IS MUSIC A DEAD ART?

 

Let's begin by defining what I mean by the term "dead art". In essence I'm referring to an art form which is no longer capable of significant technical or conceptual progress and no longer has the capacity to instigate change on a cultural level. An example of what I would consider a "dead" art would be painting, at least in the sense of something hanging in a traditional gallery somewhere. Perhaps it can be said that certain forms of graffiti still manage to trigger controversy and commentary. A practitioner such as Banksy is an example of someone able to inspire discussion and make political statements through their art. Street art aside, I don't see anything happening in that particular branch of the visual arts world which is likely to cause much of a stir or inspire anything to happen beyond its canvases. At most, paintings now simply decorate a room.  Perhaps the work of Warhol may have been the last time paintings had any particular impact on the larger cultural landscape other than, for example, soliciting outrage at the expense of a "stripe" on a canvas.  

I"m old enough to have experienced at least three major cultural shifts within my lifetime which I can say were, more or less, directly linked to a particular musical movement. In my childhood, the late 1960s, there was the psychedelic explosion. Though the primary impetus for that change was a narcotic, specifically LSD, its route through western culture was entirely paved by music. It was rock & roll bands who were sounding the clarion call and it was songs about altered perception which seduced the youth of the era into "tuning in, turning on & dropping out". Without bands like The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Grateful Dead and others, the word would never have been able to reach as many people as it did.

In my adolescence during the late 1970s, it was the three headed Cerberus of "punk", "new wave" & "industrial" music which broke kids out of their doldrums and got them thinking, dressing and behaving in new ways.  It was a rebellion against the status quo and conformity which had set in after the comedown of the hippies left their parents dropping the love beads and packing up the station-wagons that drove them out into the bland mediocrity of the suburban landscape.  

In the spring of my adulthood, the final revolution came about through the entwined twins of hip-hop/rap music and electronic rave culture spearheaded by acid house and techno music in the late 1980s and early 1990s.  Starting in the early 1980s, before the cancerous spread of gentrification and rising property costs, the warehouse was the scene where exploration and experimentation could happen.  You could get a cheap space for a couple hundred or less per month and pay for it by selling unlicensed booze at weekend parties a few times a month.  Designer drugs, mobile sound systems, isolated locations and trance inducing music sent youth back into tribal states of ecstasy and transcendence. Though a callback to the spirit of the 1960s in the case of the rave scene, the hip-hop crowd veered into the raw street rage of gangster culture.  It shone a glaring light on issues such as police brutality, racism, class discrimination, poverty and injustice.  In either case, it was again a time when adults were afraid of what their kids were getting into.     

Outside of my own personal experience, music as a driver of cultural influence practically only goes back to roughly the beginning of the 20th century.  Before that, you only had folk and traditional music available to the general public and those forms tended to reinforce and sustain existing norms rather than drive changes to them.  On the other extreme, with "classical" music, you might have some influence within the upper crust of society, but very little beyond it.  Religious music, like folk music, tended to sustain tradition rather than spur innovation.  It's not until the advent of recording technology that the idea of true "popular" music comes into play as the populace gain access to mass produced music mediums and playback systems accompanied by radio broadcasts.  Also, the push to innovate, driven by the industrial revolution and its technological advances, begins to trigger changes in music technology and techniques, and consequently, culture.  

The first popular music form to trigger controversy in the general public comes with the birth of jazz.  Elitist art movements like the Futurists and Dadaists may have inspired extreme experimentation with sound, but it was not something that noticeably effected the masses and remained a novelty of the galleries and wealthy art circles.  Jazz, on the other hand, came up from the black communities and was entirely driven by the "grass" roots (pun intended).  This was music that was accessible by the average person and was one of the first times music was seen as being a degenerate influence on youth.  It impacting dress styles, dance, sexuality and social issues.  The ideas of losing one's inhibitions and free expression were built into the very DNA of jazz and these have been a recurring theme throughout every musical epiphany and paradigm shift which has occurred since. 

In the 1950s, there was the birth of that great BEAST, rock and roll.  Here was a hybrid between white western swing music and black boogie-woogie blues with a backbone borrowed directly from native American aboriginal music, thanks to the Creole merger of Louisiana post-slavery blacks and "Indian" blood.  This combination proved combustible beyond anyone's imagination and sent the entire north American continent into a spin, one which would ultimately bust out onto the world stage and influence youth around the globe, from Europe to Africa to Asia.  Rock & roll was the proverbial "Pandora's Box" and, once that lid was open, all manner of wicked spirits flew out.

When you line all of these movements up, you have a 20th century popular culture which was continuously and repeatedly impacted and influenced by musical movements.  In each case, these changes were derided  and dismissed by conservative, "adult" overseers as subversive, perverted and destructive to the moral fiber of the youth and the nation.  There was a sense of threat and menace perceived by the "powers that be" which drove them to do whatever they could to stifle and inhibit the spread of these movements and, without exception, those efforts not only failed, but likely resulted in even more popularity for whatever it was they were trying to stop.  

