Music - Yesterday and Today

Ideally, each generation produces its own "great" performers, but I have to seriously ask, who are the so-called "greats" of present day music?  I've been listening, appreciating, performing, writing and recording music for over 50 years.  As a child, I was exposed to the "greats" of the 40s - the big bands and vocalists like Sinatra.  I was heavily influenced by just about all of the music of the 50s.  I began an actual career before the 60s.  Obviously, the 70s gave us a cornucopia of performers - instrumentalists and vocalists.  The 80s produced some gigantic talents.  And then, I began to feel that with the 90s things were starting to get a little thin.  If the 90s were a beer, it would be Miller Lite.

Fast forward to the present day and I'm just not seeing the level of talent - performing or song writing - that I've seen in the past, and this has nothing to do loving the performers of my generation or being stuck in the past.  I've always appreciated a wide variety of music; from big bands, blues, rock, folk, jazz.  I will agree that there are a few people from the last decade I appreciate, even if I don't really enjoy their music as a whole.  Even though I haven't purchased any Dave Mathews albums, I have to admire his level of creativity.  He's trying to create his own sound and I'd have to say he's succeeded at it.

But the question remains, who are the "greats" of the present generation?

I'm also quite aware that marketing plays a big part in the whole picture.  To really be on top of the charts and playing the big venues, you have to have a good agent.  But on the flip side of that, an agent also needs to have someone with actual talent.  Not that you can't sell something that's of poor quality.  Of course you can and it's happened many times in my life.  But ideally, you start with a huge talent and a good agent.  That's a recipe for success.

I'm just not seeing that level of talent or commitment in a lot of present-day performers.  It's said that Chet Atkins would fall asleep in his chair with a guitar in his hands.  That speaks volumes.  By the time Eddie Van Halen hit the big time, I wasn't specifically into their music, but again, I did admire the level of ability and creativity it took to make that happen.  Speaking as an accomplished guitarist, you simply do not fake a Van Halen guitar solo.  Men like Clapton, Santana and Les Paul all created their own individual signature sounds.

One of the things I love about cable TV is that I can watch a variety of live music events (live or recorded).  It's almost as good as being there, and sometimes, even better, in terms of the sound quality and camera angles.  So, when I check out something like Coachella or Bonnaroo, I have to squint, cock my head and go….this….this is talent?  People are paying money to see/hear this??

Even though I wasn't specifically into much of the heavy metal/death metal bands, I had to admire some of the talent; like James Hetfield and Kirk Hammett.  Again, you don't fake that kind of stuff.  Well, you can but the difference is obvious.

One of the more talented, interesting, unique modern-day groups I've seen/heard is Alabama Shakes.  Singer/guitarist Brittany Howard just puts it out there.  This is creative, bold blues.  The difference between Alabama Shakes and most of the groups I saw on the previous-mentioned festivals is like a Thanksgiving dinner and a picture of a Thanksgiving dinner.  One has a mountain of flavors, the other, nothing.

Otherwise, I really don't see/hear anybody following in the footsteps of performers like in the above photo montage.

So, tell me…who are some of the greats of this generation of musicians and performers.  Whom am I overlooking that deserves the credit and recognition of some the aforementioned performers?

Leonard Pitts, Jr. on the "Party of Trump"

Leonard Pitts, Jr. - Miami Herald

"Somehow, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Gerald Ford and Bush the elder has become the party of secession talk, revolution talk and vigilantes harassing children on the Southern border, the party of the 'war on whites,' 'the war on Christmas,' tea parties and birthers, the party of anti-science, anti-history and fear that the U.S. military is, right this moment, preparing for the invasion of Texas.  In a word, the party of crazy.

Small wonder it is also the party of Trump.

We should take no solace in the fact that Trump will eventually fall from his lofty perch.  Rather, we should wonder what it says about the GOP that he was up there in the first place."

Anyone with mature intelligence and logic literally reels at all the nonsense and insanity.  But what really boggles the mind is those who DON'T see it - or worse - refuse to acknowledge it.  That's the scary part.

Here's a wonderful video by Monty Python's John Cleese about how people can be so stupid, they don't know how stupid they are:

http://geekologie.com/2014/12/john-cleese-explains-why-stupid-people-a.php

Work, Work, Work

Bush lll wants Americans to work more hours, but doesn't want to pay them overtime.

Huh?  What?  How the f*k does THAT work, J.B.??

