The Bears: "Habitual Choke Artists"

It's been a long time coming, and I didn't want to write this one. They left me no choice after yesterday's dismal and bleak performance. Where are the days of old, when the Bears were a force to be reckoned with? Gone. Yes, that's right, I said it. It's time to face the facts on a fluke season: they choked, badly. It's something that most Chicagoans have dealt with for twenty years, since Super Bowl 20. As the old saying goes, "Even the sun shines on a dog's ass some days," and I'm not too sure what that means in describing luck, but it seems to fit here.

I felt they had a legitimate shot to get to the big dance, but they crumbled, as usual, under the pressure of a playoff game, under the pressure of expectations to excel. This seems to be the trademark of the Bears. It was a disgusting performance on both sides of the football: the offense was stagnant and the defense was picked apart systematically. It was embarrassing and frustrating to watch.

As my wife said, "there is always next season," but I'm not getting my hopes up. It's hard enough being a Chicago fan in the land of cheese, and when your team chokes as dramatically as they did yesterday, it gets even harder to defend them. It's just a game, it means absolutely nothing in the grand scheme of things; my life was not going to be any different today if the Bears had won; I wouldn't suddenly become a millionaire overnight, the air wouldn't be any warmer, and I still have to drink water throughout the course of the day. Sports are a simple way to displace yourself for a few hours, forget your troubles and invest in your team's troubles. It's an excuse to drink more than you should, use expletives in excess, and pretend to be bigger than yourself for a couple of hours, invest in a cause. And, if I can tangent for a moment, what city is actually a better place because they have a winning sports team? In many instances, cities become violent when sports teams are successful. There are celebration riots and chaos. If your team is too successful, the fans become obnoxious, for instance the Packers, and the fans who moon the visiting team's bus on the way into the stadium. They get violent when fans of the opposing team enter the city, maiming them at bars and in the stands. Not one city is absolved of this, and Bear fans, like Raider fans, Packer Fans, Cleveland fans, and Dallas fans, are a special breed. The only difference being, we've come to accept disappointment as the common denominator.

And, as for the Bears, yes, I'll root for them again next season. I'll talk them up when they've won, and shame them when they lose and dissassociate myself until next Sunday. We'll just have to face the truth: we'll probably never see another Super Bowl Shuffle in our lifetimes.

(Special Note: For those who have read this Blog previously, I do apologize for not using larger text. Any Optometrist Bills incurred, please send to me immediately.)

New Years: How New is it Really?

So, the New Year has begun. For many, it was brought in with excessive consumption of alcohol and other substances, and for some they whittled away the hours with friends and family, sharing the "good times". We assume, once the sparkle-ball of light descends upon the tens of thousands of hapless drunks in Times Square, as if by magic, everything is different. We celebrate the "new-ness" and imagine it as a clean slate. Our faults are wiped away, that zit which sprung up in the middle of your forehead at the beginning of the night has vanished at the stroke of midnight, a chance to start morally anew: wrong.

When did absolution become part of the New Years pact? I must have been in limbo when our culture decided on this: it's simple, if you were rotten in 2005, then you will be rotten in 2006. If one were to look at all the messages we send through media, you would begin to believe New Years is a pseudo-baptism: your sins are washed away. (Pardon the Catholicism reference, but once the church slips its hooks into you, it's hard to wiggle free. If I offended anyone just then, and you'll now spend three days consectutively in the corner of a dark room with whiskey and cigarettes, tough, get your own blog to release your feelings.) As if a "resolution" is a mystical, mysterious chant, and once it has been uttered those things cease to exist within you. It's a load of shit, but we buy it hook, line, and sinker every year. Why?

