Living in Perfect Harmony (Gorillaz - Plastic Beach)

This week has been one filled with a whole lot of excitement for a sizable portion of the music world as Gorillaz' much anticipated third studio album Plastic Beach was released (listen to the tracks on Plastic Beach's Last.fm page, sans Stylo). It has been almost five years since Gorillaz' last album Demon Days, a critically-acclaimed and widely loved album that really opened one 18-year old's eyes to just how varied, spacious and inclusive alternative music can be.

At the time when Demon Days released I was just graduating high school and had been keeping hip-hop/rap and classic rock on heavy rotation on my iPod. It was a time when I considered No Doubt to be alternative just because I didn't know how to place them in the niche genre (in my head) of rock. Oh, high school...when you think you have all the answers, meanwhile you don't even know the questions. Needless to say, I eventually got a copy of Demon Days into my library and was instantly blown away. The difference between tracks, the amazing depth and breadth of instruments used, all flowing together seamlessly throughout the album to create an incredibly impressive sonic experience. After seeing the video for Feel Good, Inc. I was hooked. I wanted to learn all about the four band members that each character represented, surely they must be an interesting group of people to create such music and videos, right? ...please forgive my youthful naiveté. After doing a few seconds worth of research I came to find that Gorillaz was no group of people. Damon Albarn of the British band Blur is the mastermind behind the music while Jamie Hewlett, the co-creator of the comic Tank Girl, is responsible for the artistic vision represented in images and videos. How these two individuals could create such an innovative virtual band blew my mind. For a young kid finding out just who the Gorillaz actually were was really an inspiring discovery.

It has been 5 years since I discovered the group that would help change and improve my music persuasions forever. I have graduated college (now thinking I know all the questions but have none of the answers) and am lucky enough to have a steady job. Recently, music has taken a more prevalent role in my life as I don't have much of one anymore. I wake up, go to work, come home, eat, read/play games, go to sleep....lather, rinse, repeat. Music, more than ever before, has become a way for me to relate to people and understand where others are coming from. I could travel down to the backwoods of Kentucky and run into a rowdy group of Neo-Nazi skinheads and I'm confident I could relate to them in some significant manner simply through music. Music to me is literally the soundtrack of our lives as it influences society and visa-versa. With any significant lifetime memory you have, you can just about remember a song that was popular or special to you at the time. Music shows where we've been and how far we've come; Plastic Beach, to me, is the perfect representation of where we are. I've listened to the whole album over 10 times now, easy to do when you have a day that requires six hours of driving up and down I-95. Here are my impressions:

Right from the get-go we can see the medley of sounds and genres used in the album. It starts off with “Orchestral Intro,” a simple, yet absorbing movement, transitioning into “Welcome to the World of the Plastic Beach,” a relaxed hip-hop beat with Snoop Dogg laying chill lyrics over the warm tunes of Hypnotic Brass Ensemble; a fitting introduction to Plastic Beach. The next track, “White Flag,” I can't even describe. It draws from hip-hop, instrumental, oriental, and bass synth sounds. The track features The Lebanese National Orchestra for Oriental Arabic Music...if this doesn't give you a sense of just how inclusive this album is then nothing will.

From here the album moves into three consecutive tracks that I think will end up being the most popular. “Rhinestone Eyes” is a groovy techno tune with tweaked vocals and a catchy chorus, so far being the most played song on the album according to Last.fm. Next up is the first single from the album, “Stylo.” This song also utilizes some sweet techno and synth rhythms and features Bobby Womack and Mos Def. The video for the song is absolutely fantastic and must be seen as Murdoc, 2D and Noodle are rendered in full 3D. They are racing down a desert highway as bad ass bounty hunter Bruce Willis chases them...what more could you want? The final track in this portion is “Superfast Jellyfish” which is the first real pop song so far. It features Gruff Rhys and De La Soul (who were featured on Gorillaz' most popular song Feel Good Inc.) who provide a smooth rap flavor to go with a happy and upbeat tune.

The next handful of tracks all feature a heavy dose of techno and synth, but each evokes a starkly different emotion and feel. Gorillaz really show off just how diverse they can be in production when utilizing the same tools. Once the twelfth track “Sweepstakes” rolls around it's as if someone hit the reset button. “Sweepstakes” itself is two songs in one. Mos Def has a really nice flow throughout the whole thing, but musically the track starts out with purely techno impressions. Halfway through, Hypnotic Brass Ensemble make their second cameo on the album and replace the techno with a happy-go-funky rendition of the melody. To me this is the most underrated track on the album as it has so few plays on Last.fm and I haven't seen any review mention it specifically. By the time it's over you're left in a happier mood than when it began. If that's not the sign of a good song then I don't know what is.

The next song is the title track, being “Plastic Beach.” More techno and synth here, but it's used in a way that evokes a unique orchestral feel. The last three tracks “To Binge,” “Cloud of Unknowing,” and “Pirate Jet.” All do a very good job of bringing a very solid and impressive collection of music to an end. Even so, I feel as though “Plastic Beach” would be a perfectly fine ending to the album without the last three tracks, although they do hold their own and do not detract from what is a great musical experience.

