Archive for September, 2007

Rant

I was looking through some old files today and found this.  I’m not sure what I did with it when I originally wrote it.  I may have sent it somewhere – a newspaper, perhaps.  Or I might just have let it sit there, encoded as 1’s and 0’s on my hard drive.  I thought I’d like to see if anyone has anything to say (that is, if anyone is reading!).

Here it is:

Ours is a secular country. Yes, the Founders each had their own view of religion and included references to “God” in our founding literature. This by no means establishes our country as “Christian” or any other religious affiliation.  Our country was founded to be a haven for the people who were persecuted for their beliefs in other places.  It is not our responsibility to maintain a “Christian” government (nor “Jewish”, nor “Islamic” or “Hindu”).  It is, however, our responsibility to ensure that people can worship as they please.

Let’s look at this in the context of gay marriage.  First, even Christians can’t agree about whether this practice should be allowed.  Some say that only heterosexual marriage is sanctioned by the church.  Many others, including myself, have attended homosexual ceremonies.  In my case, the ceremony was presided over by a gay woman pastor.  If a religion is so divided internally about an issue, who is to choose the “correct” path for all?  Remember, our country is secular and has a responsibility to allow every person to worship as s/he sees fit.  By outlawing gay marriage, wouldn’t we be outlawing the branch of Christianity that allows for this, thereby not allowing people to worship as they see fit?

Additionally, our country is highly equipped right now to allow for atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, and a whole slew of others in a wide array of belief and non-belief.  By taking one flavor of Christianity (the one that looks at homosexuals as unnatural and wrong in God’s eyes) and making it into law, anyone who ascribes to another belief will become disenfranchised.  Soon Washington D. C. will look a lot more like Tehran than it cares to admit.

The point lies here: Our legal system is based on morals that all can agree on, religious affiliation aside.  It is secular.  Each church, pastor, and priest has the ability to consent to marry a couple or not, depending on how they see that the couple fits into the belief structure of the organization.  Each church should maintain that right – not everyone needs or wants to get married in a church.

However, there is a whole section of our society over which there is some debate whether their homosexuality is something they are born with or something they choose to embrace who are constantly (and legally) prevented from holding the same rights as the rest of society. First let me ask you to consider this: Who in their right mind would engage in a lifestyle that ensured their social and legal illegitimacy by choice?  Even after considering this question many still believe that homosexuals choose their lifestyle, for what reason I can’t imagine.  Even so, aren’t we the “land of the free”?  Apparently here all are free except for homosexuals.  They need to be allowed (and guaranteed) the same legal rights as heterosexuals.  They need to be able to see each other when one of them is dieing in a hospital bed.  They need to be recognized, legally, for the important social unit they are.

If a priest, pastor, or other religious clergy wants to refuse to marry a homosexual couple, then that’s perfectly fine.  They can even refuse to marry a heterosexual couple because they live together or in other ways show signs of impropriety.  That is perfectly acceptable.  However, if our legal system refuses to marry people, homosexual or otherwise, based on a religious belief, we are all in trouble and the implications for a religious state in the United States of America are enormous.

If you want to live in a religious society, move to a religious state, join a convent, monastery, or other religious order or group that fulfills this need.  But leave secular society alone, we’re doing fine without the infusion of your religion and we need to keep America the melting pot it is for many reasons.  Without a secular government that respects all kinds of belief and non-belief in a deity, or country will quickly become homogenous as those who don’t fit leave and the only new people that come are those who ascribe to the approved belief system.  I guess it’s worked okay for Iran, but I don’t know how the US can handle it.

Let’s keep our country respectful of the documents on which it was founded.  Let’s make this an accepting place for all, no matter what religion or sexual preference they have.  We owe it to our future and our own stability as a nation.

I once had a woman ask me how a religious book could be nonfiction if its contents were not in the Bible, to which I replied “Ma’am there are some people who would say that the Bible is fiction.”  And her absolute shock was shocking.  Surely we all understand that our religion is not the only one, just as we understand that our skin color is not the only one.  Please, America, open your closed minds and stop forcing your beliefs on all those who surround you.  Please allow others to be as they are and as they need to be for themselves.

Cadillac’s attempt at cool

I was watching tv today and saw an ad with one of my favorite songs from the ’90’s in it.  Cadillac has apparently just discovered a band that broke up years ago . . . HUM.  They were one of my favorite bands for quite a while, with two albums, “Downward is Heavenward” and “You’d Prefer an Astronaut”.  I wonder where they were in 1995, when Hum was popular.  I was at the Rave, seeing Bush, the Toadies, and Hum.  If you’ve ever been there, you know the Eagles Ballroom is loud and muddy-sounding.  This was no exception.  But I was 17 and having a great time. 

Anyway, I would say Hum sold out, but I can’t imagine they had any say in who might be able to use their music.  Since they’re not together anymore, I bet the record company doesn’t even have to ask for their permission to sell the song.  Anyone know anything about this?

To see the commercials, go here: http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/footer/downloads.jsp and click on the ads titled “Turn You On” and “Hammer”.

Boo to VH1

Not that VH1 was ever super cool or anything, but they really screwed up this time, I think.  They had a countdown on VH1 Classic titled “Women Who Rock”.  Needless to say, I expected the word “rock” to mean something here.  It seems it only meant what you mean when you tall a friend who just did something really cool “you rock!”.  Because it opened up with Cher.  It proceeded to cover Mariah Carey, the Go-Go’s, Madonna, Janet Jackson, and all other varieties of pop stars.