Perhaps there is something within humanity that wishes to be "clean", that wishes for renewal. And, I believe, this is meaningful and noble. Humanity, in general, should want to mend their ways, mend old wounds, and should try to live humanely. But, to stand in a drunken haze, chant a sentence about reform, and expect things to be different is beyond silly. It's foolish and bordering on dementia. But, that is what we, as people in this culture, expect to happen. If you really want to something to change, to be different; if you want see yourself and this world differently, you are going to have to struggle for it. All progress is made through struggle, through conflict, whether it's societal or cultural or personal, this is what needs to happen, must happen.

Your sins/faults/misgivings are not absolved: you will still be the pathetic, spineless, haggard, crooked, stubborn, two-faced, overly-narcissistic person you were. This applies to politics and politicians as well. Their policies and practices always precede them, long after they've gone to the great big pig troff in the sky. This belief that the New Year brings new things is completely false; it was crushed long before the advent of struggle could be born, it is doomed to repeat itself. Practices and policy don't change. It's hard thing to accept; it's a hard thing to learn about the world: it isn't as dynamic as we all believe it to be, things don't just change because we believe it should, or even because we've tried once or twice. For the most part, as cynical and miserable as it sounds, the world remains static. A New Year does not make the world suddenly dynamic and open to possibility, it's just the same year on repeat with a new fancy title.

Rock N Roll is Dead (And We Like It) Part II:

Though there may only be two people out there reading this, it has come to my attention I have been unfair toward the Country Music community. I was accused of deliberately jabbing Country Music and straying away from the point of the Blog: Rock N Roll is Dead. In all honesty, of course I took a cheap shot; folks, that's what blogs are for, Blogs let you say what you normally wouldn't say aloud to anyone you know. I wouldn't necessarily say that Blogs are cowardice, but it is certainly a ambiguous way to feel anonymously powerful, if only for the ten minutes you write it. Furthermore, Blogs are inherently subjective. And, if we can be academic for a moment, objectivity exists only to focus and bend the refracted light of subjectivity. So, in essence, what I'm saying is that Objectivity is merely the hand-maiden of Subjectivity. (Do with that what you will)

Yes, but I suppose I have digressed from what we were talking about: Country Music. The real point the reader made was that I was inconsistent if you'll remember, "Ethnocentric, and dare I say it, full of misery and self-loathing." I then alluded this is why the Blues were created and that is was certainly more creative and soulful. I was taken to task by a reader, who happened to know my email address, and what follows is the dialogue we had back and forth. (Note: I publish this dialouge in hopes that other readers will appreciate the notion of dialogue as a means to undertstanding one another and communicate)

M: "How is it that Country is ethnocentic, when the Blues is not? Not that I like country, but just the same, it is incongruous. Otherwise the post is decent, save for the "their" instead of "they're". (Note: I have read the post several times, and still can not find that mistake. If you find the sentence please post somewhere so I can see. I'm not saying I didn't make it; I'm saying perhaps I'm reading too fast and can't see it.)

B: Country is totally ethnocentric in that it revolves mainly around a miserable, overly-patriotic sentiment of US vs. THEM. Furthermore, Country is the terrible off-shoot of Bluegrass, whereas the Blues was completely innovative and original, and, lest we forget, started the entire Rock N' Roll movement in America.

As for the grammatical error, well, there are no excuses except to say that I was writing quickly and wasn't paying attention; it was about completion of thought.

M: I am not talking about the merits of one versus the other: the blues is, hands down, a better brand of music. I am merely talking about the inconsistency. You don't have to hate all things white bread just because they're white bread in order to prove that you are open-minded. That is my point. You can be consistent and true to your thoughts as long as you are careful to say what it is you want to say without giving discerning readers (possible detractors) something so obvious to point out.

B: Ok, look. The Blues is not ethnocentric; it is merely centric. It revolves around the self and self-laments, sure, but doesn't espouse the feeling of America vs. The World. It just doesn't. The Blues was a way to feel bad but still be critical of the the system. Country doesn't do that; it tows the line every time. I don't hate country, in fact, there are some country songs you can groove to, but that's Old Country: Willie Nelson, Hank Williams. So, in essence, it's not inconsistency, it's the truth overly simplified.