The reason I say that Plastic Beach represents where music is today is because of what it is. It's an album that is all over the place, yet works exceptionally well as a whole; organized chaos as I like to call it. There's orchestral movements, hip-hop tracks that sound like they were plucked straight from a Mos Def album, and several techno pieces. Featured artists are popular hip-hop stars like Snoop Dogg, Mos Def and De La Soul, a techno group just beginning to really grab the limelight in Little Dragon, Hypnotic Brass Ensemble who were not so long ago playing shows in the NYC Subway (a few videos on YouTube), and The Lebanese National Orchestra for Oriental Arabic Music whose name is a better descriptor of who they are than anything I could come up with. All of these people were brought together by Damon Albarn, a guy from Essex, England who happens to be a truly great composer and producer with a considerable eye for talent.

Sure, most people will say Demon Days is better and just as diverse and spectacular if not more so; I completely agree. Plastic Beach, however, is really an international effort, and this is what I mean when I say that it represents where music is today. The fact that a producer from England, Rappers from the United States, an electronic group from Sweden, a brass ensemble from the NYC subway, and The Lebanese National Orchestra for Oriental Arabic Music can come together to create such a fantastic work of art that completely flows and works together is inspiring. You couldn't say this about too many albums just a few years ago, but nowadays music is becoming more entwined and connected. People from all over the world are coming together to create beautiful harmony; the power of music is truly amazing and it shines through in Plastic Beach.
----------------
Listening to: Gorillaz - Sweepstakes (Feat. Mos Def and Hypnotic Brass Ensemble)
via FoxyTunes

Pepsi Presents: New Zanzibar...courtesy of the Supreme Court

The number of people who have any idea what the title of this article refers to is undoubtedly less than the total membership of Team Leno (I'm with COCO). It is a quote from an episode of The Simpsons where the family travels to Africa. While arriving on the plane, the flight attendant announces to the passengers:

“Please prepare for our landing in Tanzania.”

(someone hands her a note)

“Excuse me. It is now called New Zanzibar.”

(someone hands her another note)

”I'm sorry. It is now called Pepsi Presents New Zanzibar.”

It is a light jab at the general acknowledgment that corporations are taking over anything they can get their hands on, and would even conspicuously rule an entire country if they could. Back when the episode aired on April 1^st, 2001, the gag didn't click (with me at least) as any kind of foreshadowing moment. Unfortunately, on January 21^st, 2010, the once fictional situation became a very real possibility.

In 1907 Congress passed the Tillman Act, prohibiting corporations from contributing money directly to political campaigns. In the 1990 case Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, the Supreme Court ruled that prohibiting “corporations from using treasury money to support or oppose candidates in elections did not violate the First and Fourteenth Amendments.” They based their decision on the notion that “corporate wealth can unfairly influence elections.” In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, also known as the McCain-Feingold Act in honor of it's sponsors.

The act addressed two key issues:

• The increased role of soft money in campaign financing, by prohibiting national political party committees from raising or spending any funds not subject to federal limits, even for state and local races or issue discussion

• The proliferation of issue advocacy ads, by defining as "electioneering communications" broadcast ads that name a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary or caucus or 60 days of a general election, and prohibiting any such ad paid for by a corporation (including non-profit issue organizations such as Right to Life or the Environmental Defense Fund) or paid for by an unincorporated entity using any corporate or union funds.

In 2003 the Court upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold in the case McConnell v. Federal Election Commission.

In 2010, in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to remove all limits on corporate and union campaign financing, citing that it was unconstitutional and in direct violation of free speech (you can read the entire decision here). This decision overturned years upon years of legislation and Court precedence. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “Government may not suppress political speech on the basis of the speaker's corporate identity...No sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations.” With this ruling, corporations and unions are free to inject unlimited money into the political system. As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his descent, “The Court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation...[it's] a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding...While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.”

In the minority's 90-page descent, Justice Stevens acknowledges that with the Court's ruling, corporations are now free to support any candidate they choose using as much force and power through financial capital as they please. In other words, if this ruling goes unchanged and avoids any restrictions, corporations will literally have the ability to directly determine who wins elections. This means that if Exxon wanted to defeat a candidate who was anti-oil drilling and pro-green energy, they could literally spend billions of dollars in negative advertising against that candidate. If Aetna wanted to make sure that Joe Lieberman stayed in office forever and ever, reliably throwing a wrench in any health reform legislation to hit the floor, they could use the depth of their finances to support him and his campaign in any way possible. Even though Justice Kennedy seems to not think these scenarios are a negative addition to the political process, I'd have to say that it's a sufficient governmental interest to prevent such things from occurring.

So where do we go from here? Some say that the worry over corporations having unlimited influence in American politics is overblown and that the ruling isn't as effective as some think. Even though I disagree with this, I certainly hope those who believe it are right and that I am wrong on every level. I wrote this because even though many people are aware of the ruling, many more are not. Even some who are aware of the ruling don't fully understand the possibilities of resulting repercussions. Any political science-fiction nightmare you can think of now has a real possibility of occurring. Despite the fact that it sounds incredibly dumb, I don't particularly mind attending a stadium named Petco Park, home of the San Diego Padres. However, I don't think I'll feel all that well if, upon my descent into Puerto Rico, the flight attendant says, “Welcome to Puerto Rico, brought to you by State Farm. Like a good neighbor, State Farm is there.” You know what though...that will probably be the least of my worries if there ever comes a day when that is the case.

Hopefully Congress is able to put some restrictions on this ruling, for if they are not, I fear an unruly future full of George Orwell's greatest imaginations. Upon hearing the ruling I immediately thought of a telling quote by Abraham Lincoln:

“I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the Country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.”

