Annie Are You Oll Korrect?

I found this article about the history of the word, "OK" fascinating.

You see, long before our most common abbreviation like OMG and LOL existed, their 19th century predescesors were just a bit more interesting.

Apparnetly in the 1800's it was fashionable to alter the spellings of common phrases and their subsequent abbreviations.  So "no go," for example, would be changed to the homophonic "know go" and abbreviated k.g.

And this is how "OK" was created.

According to research by Allen Walker Read (who also studied the F word) and published in a book by Allan Metcalf, "OK," while having cognates in many different languages, (from Louisiana French "au quai" and the German "Ober-Kommando" to the Chocktaw "Okeh") actually originates from an abbreviation for an altered spelling of "all correct" (oll korrect) that was first published as a "joke" in an 1839 Boston Post article.

PKH? (Pretty Kool, huh?)

Hillary Clinton "honest and trustworthy?"

Nice to see that, finally, after twenty years of covering both Clintons for the Wall Street Journal and NYTimes, Jill Abramson is now brave enough to publicly state in her piece for the Guardian that, "Hillary Clinton is fundamentally honest and trustworthy" and "There are no instances I know of where Clinton was doing the bidding of a donor or benefactor."

Far be it from Abramson, though to discuss twenty years of her and the mainstream media carrying water for the conservative attacks on Clinton's credibility, which, as Drum notes have, "successfully poisoned not just the electorate in general, but even the progressive movement itself."

The Bottled Spirits on Vinyl

Attention Patrons of the Arts 

and 

Supporters of Content Providers!!

The Bottled Spirits are currently accepting pre-orders for their 13-song, self-titled, debut LP coming Summer/Fall 2016

Reserve yours here

Thank you!

"Mothballs & Bloodmeal" Video

As promised, here's the official video for the Thingz song, "Mothballs & Bloodmeal" from our album, Red Future.  Enjoy!!

Drum Major Instinct

Check out the latest DiDacTicNaTioN!!

Freddie and Ratty

Here's a GREAT excerpt from the soon-to-be published Queen Unseen, an autobiography written by one of the band's roadies, Peter Hince (AKA Ratty) about his time on the road with Queen. 

Lots of interesting insights from someone who was there!

David Does Dallas (with SRV!)

Here's a good use of 2+ hours...  Listen to this 1983 soundboard recording of Stevie Ray Vaughn rehearsing with David Bowie in Texas for the Serious Moonlight Tour!!

Since Earl Slick ended up playing guitar on that tour in SRV's stead, this bootleg gives listeners a good idea of what could have been...

Argle Bargle, Bafflegab, and Gobbledegook

Maybe you've seen this meme floating around the internets...

A conservative friend of mine recently shared it with me on FB and suggested that I teach it to my students at school.

Here is my (lengthy) response (for the tl;dr version, the title of this blog post pretty much sums up my opinion of the meme):

Teach this to 10 year-olds?

I guess I could teach a lesson on how to properly attribute quotations…

A cursory Google search for Dr. Adrian Rogers instantly showed that the attribution at the bottom is wrong.

Aside from that, Wiki notes that the good "Dr."/Pastor Rogers (b. 1931) spent most of his life defending the literal inerrancy of the Bible and once said some pretty inflammatory things about slavery.  He was pro-life, pro-death penalty, and pro-hetero to the point that he boycotted Disney because he perceived that they promoted homosexuality. 

In other words, his Southern Baptist Christian beliefs were completely antithetical to the West Coast Methodist beliefs I was taught at my church every Sunday.

And while all this doesn’t address the content of the meme you posted, it does raise a red flag for the reader to proceed with caution… 

Warning:  Bafflegab Ahead!  (I guess I could teach my class a new vocabulary word, bafflegab…)

Anyway, here goes nothing…

1.  “You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom.”

Seems like a bit of a straw man to me, as if freedom is strictly an economic concept.  Also, it implies that the economy is a zero-sum game where there is a set limit of money.  But, sure, let’s pretend those things are true and imagine “the total amount of money in America is, say, a hundred dollars, and one person owns $97 of those dollars,and you make a law saying that that one person has to give a lot of that money back to the government and the government will give it to all the people who just have a few cents, they would be more prosperous…”(emphasis added)

(Again, are we conflating wealth with freedom?  YMMV)

But if you’re thinking that’s unfair to Mr. $97, think about how the opposite has been true throughout history.  Governments have legislated the poor out of freedom by legislating the wealthy into (even more) freedom using “capitalism’s primary weapons: colonialism, imperialism, systems of taxation and slavery…The Spanish,the British, and now the Americans have been the most merciless and brutal exploiters of both human beings and resources in history…We in North America reside on land that was stolen from indigenous populations followed by brutal systematic genocide, and then followed by generations of institutionalized racism and exclusion.  Women, African and Native Americans were barred from the political process and any semblance of economic power until well into the 20th century.”