M: Again, not my point. The point is to present your core issue. That issue is that pop-music is crap. Throwing in the off-hand comment was unnecessary and detracted from your point. That is all I am saying.

I agree with your point of view, by the way.

And, that's where we left it. I felt it was important to share here because those who felt critical of the statement may now have better insight into my thought process, and, by the grace of God, would allow us to understand one another better. (That's probably a long shot)

Rock N Roll is Dead (And We Like It)

It's true. In the shower this morning I realized music has been rotting away miserably at its core for years. I woke up humming "Emotional Rescue", thinking that the Stones needed to rescue themselves. There have been several turning points, in my mind, that led to this demise: the death of Jimi Hendrix, the death of Jerry Garcia, the death of John Lennon, and the rise of the "bubble-gum" hip-pop industry in the late 80's and early 90's. Honestly, the last great musical wave was Punk; it was nasty, hard, political and meaningful. It was raw and uncontained. Now, even punk is pop and marketable, i.e. Blink 182.

We are now Pavlov's dogs, conditioned to three minute ditties with formulaic rhythms and sounds. Are any of these artists mildly distinguishable from one another?. The radio pounds these artists into your head, MTV and VH1 have the videos and interviews on loop, media campaigns staring the artist selling their new jeans, their new perfumes, a new clothing line, hit puree, and, presto, another faithful listener, another consumer. And, let's be real for moment, what do these pre-pubescent boppsters and mid-life crisis cronies have to say about life, about anything? Nothing. Everyone's talking about their ass, how lovely it is, condensing emotionally crippled ballads in a chorus of three and four word emptiness. It's a disgrace. Of course, this raises larger questions of how we, as a society, are being conditioned to feel and think about the world we live in; in other words, helping to contain our emotional responses to situations and the world around us.

I'm sure you are asking, "Well, what do you listen to?" Good question. Just about everything: Jazz, Jam Band, Rap, Bluegrass, Blues, Acid Jazz, Funk, Punk (Rancid/Flogging Molly/Dropkick Murphy's..Etc), Electronica, Classic Rock (Led Zepplin, Rolling Stones, The Grateful Dead, Pink Floyd, Bob Dylan, The Talking Heads...The list goes on and on.) (And, yes, I know they are a bunch of old and out-of-the-way white radicals, but, hell, everyone has to start somewhere) I leave County music out because it is void. And, seriously, it's not even country anymore, it's Pop-Country. Furthermore, it's ethnocentric and, dare I say it, full of misery and self-loathing. Folks, that's why people created the blues, to let others know how they was feelin', and it sure as hell has more soul and creativity. Do I feel that everyone should listen to subversive elements from the mainstream? No. It's matter of taste for each person, taste which is highly questionable, but for God's Sake can we demand more innovative music please?

If what we have on the radio today is the evolution of music, if this is what music is to become, then I, for one, am opting out. It's time to de-evolutionize music. It's time that we took back music from the record companies. No more formulas, no more Idols, no more making 400 percent profit on CD's and downloads. The time has come to feel music again, believe in music's healing powers, music's communicative powers, not just its capital value. This nonsense pushed on us today is not music; it's simply musical advertisements. Rock N' Roll is dead, and we like it.

Christmas Saves the Economy (Again):

Well, ladies and gents, the time for gift-giving and receiving is over, and with it, another economic salvation. Congrats on saving the economy with our incredible spending power, and with this salvation, we boosted the funding for such dubious efforts as: the war on terror, bigger and better tax breaks for the corporate class, providing a "third-leg" for the dismal airline industry, funding for the new sub-class of nuclear arsenal (Bunker-Busters), military defense and premptive strikes on Third World nations, and, finally, giving proof to the rhetoric of a "free-market", just look at the deals we got!

Good job to all who towed the Government Line; you will be forgotten. That is, until, they need you to open up your wallets again to fund another campaign. Let the unity begin.