Throughout the 20th century, there was also a marked and obvious change in the styles, techniques and technologies used to create music.  Something that was popular in the 1950s sounds completely different from something popular in the 1960s.  Take any decade or even the span of a few years and a major evolution could take place.  Anyone with even a basic familiarity with 20th century popular music can listen to virtually any tune and peg, fairly accurately, when it was made.  The style of playing, the recording techniques, the way it was mixed - all these clues tell the tale of when that recording was made and often where and by whom.  

Flash forward to the 21st century and things seem to have reached a kind of impasse in terms of forward momentum and cultural significance.  Since the 1990s, I can't think of any significant cultural shift which has been driven by music.  Technological changes such as computers, internet, smart phones and wireless networks have had far greater impact on our lives than any art form.  The machinery of the popular media has become so efficient at assimilating creative product, that nothing seems to be able to upset the cultural "apple cart" these days. 

Stylistically and technically, music has essentially plateaued.  We're two decades into the new millennium and I can put on a recording from 1995 and put it next to something form 2015 and only the most sophisticated, knowledgeable listener would be able to distinguish their origins.  For several decades, beginning with the unfortunately termed "Krautrock" of the early 1970s, electronic music was at the forefront of innovation and experimentation.  From the "motorik" rhythms of Kraftwerk and Neu to the ambience of Cluster & Eno to the pulsing sequencers of Tangerine Dream, the German music scene blasted the lid off and broke away from the rigidity of American blues archetypes.  After this, experimentation flew off in all directions through post punk, industrial, techno and a plethora of sub-genres, constantly evolving throughout the 1980s and 1990s.  But it all kind of stalled out after that.  Beyond the shifting of tempos between drum & bass and dubstep, the genres seemed to stabilize and consolidate and, with only minor variations since, they've remained relatively constant and consistent.

Culturally, no one gets upset about what a music personality does these days except for the most trivial and sensational issues of bizarre conduct or eccentric individual behavior.  Today, when Kanye West stirs up the media, it's because he's boasting about himself or proposing some laughable indulgence.  The days when politicians would discuss a Johnny Rotten in parliament or a president would put a John Lennon on a subversives list are long gone.  Rap music is more concerned with money and status these days than social justice, for the most part.  At least that's the kind of content that ends up in greatest rotation and gains the highest profile.  And those who do seek to make critical statements are commodified to the point where they are no threat to anyone in the establishment.  They are all neatly and safely packaged and peddled to the appropriate pauper for consumption.  

It seems that most art forms go through a similar arc in terms of their evolution.  They begin in primitivism, as an expression of the masses, evolve into more refined, classical complexity in the hands of the elite and then expand into more experimental realms such as abstractionism, surrealism, modernism and impressionism before ultimately culminating in various forms of post-modernism, which creates hybrids between all of these various branches.  Once you get to the stage of post-modernism, works tend to become self-referential and the commentary becomes an internal dialogue.  That point where the art is able to interact with and influence people and culture on a large scale begins to diminish and disappear.  The medium then tends to fade into the background as mere decoration or embellishment. 

This is where we seem to have arrived at in terms of the art of music.  It now seems to be no more than a structural component rather than something that stands on its own.  People spend less and less time sitting down and listening to music anymore or taking any kind of message or influence from it.  It's mostly just something that's happening in the background. It's no more than a form of "wallpaper" or distraction and not a primary focus of attention.  It's not that that there's anything intrinsically wrong with that, but for someone who grew up with music that made revolutions, I can't help but express a sort of lamentation for the loss of that capability.  Parents don't get scared by their kids records anymore.  Sure, they may not like them or find them objectionable for aesthetic reasons, but they rarely worry that their kids might join some subversive movement because of whatever is hiding in those grooves.  Even that terminology is irrelevant now as most people don't use physical media anymore except as a fetishized object for some hipster sense of nostalgia.

It's not that no one is doing "good" music.  As subjective as that may sound, there are very real standards which can provide a sense of value and quality for any piece of music.  Talented artists are creating quality recordings and performances.  It's just that the sense of a sharp, cutting edge has gone.  I can't look out there anywhere and find anything that gives me that quiver in my gut feeling that something "dangerous" is going on. 

If there is any art form remaining which can get the hackles up of the establishment, I'm not sure I know what it is or where to find it.  I suppose the most dangerous, subversive medium on the planet these days is the dark web, but this is more a place of criminals and perverts than revolutionaries.  If they do exist there, they're doing a pretty shitty job of pulling the pins on this nightmare we're all trapped in.  At a time when we are staring down the barrel of extinction level global catastrophes, we need that revolutionary voice now more than ever.  We need something that can wake us out of this zombie like trance that keeps us lumbering ever closer to the precipice awaiting our final stumble.  If it's out there, I have yet to see it. 

POP DOES PUNK - IGGY'S FOUR STEPS TO CREDIBILITY

The following reviews were originally posted on my Facebook timeline, but I figure they're a significant enough bit of writing to warrant a more permanent placement here on this blog. As I've been editing and reading through these, I've done a bit of work to fill things out and fix up some things that may have been fine for social media, but don't really cut it for this context.

