New Song (Lyrics): "Singing as the Ship Goes Down"
I wrote a new song in the last few days that I hope to record in some form or other in the near future. It's called "Singing as the Ship Goes Down," and probably some people can relate to the sentiment, especially the way things are nowadays. Here are the lyrics, which you can interpret however you want.
Singing as the Ship Goes Down
Rise at dawn and greet the day Darling, wash the sleep away 'Cause the hours are running out They're running out on us
Couldn't keep the dream alive Couldn't say we didn't try And our time is running out It's running out on us
We'll be singing as the ship goes down We'll be singing as the ship goes down Goes down
Not a dime to pay the bills Take the few remaining pills 'Cause what we have is running out It's running out on us
We'll be singing as the ship goes down We'll be singing as the ship goes down Oh, this time we will surely drown We'll be singing as the ship goes down
(bridge) Held in our hands The seed of our plans Saw it start grow We tried to manage Find an advantage Contain the damage But in this life you just never know And now our hope is running out It's running out on us
We'll be singing as the ship goes down We'll be singing as the ship goes down Yes, this time we will surely drown We'll be singing as the ship goes down
We'll be singing as the ship goes down We'll be singing as the ship goes down Let your song be your final sound, make it loud And be singing as the ship goes down
I've had a bunch of mini-debates with REALLY ANGRY conservatives recently. They're always in attack mode, always drawing battle lines, always throwing out extreme, outlandish assertions, then throwing out another as fast as I can deflate them with facts or point out their logical inconsistencies. What also came through so clearly was their deep resentment of intellectuals and "elites."
Pretty much anyone too educated or capable of nuanced thought is the enemy and not to be trusted. Those dreaded "elites" may be correct about the issues, and better informed, but they must be rejected because "they think they're smarter than everyone else." (Hint: they often ARE smarter than everyone else.)
Of course, this flailing against elites is hypocritical, because the fact is that the leadership and guiding lights of the GOP are "elites" (if not always so bright). They don't live like mythical small town America. They don't get their soft hands dirty with good, honest manual labor. I will bet they even eat fancy salads, enjoy expensive wine, dine on foie gras, ride in limousines, live in exclusive neighborhoods, and receive $42 million dollar severance packages. These are the folks who lead the chants about dirty, traitorous elites. These are the folks who concentrate the wealth with not too much trickling down because of the misdirection and misplaced anger and fear that keeps people from working it through.
The elites of the conservative movement certainly don't have blue collar America's economic interests in mind. They get away with it by riling the angry mob, appealing to the fears, insecurities, biases, and yes, RESENTMENTS of average folks. It's a scam, but so many unwittingly play along. It gives them boogeymen to scapegoat, and mobs always like a scapegoat.
Andrew Sullivan has a good blog entry framing the current election. He summarizes:
"If the American people want to re-elect the machine that has helped destroy this country's national security, global reputation and economic health, then that is their choice. But I am not so depressed to think that they will."
Alpha Bravo Charlie Delta Echo Foxtrot Golf Hotel India Juliet Kilo Lima Mike November Oscar Papa Quebec Romeo Sierra Tango Uniform Victor Whiskey Xray Yankee Zulu
(Also approved by the International Civil Aviation Organization, the FAA and the International Telecommunication Union.)
Rule 1: No arugula, period. Not "Heartland of America" food. Comes out of the same dirt but much more elitist than....
Rule 2: Iceberg lettuce, best choice. Intestinally gentle nourishment for normal folk. "America's lettuce."
Rule 3: Red leaf lettuce ok, but only if it reminds you of Red States, as opposed to Red Communism. Pray about it first. Let God show you what's in your heart.
Rule 4: Romaine lettuce, too ethnic. Too "Old Europe." Southern, but Southern European.
Rule 5: Edible flowers, absolutely unacceptable, offensive. San Francisco food. An abomination in the eyes of God.
Rule 6: Sunflower seeds, good in moderation. Picture golden-headed shafts swaying across fruited plains, God shedding grace on them.
Rule 7: Croutons, bad (probably French), but small cubes of dry, toasted bread ok.
Rule 8: Roquefort dressing, blatantly French, a traitor's salad dressing. Blue Cheese Freedom Dressing acceptable. Be careful not to spell it "bleu" or salad becomes tainted, must be buried in at least three feet of unconsecrated sand.
Rule 9: Grated cheddar cheese, an American tradition. Founding fathers ate with apple pie after signing Declaration of Independence (don't verify). Add to salad with great reverence (and great restraint, or unacceptable blockage).
Rule 10: Salad must defer to meat and potato at all times, like a good Christian wife to her husband and married son. Part of God's plan. Only atheists and socialists let salad lead the dinner plate.
Rule 11: The GOP Guide to Salad is inviolate and eternal, a companion piece to the Bible, but not like that blasphemous Book of Mormon.
Rule 12: The Guide is subject to change by RNC fiat.
"I live in a small town, I like living here, and there are definite advantages to it — it's easy to get to know other members of the community, the life style is a bit more laid back, and a lot of the hassles of just moving around are absent. But small town values? The ones the Republicans are worshipping seem to be the narrow insularity verging on xenophobia, the judgmental meddling in other people's affairs, the backward-looking reverence for the good old days (which actually weren't that good), the worship of ignorance, the easy way authority can personally intrude on people's lives without oversight, except by a coterie of good old boys. They seem to overlook the schools in neglect, the churches sprouting everywhere like poisonous mushrooms, the alcoholism, the spousal abuse, the kids who just want to get through high school and flee to a city where something is happening, the elderly piling up and outnumbering the young and being shuffled off to cheap complexes, the despair of people caught in dead-end menial jobs with few prospects for going beyond. That's also small town America, and when I hear a Republican singing the praises of small towns, I have visions of a walmartized wasteland where everyone goes to church. It's not good."