Lincoln (supposedly) said this in 1864. Now, 146 years later, his monument sits only a mile away from the source of his anxiety. Will this decision send the country on a path of corporate rule and eventual revolution? You can be certain that if corporations and unions take full control of our politics, people will not sit idly by. This is an issue on which both Liberals and Conservatives, Progressives and Tea Party Patriots, can agree. There is no room for corporate influence in our politics. They already have a ridiculous amount of power in our everyday lives. From supposed brand loyalty to product monopolies, corporations know everything about us. They know what we like and how to make us like something else (which is usually more expensive and of cheaper quality). What do you and I do before their ability to control what makes us tick lulls us into an apathetic acceptance of Democracy as a simple choice between a small or large Sprite? I've never had such a pit in my stomach upon hearing political news as I have upon hearing the Supreme Court's ruling, and I hope that I am not the only one who still feels that pit eating away at me. Right now I don't know what to do except sit back and see how this all develops, to see how people react to what I consider to be a radically influential decision. Until then, I think I might take a trip to Tanzania. I'd like to see how it is now, before there's a Pepsi Challenge on every corner.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Below is a clip from The Rachel Maddow Show where she intelligently dissects and discusses this situation. She starts out with Healthcare Reform and parlays it into the Supreme Court ruling. I suggest you watch the whole thing but if you want to get to the meaty stuff fast-forward to the 3:55 mark.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

----------------
Now playing: Rage Against the Machine - Take the Power Back
via FoxyTunes

They Don't Want Music

Recently a friend sent me a link to Party & Bullshit in the USA, the Miley Cyrus / Notorious B.I.G mash-up song, proclaiming that it was “incredible.” I'll let you decide for yourself whether or not the song deserves to be held in such high regard; personally I think Biggie is rolling around in his grave waiting for someone to say his name three times so that he can temporarily come back to life and put a cap in the ass of whoever created it.

After listening and letting my buddy know how much I really hated the song, and by extension all things Miley Cyrus, we got into a pretty deep conversation about music tastes, appreciation, and the role of radio. When I mentioned how much I liked the new Raekwon album Only Built 4 Cuban Linx, Pt. II (one which many hip-hop heads think is better than Jay-Z's Blueprint 3) my buddy said, “not everyone can be into super underground shit.” ...at this point my head almost “asploded” as some would say. Raekwon isn't even close to underground rap, anyone who has any decent grasp of the genre knows his name and his reputation. On the website Metacritic.com (which compiles reviews and ratings from all over the place and combines them into an average score, with 100 being the highest), Only Built 4 Cuban Linx, Pt. II is listed with a score of 89. Jay-Z's Blueprint 3 has a score of 65. Underground music barely has any potential to get recognized, let alone outscore an album by arguably the best rapper of all-time. But I digress...let me get to the real reason why I started writing this.

There is a Huh-UUUGGEEEE difference between the music tastes of people who simply listen to/enjoy music, and those who play/have played an instrument (this includes singing, not trying to segregate or discriminate here).

That's not a particularly surprising or sensational statement, and I think a lot of people agree with it, but the reason for this is really troubling to me. Sure, people who play instruments are going to naturally have a deeper appreciation for music since they have at least some base understanding of how it works and is constructed. I can play drums, bass, and piano, but enjoy drums the most. When I listen to songs my ear immediately tunes itself to the drum track before anything else, it's an automated behavior. That's probably not going to happen for anyone who hasn't played an instrument, so right off the bat it's easy to see why people who have played instruments have a deeper appreciation for the music they listen to.

The level of appreciation someone has is going to affect the diversity and variety of music they listen to. Remember the kid that almost made my head “asplode?” Well during the course of our conversation I discovered that he had “1,000 to 1,500 songs” on his computer. That many songs comes down to about 60 albums worth of music (using 15 songs per album as the average)...that's barely anything at all! According to my Last.fm page I've listened to 1,389 artists...let alone songs. I said to my friend that the difference between he and I was the whole playing a musical instrument thing, and that kids who did play instruments had a greater diversity in taste. His retort was that “if you know what you like, what is the problem?” That's just it though, how do you know what you like if you don't make the effort to listen to different things. When I was a wee-child (not as long ago as it seems) I absolutely hated watching my mother eat her favorite food, lobster. It was disgustingly abhorrent to me that someone would crack open a poor lifeless animal and gouge out its insides, simply for selfish personal satisfaction. Then one day, my mother made me try a piece of her lobster tail...and my favorite food for the past five years has been lobster. One can't really know what they like if they keep experiencing the same thing over and over. My buddy said that 1,500 songs is plenty and you don't end up listening to the same thing over and over....I just yelled at him.

At this point my snide remarks and berating got to my friend and he called me a music snob. I get it, I definitely do feel that I have a really great perspective on music. I don't discriminate, I listen to anything and everything I can get my hands onto, even death metal thanks to my college roommate Steve. But who's the real music snob here? Someone who's open to anything and everything with open arms, or someone who thinks they already know what they like and isn't really willing to go out and listen to different things?

