THE TWO SIDED MYTH

This may be too obvious, but I think I just stumbled across the main problem with our entire country, if not our entire culture.

The myth of the two sides. Our culture is obsessed with it. Yes and no. Up and down. Left wing, right wing. Old, young. Good, bad. You're either with us or against us. Girl, boy. Straight, gay. Violent, peaceful. Strong, weak. On and on.

I was dickin' around on Huffington Post recently and got into an argument with some idiot who ended the conversation with "Well, there's two sides to every story". Here's my response:

"Really? Only two? So there's no way to prove anything, huh? With all due respect that "everything-has-two-sides" philosophy is totally wrong and it's the reason our country is so misinformed.

Are there only two colors in the world? Are there only two feelings you have? Are there only two answers to every questions? There's usually millions of sides. And sometimes there's only ONE side.

(Example: Is the world round or flat? Answer: Round. No other sides to that story. Agreed?)

Two sides to every story?

Never. There's either one side, (the truth) or a million sides. (The various possibilities that should be looked at until the facts and data reveal the truth.) Never two sides. Never."

That's all I wrote. Of course this topic could be talked about in more detail, but the more I think about it I can't for the life of me think of a single thing in the world where there are in fact just "two sides". One side maybe or a million, billion. But NEVER EVER two sides.

Think about it. Opinions on movies or food or art? You may like something, you're friend my not. Two sides, right? But there might be 1000 people who feel ambivalent or absolutely love or hate the said object.

If we're talking about less subjective fair, like climate change or, as mentioned above, the flatness or roundness of the world, or even something as simple as "whats' the weather like?". Sunny? Rainy? These are yes or no questions. There are not two sides to the weather.

There are not two sides to climate change. Either it's happening or it isn't. Either it's caused by us or it isn't. There's a million theories. There's a million opinions. But there's only one fact. There's NEVER two sides to it.

Do we know the truth? The people who look into it, 90% of the worlds scientists seem to have come to a consensus. The people who DON'T look into it have another "opinion" about wether or not we should believe those thousands of scientists.

But there's only one truth. It's up to you what system of facts and data you sift thru and trust to get to that truth. I'm pretty confident about which one I believe, as far as climate change goes. With other things, there's other stuff to consider. If I don't have enough information, then I look into it some more. And I take every purported "fact" with a grain of salt. Then I come to the most educated conclusion I can.

What I never do is listen to "two sides". With millions of possibilities in our universe, chances are they're both wrong.

There's no such thing as "two sides". It's a myth.

And that's the truth. Damn it.

Why Pop Music Sucks

Because of John Lennon, Paul McCartney & Bob Dylan.   That's why.  Maybe I need to explain that a bit more.  Here goes.

Pre-BeatleDylans, the idea of "singer/songwriter" wasn't a term yet.  (I was only about 1 year old at the time, so correct me if I'm wrong.)  Let's just say that it was far from a "serious" pop music rule that the person singing the song had to be the same person who wrote the song.  I'm no pop historian, but we all know about the Brill Building and Leiber/Stoller and Carol King and Burt Bacharach.  I'm not suggesting we go back to that time.  In fact we never left.  (See American Idol and most of the "official" Country Music Industry).  In mainstream "pop" music it's STILL one person singing and some other person or people writing.  But it all sucks right?  The REAL good music isn't on the top ten, right?  'Cause the REAL good music is done by people who write their own stuff, not these fake Brittney Spears pop idiots with the songs by the song hacks, correct?

Well, I agree with all that.  But a lot of people I know feel that the problem is that these "pop" stars for the most part don't "write" their own music.  But think about it for a second.  Do you really WANT to hear tunes actually written by Britney Spears?  Of course not.  That would suck worse than her singing.  Which is pretty bad.

Okay, so what do we have.  Top ten artists mostly suck.  (I'm sticking in the pure top 40 vain here).  And the people who write the songs for them mostly suck.  But again, it's not because those two jobs should be done by one person.  

Yes, the Beatles broke the mold.  But like the missing link or that first fish freak that had an extra digit on their fin that enabled them to crawl onto dry land, the Beatles were exactly that.  Total freaks.   They sang amazing.  The wrote amazing.  It'll happen again.  In about 1 thousand years.  But I wouldn't wait around for it if I were you.

Dylan's another issue.  To be honest, I'm one of those people who likes Dylan songs better when someone else sings them.

