Project: Blog Different

While checking my E-Mail account earlier today, I came across a new story warning me that videogames were destroying America, or something along those lines. Actually, it was more so just warning parents about some dangers of videogames. The last warning in fact was about the addictive nature of a game like World of Warcraft. For those of you not in the know, I’ll drop some knowledge: Nerdy, Dorky, Silly knowledge.

World of Warcraft is a MMORPG. A Massive Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game. This genre of games focus around epic storylines in which you create your own character male/female, usually control their race, class (warrior, mage, thief, etc), and other aspects. These games rarely have an ending, and if they do, it is only a pseudo ending, not something you want to walk away from after the million hours play time. World of Warcraft (now to be referred to as WoW in this blog post) is one of the most popular of these MMORPG’s right now, it has been featured on sitcoms (How I Met Your Mother), Cartoons (South Park), and other culturally relevent shows.

So, back to my initial point. These games are known to be highly addictive. One of my good friend’s older brothers basically failed out of school because he played too much WoW. There’s even a site called WoW detox or something for coping addicts.

With all that said, I do on occasion play said game. Often? Not really, I played a few nights ago for the first time in months. For me it is an excellent way to amuse yourself on a boring night, and a good way to socialize with friends who play, but that really is it. In fact, I get bored after an hour or so on it. So while I enjoy it as a game, and solely a game, I got thinking about people who enjoy their WoW characters lives more than their own, and about the concept of escapism. I mean, if your life is bad, the obvious answer is to change it to be better, but what if you can’t? What if it’s easier just to look at a screen and pretend to be in a different reality. Is that a bad thing?

Society dictates yes, yes it is. I don’t really know how I feel about it.

There’s an anime called .Hack/Sign (Yes, I realize I’m barking way up the nerd-tree), in which a kid’s soul gets trapped inside a MMORPG called “The World”. While stuck in this game he meets all sorts of characters and over time learns of their real world counterparts. One of the characters is a princess who is logged in to the game pretty much all day every day. The main character wonders why she never logs off, and we eventually learn that (Spoiler Alert)

She’s paralyzed from the waist down and obviously can’t walk in real life. So in the game she runs everywhere and is this respected and loved character. While playing the game she can leave her own depressing life and live elsewhere.

So while by no means do I recommend dropping your real life for a digital counterpart, in fact, I discourage that, I do think it is important to keep our minds open about concepts, whether we initially agree with them or not, and can be comfortable with people living their lives in their own way.

I recently viewed a documentary put together a year or so back called The U.S. vs. John Lennon. The film looks back on Lennon’s life and how he went from a working class rebel growing up in England to a pop superstar to an iconic figure in the peace movement of the 60s. Once establishing Lennon’s character and story, it moves on to the Nixon administration and the FBI’s tracking of Lennon and their full on movement to remove him from the United States. Interviews show Lennon discussing his phone being tapped, cops trailing him around New York, and other repressive actions by the U.S. government on a dissenting political figure. It brings together Lennon’s music and character and an intriguing plot to make a real solid documentary. My mom at one point worked in the music business and had met John one night at a restaurant. A few minutes after he walked in the door three men dressed in suits followed and got their own table. As they all left, the three men followed and tailed in their car. John said that they just followed him around waiting for him to do something illegal.

As big a fan as I am of John Lennon and his music, the real idea I got thinking about from this movie was Lennon’s transformation from musician to feared political figure. Artists, once they are big enough have such a widespread following, and if they can harness their message and actually know what they’re talking about (I’m sure not talking about you James Blunt!), then they can be a powerful political figure with an active agenda.

I think when looking at my own generation, which is often viewed as “apathetic”, at least in comparison with our 60s counterpart, we have to look at a number of places (I’m looking at you Ipods!), and one of them is definitely modern pop music and the record labels. There’s tons of great music out there, music that makes you think, music that engages listeners to do something about world issues, but its generally not by artists who attract the kinds of audiences as those artists who prefer to discuss topics such as money, sex, drugs, clothing, dancing, sappy stories, or just utter nonsense (I’m looking at you Lil-John).

In conclusion, see the U.S. v. John Lennon, listen to music with a message, avoid apathy, and think for yourself.

and random update: check this out.

In the oft quoted section of his most famous book, Jack Kerouac wrote:

The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time, the ones who never yawn or say a commonplace thing but burn, burn, burn like fabulous roman candles exploding like spiders across the stars and in the middle you see the blue center light pop and everybody goes ‘Awww!

While certainly overused and overquoted, this line from Kerouac’s “On The Road” just gets me every time I read it. It makes me wish I could write with the kind of passion and beauty that Kerouac does, but it also makes me yearn for more life in my life. If that makes any sense. This quote, and my subsequent thoughts though, bring to life the debate of the Beat Generation/Hippie Movement.  What do you do when the initial burning of life is over? What do you do after the cross country adventure? What do you do after thirty years on the commune?