I previously mentioned Last.fm, which I consider to be a Godsend of a website that tracks all of the music you listen to on iTunes, Winamp, your iPod/iPhone, the Last.fm website itself, and 78 other gadgets/mediums. You then have your own profile where you can view all of the songs and artists you have listened to in a pretty sweet layout. You also get your own personal library radio stream which is based on the statistics of your listening habits. You can sort these stats for the last 7 days, 3 months, 6 months, year, and all-time. There are even apps out there that will create little artistic pictures for you of your musical tastes, such as a collage of your most listened to artists that you can use as a desktop wallpaper. You can add your friends and look at what they're listening to, join groups, and track the tour dates of your favorite artists. It also suggests artists you might like based on your listening habits. Simply put, I think Last.fm is awesome-o.

A lot of the people I know who play/played instruments use Last.fm. A lot of the people I know who listen to music for pleasure/enjoyment use Pandora. I'm pretty sure I don't have to explain Pandora considering it's popularity, but just in case: Pandora is a music streaming platform that creates playlists and stations based on the artists you enter. Kind of like the personal library stream that Last.fm has, except it relies on a self-report of your tastes instead of statistical tracking. It's pretty good, but it's no Last.fm.

All in all, I have to say that I'm pretty happy that people are at least listening to music on platforms that encourage them to discover something else they may like. These services along with mp3 players have made the radio a non-entity for a lot of people. I can't remember the last time that I listened to the radio and enjoyed it. Has anyone ever heard a song last longer than 3 minutes and 30 seconds on top 100 radio? Sure, you have your classic rock stations or your old school R&B stations which play lengthy songs in their entirety, but I'm talking about current radio. Everything is tailored to an ADD, 10-second attention span, twitter & facebook updates every half an hour, kind of generation that writes something off as crap if they don't like it in the first few moments. What happened to listening to something all the way through before you formed an opinion on it?

Some of the good bands that I've been listening to lately (and Last.fm will confirm this, so very convenient) are Passion Pit, Raekwon, and Yeah Yeah Yeahs. I have never heard any of them on the radio (maybe Gold Lion by YYY's once...ONCE). Why? Because their songs take more than a couple of minutes to play out and be fully appreciated. Who do I hear all the time on Z100 though: Jay-Z, Miley Cyrus, Britney Spears, etc., etc. I get it Z100, D.O.A. is a pretty good song, but when you played it almost every half hour for 3 weeks straight and one of the lyrics is, “this ain't for Z100, ye told me to kill y'all to keep it 100,” you look stupid.

Popular radio doesn't care about providing the public with good tunes that'll do more than just make your head bop. They don't wanna expand your horizons. They just want the dollar bills. No, I'm not naïve, I know it's a business, but I do have a problem with people who base their music tastes on what the radio plays. In a previous post I commented on the mainstream news media, saying, “all it's doing is reinforcing your current opinion, not challenging it.” Well that's what “popular” music radio is. It plays something that you won't necessarily hate, and doesn't play it long enough for you to form a proper opinion of it. They just keep force-feeding people whatever financially benefits them and the industry the most. Music is more than a techno beat with uninspired lyrics thrown on top of it. Music has the power to do so many things; it can challenge, sadden, and inspire you. It can pick you up from the bottom of the pit and give you the confidence to take on any obstruction you may face. It can humble you and make you appreciate the many little things that you take for granted every single day. The radio doesn't care about that, and listeners don't seem to mind 'cause they just want to bop their heads. They don't want music.

----------------
Listening to: The Black Eyed Peas - They Don't Want Music (feat. James Brown)
via FoxyTunes

"You better hope Blue Cross doesn't consider ugly a pre-existing condition!"

We are about to enter a very important week in the health care debate. On Wednesday President Barack Obama will deliver a health care speech to a joint session of Congress in an attempt to change the tone of the discussion. So far things haven't been going so well for the Democratic party. Not only is there no single bill that they can present to the public, but they aren't even able to agree on the type of bill they wanted. Should there be a public option, a co-op, or what? Some people think meaningful reform can't be achieved without a public option, while others think a public option would mean the end of private insurance companies (even though private companies compete with the government in many, many other markets and still do just fine).

Let's put aside the talking points of both sides for a moment. There's one fact that I think most of us can agree is quite discerning: The United States of America is the only western democracy without universal health care. Whether or not you think universal health care is a good idea, there is something unsettling about the fact that all other democracies have it; as a country that claims to lead the fight for freedom and equality this just doesn't sit well. We have tried to attain universal health care before and it's no surprise that we are engaged in this battle again. Health care in this country is run by drug companies, health insurance companies and wall street. I don't have to tell you this, but that makes absolutely no sense. Imagine if we allowed the food industry to run the FDA, would you trust any of the food you ate to be clean, healthy or relatively nutritious? Companies that are in business to make money cannot be trusted to regulate their industry, that requires a separate, objective entity. The primary interest of drug and health care companies is to make money by increasing the value of their company share; this is certainly a good business model, but it is not the way to decide who lives and who dies. When we value profit over the health of our citizens we expose ourselves to be greedy and ignorant. It's amazing to me how people can say that America is the best country in the world and at the same time defend a profit-driven health care industry in order to fulfill some kind of blind allegiance to capitalism. Capitalism is all well and good, but not everything in this country needs to be for profit. If we don't reform the health care system, our country will quickly go bankrupt:

Here's a few important stats (courtesy of the previous link, National Coalition on Health Care) -

• Without health care reform, small businesses will pay nearly $2.4 trillion dollars over the next ten years in health care costs for their workers
• 178,000 small business jobs will be lost by 2018 as a result of health care costs
• $834 billion in small business wages will be lost due to high health care costs over the next ten years
• Small businesses will lose $52.1 billion in profits to high health care costs
• 1.6 million small business workers will suffer “job lock“— roughly one in 16 people currently insured by their employers.