__________________________________________________________________

I recently watched the new Iggy Pop produced 4 part docu-series, PUNK. Watching it brought me back through a lot of the music of my youth, which inspired me to write down a few thoughts.

The first episode starts things off by covering the genre's American roots in Detroit with bands like The MC5 and The Stooges before moving over to the east coast to The New York Dolls. These bands set the stage in the late '60s & early '70s by breaking away from the fuzzy freakishness of the hippie era and delving into something much more dark and primal. Among the three of them, you have the Stooges bringing the rawness and simplicity that would be the foundation of the sound, the MC5 laying down some political awareness and the Dolls bringing in a warped sense of fashion and outrage. Pretty much the perfect building blocks of what was to come.

From there, we move into the CBGB's scene with artists like Ramones, Blondie, Wayne/Jane County and Richard Hell. There's a few references to The Dead Boys and Dictators as well, but, disappointingly, no mention of Suicide, Talking Heads or Patti Smith. This, unfortunately, leaves a few noticeable holes in the narrative, but what they do cover is dealt with well enough. The interviews are generally very informative and give a solid sense of the evolution of the scene.

This first part culminates with the failed attempt to revitalize The New York Dolls by Malcolm McLaren and ends with him hightailing it back to London to try to put a band together utilizing the scruffy boys hanging about in front of his clothes shop. Obviously, they're building the bridge to the second episode by showing the migration of influence from New York to London. I suspect the producers are trying to show a chain of causality from one scene to another and, indeed, there is some lingering controversy in terms of who influenced who and who originated "punk". And though it can be said that NY/US scenes came first, there's something else I got from all of this laying of groundwork.

You can see how the scene in NY was so much a case of a lot of fuel piling up, but no spark to ignite it all. All this stuff was going nowhere by the mid 70s and this is stated as much in the first episode. It was only known by a small group of local hipsters and had no national presence. If it had ended there, if there had been nothing happening in London, I suspect we would never have heard of bands like Ramones or many of their contemporaries and people like Pop and the Dolls would have been no more than mere footnotes in the history of rock & roll. There just wasn't any "buzz" to drive a national, let alone global, awakening towards this music. It's not until the Sex Pistols come along and capture the attention of the global mass media that the match is put to the woodpile and the flames really go up.

This brings us to the second episode, which puts the focus pretty heavily on the Sex Pistols, as expected. However before that, there is a wonderful bit that deals with the role of women in punk and that was a real treat. The Slits were the main focus, which featured interviews with founding members Palmolive and Viv Albertine, who both offered unique insights into their involvement and evolution within the scene.

As an aside, I must add that it's surprising how many people didn't get interviewed for this, but I suppose you get who you can in this sort of production. The Damned and the Clash also feature significantly with Dave Vanian offering some perceptive contributions, but only having Terry Chimes representing The Clash was a bit disappointing. He was never a particularly significant member and didn't frankly care much about the politics or the deeper themes the band were known for. Either Paul Simonon or Mick Jones would have had a much better understanding of the band and their impact.

However, as I said, this second installment was very much the Sex Pistols show and with good reason. It's hard to comprehend how weird it was for a band like the Pistols to create such a media frenzy. Not that we aren't saturated with sensationalism now, but to have it driven by a bunch of guys with guitars is nothing short of surreal. Nobody really cares about musicians these days. Sure, you've got people like Kanye driving tabloid sales, but it's all no more than a trash fashion fixation and not that sense that the world has been seized by the "anti-Christ", which was a very real perception of Johnny Rotten in some circles. The fact that this little band could spend a week in America at the beginning of 1978 and upend the music industry in the process is rather inexplicable and unprecedented. That crazy little tour made "punk" a household word. John Lydon does most of the talking for this particular piece of the punk puzzle and, while he can come off as rather arrogant in some instances, more often than not, the points he's making are quite valid, if you take the time to look at things objectively. And while this second episode didn't have quite the narrative cohesion of the first, it did eventually work its way into the death throws that were the Pistols breakup and Sid's self destruction, which wrapped it up with a tidy, though bloody, bow.

Episode three shifts the focus back across the Atlantic and to the US scenes again, starting in NY, moving to DC and finally LA, with a welcome aside to good ol' VANCOUVER! I was very happy to see DOA feature so prominently and deservedly for their pioneering work establishing touring resources and routes for many other bands to put to use in those days. We also have representation from groups like Bad Brains, Black Flag, Dead Kennedys and a few others. However, this is the part of the story where my interest drops away pretty steeply as the emphasis on violent male aggression becomes the primary calling card of the day and leads far too quickly into the whole "skinhead" and white supremacy cultures.

This is the slippery slope you slide down when you are perceived as an excuse to kick heads instead of kicking ass. It is clear to me that people like Henry Rollins and Jello Biafra are true intellectuals who are capable of understanding and insight and I love hearing their perspectives, but I can't help but express some kind of frustration and disparagement for the way that what they did paved the way for Doc Martin wearing racist thugs to give voice to their hatred. I don't want to put this all at their feet, but some of it has to land there given the types of crowds they attracted.