My Australian cohort Garni and I just finished our cover of Depeche Mode's "Walking in My Shoes" from the album "Songs of Faith and Devotion." Of course, I encourage everyone to go out and buy the original.
It's a cover, so of course there will be strong parallels with the original, but we think we put our own stamp on it. The original is more of a dark and dirty slinky groove, and ours is more of a straight-ahead modern rock version. I played 22 different guitar lines, the bass guitar part, and all the vocals, and Garni did the drums and synths. I used only one riff from the original (slightly modified) and the rest of my riffs and textures are brand new. Considering we have nowhere near the budget or equipment Depeche Mode has, I think we did a credible job. Take a listen and hopefully enjoy.
Paul Krugman of the NYT does it again. He calls out both the McCain/Palin campaign for their outrageous lies as well as the media for a misguided attempt at "balance." From his column today:
"Why do the McCain people think they can get away with this stuff? Well, they're probably counting on the common practice in the news media of being "balanced" at all costs. You know how it goes: If a politician says that black is white, the news report doesn't say that he's wrong, it reports that "some Democrats say" that he's wrong. Or a grotesque lie from one side is paired with a trivial misstatement from the other, conveying the impression that both sides are equally dirty.
They're probably also counting on the prevalence of horse-race reporting, so that instead of the story being "McCain campaign lies," it becomes "Obama on defensive in face of attacks.""
John McCain approves of some pretty appalling campaign commercials. You can't just wave it away by saying, "Oh, it's just politics. He's just doing what you have to do to win." These deals with the devil just poison his image and the national debate. I think we need to keep calling him on it.
I think everyone should listen to the Charlie Gibson interview of Sarah Palin. He actually does a decent job grilling her on tough issues, and it's so clear she's totally in over her head. She may inspire the masses with her looks and delivery of a speech written for her by others, but ask her some things directly and she gives the deer-in-the-headlights look and rambles on to cover it.
Not to make fun of her beauty queen history, but she gives beauty-queen type answers. She's trying to remember from her recent cram sessions what to say, but Charlie keeps going off her script and she is trying to keep from choking.
The GOP is going to paint this as mean old Charlie unfairly attacking nice, pretty Sarah, but this is child's play next to negotiating with world leaders. This and more is what we need to see from journalists. No deference allowed.
Here's a message from Senator Barbara Boxer (D) of California. (Yeah, she's one of them "San Francisco" librul types, HAW HAW! Isn't it funny when Republicans say "San Francisco"? Chuckle, chuckle. 'Cause "San Francisco" is full of elites and "homaseckshals." They're not normal Americans with normal values like us small town folk. Hey......."San Francisco!" Guffaw, guffaw. By golly, it's always funny.):
Last night at the Republican National Convention, John McCain used the word "fight" more than 40 times in his speech.
In the 16 years that we have served together in the Senate, I have seen John McCain fight.
I have seen him fight against raising the federal minimum wage 14 times.
I have seen him fight against making sure that women earn equal pay for equal work.
I have seen him fight against a women's right to choose so consistently that he received a zero percent vote rating from pro-choice organizations.
I have seen him fight against helping families gain access to birth control.
I have seen him fight against Social Security, even going so far as to call its current funding system "an absolute disgrace."
And I saw him fight against the new GI Bill of Rights until it became politically untenable for him to do so.
John McCain voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time in 2007 and 100 percent of the time in 2008 -- that's no maverick.
We do have two real fighters for change in this election -- their names are Barack Obama and Joe Biden.
Sarah Palin seems to be everywhere on the campaign trail--everywhere that the GOP can control the environment and shield her from questioning. Everything is carefully scripted, no big curveball questions, no challenges. It's strong evidence indicating she's unprepared to handle prime time scrutiny. Why? She's cramming for the exam, so to speak. Her lack of knowledge about broader issues is a huge liability, and as long as they can play up her looks and plucky character and write her speeches, people will be too dazzled to realize she doesn't have a handle on the complex issues of the world, all the things a president-in-waiting (a.k.a., VP) needs to know.
Ok, so they finally got an interview scheduled with Charlie Gibson, but whether that will turn into a substantive discussion or just another personality plug is highly uncertain. Ol' Charlie has a pretty mixed record on that. By no means should he show her deference. That would be a huge dereliction of journalistic duty and the stakes are too high.
The journalists out there need to put her in the witness chair and hear what she has to say--and then fact check--so the public can make a rational, informed decision. It's time to get over the infatuation with the new girl in town and start asking tough questions.
Great new editorial by Frank Rich in the NYT. I think he really sums up the GOP ticket in a way that much of the rest of the media and country have failed to do. Too many are now caught up with the "Sarah Palin, the beautiful, exciting new political star" and "John McCain, the country-before-party maverick" narratives to realize that it's a sham. Palin was not the pick of a maverick but an impulsive pander to the Religious Right, and this ticket--from the party that's been in charge for too long--is not the agent of change for Washington.
The lack of internal logic and consistency of the GOP convention speeches, the heights of bitter irony they so casually evoke, the considerable cognitive dissonance the party handles with such ease--it's all really amazing. Self-awareness never seems to enter the picture. And the whole meme of the maverick riding into Washington on a white horse needs to be put out to pasture.
Once a maverick, always a mav.....no, sorry, that won't work. Just "once a maverick." For a 72 year old man with health issues, he flips and flops better than a Chinese acrobat.