In fact, ten years ago I was hanging out by myself at the original Living Room.  I was missing my girlfriend terribly, (she was in LA), when this singer who I had seen before, named Jesse Harris, ended his set with a cover.  He didn't say who the songwriter was.  But the song was "Mama, You've Been On My Mind".  I didn't know it.  I'm not ashamed to say, (on my little blog that reaches all of about 10 people) that it moved me to tears.  I like Dylan enough.  I saw him live in the early eighties and even got to shake his hand back stage.  (Long story.)  But I've never been moved by one of his songs while he was singing it.  

I went through an art school phase, but my musical upbringing was pure melody and harmony.  Beatles, Beach Boys.  The friggin' Clancy Brothers too.  My Mom & Dad singing "Delia's Gone" in perfect harmony.  (Can't listen to the Rick Rubin/Johnny Cash version.  No harmony and they screw the melody up in my opinion.)

My point is the song and the singer don't have to be different.  But they sure don't have to be the same either.  Jesse Harris nailed that song that night.  (And I got a bit hammered, which may have affected my opinion of said nailing, but I digress.)  I saw Jesse many other times after that.  I discovered that indeed he was a great song writer himself.  I swear to God I even recall thinking "Don't Know Why" should be a hit, (even though me and another patron one night figured out that he cribbed the melody from the Peanuts Christmas special.)  Of course it was a HUGE hit for one Norah Jones a couple years later.   I don't know many people outside of the NY folk scene who know who Jesse Harris is today.  And most people I speak too just assume that SHE wrote that song.  She didn't. 

 And if you're a fan of Norah's and that first record she made, then here's a test.  Quick.  Without googling.  Name one song from her follow up record. Stumped?  Well, Jesse Harris wrote four on the first one and none of the second one.  I'm just saying.

Here's another example.  Tonight  a friend sent me a Youtube Clip of Norah Jones singing Jeff Tweedy's "Jesus, Etc."  One of Wilco's best tunes.  This clip is totally homemade, illegal, recorded on a camcorder.  Not high fidelity.  But she nails it.  (And I'm NOT hammered tonight.  I swear!)  She's such an amazing singer that even though Tweedy's reedy voice is fine on the Wilco recording, she shows us what amazing voice can do with an amazing tune.

Don't get me wrong.   I'm not saying Wilco should hire Norah Jones as their singer.  Or that Dylan shouldn't sing his own songs.  (Calm down Dylan nuts.)  I'm just saying that it's two different jobs, singing and songwritng.   And if we all just admitted that a bit more, then maybe there'd be better music on the radio. (Okay, no one listens to radio anymore, but you get my point.)

I'll end on yet another blasphemous note.  Wanna' hear the best version of Lennon's "Across The Universe"?  It ain't the Beatles versions.  Neither mix, Spector's on Let It Be or the single mix without the strings do it for me.  (Lennon always said he hated the original recording of it.)  The best recording of that song is Fiona Apple's version she did for the movie Plesantville.  (Produced by the wonderful Jon Brion).  Look it up and just try to disagree.  I dare you.

In a nutshell, pop music sucks because all the good singers are trying to be songwriters and all the good songwriters are trying to be singers.   There I said it.  End blog.

We're All Elitist Now

Haven't written in a while.  I had the title of this blog written shortly after Obama was sworn in.  What I liked about him right away was that he didn't seem interested in arguing ideas that weren't good ideas.  Which I think is a good idea.  

The problem he got into was the fact that right now the entire Republican party doesn't seem to have ANY good ideas.  That'll put a crimp in anyone's "bi-partisan" plans.  If the president took the road of "well, I'll listen to any good ideas out there", which would by it's very nature negate every single right wing idea, he'd not only be labeled an elitist, but he'd also be accused of being partisan.  Here's my solution.

First, stop saying "bipartisan".  (Ugly word.)  Instead the word should be "nonpartisan".  As in "I don't care what party you're in as long as you have a good idea."  Again, this would involve bringing just about zero republican votes.  (Maybe Olympia Snow on a good day).  But you know what?  THAT'S OKAY!!!  You simply say, "They DON'T have any good ideas!"  Then you proceed to explain why those ideas are bad.  In your press conference, on Jay Leno, on 60 Minutes, on your weekly YouTube address.   Twitter it fer chrissakes!  Doesn't matter.  A good idea is a good idea no matter how it gets disseminated.  