But I also can't point the finger only at the punks for allowing this faction into the fold. The Industrial and Neo Folk scenes are just as guilty of inviting this sort of rubbish along for the ride as anyone else. Shock tactics, violence and extremism offer ways to jolt people out of their complacency, but they're a double edged sword and people are often too seduced by their sadistic impulses into treating these things as sensational ends in themselves rather than a means to alerting people of the dangers of herd conformity and ignorance.

It becomes destruction for its own sake, but the true spirit that started this movement was about breaking down walls and restrictions in order to move forward. This is why the majority of the originators of the sound moved on to more experimental and investigative approaches after the initial rush of nihilism had blasted a path clear into something new. But those who chose to stay in the rubble and keep smashing at the fragments only managed to dig themselves into a hole of brutish self destruction. You can't simply be content with that one act of rebellion. You have to be able, and willing, to build once you've knocked something down.

The fourth and final episode brings things home by starting in the early 90s with the shift from "hardcore" to "grunge" and then examines its infiltration into the mainstream music industry and finally wraps up with the decimation of the industry caused by the internet and pirating. Again, we have a much welcome section at the start which looks at the significant role of women as the grunge scene counteracted against their seeming exclusion by the often misogynistic hardcore culture. These forays into the feminine contribution, while welcome, also serve to highlight how desperately we need a documentary series that focuses on the ladies and their contributions to alternative music. I'll put it out there to the universe that someone like Patti Smith needs to do a take on this.

The overarching theme to this finale, however, comes down to that fine line between art and commerce, for as much as "punk" wants to be rebellious, it also wants to succeed. If the Ramones had been able to crack the marketplace the way Green Day did, they would have been thrilled for it. They ALWAYS fancied their songs as hit singles. You can't tell me they wouldn't have been on cloud 9 if they'd had a hit like Dookie. The fact that their songs eventually became iconic, finding eternal life as sports anthems and the like, only means they were right about the accessibility of what they were doing. Their timing was simply off.

Success can also be a curse, however. Fame is often poison for the soul. Popularity creates a kind of insulation around a person where they're suddenly surrounded by parasitic "yes men". Once that happens, reality warps into some distorted fantasy supported by people who will never tell you the truth or say "no" to whatever you ask for. As is pointed out, when "cool" things become popular, they lose their "coolness". It's a challenging balancing act to be progressive without being trendy. It's the difference between those who are true seekers on the edge of experience vs those who merely seek validation for the act of being ahead of the curve when they really have no understanding of why that has any value in the first place. Are you cutting a new path or just sweeping up the discards of those who have trodden one that's already well worn?

Beyond this, there is this essence of wanting to break free. I've seen it repeat itself the past 50 years, over and over again. Whenever there's an awakening to the realities of oppression and restraint and a desire to break free, this spirit crops up again.  Taqwacore: The Birth of Punk Islam, is a wonderful documentary that gives an excellent example of this process happening in the Arab/Islamic world and shows how intrinsic it is to human nature.  I think, as long as there's someone trying to keep a lid on the human spirit, there's gonna be some kids somewhere who are going to pick up a guitar or a synth or a microphone and say "fuck your bullshit". It'll take new forms, but that desire to smash through the walls will always find some expression somehow.

All together, I think this series does a pretty commendable job of showing the origins, evolution, history and future potential of what has become (sometimes regretfully) labeled as "Punk" rock.  It gives us a clear insight into an elemental aspect of human nature unique to the 20th and 21st centuries.  It's something which is a response to our industrialized, technological civilization which, on the one hand, seeks to advance humanity while, simultaneously and conversely,  trying to stifle it and force it to conform to a kind of artificial homo-geniality which is contrary to its basic nature and therefore inspires rebellion and protest.  

A FAREWELL TO KINGS

As a fan of Game of Thrones, I've been noticing all the theorists positing their predictions on who will end up taking the "iron throne" as the series wraps up its final season.  As I consider these, it occurs to me that nothing would be more tedious and boring than if this whole show was about no more than who ends up in that seat.  Personally, I don't care if it's a Lannister or a Stark or a Targaryen.  If this has all been about no more than a play for power, then it's just another tired fairy-tale driven by the same old cliches as the rest of them.  But I think ol' R.R. Martin deserves more credit than that and I'm hoping he delivers a surprise twist in the end that no one is really expecting.  

What I'm hoping for is that he shows that the throne itself needs to be put into question and the idea of its power, and those who wield it, needs to be challenged.   I'm hoping that, by the end of this series, NO ONE is on the throne.  I'm hoping that the entire power structure it represents is destroyed.  The reason I'm looking for that kind of resolution is because fiction is meant to offer humanity an opportunity to address its foibles and there is no folly which is more urgently in need of addressing than the concept of hierarchical power structures.  

