"A house divided against itself cannot stand."
---Abraham Lincoln
As I sat down to write about Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Ann Coulter, it occurred to me that I couldn't possibly summon the eloquence needed to express my opinion of them. So, what I've decided is to let them speak for themselves. Therefore, the following are some of the more infamous quotes of each with a little context provided as well:
Rush Limbaugh:
"Take that bone out of your nose and call me back".
Response to a black caller he was having a hard time understanding in the 1970s when he worked under the name "Jeff Christie" on a top-40 music program in Pittsburgh.
"The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."
As quoted in Flush Rush Quarterly (January 1993).
"They're 12 percent of the population. Who the hell cares?"
Of African-Americans, as quoted in "Limbaugh Brings Baggage with his ESPN Blabber" by Derrick Z. Jackson in The Boston Globe
"Have you ever noticed how all composite pictures of wanted criminals resemble Jesse Jackson?"
As quoted in "Limbaugh : A Color Man Who Has A Problem With Color?" by Jeff Cohen and Steve Rendall in FAIR and The Los Angeles Times (6 July 2000
"Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
From "The 35 Undeniable Truths" (18 February 1994) by Rush Limbaugh
"I'm going to tell you, what's good for al-Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party in this country today. That's how you boil this down. And it doesn't have to be al-Qaeda. What's good for terrorists is good for John Kerry. All you got to do is check the way they react."
(15 March 2004) on his radio show.
"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an act... This is really shameless of Michael J Fox. Either he didn't take his medication or he's acting."
About Fox's Parkinson's Disease, referring to his appearance in Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill's political ad (23 October 2006).
"Community service is one of the baby steps towards fascism."
September 11th, 2009 on his radio show.
Glenn Beck:
"I find this guy [father of Nick Berg] despicable. Everything in me says that. The want to be a better person today than I was yesterday says he's a dad, he's grieving, but I don't buy that. I'm sorry, I don't buy it. I think he is grieving, but I think he's a scumbag as well. I don't like this guy at all."
The Glenn Beck Program, May 14, 2004
Comment on Michael Berg, the father of murdered American businessman Nicholas Berg, who was captured and beheaded by Islamic extremists in Iraq.
"With that being said, you are a Democrat. You are saying, "Let`s cut and run." And I have to tell you, I have been nervous about this interview with you, because what I feel like saying is, "Sir, prove to me that you are not working with our enemies. And I know you’re not. I’m not accusing you of being an enemy, but that’s the way I feel, and I think a lot of Americans will feel that way."
The Glenn Beck TV Show, November 14, 2006
Glenn Beck to Minnesota congressman Keith Ellison who happens to be a Muslim.
"Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization. The goal is global carbon tax.…You need to have fear. You needed to have the fear of starvation. You needed to have the fear of the whole place going to hell in a hand basket. Which — do we have that fear now with global warming?…Then you have to discredit the scientists that say 'That's not right.' And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing]."
The Glenn Beck Program, April 30, 2007
Glenn Beck on Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth
"You pinhead. You think we would actually be sitting here and saying "well, look at the way she was dressed?" If she were Joan McCain, stop it. You self-centered self-righteous socialist out of control dangerous man-hating bitch. Shut your mouth. We might have bought into this crap in the 1960s because too many people were doing LSD. We're not on LSD anymore — we need to start making sense."
The Glenn Beck Program, March 3, 2008
In response to feminist Gloria Steinem's opinions on the John McCain/"Joan" McCain accusation.
"This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy — over and over and over again — who has a deep seated hatred for white people or white culture, I don't know what it is."
July 28, on Fox and Friends (apparently unaware that Obama's mother was white).
Ann Coulter:
"I think the government should be spying on all Arabs, engaging in torture as a televised spectator sport, dropping daisy cutters wantonly throughout the Middle East and sending liberals to Guantanamo."
Her column; December 21, 2005
"Not all Muslims may be terrorists, but all terrorists are Muslims."
Her syndicated column, September 28, 2001 (apparently unaware of the existence of Timothy McVeigh and the Una Bomber).
"I don't know if [former U.S. President Bill Clinton is] gay. But [former U.S. Vice President] Al Gore - total fag."
From Media Matters; July 26, 2006
"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war."
This Is War; September 12, 2001
"I'm a Christian first, and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it."
From her book, If Democrats had Any Brains, They'd be Republicans
"These broads are millionaires, lionized on TV and in articles about them, reveling in their status as celebrities and stalked by grief-arazzis... These self-obsessed women seemed genuinely unaware that 9/11 was an attack on our nation and acted as if the terrorist attacks happened only to them... I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much."