And here's the kicker.  Check out this imaginary future exchange:

FOX "News" reporter:  Mr. President, you say you don't mind not getting any votes from across that isle because right now there don't seem to be any, in your words "good ideas" coming from them.  But Mr. President, if you think you and the Democrats have a monopoly on good ideas, doesn't that in fact make you an elitist?

President Obama: Yes. (pause)  I am an elitist.  So are the American people.  We're all elitist now.  

I'M NOT IN LOVE WITH BARACK OBAMA

I'm not.  It's that simple.  But I'll tell you what I do love.  I love the fact that I was motivated enough this year to get off my fat ass, invite my neighbors over and make calls for Obama.  I love the fact that more people voted in this election than ever before.  I love the fact that smear tactics and "swift boating" don't seem to work any more.  I love the fact that mainstream media was basically trumped by bloggers, and facebook, and emails.  And I love what it means both symbolically and physically to both our country and the way the world sees us that a black man has risen to the highest office less than a generation after the civil rights movement.

But all this doesn't mean I'm in love with Barack Obama.  

I've been having a somewhat public online argument with my brother Mike, a McCain supporter.  One of his main arguments against Obama is that it's just a "cult of personality".  I heard some Hillary supporters making the same argument during the primary.  It may be true for some.  But not for me.

I think Obama may be one of the smartest presidents that we've ever put in the Whitehouse. And what is also amazing about Obama the person, is that he was able to really cut through the bullshit of the mainstream media and get his message to the people directly.  He did this in many ways.  The internet, the debates, his speeches and indeed his personal charm and charisma.  I've always said that the presidency has been a charm contest since the 1960's and TV became a big part of it.  But now that there are other ways to get information other than just television, charm and personality are no longer the only criteria.  Now there's something called issues.  

Here are the reasons I think it's great that Obama's in the Whitehouse now:

1. I believe in a woman's right to choose.

2. I think the Iraq war was a horrible mistake.

3. I want healthcare to be fixed in this country.

5. I know global warming has to be stopped and we need a green economy.

6. Gay people deserve equal rights.

7. The banking and investment industries need to be better regulated.

8. And I think George Bush along with most of the republican party have just about ruined this country.

Theses are the main reasons I supported Obama as hard as I did.  And I'm glad the democrats finally had enough sense to put a smart, charming, magnetic, hard working, well focused person up for the job.  

But the hard work starts now.  We need to let him know that he's got to follow through and not succumb to the pressures we all know are now bearing down on him.  Some people on the "real" left are already disappointed by some of the people he's setting up in his cabinet.  If you or I feel the same way, we should let them know.  (He's set up a pretty cool site where you can send your thoughts to his administration.  change.gov ) And if that doesn't work, we'll all let him know at the polls 4 years from now.

But don't get me wrong.  I'm still quite optimistic.  I think Barack has the potential to be one of the best presidents ever.  My hopes are quite high in fact.  But I'm trying not to get to high about it.  It's another one of the things that Obama the person HAS inspired in me.  His even keel.  I read somewhere that he doesn't get too high or too low.  It's something that's already inspired me in my work, my personal life but more importantly, in the expectations of my political leaders.

I'm in love with the fact that all the fighting of the last decade hasn't been in vain.  Everything from making calls each two years, local organizing, blogging etc.,  As well as mainstream and popular culture starting to finally inform people in a substantive and sometimes entertaining way.  I'm not ashamed to say I'm a fan of Moveon.org, Michael Moore,  and Air America radio as well as the more entertaining and slightly cynical world of Stewart, Colbert, and Bill Maher.  ALL of this along with the internet has helped inform people.  Much more than any news channel.  

I also put everything from Bill O'Reilly to Democracy Now on my podcast list, because it's important to hear every side.  I find it easier to sift out the truth when even the most different voices get to weigh in.  My brother get's most of his information from one website.  (newsbusters.org).  This is the way everyone USE to get their information.  From one source.  The evening news.  We don't any more.  And we shouldn't.

So I'm NOT in love with Barack Obama.  I'm in love with what he represents.  An informed electorate.  Us.  Finally.

Voter Registration Emergency Blog!

This is serious.  Check out THIS blog.  And be afraid.  Voters are being purged.  Over 1.5 million in NY alone!

 Even if you voted in the primary, MAKE SURE YOU'RE STILL REGISTERED!!!  