The only actual rock women featured were Heart and Joan Jett.  Come on, people.  When you say rock in a music environment, why don’t you mean it?  There are plenty of awesome women who rock, but only pop stars were featured on the show. 

Here’s the playlist from the show:

20. Cher – If I Can Turn Back Time
19. The Bangles – Manic Monday
18. Cyndi Lauper – Girls Just Wanna Have Fun
17. Mariah Carey – Emotions
16. Eurythmics – Sweet Dreams Are Made Of This
15. Donna Summer – She Works Hard For The Money
14. Carly Simon – You’re So Vain
13. The Go-Gos – Our Lips Are Sealed
12. Blondie – Heart Of Glass
11. Stevie Nicks – Talk To Me
10. Janet Jackson – What Have You Done For Me Lately?
9. The Pretenders – Brass In Pocket
8. Joan Jett & The Blackhearts – I Love Rock And Roll
7. Diana Ross – Missing You
6. Pat Benatar – Love Is A Battlefield
5. Tina Turner – What’s Love Got To Do With It?
4. Heart – Barracuda
3. Aretha Franklin – Freeway Of Love
2. Whitney Houston – How Will I Know? / I Will Always Love You
1. Madonna – Like A Virgin/ Like A Prayer

Where are all the women who actually rock?  Anyone?  VH1?  The title should have been “Women in Music” or something stupid like that. 

Speaking of . . . where are the new women in rock?  You can’t tell me Paramore and Flyleaf is all there is. 

Music

Just bought the new A New Found Glory CD yesterday.  They have come a long way since they started.  They certainly don’t sound like they’re 12 anymore.  They don’t exactly sound grown up, yet, either.  That’s cool.  The new CD is fun.  From the Screen to Your Stereo part II contains some very fun covers. 

Ah, but I’m getting so bored, again, with all the pop-rock-we-want-to-call-it-punk-but-it’s-nowhere-near-the-realm-of-punk crap that’s getting made.  Yeah, I wish the kind of music I really enjoy was being made, still, but it’s not.  All that ’90’s stuff is way gone.  Any remnants of it are purely coincidental at this point.  Since Chris Carraba personally decided to co-opt the “emo” label for himself, things have all gone sour.  And I don’t even want to start about the term “emo” and how it never made any sense from the beginning.  (Emotional?  Isn’t all music supposed to evoke emotion and be about emotions?  So ALL music is “emo”?)

 Anyway.  Raw.  I want raw sounds.  And loud.  Dissonance (that eventually resolves . . .) .  Substance . . . not emotional, lovesick, wishes for forgiveness and sad remembrances (unless they have some other kind of actual relevance).  Something new.  With actual talent.  Any no whiny-boys with 16 year old vocal chords.  Raw vocals.  Deep vocals.  Unless you happen to be a lady.  Then be more like Hole and Veruca Salt than the sweet, syrupy sounds like Eisley and Tegan & Sara.  YUCK!  (Congrats, by the way, that you learned to harmonize in school.  Now apply it in a more useful way, please.) 

Anyone out there with suggestions?  Please? 

And, no I am not a fan of Otep - that’s a little freaky for me.

That privilege called driving

If you are anywhere around Milwaukee, you know it rained all day yesterday.  And it was beautiful weather, by the way.  But I can never understand why just a day of rain can cause so many traffic accidents.  You would think that the only people who drove were 16 year olds who had just got their licenses.  But, no.  We’ve got ‘em all. 

 There’s the person who’s so afraid of everything on the road (the weather, the other drivers, his bald tires, etc.) that he drives in an overly cautious manner.  This means that he’s trying so hard not to get into an accident that he slams on his brakes too hard and causes others around him (who have no way of predicting his movements) to slam on their brakes too hard as well.  Inevitably, one of these people is going to have a mechanical failure, a failure in judgement, or just plain not enough room to stop because the the guy in front is overreacting to the driving conditions.

Then there’s the person who says to himself, “It’s just a little rain.  It’s not like it’s snow!”  This guy forgets that every time it rains like this he ends up skidding all over the road because he fails to take into account the slick pavement.  He drives just like it was sunny out, not giving extra time (or room) for stopping and not being any more considerate of other drivers than usual.  This guy is the one who loses control of the car and flies into something.  Let’s just hope it’s not us!

 There ware far too many accidents on the freeway system here yesterday.  People don’t need to get hurt like this.  I guess we’re at least keeping the mechanics in business!

 And while we’re talking about driving, here are a few of my pet peeves.

  1. When you are driving perfectly fast in the left lane, passing others to your right, and the car behind you just won’t get off your bumper because you aren’t traveling 20mph over the speed limit.
  2. When the car behind you keeps stopping within only inches from your bumper.
  3. When the person in front of you is following very closely (and happens to drive a big SUV that you can’t see around or through) and slams on her brakes at the last minute, leaving you to perform a feat Houdini wouldn’t dare by trying to stop in time.
  4. People who read in the car while driving.  Or apply makeup.  Or text message.  Or otherwise divert their attention from the road.  (Drive or pull over!)
  5. TV screens that I can watch from outside their vehicle (and inside mine).  Now that’s distracting.  See my post on Movies While You Drive here.
  6. The woman who drives 25 MPH in a 35 MPH zone and won’t let me pass. 

Got any peeves?  Let me know!