Comment made in reference to a group of 9/11 widows called The Jersey Girls who supported John Kerry. From her book Godless: The Church of Liberalism
What more could I possibly add? These are the three loudest and most persuasive (at least to the converted) voices of the radical right. A morbidly obese drug addict, a half a nut job who would cry at the opening of a gas station, and a cadaverish, fascist party doll.* They are the leaders of the Republican base. Even moderate republicans are loathe to draw their ire. RNC Chairman Michael Steele was only one republican who criticized Rush one day (referring to Limbaugh's rhetoric as "ugly" and "incendiary" on CNN, March 1st, 2009), only to find himself bending over backwards in apology to Limbaugh the next.
So, it is with great admiration and affection that I speak of Lindsey Graham's repudiation of Glenn Beck last week (October 4th) on clusterFOX no less. He referred to Beck as a "cynic" who "doesn't represent the Republican party." And here's the best part, days have passed and he has not backed down from his statement. Considering that Graham is a Republican Senator hailing from South Carolina (where Beck is certainly popular among his constituents), I consider this no small act of courage. Unfortunately for Graham and his party, there has been no one to join the chorus. And that's a shame, because it's going to take a lot more huffing and puffing by sensible Republicans to blow down the house of these three little pigs.
Sumo-Pop
October 11, 2009
*Richard Belzer said this about Coulter on Real Time with Bill Maher. One of my all-time favorite insults.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
Friday, October 2, 2009
Repulsion
Roman Polanski has been visited by two extraordinary tragedies in his life. Born in 1933 to a Russian mother and a Polish-Jewish father in Paris, the Polanski family later moved to Krakow, Poland in 1936. They were residing there in 1939 when Hitler's Germany occupied Poland and forced the Jewish population into the Krakow ghetto. While there, his father and mother were sent to separate concentration camps. His father in Mauthausen-Gusen and his mother in Auschwitz. Only his father survived. The young Polanski eventually escaped the Krakow ghetto with the help of multiple Polish Roman Catholic families whose faith he adopted. Polanski later made great art from his ordeal with the Oscar winning holocaust film, The Pianist in 2002.
Then in 1969 his wife, actress Sharon Tate was brutally murdered by members of the Manson Family in Los Angeles while Polanski was at their London home. Tate was stabbed 16 times in her 8 1/2 months pregnant belly. Perhaps understandably, Polanski lost his faith and returned to the agnostic roots of his parents.
These two horrors are more than anyone should have to bear. But bear it Polanski did. And in the 60's and 70's he made several great films. 1965's Repulsion starring the great French beauty Catherine Deneuve, is one of the most harrowing portraits of a woman's descent into madness ever committed to celluloid. He followed that triumph with 1968's Oscar nominated psychological horror film Rosemary's Baby. Next came his controversial, bloody Shakespeare epic Macbeth in 1971. Then his 1974 film noir masterpiece Chinatown starring Jack Nicholson made his ascension complete. These films in particular established him as one of the pre-eminent filmmakers of that era. His only true rival in form and content was the late, great Stanley Kubrick. Despite all he had been through, he was at the top of his profession with honors both critical and commercial.
Then in 1977 he did the unthinkable. Under the pretense of a photo shoot for the French edition of Vogue (which he was guest editing), Polanski convinced the mother of a 13 year old girl to allow a private photo shoot with only him and the young lady present. It's hard to understand what would compel a parent to allow her barely teen aged daughter to be photographed privately by a 41 year old man she barely knew. Maybe she was starstruck, or thought she might gain an opportunity at fame through her daughter. Regardless, the decision proved tragic. During the second(!) shoot, Polanski fed the girl a steady diet of champagne and quaaludes. He then, performed oral sex, intercourse, and sodomy upon her. And not that it should matter, but she claimed to have said "no" repeatedly during each sexual act.
Of course, the subsequent court case turned into a media circus. A lascivious act performed by a famed Hollywood director on an under aged girl would have produced plenty of heat on it's own. However, to make matters worse, the vain, headline seeking Judge Rittenband may have been "coached" by LA Deputy District Attorney, David Wells. A terrific 2008 documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, covers the court case in excellent, clear-eyed detail. The documentarian's interviews with DA Wells definitely leads one to believe that misconduct was likely committed by both the judge and the prosecutor. After Polanski plead guilty, he and his attorney had been led to believe that the plea agreement would result in probation and 42 days of time served. Upon learning that the DA may have unduly influenced the judge, Polanski, fearing a possible prison sentence, fled to his London home then France where he still held citizenship. Since the French government has a non-extradition policy for it's citizens, Polanski has lived there freely ever since.