This concept, that we have one "leader" who then dispenses authority to (usually) his minions below,  has been at the root of human social structures since the beginning of civilization.  One might argue that, since it has lasted so long, perhaps it is because it is a reasonable, logical structure to use for organizing humanity and we should not be too eager to usurp it.  But I think, if humanity is going to have any hope at all of surviving for the "long haul", you know, like more than another century, we're gonna need some RADICAL new approaches to social order because what we're doing now is really NOT working.  

At the moment, the United States is offering a prime example of how bad this concept can get when you put the wrong person at the top.  Its entire governing structure has been co-opted and corrupted by an organized gang of criminals intent on using that system for their own personal gain with ZERO consideration for the welfare of those being governed nor the wider global system with which it interacts.  These people couldn't be more blatant about their nefarious intent if they were Batman villains running around with clown makeup and top hats.  It is this system of hierarchy which has allowed this kind of corruption to exist because it places leadership on a level above reproach and beyond being responsible for its actions.  The failure of the FBI's recent obstruction investigation to level any legal response against these con artists is only the most superficial symptom of the sickness which pervades every level of so-called "checks and balances" which were supposed to prevent this kind of abuse of power.  

Western democracies may not be run on the principle of the "divine right of kings", but what we see evidenced is no less a process of rule by elite where privilege and paternity are the primary deciding factors in determining who makes the decisions and where the power flows.  Even in Canada, we have a political dynasty with Trudeau while in the US, families like the Bush and Kennedy clans continue to hold influence.  Ultimately, however, it is the mighty dollar that is the primary factor in determining who gets to make the rules and who has to "pay the piper".  Capitalism is fundamentally a "top down" system whereby authority is based on financial resources and nothing more.  It merely measures accumulations of wealth and uses that as a basis upon which to align its hierarchy.  "Old" money may tend to have more sway as we see certain long standing families entrench themselves into the system, but "new" money can always find a foothold when it gets big enough.  

It's also not just a problem of having the wrong people at the top.  No amount of shuffling the deck will counteract the corrupting influence which unfettered authority imparts.  The old saw about "power corrupting" is well earned and copiously demonstrated by examples going back through the centuries.  There is no such thing, in practice, as a "benevolent" dictatorship and democracy doesn't really help in terms of putting better people at the helm.  The power structure is the same as a dictatorship or a monarchy.  It's always a "top down", pyramidal organization.  The only thing democracy did was replace succession via birthright or military might with a popularity contest whereby the lowest common denominator ends up in the seat, often dumbed down to the point of idiocy as we've seen with that powdered pinhead, Trump.  

If we're going to move away from this sort of power structure, the obvious question is, what's the alternative?  Here we are in dire need of an epiphany or a true paradigm shift.  I'm too entrenched in the old system to be able to fully conceive of a new one.  I've been raised in it and conditioned by it my entire life so that I can barely help but differ to it or manage to scrape enough conscience together to question it in these fading years of my senior life.  I've seen glimpses of an alternative in recent years in the decentralized organizational murmurings of the "Occupy" movement from earlier in this new millennium.  It flashed into view for a brief moment, like a spot fire in the forest, popping up here and there across the globe, but it seems to have been quickly stamped out by the "powers that be" since then.  I've seen very little progress or evidence of it lately.  But I do believe that something in some similar form is lurking on the horizon if we can manage to survive this century without turning our home into an uninhabitable wasteland.  

I think the ingredients are fundamentally basic.  Firstly, no single person should be put in a position of ultimate authority.  Though it has become a common cliche to think of committees as "places where ideas go to die", some form of communal decision making process is required.  Above all, it must be structured in a way that eliminates the special interests of privileged minorities from dictating outcomes and defining values and benefits.  Considerations need to be given in terms of individual exceptions and variants, but not at the expense of the greater welfare.  Secondly, the people within government should be appointed to these positions on the basis of merit and experience.  No appointment should be irrevocable and the process should be transparent, subject to auditing and amendable as greater understanding of any given role is gained.  Qualifications should be based in practical experience.  For example, oversight of medical institutions should be done by people who have worked in the field, either directly as practitioners or within the administrative branch.  This farce of incompetent buffoons currently holding government offices who have no knowledge of their particular area of specialization would be wiped out under a proper peer reviewing appointment system.  

The concept of democratic input into processes and systems also needs to be framed within the confines of a system whereby basic rights and freedoms are guaranteed and NOT subject to curtailment or elimination based on populist fads or frivolities.  A lot of this sort of thing has been attempted, to some extent, within existing western constitutions and charters, but much of it remains exposed and vulnerable to politicking by special interests and ideological extremists who seek to impose their beliefs within the system.  The fact that something as fundamental to human health as abortion continues to teeter on the brink of criminalization after decades of debate and practical example is a glaring failure within government to secure the rights of a major segment of the population, the half of it which happens to be of the female gender.  That such a massive portion of the population must exist with such uncertainty and fear is inexcusable for any civilized society.  That this hasn't caused the populace to erupt in riots in the streets is no less than a miracle.  