Health reform is no longer an option, it's a necessity if this country wishes to remain financially viable and competitive. Besides, health should not have a price tag, it should have a value, and when you get right down to it this country does not hold the health of all its citizens in high regard.

In order for Obama to achieve any kind of reform whatsoever, he needs to do what JFK did with civil rights and present universal health care as a moral issue. To do this Obama first needs to regain the communication skills that helped him win the presidency. During the campaign, the Obama team got a lot of credit for their ability to use technology and the Internet to get their message out. From Facebook and Twitter to their very own iPhone application the Obama team had multiple avenues at its disposal to communicate with it's supporters. Since the campaign, Republicans have seen the importance of the Internet and the need to effectively use it as a battleground of ideas, even if those ideas are blatantly false. It's great that the Internet can be used to spread ideas and information, but when that information is false and misleading it has a negative effect on important conversations being held. The GOP is going right to the playbook here, they are playing on the base emotions of the public and spreading falsehoods to take control of the health care debate. How is it that the party that nearly destroyed the economy over the past eight years is now preaching fiscal responsibility as a reason to not take on health care reform? Even so, I can understand why the Republicans don't want health care reform (no matter how much they say they do). If Obama were to achieve any kind of reform whatsoever it would be a huge blow to the GOP's chances in the 2012 elections. Right now, they're just trying to delay any serious reform before the 2010 elections so that they can regain some seats in the House and the Senate. Sure, this sort of behavior is putting politics over the needs of the country, but do you really expect anything else?

Wednesday night we will see just how influential Obama's speech is for his political colleagues. He can take all the hard-line stances he wants, but if the people in that congressional chamber don't believe him, they will not pass the legislation that he wants. As Bill Moyers recently said in an interview, great presidents “have the power to move people with words, and then by making the choices that back up those words.” The speech on Wednesday is a nice starting point, but Obama needs to back up whatever he says with strong decisions. In regards to the use of political capital, Obama needs to treat health care like Bush did Iraq; not lie about it, but essentially push it through with force. He needs to dig in his heels and pound his fist on the table, to say that we need health care reform because it is the right thing to do. The war in Iraq was a war of choice, health care reform is a necessity. Yesterday it was reported that the White House will draft it's own health care bill if necessary, which is great news. This way, everyone can point to a single bill that they know has the President's approval, and debate what is in the bill rather than rumors and fiction.

Even though I remain optimistic, I have my doubts about just how much reform can be achieved. As I said before, health care is run by the drug industry, health insurance industry, and wall street. These three sectors are also the same groups that will determine just how successful Obama's re-election bid in 2012 will be. During the campaign in 2008, Obama received a lot of funding from these groups, and no matter how much public support he has going into 2012 he will still need the big money interest groups to fund his campaign. So, how can there really be significant change in health care when this administration (and the vast majority of politicians) has strong ties to corporate interests? Money rules Washington, even more so now than it used to. Fortunately, the old saying that money is everything isn't quite true, there's one thing that's more important: votes.

Yes, it's cliché and people sound like a broken record when saying it, but it remains true that when people join and rise together for a cause there is nothing they can't achieve. One of my favorite quotes from the ever-insightful Margaret Mead reads, “Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world...indeed it is the only thing that ever has.” There needs to be a movement of liberals and progressives in this country, one which hasn't happened since the 60's, where people demand their representatives to do what they voted them to do. Barack Obama was voted to end the war in Iraq, fix the economy, and really reform health care; essentially he was voted to put this American house back in order. Now that he's been elected President, people seem to have said to themselves “okay, my job is done, let's see what you've got.” That's the wrong approach to take. No matter how well-intentioned Obama is he can only do but so much. He's going to need the undying backing and support of Democrats to push through any sort of meaningful, effective health care legislation. I'm not saying to devote yourself to Obama and stop asking questions, no-siree-bob; but Democrats need to support Obama with as much fervor as Republicans supported Bush if they want anything to get done. It's time to take all of the hard work that was put in to get Obama elected and now double that effort for health care. Electing a president that represents one's ideas isn't enough. The people need to move together and demand the change they so desperately seek. Blaming the media won't do anything, what else do you expect them to cover? Television is all about ratings which are driven by sensational stories. That's the way it is going to be for the rest of time. But if there is a serious movement of progressives who are all focused on achieving health care reform, it will be sensational enough to make the airwaves.

Democrats need to remember, Obama was voted into office less because of his ideas, and more because Bush messed up so badly (yes, Palin helped too). This is the way it's been for the last three Democratic presidents (Obama, Clinton, and Carter). The Republican who was in charge before messed up, so the country chose the other party. It's time for Democrats to fortify as one, to remember how to use the spine that they've got, and do what's necessary to bring this country back from the brink. It's time to stop sitting on the sidelines, we need to get in the game and make it loud and clear what we want and why we want it. Be educated in your opinion and support it with charisma. Don't demonize the other side, name calling and childish behavior won't help the cause. Refute their ideas with facts and stay on topic, don't get drawn into ignorant conversations about death panels and birth certificates. Obama is going to need all of the help he can get from his supporters, and we need not waste any energy bickering amongst ourselves when we all have the same goal in mind. Time to get involved before this crippled giant falls. Well, actually...that depends on a completely different yet equally important issue: Afghanistan... but that's a story for another time; stay tuned.