Until now. On September 26, 2009, Polanski traveled to Switzerland to receive a lifetime achievement award from the Zurich Film Festival. Polanski was arrested by Swiss police at the Zurich airport under the terms of the existing US arrest warrant (there is no statute of limitations for the crime). There are many questions surrounding the arrest. Polanski had been to Switzerland several times previous and even owned a home there. So why now? Did the Swiss government have some great moment of clarity and morality? Unlikely. There's probably some political grandstanding going on. After all, it has been over thirty years, leaving plenty of reasons to be suspicious.
So how in the hell should anyone feel about this? A guy did a terrible thing over thirty years ago and may be returned as a senior citizen to the United States to face a possible kangaroo court and a media onslaught. He has apparently done nothing nefarious since. And what of the victim? She wants no part of any court case involving Polanski. In fact, she has forgiven him and has actually stated that she feels sorry for him. Of course, the fact that they reached a $500,000 settlement in 1994 may have something to do with it. Still, she's a private person who has no interest in taking the stand against her assailant for something that happened over three decades ago. Shouldn't her wishes be considered?
It's not as if she's the only one who has no desire to see a geriatric Polanski sentenced to prison. It's probably not much of a surprise that many of Polanski's friends from the film making community are asking for leniency. Of which, Martin Scorsese and Jack Nicholson have been the most vocal. Hell, even France issued a statement supporting Polanski (they have since reversed their position).
So, what is their argument in favor of Polanski? Their defense largely rests on the fact that it happened a long time ago and he's a great artist. True enough. However, the protests of Scorsese and Nicholson remind me of John Mellencamp's "free James Brown" argument of the late 80s. Brown had been arrested and jailed for domestic abuse and for shooting at police officers from his truck while he was high as a kite. Mellencamp said they should let James go because when he was a kid "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" meant the world to him. Ok, I think I know what John means. I love the Godfather of Soul too, but it's sort of like the joke Chris Rock once made about O.J. Simpson. He said "...if O.J. had been a bus driver, he would have been Orenthal, the bus driving murderer."
So, in the end here is what I think: Roman Polanski is a great filmmaker who has endured incredible personal hardship. The original court case against him was likely "fixed" (as far as the sentencing was concerned), and probably would have resulted in a mistrial. This terrible thing he did happened a long time ago and he has kept his nose clean ever since. However, in 1977 he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. And if he were a bus driver, he would be Roman the bus driving child rapist.
Sumo-Pop
October 3, 2009
Then in 1969 his wife, actress Sharon Tate was brutally murdered by members of the Manson Family in Los Angeles while Polanski was at their London home. Tate was stabbed 16 times in her 8 1/2 months pregnant belly. Perhaps understandably, Polanski lost his faith and returned to the agnostic roots of his parents.
These two horrors are more than anyone should have to bear. But bear it Polanski did. And in the 60's and 70's he made several great films. 1965's Repulsion starring the great French beauty Catherine Deneuve, is one of the most harrowing portraits of a woman's descent into madness ever committed to celluloid. He followed that triumph with 1968's Oscar nominated psychological horror film Rosemary's Baby. Next came his controversial, bloody Shakespeare epic Macbeth in 1971. Then his 1974 film noir masterpiece Chinatown starring Jack Nicholson made his ascension complete. These films in particular established him as one of the pre-eminent filmmakers of that era. His only true rival in form and content was the late, great Stanley Kubrick. Despite all he had been through, he was at the top of his profession with honors both critical and commercial.
Then in 1977 he did the unthinkable. Under the pretense of a photo shoot for the French edition of Vogue (which he was guest editing), Polanski convinced the mother of a 13 year old girl to allow a private photo shoot with only him and the young lady present. It's hard to understand what would compel a parent to allow her barely teen aged daughter to be photographed privately by a 41 year old man she barely knew. Maybe she was starstruck, or thought she might gain an opportunity at fame through her daughter. Regardless, the decision proved tragic. During the second(!) shoot, Polanski fed the girl a steady diet of champagne and quaaludes. He then, performed oral sex, intercourse, and sodomy upon her. And not that it should matter, but she claimed to have said "no" repeatedly during each sexual act.