Here's the Board of Elections number for my New York friends:

212 868-3692

Make sure you're registered, and make sure it's ACTIVE and WRITE DOWN your registration number AND bring ID to you polling place election day just in case.

Oh, and send out my cute video, which also might help.

Socially Incorrect

It's quite funny that the McCain campaign seems to think that accusing Obama of wanting to "spread the wealth" is gonna' piss anyone off other than the millionaires and billionaires  who want to make sure the government keep spreading it to them.  They're also calling him a "socialist", which is news to all the real socialists of the world.  Just read what the real "socialist" left think of Obama.  Google around for recent quotes from people like Cornel West, Noam Chompsky and people like that.  The types of "lefties" that Obama seems to be attracting are people like Christopher Hitchens.  That is to say EX-lefties.  But I digress.

The interesting thing about the "socialist" tag is that it may have worked for John, Sarah and Co. If only they'd stop reminding us all that "socialism" also means "speading the wealth".  I can see Joe Sixpack, (or even Joe the "I'm Not Really A" Plumber) sitting there at home, paying more attention to politics than they ever have before, because 2 of their cousins are in Iraq, they can't get construction or well paying plumping work in this economy, gas is a zillion bucks a refill, and their small IRA or 401k is smaller than ever.  So they're flipping away from NASCAR and checking out some "fair and balanced" news for once.  What do they see?  They see everyone yelling about how Obama's team want to "spread the wealth"!!!!!

"Hmmmm" says fictitious Joe.  "Uh.......yeah........and that's bad because 'a why again?"

I really think this'll backfire for them.  But everything else has too, so why stop now!  McCain should have a new slogan:

"McCain/Palin:  Vote for us!  We'll stop spreading all that wealth!  We'll keep the wealth in one place, where it belongs!!"

Atheists for Obama!!!

Okay, it's been a while.  A month in fact.  I've a been a busy!  But here's the reason I'm bloggin' again.  Christopher Hitchens has endorsed Obama!!  

For those who don't know, in a nutshell, Hitchens is a former super-lefty who went semi-neo-con post 9/11, mostly because he's a big ol' atheist, (like me), and thinks that radical religion was the main reason for the attack.  I think he goes a bit too far with it, but he makes some good points if you read him on a regular basis.

Anyway, while I disagree with his suport for the Iraq war, he's what you call a real maverick. And more importantly, he's a wickedly awesome writer.  He rips Palin a new one so badly in this article that it makes Tina Fey's impression look like a damn tribute.  (Click here to read it.)

Aside from that, I was a bit worried last week that the whole "Ayers" thing was gonna' start working a bit for McPalin, but it turns out that all it did was scare his already stupid base.  Anyone with a brain can see that Ayers is just some old hippie.  So he blew up the Pentagon in the 60's.  Didn't everyone try that at least once back then?  

Seriously, overall I keep marveling at how Obama deals with this stuff.  He really just let's it slide off his shoulders.  I know some people think that that makes him a little "slick willie" like, but I disagree.  All the pundits and bloggers kept saying  "Hit them back harder!"  I say why? He doesn't have to!  He takes the high road while the McPalin team implodes all by themselves.  

But I want to be clear.  I think Obama takes the high road for two reasons.  1.  It's the smarter political move with the awful GOP ticket he's facing, and 2. He really thinks it's important that we change how we elect people in our country.  Everyone says that the debates are boring, but I freakin' love 'em! Really listen to Obama this Wednesday.  He's not afraid to explain semi-complicated ideas to the electorate.  And he does it without sounding condeseding. 

Also, if you listen to his stump speech about treating clean energy like we treated the moon shot, it's really inspiring.  Yeah, it's a bit of a bite from Kennedy, but so what?  The fact that he's willing to use the bully pulpit of the White House to actually CHANGE people's minds is simply a wonderful thing.  Cult of personality be damned.  There's a REASON he's as wildly popular as he is.  Yeah, he's young, good looking, charming and a great speaker, but he ALSO has tons of fucking substance.  And people who say he doesn't are simply not paying attention.

I may be drinking the Kool-Aid, but I just think he's the real deal.  I'm sure his first 100 days will tell us if we're right.  But for the next 3 weeks, I'm gonna' be a non-cynical, liberal, Atheist New Yorker and actually believe in a power greater than myself.  

Amen!  

Obama '08.