----------------
Listening to: Wyclef Jean - If I Was President
via FoxyTunes

Lost In Hollywood

It's only July and we can already tell what the most important topic of 2009 will be; health care. I didn't say most popular because things that are popular have to have a certain degree of entertainment value to them. The issue of health care is the most important topic of the year because a great deal of America's future hinges on how we deal with it in the coming months. A lot of important conversations need to happen as we figure out all of the intimate details that need to be included in such legislation. Deeper issues like payment, late-life treatment (at some point you can't keep spending money to keep those who are a lost cause alive, grim but true), doctor's salaries, and much more need to be discussed at length so we can figure just how this thing is going to work.

Tonight I watched a good debate about health care on the Daily Show between Jon Stewart and noted conservative William Kristol of the New York Times. The interview was so long that they couldn't show all of it within the allotted time for the show, so I had to go on-line to watch the whole thing. Afterwards, I wanted to catch up on any new developments of the issue from today; how were the negotiations going in Congress, were the conservative blue dog Democrats still holding firm, etc. In my search for this information I turned to CNN. My television guide showed me that Campbell Brown's program was on at the moment, so I became confident that I'd get what I was looking for. After all, Brown is a good reporter who usually delivers the facts without much personal bias. Not long after the commercial break ended and the program returned did it take for me to become extremely pissed off. Not only was Campbell Brown not talking about health care, but she wasn't talking about any sort of important political issue at all! Instead the story was that the Los Angeles police and the DEA raided Michael Jackson's doctor's office in search of evidence. “WTF mate!”

Let's set one thing straight here. I am one of the biggest Michael Jackson fans you will ever meet. From the age of 3 years old, I carried around my little Fisher Price stereo and played cassettes of Off the Wall and Thriller, memorizing each song without fail. Michael Jackson not only introduced me to the magic and creativity of music, but he showed me that it could also be a powerful force for change with songs like “Heal the World” and “Will You Be There.” I have every single song Michael Jackson ever released in my iTunes library. I also have a poster of the cover of his album Dangerous, with his autograph in the upper right hand corner. The man was a musical genius and I will always be mesmerized by his ability. You get the point...

The King of Pop died on June 25^th, 2009. Today is July 28^th, 2009. There is not a single reason, absolutely zero, why a self-respecting news channel should be running a story having anything to do with Michael Jackson over a month after his death during prime time (at least until the toxicology reports come in). Not when our country is in the midst of a shaky financial recovery. Not when our younger generations have a very expensive financial situation in their future, and can't even get a job at the moment. Particularly not when serious health care reform has a real chance of coming to fruition for the first time since Hilary Clinton gave it a go! As a friend who took playing Halo way too seriously once yelled at me through his microphone, “This ain't no game! This is real mothafuckin' life!” For the past couple of weeks all I've seen on the news are stupid, sensational stories about Michael Jackson, John & Kate plus 8, and this “controversy” over President Obama characterizing a police officer's stupid actions as being just that, stupid. Of all the important conversations we need to have in this country at this critical time, we're talking about completely useless and frivolous nonsense!

Don't take this the wrong way. I understand that there's all types of news; entertainment, sports, financial, world, etc. However, there are dozens of channels on television tailored to each of these specific categories. When I want to get my sports news for the day I go to ESPN, not CNN. That's the way it should be, and it should be that way across the board. A terrible chill goes down my spine when I go to cnn.com and see headlines that read “'Bachelorette' Jillian Harris makes her pick” and “Kim Kardashian and Reggie Bush call it quits.” You can go to the website for People magazine and find out this information, that's what they as a news source cover and no one expects them to cover anything else. The fact that such ridiculousness is now commonplace at CNN disturbs me even more so because I can't think of any other 24/7 new channel that at least portrays itself as attempting to be fair to all sides. I can't watch MSNBC because it's all liberal talking points, and I can't watch FOXNews because it's all conservative (and seemingly demented) talking points. You know that's exactly what you're going to get when you turn to those channels so why even watch? All it's doing is reinforcing your current opinion, not challenging it. That's the problem I have; the news is supposed to present the story not so that it coddles you into believing what you already thought to be so, but in reporting the facts so that you are challenged to reaffirm your stance in face of those facts.

Everything is about entertainment and sensationalism now, it's as if no one cares about substance or objectivity. I wish I lived during Walter Cronkite's hay-day. With his recent passing, everyone and their mother has lauded him with praise for his amazing ability to do his job with deliberateness and honesty. He was the most trusted man in America because of these qualities, and clearly is dearly missed by his colleagues and contemporaries. I will never know what it's like to have such a person deliver the news to me. In my life, I can't think of a single television news anchor (other than Dan Rather, who was fired for doing his job) that embodies even half of the qualities Cronkite held. The best anchor I can think of right now is Brian Williams. He is certainly a good news anchor in that he delivers the story in a clear and understandable manner, but I've never seen him grill a politician on an important question. When I watch Campbell Brown discuss issues of actual importance, she certainly gives her best effort to give all sides of the story a fair representation. When I watch Chuck Todd ask tough questions during Presidential news conferences, it seems as though he's looking more for a sensational response instead of a fair one, trying to create a story rather than reporting it. Of course it's not only news anchors and journalists who are responsible for the decline in quality. Producers choose the stories that their anchors will discuss, they themselves have become less concerned with important stories and more worried about demographic ratings.