Of course, the subsequent court case turned into a media circus. A lascivious act performed by a famed Hollywood director on an under aged girl would have produced plenty of heat on it's own. However, to make matters worse, the vain, headline seeking Judge Rittenband may have been "coached" by LA Deputy District Attorney, David Wells. A terrific 2008 documentary, Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired, covers the court case in excellent, clear-eyed detail. The documentarian's interviews with DA Wells definitely leads one to believe that misconduct was likely committed by both the judge and the prosecutor. After Polanski plead guilty, he and his attorney had been led to believe that the plea agreement would result in probation and 42 days of time served. Upon learning that the DA may have unduly influenced the judge, Polanski, fearing a possible prison sentence, fled to his London home then France where he still held citizenship. Since the French government has a non-extradition policy for it's citizens, Polanski has lived there freely ever since.
Until now. On September 26, 2009, Polanski traveled to Switzerland to receive a lifetime achievement award from the Zurich Film Festival. Polanski was arrested by Swiss police at the Zurich airport under the terms of the existing US arrest warrant (there is no statute of limitations for the crime). There are many questions surrounding the arrest. Polanski had been to Switzerland several times previous and even owned a home there. So why now? Did the Swiss government have some great moment of clarity and morality? Unlikely. There's probably some political grandstanding going on. After all, it has been over thirty years, leaving plenty of reasons to be suspicious.
So how in the hell should anyone feel about this? A guy did a terrible thing over thirty years ago and may be returned as a senior citizen to the United States to face a possible kangaroo court and a media onslaught. He has apparently done nothing nefarious since. And what of the victim? She wants no part of any court case involving Polanski. In fact, she has forgiven him and has actually stated that she feels sorry for him. Of course, the fact that they reached a $500,000 settlement in 1994 may have something to do with it. Still, she's a private person who has no interest in taking the stand against her assailant for something that happened over three decades ago. Shouldn't her wishes be considered?
It's not as if she's the only one who has no desire to see a geriatric Polanski sentenced to prison. It's probably not much of a surprise that many of Polanski's friends from the film making community are asking for leniency. Of which, Martin Scorsese and Jack Nicholson have been the most vocal. Hell, even France issued a statement supporting Polanski (they have since reversed their position).
So, what is their argument in favor of Polanski? Their defense largely rests on the fact that it happened a long time ago and he's a great artist. True enough. However, the protests of Scorsese and Nicholson remind me of John Mellencamp's "free James Brown" argument of the late 80s. Brown had been arrested and jailed for domestic abuse and for shooting at police officers from his truck while he was high as a kite. Mellencamp said they should let James go because when he was a kid "Papa's Got a Brand New Bag" meant the world to him. Ok, I think I know what John means. I love the Godfather of Soul too, but it's sort of like the joke Chris Rock once made about O.J. Simpson. He said "...if O.J. had been a bus driver, he would have been Orenthal, the bus driving murderer."
So, in the end here is what I think: Roman Polanski is a great filmmaker who has endured incredible personal hardship. The original court case against him was likely "fixed" (as far as the sentencing was concerned), and probably would have resulted in a mistrial. This terrible thing he did happened a long time ago and he has kept his nose clean ever since. However, in 1977 he drugged and raped a 13 year old girl. And if he were a bus driver, he would be Roman the bus driving child rapist.
Sumo-Pop
October 3, 2009
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Light My Way
Ok. Before I get started let me say this, I've never dressed up like Bono for Halloween (or any other time), I have no U2 tats, and I don't spread their cds out in front of me and observe any moments of silence. That being said, I am so deeply in the tank for these guys that not only can I not see the surface, I have absolutely no interest in trying to find it. So anyone looking for objectivity can jump ship now.
There are reasons for this level of devotion, and if you're still reading then let me just say, here it goes.
First off, no one (and I do mean no one) sounds like U2. From the start, bursting out of the post-punk, new wave scene in 1980 with their first American single, "I Will Follow," it was clear they were something special. Larry Mullen's pounding, tribal skin smashing, Adam Clayton's throbbing bass, Bono's soaring vocals, and the Edge's groundbreaking, chiming guitar sound separated them from the pack of contenders. They were after greatness. Beatles and Stones type greatness. And while they had their influences (Joy Division and The Clash in particular) they didn't really sound like any of them.
As good as they were on their debut album "Boy," they've only gotten better over the years. The albums they have released since then create one of the most memorable resumes in the history of popular music. Classic records like Boy, War, The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, All That You can't Leave Behind, How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb, and this year's No Line On The Horizon set the standard for this generation's rock groups (sorry R.E.M.). Even their "lesser" albums are pretty interesting. October's sense of spiritual searching, Rattle and Hum's immersion into American music, Zooropa's atmospherics, and Pop's techno experimentations all help to illuminate the road to here. And yes I did just defend "Pop." Any album with "Staring At The Sun," "Mofo," and "Please" on it cannot be summarily dismissed.