I’ll step back a moment and provide some context. In Kerouac’s “On The Road”, a charactor representing himself, Sal Paradise, sets off on a great road adventure across the United States. He spends time with two of his real life friends and fellow Beats represented by the charactors Dean Moriarity and Carlo Marx, among others. Sal leaves his family, his sort of job, and heads off across the nation to explore jazz, friendships, loves, adventures, and above all: life.

Reading the book I came away with two fairly distinct reactions. First, I love the characters, and especially our narrator and protagonist Sal. The whole book gears the reader to push the boundaries of life to the fullest, not to get sucked in to a monotonous planned out life, but to make your own destiny. On the other hand though, I view these characters as highly immature, people who just run away from their problems, and people who leave a wake of anger and frustration in their paths. Pretty confusing huh?

So, back to my original discussion. After the trip across the country, the adventure, then what? It isn’t socially acceptable or enjoyable really to just “live”, you have to work, make social progress, etc. I don’t really have answer, but this all just got me thinking about a friend of mine, lets call him Marshall.

Marshall’s a real smart kid, a hard physical worker, and an excellent musician, but not really an academic in the school sense anyway. Marshall left school after his junior year to head back home and work for a bit. He says he is going to finish school at some point, but is not completely sure when. Currently his plan is to head cross country to Oregon to live with a few old friends. No job in mind, no further schooling in mind, just to go from there. The initial reaction from most of our group of friends has been that he is just running away from life, that this all makes no sense, and that it is a huge mistake. This was my initial thought as well, but the more I think about it, the more I just see it as a Kerouac-ian adventure for life.

I really think that I need to step back out of my safe white middle class twenty first century American head and leave behind all of the media messages which tell you that you can only learn in school, that sends us to college not for education, but for more money, so we can spend as much as possible in this consumer society which requires a devoted heard of sheep to buy and sell.

This is certainly not to say I don’t value college or education (in fact I value it as highly as anything really, and encourage any young reader of this to go to college), or that I plan on leaving my plans for more education, or anything of the sort, but that what I, and more people need to do, is realize that their are million and a half ways to live, and that there is no right answer. There is only the right answer for you.

So I wish Marshall luck, and I hope he lives it up out west, but then returns to finish his schooling so someday we can look back and maybe discuss the adventure on positive terms, and not as some mistake. Even if down the road though it is seen as a mistake, its just another learning experience, even if it was a mad one.

“The only people for me are the mad ones, the ones mad to live, mad to talk, mad to be saved, desirous of everything at the same time…”

About three weeks back I was fortunate enough to acquire two tickets to go see The Who here in Boston. I’d contemplated dropping more money than I should on the tickets for about three months time, and eventually gave in a few days before the show itself when I found some fair priced seats on ebay.
I asked around to see who else was interested, but everyone seemed to have plans or really just wasn’t all that interested in seeing one of the most important rock n’ roll groups of all time. Eventually my girlfriend’s dad agreed, and was actually really stoked, as he hadn’t seen The Who in over thirty years.  The lack of interest really surprised me though, while I realize it was short notice, these guys (well, the living two anyway) are legends.

The show was fantastic. They played every song I hoped for and more, they commanded the stage just as I’d seen them do forty years ago on video, and their vocals and music were as sharp as ever. Of all the show’s I’ve been to in my life, I’m not sure if I’ve gotten more in to a song than when they played the first guitar part on “Baba O’ Reilly”.

On the subway ride home we discussed The Who, the return of vinyl, and all the old great rock n’ roll groups. This kinda got me thinking.

What bands who got their start in this current era (I’ll say 2000-2008), or even of the 90’s, are still going to be playing, still going to be drawing crowds, and still being awesome 40+ years down the line?

I guess I could see a guy like Dave Matthews playing and drawing crowds til he dies. Does a band like Green Day have a shot? We’re still yet to see a punk(ish) group last a decade really. Clash split, Pistol’s lost vicious, Ramones lost Johnny, and the genre is just raught with short term runs. See: Underground Music Paradox discussed in post one. Even a guy like Dave though, he would be more on the Neil Young, Elvis Costello, type stuff over a big rock show like The Who. The larger question though, is why?

I mean, there are groups like Guster, who clearly love music, and I bet will play well in to old age, but they’re just not big enough to draw huge crowds now, let alone in thirty/forty years. So we know the band has to be big in their prime. So what bands/artists are really big to come out of the 90’s/2000’s?

Green Day, Pearl Jam, Oasis?, Nirvana, jay-Z, Britney Spears…

I realize it’s not a great list. I’m sure I missed a bunch, but my point in all this is that none of these bands (Pearl Jam aside) don’t have a shot. Green Day just isn’t skilled enough musically to transition to future decades. Oasis will self destruct and is overly repetitive, Nirvana lost Cobain, Jay Z’s already retired a couple times, and Britney has been crashing and burning for a year or so now. Maybe Pearl Jam could last, but they were never the same kind of big like the big rock groups of the 60’s and 70’s. Could they even keep a cure like like status in future decades? We’ll see.

The big problem in all this, is that in order to have a band last, is they have to be skilled musically, easily accessible to a variety of audiences, varied types of songs, and be somewhat original.