So I find it sad that in turning from Comedy Central to CNN, I was turning to a lower quality of journalism. I mean, Comedy Central has only two “news” programs on each day, CNN is an all news, all the time channel. Yet, today I learned a great deal more about the important issue of health care by watching Comedy Central than I did by watching CNN. It's no wonder why Jon Stewart is now the “most trusted man in America,” he has interesting guests and talks about pertinent issues. The rest of his journalistic colleagues are all too concerned about entertainment value and have clearly become lost in hollywood...
----------------
Now playing: System of a Down - Lost in Hollywood
via FoxyTunes

All The Little Birdies Go Tweet, Tweet, Tweet

Yea, I Twitter. "Big whoop, wanna fight about it?" (Family Guy reference, I couldn't resist) But seriously, I do use Twitter to follow people that I find interesting. I follow ?uestlove (Drummer of the Roots, my favorite band) to find out how work on the group's new album is coming along, or what funny things happen behind stage at the Jimmy Fallon Show (I also follow Jimmy Fallon because he's just silly). I follow Shaq because really, he's a pretty funny dude. I also follow a few of my close friends, who most of the time don't have anything more interesting to say than "I'm at the library, it's so quiet. Shhh!" (A lot of the time we just tweet funny YouTube links back and forth to each other)

But there's a whole lot of other people I follow as well. I follow Meghan McCain to see how a young, progressive, female Republican is trying to reshape her party for the future. For someone who's been quite the topic of discussion as of late, what she tweets has the potential to get mentioned in the morning news. I also follow CNN and BBC so that I can keep abreast of breaking news at all times of the day. The bottom line is, I use Twitter for straight information. I like to know what's going on, who's thinking/saying it, and what others think about it. The service launched in March of 2006, and I've been using it for well over a year, but it has just recently really taken off. Rick Sanchez of CNN was the first person to really take advantage of Twitter on television, using it to interact with his audience and get their opinions. Since then, Twitter has exploded everywhere. I can't think of a single television program or network that doesn't make use of it, and the vast majority of celebrities have already jumped in, embracing the service as a way to reach their audience without a filter. Included in this group are politicians, many of whom even tweeted during President Obama's first (unofficial) State of the Union address. The danger of politicians using Twitter isn't so clear, but I'll get to that point later.

I consider Twitter to be, for the most part, an incredibly useful tool to share information, opinions and ideas. Twitter is changing the way people share information, and furthers the instantaneous, yet alienated way in which people now interact with each other (E-mail, texting, instant messaging, you know, all that jazz). People use it to network, market their products and themselves, and notify their followers of future prospects. Twitter has a huge potential to become a main source of news and information, helping to eradicate the newspaper industry and possibly other media sources. However, it is this very authority that Twitter seems to have which makes it so disconcerting.

The Swine Flu outbreak and subsequent overreaction are the perfect example of how Twitter can be used to spread misinformation and foster a panicky environment. There is even a Swine Flu Panic Twitter page that is still being updated. The incredibly wrong notion that one could catch Swine Flu from contact with a pig was being thrown around and Twitter assisted in spreading the idea. Misinformed and panicked people with the ability to broadcast their fears are likely to only create more fear. Despite reputable news sources tweeting accurate information about the flu outbreak, people's fears overrode pragmatism, helping lead to unnecessary panic. Some say that the Swine Flu example is a single event that showcases no more than the effect that an extended, global community can have on public opinion; but there's more than meets the eye to the influence that Twitter has over society.

The basic premise of Twitter is a platform where one can follow people that they find interesting in an attempt to know more about them. The very ability of being able to follow those, and only those, that you want to creates a source of information that is biased to fit one's viewpoint. I mentioned before the danger of politicians using Twitter. What I'm inferring is that, since Twitter inherently has a genuine connotation to it (most people really use it to open themselves up to the world, talking about things that they really think and feel), politicians and authoritative figures can use the service to send out tailored messages with an agenda. Yes, there are some politicians who seem to genuinely tweet what they feel (Senator Claire McCaskill for example), but it's entirely possible and probable that politicians send out messages that are edited and tailored to evoke a certain reaction; it helps them put forward a faux visage if you will. Followers of these people will take what they say as factual, and won't even consider the opposition's position because they won't be looking for it.

What I'm saying is that liberals follow Democrats, conservatives follow Republicans, and people rarely if ever follow someone with whom they disagree or don't find to be appealing. Yes, it is certainly everyone's right to pursue information at their own discretion and decide who they listen to. The problem is that the service Twitter offers helps people shut out the opinions of the other side. For example, let's say that I don't like Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele. Though right now he seems to be a Democrat's best friend, I'm sure he has sincere and good ideas for the future of this country. However, I won't listen to them, because I can choose to not hear what he's saying. Instead, I'll just continue to follow Obama, Biden, and the White House to get my information. I'm choosing to segment myself so that I don't have to hear what the opposition has to offer, in effect not even giving them a chance and severely reducing the variety of information that I expose myself to. How can one make a sound decision or come to a proper opinion if they only use information that doesn't challenge their current position(s)?