Of course, this is merely a scratch upon the surface of an issue too massive to be grappled with in such a minor bit of contemplation.  Changing out that cornerstone of human civilization is a task which, I suspect, shall only come about when it becomes a necessity.  Its consequences will be too painful for those who have sheltered their existence inside those old walls.  Those who have, until now, found safety within that dying paradigm will not surrender it without a struggle.  Indeed, it may take the utter collapse of what we call "civilization" to enable a clear field for the construction of a new edifice of social order.  Only when we have suffered that catastrophe shall the inevitability of change be thrust upon us.

CHILDREN OF THE REVOLUTION

This message is for the children.  It is not for adults, especially people over 30.  It may sound like an old hippy cliche, but you just can't trust us.  More to the point, you can't change us.  For all practical purposes, we're a lost cause.  We're simply not capable of making the changes needed to save this world.  We are beyond redemption, set in our ways and locked into a perception of reality which does not include taking the kinds of actions that are going to be necessary in the coming decades.

And, let's be blunt here, we only have maybe a few decades left to do anything to address the mess we've made.    Socially, politically, economically and, most critically, environmentally, the bills are all coming due at the same time and we're just standing around with our empty pockets out-turned and stupid expressions of confusion plastered on our faces.  We're a goddamned disgrace and anyone who can't admit that at this point is a delusional fool.  

So I'm going to first say, I'm sorry.  I really am.  I know that's a useless sentiment to offer because it helps nothing, but I do want you to know that I wish things had been different.  I come from a generation who latched onto the optimism and idealism that, through technology, we'd be going out among the stars and living the dream of peace, prosperity and possibility.  What we didn't count on was the inexorable inertia of ignorance and selfishness that would drag us down, like a stone chained to our collective ankle, into the depths of misinformation, mysticism, myopia and madness.  

Every institution we've created to help better our civilization has been corrupted by the cancer of greed.  Our educational systems work tirelessly to make us stupid.  Our religions cling steadfastly to ignorance as a spiritual value.  Our courts have severed the arms from the scales of justice and used them to build factories for slave labor.  Our healthcare has turned sickness into an investment opportunity.  Our bureaucrats have turned the craft of governance and administration into a shell game, where voting is a con and there's never anything under any of the shells.  Only our sciences have offered any form of advancement, yet every step forward has been perverted for the sake of destruction, exploitation, incarceration, surveillance and manipulation.

Collectively, we all stand on the precipice of doom and the wall of garbage we have created behind us is about ready to push us over the edge.  The hour is upon us.  The time for procrastination has passed.  There is no savior coming to offer us salvation.  There is only the desperation of the young left to bring us any shred of hope because we have taken their future and sold it and what we bought with it is a fraud and a deception.  We've squandered it so a few people could live a life of luxury while everyone else withered in squalor.  Countless generations before us have lived, suffered and died in order to crawl out of the mud, only to have it all come to an end with a couple of generations of entitled, privileged brats.

The protests of the past have been pointless and achieved nothing.  The so-called "enlightenment" of the 60's youth movements were no more than a parade of paisley pretensions.  We thought that "art" was enough to make a difference and change the course of history.  It was all merely noise and flashing lights, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing".  We were naive and stupid to think anyone was paying attention.  In the end, all those efforts added up to no more than entertainment and diversion from the real problems that were piling up all around us, drowning us in the continental sized floating trash heaps that now choke the oceans.

What I'm trying to get at, dear youth, is that you're fucked (pardon my language).  Protests and songs and letters to the editor and elections and all of that rubbish are not going to save you.  The hard truth is that, if you want a future, you're going to have to get it together and take control away from the adults and they're not going to let it go without a fight.  Unfortunately, your parents haven't done you any favors with all of that coddling and cuddling and padding and protecting you from peanuts and persecution.  That's assuming you're privileged enough to have parents who cared about you in the first place and if you were affluent enough for them to wrap you in that bubble.  And, if you are that kind of kid, you'll probably be just as useless as the adults you need to take down.

What's coming is going to get messy and you're going to have to get your hands dirty in order to do the work that needs to be done.  You won't be able to worry about being nice about it either.  You can't fret about who you're going to offend or if someone's feelings are going to get hurt.  You can't be bothering with respecting "beliefs".  All these imaginary "gods" have done nothing but perpetuate the ignorance that has precipitated this mess in the first place.  Faith is finished.  Only actions matter now; decisive, definitive, productive ACTIONS!

I am a dinosaur, gawking stupidly at the sky as the asteroid of my generation's hubris is about to slam into this Earth.  I will not survive it.  Whether you do will depend on your ability to learn from our mistakes and not make them again.  It's not going to be easy and I can't guarantee it's even possible for I don't truly grasp the extent of the damage that has been done.  We may not leave anything at all in our wake capable of sustaining anyone.  Which is why the urgency for you to take over has never been greater and will only become more dire as each day passes.  Don't wait.  Don't waste time.  That was our lot and you can see where it got us.  It's the only chance you have, so TAKE IT! 