I do teach my students about The Trail of Tears, and even 10 year-olds tend to think Native Americans were treated pretty unfairly.

2. “What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.”

I don’t think that’s usually the case at all.  Everyone benefits from paying taxes for education (even if your kid goes to private school) because an educated work force helps our economy.  Everyone benefits from police and fire departments (even if they don't regularly call on them) because they keep our homes, businesses, and cities safe.  Everyone benefits from available health care (even if you haven’t used it - everyone will in their lifetime) because going to the ER costs all insurance customers.  These are but a few examples. 

Besides, that quote could be describing CEOs making hundreds of times more than their employees or even TARP, the program that used billions of our tax dollars to bail out AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, and the auto industry.

3.  “The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.”

While economically speaking, this may be true, why does it seem like individual welfare recipients are always demonized but not the corporations that cost our government billions?  Or do fiscal conservatives agree with politicians like Bernie that our current economic system tends to let corporations privatize profits while socializing their losses?

But, if we’re talking about laws the government makes, then #3 is not necessarily true.  The government can give equal marriage rights to queer folk without taking away heteronormative marriage.

4.  “You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it.”

Would that that be true for cancer cells!  (Or our elites that want to divide this country into warring tribes of left vs. right all while multiplying their wealth.)  

Alas, you can multiply wealth by dividing it.  You can divide labor by creating different companies and that creates more wealth.  You can divide workloads to maximize efficiency and that multiplies wealth.  

But even if you couldn’t, you could still distribute wealth in a more just and equitable manner.  Our democracy is based on equality.  But capitalism doesn’t much care for (or need) equality – quite the opposite – it needs competition, winners and losers.  Our democratic government is there to check capitalism’s power, on behalf of all of its people.  When that check is corrupted by money, then equality and true democracy cease to exist.

5.  “When half the people…”

50%?  Really?  Again with the Us versus Them language, pitting citizens against one another… needlessly tribalizing us as a nation.  Once more, we could flip that around with the CEO/janitor scenario, but really, doesn’t this whole meme seem a bit silly now? 

Clearly, these Five Very Definitive Statements have all sorts of caveats. 

Basically, they are meaningless, pseudo-intellectual rubbish when scrutinized for more than a few minutes, hence the title of my post.

Let It Bleed

Hear, Here!

"Hail, Caesar"

Since I'm a huge Cohen brothers fan, a few days ago I wrote a comment defending their latest movie from criticisms by some viewers that "expected much more from the Cohen brothers" or said, "The plot never developed."

Here is my comment:

I'd be curious to hear what Cohen bros movies you do like... maybe you prefer their dramas? I hear ya about the plot, but I think the theme of competing belief systems embodied by the brilliantly funny characters trumped plot in "Hail, Caesar." (Laurence Laurentz? "Would that it were so simple," "Call me Laurence." Come on, Fiennes was a riot, as was the entire cast!) This theme of competing belief systems presented the viewer with questions like: Who holds more power in the secular world, the American military (Lockheed) or American pop culture (Hollywood)? Or who holds more power in the religious world, Catholicism/Christianity or Judaism? And who has more power in the political world, communism or capitalism? I was entertained by this "dialectic" (Haha!), a serious theme of competing beliefs (faiths?) interwoven throughout an ostensibly comedic movie, to the point that it subsumed the plot for me. That, along with the excellent characters/performances and the note-perfect re-creations of period genre movies (westerns, musicals, drawing-room dramas, etc), made "Hail, Caesar" a joyful, if not thoughtful romp.

Let me know what you thought about the movie in comments.

2016 Election: Devolution is Real!

This year will be the seventh time I've voted in a Presidential election since my first in 1992.

And besides the 2000 election, this will be the most significant and consequential contest in my lifetime.

The main reason being that four Supreme Court Justices will be in their eighties by 2020, so it's likely that at least one could be replaced by the incoming President, potentially shifting the court's balance of power.

But that's not all... 

In my lifetime, a Democrat has never succeeded a Democrat to the Presidency.

Think about that.

Republicans did it with George H.W. Bush succeeding Reagan, but Democrats never have.

We came close in 2000, but the 5-4 split favoring conservatives on the SCOTUS at the time prevented that.

Just think how different the aughts would have been with Gore succeeding Clinton:

No war in Iraq.  No tax cuts for the upper 1%.  A continued focus on Al-Qaeda that may have prevented 9/11.  An administration that would have made global climate change and research into renewable energy a priority.  Government agencies run by competent directors like James Lee Witt who showed what a helpful resource FEMA could be when natural disasters like hurricanes hit during the Clinton administration.  Imagine how different the response to Katrina would have been...

In other words, a Gore administration would have been a continuation of many of the programs and policies that showed government could function for the American people.

Alas, the 2000 election was very consequential.

Now don't get me wrong, neither Clinton nor Gore were perfect...