I haven't been able to decide if people treat the information they receive through Twitter with authority because of who it's coming from (if you're following someone, it must be because you admire or are interested in them right?) or because of the platform itself. I'm leaning towards the former, because I can't see why Twitter would be deemed to inherently be a source of factual information. A friend of mine put it best, saying, "I think because people have the option of choosing who they want to follow,or who they think they are following, they are going to view these people as reputable sources that wouldn't deceive them; they trust said twitter as much as they would trust a friend." Not only do people choose what information they want to be exposed to, but they treat that information with a higher degree of authority because they hold the source in high regard. This certainly can't be said to be true for every person or situation, but I think that many users of Twitter fall under this description.

The influence of Twitter (at least the technology) is growing and will only continue to do so. Now people can tweet videos from the internet (VidTweeter), or videos of themselves (BubbleTweet). There are also programs that help people use and navigate Twitter in an efficient and customizable way (TweetDeck, Twhirl, just to name a few). You can even use Twitter on your cell phone, making it even easier to keep up with breaking developments while on the go.

Maybe I'm just being a nervous pervis; it is true that my arguments here can be applied to just about any information medium. The thing that worries me about Twitter is the user's ability to choose the information they receive. This is different from other forms of media such as newspapers and television in that one cannot choose what information is delivered to them. Sure, people can choose to not read a certain article or change the channel when something they don't like comes on, but at least the information is presented to them. By choosing who to follow, Twitter allows users to choose what information is presented to them, and I think it highly probable that people will use that ability to create a biased information pool for themselves. In a time where different ideas and opinions need to be heard more than ever in order to come to proper solutions that will work, giving individuals the ability to completely block out information that they don't agree with doesn't help. We shall see how this technology evolves, and how society's use of it changes overtime. For now, all I wanna know is what hilariousness Michael Scott will get into next.

P.S. To the 4 people who read this (if even that many :-P), please let me know what you think! Leave a comment below!

----------------
Listening to: Michael Jackson - Rockin' Robin
via FoxyTunes

Old Man vs. O'bomb'a

The past few days of the 2008 Election have seen a lot of talk about associations, grandiose assumptions, and terrorists. The McCain/Palin campaign have kept to their word and launched a continuous barrage of character attacks at Barack Obama, particularly over his light relationship with William Ayers. While throwing this red meat at their rallies, the two Republican candidates have incited some supporters to scream violent threats directed at Senator Obama; including "Terrorist" and "Kill Him". (Question here: Has there been any previous United States Presidential Campaign in which one ticket accused the head of the other ticket of hanging out with terrorists? I'm serious, cause I've been looking but I can't find a concrete answer...I do however have my assumptions of what it is.)

Some question whether or not the Republicans are purposefully inciting these feelings in their base. I'd have to say that considering the campaign stated it would be "taking the gloves off," they know exactly what they are doing (Introducers say Barack Hussein Obama but not John Sidney McCain). If they didn't want this kind of reaction, they would stifle it immediately instead of simply releasing a statement condoning it. Coming from a man like John McCain who insists on action instead of talking, you would think he'd know that. But, this is politics; are any of us really surprised that its gotten to this point?

There is however something which disturbs me about how Republican pundits and supporters defend this action. Many (after being asked about the ethics of portraying Senator Obama as a terrorist associate) retort that the Obama campaign has been equally harsh and unfair in portraying Senator McCain as an angry, erratic old man. Let's weigh the two:

• On one hand we have the Democratic campaign asserting that Senator McCain is an old angry man who is anything but "steady at the tiller." This also highlights his health concerns, causing people to wonder whether or not the Republican candidate could serve out his entire term. The inherent characteristics of a stereotypical old man are inconsistency, crankiness, anger, and senility. These descriptors hardly invoke much emotion if at all; maybe sadness.
  

• On the other hand we have the Republican campaign accusing the Democratic Senator of associating with terrorists, and have even caused some supporters to believe that he is one himself. Terrorism inherently induces thoughts of conflict, evil, violence, death, and most importantly the events and players (Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, etc.) of September 11th. The root word of terrorism is terror, a term which invokes fear of "the other", mystery, and anger.

The harshest thing that has happened to John McCain because of "old man characteristics" is David Letterman embarrassing him live on national television. No one has threatened violence against him simply because he's 72, they've just hurled innocent jokes his way.

There are several violent, despicable acts directed at Barack Obama simply because of his "otherness," let alone terrorist assumptions. He's the first serious Black Presidential candidate in the history of this country and, as Dubois put it, "otherness" is impossible to avoid. From death threats to Republican supporters becoming violent with minority members of the media, there is nothing funny or innocent about trying to paint the Illinois Senator as a terrorist associate. All it will do is increase the amount of illegitimate anger; illegitimate because these are attacks based on untrue character associations, not policy positions.

So please, don't try to say that John McCain being portrayed as an old man is just as unfair as Obama being assumed a terrorist associate. One is clearly dangerous while the other is not, and for a man who is already facing anger and hate because of his skin color, "terrorist" is just another term to make Senator Obama seem dangerous and untrustworthy. The fact that these charges are based on such a flimsy argument (guilt by association) makes them all the more disappointing and sad. All of this has nothing to do with the issues nor the most dangerous economic crisis facing our country (and our world in this global economy) since the Great Depression.

However, just to make a point, when there's nothing else to go on I like to go straight to the video tape. There's just one thing: There is no video (nor any) evidence of Barack Obama supporting or engaging in terrorist activities. There's plenty of video evidence of John McCain being an angry, erratic, and even senile (note the space astronaut comment near the end) old man:






UPDATE:

I should've just posted this, makes my point better than anything I could've said: