. And coming from me, that's saying something. If they can oversimplify a situation as complex as this into "stealing" then I can call their modification or particular selection of facts "lies." Firstly, they say they're defending the artists, the musicians. Nobody would support them if they claimed to be supporting their own greedy, beurocratic, decades-old system. All available evidence, beyond their claims, goes against this. A few years ago, they had one of the senators that the RIAA has in its pocket add as a rider to another bill a copyright law alteration that would have effectively made music that is written while an artist is under contract with a record company remain property of that company for 95 years, essentially preventing any artist from ever owning their music. And they claim to be protecting these guys? Fuck you. This bill was passed by technical terminology and a claim by the senator who submitted it that it was a very minor change to a complicated copyright law that didn't need to be explained, so it passed without incident. It has since been repealed, but come on, what the fuck?

Secondly, in their seemingly valiant claim to be protecting artists, they're actually bringing about the exact opposite effect. Very few artists make any money from record sales, when they're contracted to a record company (these are the only people the RIAA is concerned about, obviously) but they do make money from publicity. And since the FAA has recently allowed even more deregulation, it won't be long before there are only two radio stations (both owned by Clear Channel), one that plays pop-bubblegum-fluff-twelve-year-old-girl-bullshit and another that plays pseudo-rebellion-conformist-punk-ska-bullshit. Nobody's going to be able to get any radio play or any publicity, they won't get anyone going to their concerts or buying their albums, and they'll quiet. Not to mention the fact that the RIAA is so fucking terrified of offending anyone or taking a risk using their precious, precious money with a new kind of music that everyone they promote or contract sounds exactly like somebody else who was successful before. The RIAA and the radio are what's killing the music industry, not the internet. The kind of exposure an artist can get on the internet is exponentially superior to what anyone could have gotten on the radio, even in its most experimental days.

I want the RIAA to prove to me that music "piracy" (another of their terms - fuck you and your Orwellian tactics, by the way) is hurting sales in any significant manner at all. I don't even want it to be proven that its "destroying" the music industry, as is often claimed. Just that its really hurting sales. Of course, as we all know, just because B happens after A does mean A caused B. Oh wait, maybe no one at the RIAA took Logic 101, or has half a brain. It is true that record sales have gone down recently. What you don't hear is that they went down at about the same level as the rest of the god-damned economy. And did it ever to occur to anyone that the reason the RIAA isn't selling any records is because they're putting out crap music? The public can only listen to "I love you" by the good-looking celebrity singer of the week so many times before they all collectively vomit. (that's what ad nauseum means) As soon as you can prove damages, then show me. The numbers are very rarely mentioned in the articles you read, and the reason is that the numbers don't support the RIAA's insane claims! You know that if record sales had really been cut in half, then they'd be waving that in our fucking faces on the cover of every goddam paper in the country, screaming, "See? See?" But they haven't, have they?

I'd be less upset by this if the RIAA weren't all slimy demons with black, black holes where their hearts should be, or if they didn't have the political clout to push their lunatic agendas that make no sense. As soon as they tell the truth about anything I'll eat my hat. In one interview with the president of the RIAA, he says he is definitely not in favor of causing any damage to the computers of illegal music downloaders. In press releases and in a statement by another senator the exact opposite seems to be the case. He says he's in favor of CD-ROM content on music CDs that would make buying the CD worthwhile even if you could download the music online, but I've bought probably two CDs in the past five years that have that capability. And I still buy CDs at the same rate I did before I was downloading music, actually. I can say that my downloading actions haven't hurt the music industry at all.

And now the RIAA is starting to sue Peer-to-peer file sharers. That's a superb tactic to bring them back to you, right boys? Let's be as antagonistic and bitchy as we can possibly be, rather than adapting to this new technology. Remember how well that worked for Metallica, back in the Napster days? We've heard a lot about them lately. Did you know that there was talk some time ago about reverting to LPs as the main way to distribute new music, so that digital sharing would be made more difficult? If there's a clearer indication that these bastards are afraid of change, I can't even imagine it. If they come after me (which they won't, because I'm a coward and I disabled my file sharing on Kazaa) but I'd have to tell them, "Prove your damages, fuckers."