"Don't Ask, Don't Tell," NAFTA, Welfare Reform, Mass Incarceration, and the repeal of Glass-Steagall (to name a few things) all happened under Clinton/Gore and were quite antithetical to liberal/progressive interests.

As a matter of fact, it was quite common during Campaign 2000 for liberals like Frank Rich of the New York Times and myself (at the wise old age of 27) to declare there to be absolutely No Difference between Candidate Gore and Candidate Bush, and so therefore, Go Nader!

Sigh...

Which brings us to the 2016 Presidential Campaign and the fight for the heart of both major political parties.

On the left we have an unapologetic Socialist versus an unapologetic Centrist.

I've read articles making the case for Sanders and articles making the case against him.

Each side has liberals I respect making their cases (Chomsky and Krugman, respectively).

But each of these articles were written prior to last night's Democratic town hall non-debate in Iowa.

And while what I saw may not change my primary vote, it certainly displayed each candidate's strengths and weaknesses more starkly.

Sanders' strengths speak to my progressive heart.  He is willing to forcefully call out the most destructive force this country has seen in my life time, income inequality.  He puts these values in action by not accepting SuperPac monies and is still competitive thanks to his ability to motivate the grassroots.  He has a consistent record of fighting for progressive interests, and his populist appeal excites people much like Obama did in 2008. 

Clinton's strengths speak to my pragmatic heart.  She's spent most of her political life on the national stage and has not withered or wavered.  She's a survivor.  She embodies public service despite 30 years of acrimonious, sexist, and demeaning attacks.  She has unimpeachable (sorry) foreign policy experience and has worked with leaders around the world for many years which means she's ready to go on day one, not needing any on-the-job training.

So I'm vexed. 

On the right, the rise of Trump shows us absolute, irrefutable proof that DEV-O were/are right:

Devolution is real!

And a President Rubio or Cruz as an alternative doesn't exactly disrupt our descent either.

Consider their crazy tax plans (and please keep in mind that conservatives routinely bemoan the size of both our national debt and deficit):

Trump's plan would cost $9.5 trillion over ten years, according to the Tax Policy Center.

Rubio's plan has "$6 trillion dollars of unfunded tax cuts," over ten years, according to Paul Krugman.  (Update:  $8.2 trillion according to CNN Money)

Cruz's plan is by far the most radical, with estimates ranging from the more "conservative" cost of $8.6 trillion dollars to the more "liberal" estimates of $16.2 trillion over ten years!

Just for a frame of reference, during the first Bush/Gore debate, Bush proposed $1.3 - $1.9 trillion dollars in tax cuts (depending on whether you used Bush's or Gore's numbers), and that was when our government was running a surplus!

We all remember how well our economy did after Bush cut taxes, and we got those $500 checks...

Obama has spent the last 7 years slowly but steadily fixing an economy Bush helped wreck.

But Democrats must pull off an historic win this November in order for our country to continue to reap what Obama has sewn.

Republicans winning the presidency would mean a government completely run by one party and the work of the last 8 years undone.

Can our country survive Republicans gutting the government again?

I love that the Sanders Campaign has kept the message of income inequality in the media since OWS.

That's awesome and commendable.  The issue affects all Americans every day.

But this election is about more than one issue...

Actually, I take that back.

But the one issue is which candidate can prevent President Trump?

Jenny Lens' Punk Photos from 1976-1980

Check out these fantastic shots of The Cars, The Clash, The Go-Go's, DEV-O, The Rolling Stones, Cheap Trick, Joan Jett, Van Halen, Blondie, Screamers, The Police, and more!!

Lot to Learn

It's the most wonderful time of the year!

Radiohearts' new 7", "Lot to Learn" released by No Front Teeth Records in England has been garnering some really great press...

Check out Sorry State Records' review (with bonus ordering info!!)

Here's Keep Track of Times' kind words...

And the website, Veglam, also said some nice things,

as did Heatwave.

The blog, Just Some Punk Songs, was equally effusive... choosing the eponymous song, "Lot to Learn" as #10 in their Top Ten singles of 2015!!

Whew.  Thanks to ALL of you for your continued support!

Look for Radiohearts' first full-length LP coming in 2016!!

"I'd Rather Be Dead (For Now)"

The Bottled Spirits perform "I'd Rather Be Dead (For Now)" live at Alex's Bar opening for Hollygolightly and the Brokeoffs on November 22, 2015.

I Want to go to There

"The best field trip I been on was to the Nacho History Museum."

LOL!

Obviously, my favorite line from my 5th graders' writing this year!!

The Thingz - Troubles Begin 12" EP Coming Soon!

The Empire Strikes Back

The title says it all.  Absolutely heartbreaking.

New Thingz Video Coming Soon!

Confirmation Bias

I agree with it because I already believe it.

Happens to the best of us...

I didn't share this map, but I saw it and agreed with its intentions.

But I must constantly remind myself:

"Be suspicious when something too closely matches your own world view"

Confirm or deny the rest here.

RIP Christopher Squire

:(