 

HELLO, MARRY SUE

In the past year, I've become acquainted with a term which I predominantly hear associated with female characters in science fiction and fantasy TV, films and books.  The term, "Mary Sue", (with it's male equivalents, "Marty Stu", "Gary Sue", or "Larry Stu"), is used to identify fictional characters who posses traits that make them "too good to be true".  They supposedly have some combination of abilities and talents which render them essentially "flawless".  The proposed purpose of the term is to identify unrealistic, unbelievable characters who lack depth and detail in terms of offering any internal conflict or flaw which may drive narrative interest.  

On the surface, this terminology would seem applicable to either gender equally, but in practice, I have observed a very definite bias in terms of how the term is used and against which characters. With very little variation, it is almost exclusively used against females.  Even the fact that there are multiple variants of the male version tells me that its use in that context is irregular and significantly less frequent.  The fact that there only seems to be a single female variant tells me that its purpose is much more aligned with some deeper sexist intent.

In recent years, there has been a marked shift within the realm of fiction towards a more inclusive, diverse narrative, with the use of competent, capable female lead characters becoming more and more prominent.  In contrast with this, there has been a corresponding backlash from the male audience.  A kind of "toxic" fandom has evolved within this breach whereby those who feel threatened in some way by this shift, pick out these characters and, invariably, tag them with the epithet, "Mary Sue".   Recent examples include Rey in Star Wars and Michael Burnham in Star Trek Discovery, with both characters being on the forefront of so-called "fan" revolts whereby orchestrated campaigns have  taken place to sabotage ratings systems with negative reviews and comments. 

The use of the term seems to be intended to undermine any attempt to portray a female lead in any kind of heroic context.  Any indication of significant competence and ability will trigger the use of the term.  Yet male heroic characters seem to be immune to the accusation and are rarely, if ever, included in such attacks.  This audience faction seems determined to retain limitations on female characters to such roles as the "damsel in distress", someone to be "saved" by the male heroic character.  Attempts to modify this trope and introduce variant dynamics are seen as insincere manipulations by a "liberal" elite to introduce concepts of "social justice" as a means to violate the sanctity of male superiority and control.

I've seen it used in this context so frequently that the term has become something of a trigger word, like "libtard" or "snowflake", for that particular brand of retrograde, reactive mentality which balks at any and all attempts to think in progressive terms or address any kind of imbalance in the social sphere as it applies to gender roles and characterizations.  Scratch the surface of any male tossing the term "Marry Sue" into a critique and I guarantee you'll find someone struggling with insecurities and usually lacking social tact when dealing with members of the opposite sex. 

INTRODUCTION - WHERE DO I GO FROM HERE?

At the ripe old age of (almost) 56, I'm spending what feels like my remaining years doing little more than waiting to die.  I don't feel driven by any desire to accomplish anything, I have no goals, I have no sense of a future to plan for.  All I have is a sense of finality, that I've reached a point where I simply have nothing left to contribute and no one left who would care if I did.  I shouldn't say "no one".  There is a handful of people who would lament my passing, should it occur any time soon, but that's not the point.  The point is that, for most of my life, I felt like I was at least "in the game" and there was some possibility of accomplishing something.  In the past few years however, that feeling has slipped away into a dim memory.

What I see in the world around me is a civilization hurtling towards disaster; economic, social, political and environmental.  I don't see any indication that humanity is evolving towards anything better than what we've had in the past.  What I see is a general intellectual  decline into a culture of ignorance and stupidity.  The knuckle-dragging thugs are winning.  The criminals have the edge.  Nothing I find within my grasp seems to have any potential to counter that trend and, indeed, very little seems to be within reach at all.

Internally, I'm feeling stuck like a fly in amber.  I feel paralyzed and impotent.  I can no longer provide for myself in terms of earning a living.  My health has failed me on many levels within the last 6 years.  Where I was once gainfully employed in a rewarding career with a respectable title and ample remuneration, now I feel like no employer would ever consider taking a risk on investing in me.  And beyond my inability to earn an income, there is the death of my creative spirit which lead me to conceive of myself as something of an "artist", an identity which provided a sense of purpose that took me through my adolescence and well into my middle age.  

Creativity seems futile now.  It's just shouting into a void.  There's no one there to hear it and nothing that will come of it.  People say I should keep creating just for my own satisfaction, but they don't seem to understand that self satisfaction is the most fleeting feeling of them all.   It has no more substance than a fart.  It has no more value than patting myself on the back.  And the reason for that is because creative expression is, above all things, a means of communication and that process requires both a transmitter and a receiver and one cannot be both for a message to have any value.  The whole purpose of communication is to transmit information from one place to another.  

If all I'm doing within the process of creation is communicating with myself, then it is no more than a dream, without form or function.  It is redundant to provide myself with information I already have.  I cannot empathize with my own feelings when empathy, by its very nature, requires more than one entity to experience the same thing.  I feel what I feel and I know what I know, but if there's no one else to share that with, then the creative process has no purpose.   