And how about a little fact check, here buddy?  Americans work more than anyone else in the industrialized world!  More than the British, the French, Germans, Norwegians, and even - lately - the Japanese!!  We take LESS vacation and even retire later.  Check out this chart:

How much more blood, sweat and tears do you need, Bush?

And for a lot of hard-working Americans, more work leads to more stress.  Without time to unwind, take care of your home, spend time with loved ones, enjoy our hobbies, connect with friends, we're hardly engaged in the pursuit of happiness.

It doesn't take much intelligence to understand that - for most of us - you can have either a lot of money or a lot of time, but you can't have both.  So, most of us struggle to maintain whatever balance we can.

And if you don't already know, let me dispel this old myth for you:  quality time.
There is no such thing.  You might think you can make up for lost family time by taking everyone to the water park, but you're just fooling yourself.  There are only good times and no times.  You can't buy time.  If you've neglected your spouse and family because you thought it was more noble to put in countless hours at work, that's your choice, but time passes more quickly than you imagine.  When we're young, we think we've got endless time, but when you've reached 50 or 60, you realize that most of your time is now behind you.  So, you choose how you want to spend what you've been given.

While I certainly haven't worked as many hours as some people, my running average during my career was just over 50 a week; alternating between 48 and 53.  So, I definitely was never slacking.

I'm not suggesting that you're a bad person if you choose to work more; I just get a bit pissed when pompous, rich frat boys like the Bush brothers - who were born INTO wealth - run off at the mouth about how the rest of us need to buckle-down more. 

House members worked only 113 days last year, at a base salary of $174K each!  

What the f*k, J.B.!?!?

"Threatened" Marriages

I've been wanting to write this blog, since before the recent SCOTUS decision regarding same-sex marriage, for all the various homophobes out there; especially the religious conservatives whose heads seem to be exploding, whose worlds seem to be imploding, who seem to think that somehow the concept of same-sex marriage threatens or nullifies their own heterosexual institution.
And I'm borrowing from another blog by a man named John Pavlovitz, who is a veteran minister and father of two.  If you're curious, here's his Facebook page:  John Pavlovitz

John writes,"The idea that anyone else's marriage affects ours is fairly ridiculous.  Ultimately, this isn't about your theology, it's about the fading fine art of minding your own business."

"Even if you believe that same-sex marriage is sinful or immoral (which is your right), claiming that it does any sort of residual collateral damage to your marriage says more about the fragility of your relationship than it does about the LGBT community as a viable threat. (Scripture) never implies implicitly or openly that we get to police other people or they, us. The same folks claiming that gay people are damaging marriage aren't nearly as vocal about the rampant infidelity, abuse, and divorce out there in so many hetero marriages."

"As a father, my own dad-ness is not affected by how other fathers parent their children."

"The difficult pill for so many Christians to swallow is this:  gay people have families; caring, beautiful, flawed, loving ones.  They live lives together in deep community marked by all the compassion, frustration, intimacy, laughter, heartache, and richness that you share with your own family.

If you can't admit and respect that, and if you find yourself somehow threatened by any other person's pursuit of happiness or expression of family, that's your problem.  There's something incredibly troublesome when we as people of faith require others to believe what we believe, or worse, when we act as if their refusal to believe what we believe or practice what we practice in any way devalues our faith experience."

***************************************************************

So…what I'm saying is tend your own garden.  You've got enough within your own relationship to be concerned about, to be worried about.  If a male or female couple next door decides they love one another enough to be married, you should be as happy for them as you are for your own relationship.  And if you can't share that emotion, for God's sake get the fuck over yourself.

See…that's the whole point of the First Amendment.  You believe what you want to believe and it's got nothing to do with what your neighbor believes or doesn't believe.  His/her pursuit of happiness is none of your freaking business. A same-sex couple next door is not devaluing your real estate.  They're not coming over to redecorate your living room.  They're not going to have anal sex on your front lawn.

And that's another thing that pisses me off.  All these heteros that seem to have this ick factor with how other people have sex.  AS IF hetero couples don't engage in some kinky shit.  Why would you assume that every male-male relationship is about anal sex?  Why would you assume that every female-female relationship is about strap-ons?  That's some pretty pathetic prejudicial reasoning, pal. (Sorry for the alliteration)  Did you ever think that two people just enjoy one another's company and want to spend their lives together?  And if they want to qualify that relationship as a marriage, what the fuck is that to YOU?  You don't own the rights to that word or that concept.

So, quit worrying about Adam & Steve.  Quit agonizing about what other people are doing in the privacy of their own domicile.  

And especially if you're someone who's been divorced AND remarried….more than once.  Who the hell are you to be defining marriage?

Love your own spouse and let other people love whom they wish.  Go read your Bible or polish your handgun for a while….

P.S.  And for those Republicans who are so concerned that people are working JOBS and contributing to society, no doubt the majority of the gay and lesbian people you agonize over are out there, performing some type of skill that may have a direct connection with your life.  They might be repairing the engine on your Lexus, or codifying your medical records, or handling your investments, or fixing that pothole in front of your driveway, or any of a million other things.  So, my point is, if they're out there working and paying taxes just like you, and if they decide they want to be married, they're more than entitled to the same marital, legal benefits YOU are, Jeb.  They're flesh and blood human beings riding on the same blue marble as you.  You probably won't have to bake them a cake. Relax.

A Few Words About Scooter

Now, any responsible, loving parent would tell their child that certain personal traits are important in life; not the least of them things like telling the truth, pride in one's self, and a sense of ambition, not to mention a healthy sense of shame.  But to me, Scott Walker is a guy who has a little too much (political) ambition, an incredible sense of hubris, a weak relationship with the truth and apparently, little or no sense of shame.

I'm not going to bore you with the nuts and bolts of what (he thinks) he did for the state of Wisconsin, what he didn't do, and some of the damage he's caused. All those things are out there on the internet as a matter of public record.  Of course, sometimes you have to choose who and what to believe. You can believe this:  Minnesota Economy Beats Wisconsin's

Scooter came into office with a state budget to work on, like most any other governor, but this guy wanted to endear himself to those austerity-loving conservatives and he started slashing every social program he could.  Because that's how you balance a budget - on the backs of the poor and unemployed.  Because if they weren't so lazy, they'd have a job, right?  That's what the members of Scooter's fan club want to hear.  They've all got jobs of some kind and it just galls them to think that a dime of their tax dollar might go to help someone in need.  It. Just. Galls. Them.

And then, you have the fact that this guy is a preacher's son, so that automatically endears him to the religious conservatives, who dislike gays, who think that things like abstinence programs work, who want to close Planned Parenthood clinics when the major part of PP's work is providing birth control and cancer screening for women.  But they're just too focused on the abortion issue, so they throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And then, there's how Scooter has dealt with the University of Wisconsin.

This guy's got his eyes focused on the Oval Office, folks and he's perhaps one of the least-qualified candidates in the clown car.  Problem is - for us - he's one of the most devious politicians and he's trying to gain the favor of the Koch brothers….you know, they guys who would like to eliminate Social Security and sell us all more shale and fracking oil.  That's who Scooter is in bed with.

Look, I'm not saying Scooter is the anti-Christ (like some have said about the president).  He might even have some redeeming qualities, but compared point-for-point against the other GOP hopefuls, he is NOT a heavyweight.

I'm sure Scooter thinks his anti-women's agenda and budget-slashing skills are going to catapult him into the White House.

I hope to Christ, not.

I look at the other Republicans who would be King and I see Santorum and Cruz that are just flat out religious nut cakes.  I see Christie who's just a fat blowhard and a bully; a real gangster poster boy from New Jersey.   There's those guys so totally whacko that they don't stand a chance:  Perry, Graham and Jindal.  Rand Paul perhaps at one time had a shred of integrity.  Not any more. The only two that come off half-way sane are Rubio and Bush, and I sure as shit don't want another Bush in the White House.  And all these guys are big on old-timey religion and (somehow) banning abortion, but on other substantive issues, they're pretty weak tea.

Let me tell you something, if you haven't already grown tired of me saying it.  The way to reduce things like teen pregnancy, STDs and abortion is to get serious about sex education and contraception.  LIKE THE NETHERLANDS.  See this:  Advocates for Youth

And I don't think any of the GOP candidates have anything good to say about the Affordable Care Act, in spite of the fact that now 9 out of 10 Americans have health insurance…which is a wonderful thing, but our neighbors the Canadians kick our ass on that issue, with their single-payer system, and I can guarantee you, NONE of the Republicans is even hinting in that direction.  They just know they hate Obama.  Forget the needs of the American people.

I won't even get INTO same-sex marriage, which makes these guys' heads explode.

Scooter was no gift to Wisconsin and we don't need his kind of hubris and ambition in Washington.