That's another thing, the RIAA has managed to work out legislation in the past that sets it up so that it puts the burden of proof on the users who get sued, not the RIAA, who has the money and manpower to almost literally crush anyone who opposes it. Even if I were to say "Prove your damages, fuckers" they could say, "Well, that's not how the law goes. You have to prove that you didn't cost us millions of potential dollars." If I may say so again - because there really is no number of times it can be said when discussing this issue that would be sufficient - fuck.

However, despite the awe-inspiring power and the terrifying evil that the RIAA wields, I have faith that the right side will win out, in the end. Cooler heads will prevail, and with any luck, hotter ones on the RIAA board will be lopped off, or explode in some fantastic manner similar to the end of the first Indiana Jones movie. Eventually, they will realize that this isn't going to just go away, and they need to adjust their business plan, like they should have done five years ago. Its evolution, you bastards.

Wow, I really got going there. These things just need to be said. I figure if I shout at the internet long enough, something just might happen.

And while I'm at it, what's the deal with grape nuts? No grapes, no nuts!

  posted by Matthew @ 7:42 PM

 
I am eating a delicious double-decker ham sandwich. Mmmmm...

  posted by Matthew @ 2:29 PM

 
I have returned from the northern wastes, relatively none the worse for the wear. I have nothing of tremendous import to impart today (heh, I crack me up) but I do have a potpourri of information that may be of interest to some.

First of all, I am changing the name of the blog. It's not that the novelty of the previous title had worn off, but it was slightly inappropriate (thorn though I may be, I am making no concentrated effort to find a side currently) And besides, the new title is esoteric and intellectual enough to make me physically aroused. Should it trouble me that I get off on scholarly arrogance?

By the way, I'm kidding. (at least, for all you know...)

*cough*

Moving on.

Bonus points to whomever can name the source(s) of the new name!

I understand that it is possible to add the capability for readers to post comments onto people's blogs. I know Adam has recently done this. If anyone would like to and is able to supply me with this information, then I will happily put it into effect. Unfortunately, I am too lazy to find this information on my own. What a shame, no?

I had a very strange dream last night. While I am aware that few things are more boring than hearing someone else's dreams retold in all their limited or sometimes even nonexistent detail, that knowledge will not deter me from submitting you to precisely that fate. Its a risk you take by reading my lunatic ravings, so you get no pity from me.

I was in a school. A college, more precisely, but not a specific one. I know it was an excellent school, something ivy-league or similar caliber. I was walking the halls and had several encounters that I only remember vaguely, but most of them involved my fellow high school students. A particular group of them, in fact: the ones who I shared my honors classes with, the other National Merit Scholars. I distinctly recall a particular exhange between myself and the Lee twins (Chris and Jamie) along with Greg Laughlin. They were a part, or perhaps the entirety of some club, which I was interesting in joining. They expressed their doubts as to my ability to perform at an acceptable level in whatever activity their club was dedicated to. I, on the other hand, felt confident that I would be more than able to keep up with them. The rest of the dream is cloudy, but I remember that part rather well.

As for interpretation, I think there are a number of things to take from this. While I will publicly relay the particulars of my somnombulent imaginations, the personal details of what cerebral processes lie behind this curtain are not so freely distributed. As my blog's description clearly states, these are only the "selected ravings" so you can't expect full disclosure. To anyone whom I have dissapointed, I most certainly apologize.

One last thought, before I retire to read Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire until I fall asleep. I would like someone to convince me that I should not resent the Catholic Church as an historical force. It seems to me that the church was the primary cause of what amounted to a temporary cessation of any significant cultural, philosophical, scientific, or artistic progress for an entire millenium. From the fall of the Roman Empire until the Renaissance, the Western World was waiting for the second coming, from my perspective. That's at least a sixth of the entirety of human history, spent nearly entirely in stasis. How can I not resent that much wasted time?

I am not saying that I resent Christians, nor the modern Christian church. But, as a historical force, the church had an incomprehensibly hindering effect on the progress of human society. The Renaissance was a "rebirth" of Greco-Roman culture, which could just as easily have been called "picking up where we left off" after a thousand year-long break. My mind boggles at that thought.

I mean this seriously. Convince me why I'm wrong in my evaluation. I would feel much more at ease if there were some other explanation for this, other than the one I see. I don't want to resent the church for its historical role, but I'm finding it exceedingly difficult not to. Please, tell me why I'm wrong here.

  posted by Matthew @ 3:49 AM