I can’t think of any groups who hit all these categories. Which raises the question: is this because the quality of bands now a days, or is it due to the demands of audiences now a days.

But, I hope for the sake of future generations of music, that some bands emerge, can be both popular and awesome, and love music enough to keep on playing long enough so kids like me of later generations can experience some killer live music and get absorbed by the music.

Sally ,take my hand
Travel south cross land
Put out the fire
Don't look past my shoulder
The exodus is here
The happy ones are near
Let's get together
Before we get much older

Teenage wasteland
It's only teenage wasteland
Teenage wasteland
Oh, oh
Teenage wasteland
They're all wasted!

November 4th of 2008 was certainly an important day in American history.  It was the sort of day I hope to teach about in coming years in fact, but after a good year of campaigning and fighting for the presidency, the real work for Barrack Obama, the Democratic Party, and really for anyone who wants to improve the state of the United States, is only just beginning.

This post is 100% not intended to discredit anything our new President Elect has done, but is merely the skeptical yet hopeful view of this writer. I am as excited about a President Obama as I have been any president in my lifetime- not that the bar has been set very high.

To begin the meat of this post though, lets head back to even before this past January where our new President Elect won the Iowa caucus spurring his run to the oval office. There were eight candidates then running for the Democratic Party, and few knew who would come out on top. Since this is an early post still in this blog, I realize those reading this might not have picked up on my own political views yet, but they come from the left wing of the Democratic Party. I’m sure I will go in to my own political beliefs more throughout this blog, but I’ll leave it at that for now.

During this period in late 2007/early 2008, my family and friends readily discussed the primary and who we would vote for in a few months time come Super Tuesday. The original eight Democrats running were as follows in no particular order: Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Kucinich, Dodd, Biden, Gravel, and Richardson. To begin my decision making process I knocked off Hillary Clinton due to her original vote for the war in Iraq, her dedication to mainstream politics, and her unwillingness to be bold during the first years of the war in Iraq. Next went Gravel due to his incoherant rants during the debates, and Richardson due to lack of experience with anything besides having a boarder with Mexico. Next went Chris Dodd, he is from my home state of Connecticut and I know a good deal about the man, and while he’s a fine Senator, I don’t think is his charasmatic or bold enough to win an election, let alone be a good president. The last fairly easy cut went to Joe Biden. Our new Vice President elect always seemed like a good guy, but I just didn’t agree with his policies as much as I did the others remaining from the field. Thus leaving me with three choices.

John Edwards: I dismissed him in 2004 as a lightweight and as a fake southern charmer, but like what he has done in his past career as well as what he has been fighting for since 2004. Most likely my third choice.

Barrack Obama: Despite his rhetoric on change and his initial vote against the Iraq war, I was very worried that he would go the same route as Clinton. Some good social policies here and there, He wouldn’t get involved with any awful conflicts, but he also wouldn’t rock the boat too much and stay rather moderate in the end. Of the legit candidates, he was my pick, but I certainly didn’t see the revolutionary figure I wanted for the presidency.

Dennis Kucinich: I’ve been a Kucinich supporter since I became interested in Politics in the late 90’s. Yes, I’m aware he’s completely unelecatable for President as he’s as liberal as he is, not a fantastic speaker, and not the most charasmatic, but I certainly see him as one of the smartest and most selfless figures in American Politics right now.

Come Super Tuesday though, my mind had been completely made up due to the fact that both Kucinich and Edwards had dropped out of the race, leaving me with my 2nd choice for President of the United States, Barrack Obama.

Fast forward back to last Tuesday, some of my concerns have been relieved by his strong campaign, his strong reactions to criticism and his continued call for reform in America. But much of me still fears that he might just be another good Democratic president, but not someone who is actually going to do something about the myriad of problems in this country. Not because he won’t want to get things done, or because I think he was lying about his political hopes, but because of a number of factors which aren’t all in his control.

For one the corporate media will rail against him whenever possible. While they did a better job I reckoned they would during the election season, I worry the corporate interests who certainly do not agree with Obama’s economic policy do whatever in their power to derail social and economic progress in Washington.

Secondly a Democratic president will really national conservatism, just how Bush II’s presidency rallied liberalsim the last few years. I worry about a repeat of the 1994 midterm elections which could potentially harm the Obama white house.

Thirdly, the Democratic House and Senate who rallied around Obama in the election cycle forces him to more moderate positions slowing down his plans for the nation.

Fourthly, the nation is in such a mess right now with two wars and an economic downturn, it will be near impossible to acquire the resources to make initial investments on social programs.

The fifth worry I have is the darkest, and I won’t dwell on it in this post, but It wouldn’t be overly surprising to me if our future president was threatened to not rock the political boat, if not worse.

With all that said though, I certainly have hope as well. I would argue that this presidency has the potential to be the most progressively successful of the past fifty, if not hundred years. To this point in his campaign, he has been flawless, and while I know that there are no blemish free presidencies, he seems as capable a leader as I have seen or read about in mainstream American politics.

Good luck.