So that brings me back to the hours I spend alone wondering how much longer I have and thinking that I have nothing to work towards and no hope of things getting better.  My health will continue to decline, my financial situation will continue to become more dire and my ability to cope will become more strained.  Everything is on a downward trend with nothing able to reverse the direction of any of those indicators.  My only hope financially is to try to get classified as permanently disabled, which would increase my government income slightly and take the pressure off in terms of the expectation of looking for "work".  For all practical purposes, I am unemployable.  My condition means I could have a heart attack or stroke waiting around the corner at virtually any time.  All those take to trigger is enough stress.  If I do manage to get classified as "PwD" (persons with disability), then what?  Continue to struggle to survive until I keel over?  How many years will I have of that?  

At this point, there is only one outlet that still offers me some satisfaction - the written word.  I haven't tried to create new music for over 2 years.  I haven't wanted to do any video, photography or graphics for nearly as long.  I think I've managed to knock up a couple of stupid memes for posting on line, but who cares.  They never go viral.  Why that would be valuable doesn't even matter.  But I keep writing things.  Somehow what's left of my creative urge has settled into the medium of text and I keep writing things; opinions, reviews, commentary, critiques... etc.  For some reason words keep coming from my fingertips and people keep telling me to write more, so here I am, trying to get these thoughts together in one place.

To that end, I'm starting this little blog.  I don't know how this is supposed to work.  I don't know what I'm supposed to do to get anyone to read this.  I guess I'm just going to figure it out as I go along and see where it goes.  They say, if I get enough traffic, I can monetize this thing and get paid something for it.  Wouldn't THAT be a laugh!  But it doesn't matter anyway.  If I'm going to be compelled to write, I might as well stick these messages in this particular bottle and toss it out into the sea of the internet and maybe it'll drift onto someone's shore.  Maybe they'll even read some of it.  At this point, I have nothing to lose by putting this out there and seeing where it goes.  I don't have any specific direction I plan to take this.  It's just going to be whatever comes out of my fingers at any point in time until my fingers don't work anymore.  That may be sooner than I'd like to admit these days, but that's another consideration.

So if you're finding this and feel like following along, well then you're welcome to and you're welcome to share your thoughts on whatever I write as long as you're nice about it.  I'm not here to take anyone's abuse, so if that's all you've got to offer, no thanks.  Otherwise, I'll always do my best to respond in kind and offer anything I can if you have a question or two.   

Now, where do I go from here?

OCCUPATIONAL HAZZARD

 

In principal, I neither hate nor oppose the idea of a business.  I think that it is a completely natural, rational thing, from a human perspective, to organize an entity who's purpose is to create, develop and/or deliver useful and desirable goods and/or services.  I think that it is fair and reasonable to expect some benefit from providing those things.  When done correctly, a business can benefit a community in a myriad of ways as it both provides a livelihood for those who operate it and helps the community through the secondary benefits of creating employees capable of trading with other businesses.  I think it makes sense to create corporations in order to manage and secure investments in businesses and to enable them to function as coherent entities within a "free" market system (defined as an environment which does not use force or coercion to govern the exchange of those goods and services).  I don't have any problem with this concept and I don't think many other reasonable people have a problem with it either. 

However, these entities have to exist within a society (a collection of individuals) and an environment (the natural world we inhabit on this planet).  When they begin to function in a manner which is hostile to their surroundings and the people who inhabit them, then we have a problem.  When a company or a business becomes a destroyer of the environment, causing long term or irreparable damage, it is no longer a benefit to the society which has to live with that damage.  When a company is abusive to its employees, it is not benefiting the community.  When it blatantly engages in fraud and other criminal activities, it should be shut down and prevented from engaging in any further activities of that nature.

This is why we have laws, why we have courts and why we have police.  These exist to protect the population from being harmed or forced into actions which are harmful to others.  We have these laws so that individuals are protected from theft and murder and violence and, lest we forget, negligence.  Yet this is not what is happening in our "business" world today.

Major corporations are not servants of the population, but their masters.  They have been granted rights beyond individual humans.  They are not accountable for their actions.  They are not held culpable when they destroy the environment or cause harm or death to the population.  They buy the politicians, the police and the courts.  They engage in blatantly fraudulent actions, manipulating financial institutions and treating the investments and savings of legitimate working people like gambling chips to be played with until everyone goes bust. 

This is the state of business today.  Rip people off whenever possible.  Abuse workers as much as you can.  Refrain from contributing to the community in which you exist.  Rape the environment.  As long as the money keeps rolling and you have control over the use of force in your society, then it's "anything goes". 

This is what people are protesting as they assemble in city after city to "occupy" the streets and make their voices heard.  They are not, as the people in power would have you believe, "anti business".  They are anti crime and anti abuse and anti death and devastation.  They are concerned for a future which has been sabotaged by a tiny cabal of sociopathic, psychopathic power brokers who have their own agenda for this world and it does not (and never will) have any concern for you or your wellbeing. 

I am not anti business.  I am against crime and cruelty and abuse.  That is what everyone who is engaged in these protests is against.  This is the core of this movement.  We are tired of being ripped off, lied to and left for dead.  We will not stay silent.  We will not go away.