Speaking of tunes, what an embarrassment of riches! I Will Follow, Gloria, Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, 40, Pride, MLK, Where The Streets Have No Name, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, With Or Without You, Desire, All I Want Is You, One, Mysterious Ways, The Fly, Until The End Of The World, Stay, Staring At The Sun, Please, Beautiful Day, Walk On, Elevation, Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own, Vertigo, City Of Blinding Lights, Magnificent, and Moment Of Surrender, are a wholly incomplete list of some of their best and most memorable songs. In fact, their back catalog is so deep that several of these classics don't even make the set list of their current show.
And these tunes are about something. In these songs are the personal and the political, the sacred and the profane. From subjects like the war in Northern Ireland (Sunday Bloody Sunday), the loss of family (I Will Follow, Sometimes You Can't...), the test of faith (One, I Still Haven't Found...), and the burn of romantic desire (With Or Without You, The Sweetest Thing), prove that no topic is outside of their grasp.
While it would certainly be enough if they stopped there, they insist on going further. These songs manifest themselves into action. This is a band with a clear commitment to social justice. Sure, they have performed their fair share of benefit concerts (Live Aid, Amnesty International, Live 8), but they do so much more. It's not too difficult for a famous band to turn up at a venue and perform a truncated set to assist a charity. However, it's altogether something else to create an organization dedicated to the eradication of extreme poverty (Bono's ONE.org), or another to return instruments into the hands of New Orleans' musicians who lost everything due to Hurricane Katrina (the Edge's musicrising.org).
Martin Luther King Jr. once said "...when you pray, move your feet." Well no one in popular music or in almost any other walk of life moves their feet quite like Bono. His efforts to fight poverty and disease in Africa have resulted in his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize the last two years running. In one of their finer deep album tracks (Crumbs At Your Table), Bono sings "where you live should not decide whether you live or whether you die." Ain't it the truth.
These four Irish lads have never felt it was enough to simply "entertain." When they head out on tour, they do more than put together a great set list, and a fancy stage, they build their themes of social justice into the show. Pleas to support the revolutionaries in Iran during Sunday Bloody Sunday, and the imprisoned, democratically elected President of Burma (Walk On), are just two examples. I can remember seeing them in South Bend just one short month after 9/11 and watching a curtain drop down with the names of the victims of September 11th written upon it during Walk On. Let me tell you, there wasn't a dry eye in the house. This is what you get when you go to a U2 show.
And what a show this current incarnation is! With a huge spaceship-like claw hovering over the main stage, with a massive circular, retractable video screen that extends and contracts like some sort of "tractor beam" out of Star Wars, it is a set up that would leave Major Tom, David Bowie, Ziggy Stardust and everyone of his Spiders From Mars caught up in fits of envy.
Of course, all this technology would mean little if U2 weren't a cracking live band. Which they are, in spades. Last week, me, my wife, my best friend and his wife, had the pleasure to attend U2's opening night in America at Chicago's Soldier Field. So, when I tell you that Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey got nothing on these guys, I know from whence I speak. It was my tenth time seeing them live and never have they been so fierce. The set roared at a breakneck pace for nearly two and a half hours. From the stomping opener "Breathe" to the soulful closer "Moment Of Surrender," they performed these songs and every one in between with the vitality of a much younger band. How many groups have been together for thirty years (with no line up changes!) and still remain relevant? It would be easy for them to simply go on tour every few years and cash in on past achievement whenever they wanted to buy an Irish castle or a new yacht, but that's not enough for these guys. They are still pushing themselves to be the biggest and best band in the world. Their current album, No Line On The Horizon, is every bit as ambitious as The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were when they were released. And here's the important part, it's nearly as good too.
All of this started over three decades ago when a teen aged Larry Mullen Jr. posted a "let's start a band" flyer on the school bulletin board. Among the barely post-pubescent lads who showed up to rehearse in the drummer's family kitchen were a charismatic, would-be guitarist who played so poorly they decided to make him the singer, a bass player whose most distinguishing asset was a massive blonde afro, and a shy, unassuming guitarist who turned out to be a genius. When they first got together they could barely play at all. But they knew they had something. A chemistry, an energy, and that shamelessly charismatic lead singer. As Bono once said "God did a lot with a little."
What an amazing journey. It's really a love story if you think about it. A gang of four who form a band in a Dublin kitchen, became best friends, and thirty years on are the biggest band in the world. They've had their ups and downs for certain. A crisis of faith that enveloped Larry, Bono, and the Edge while making their difficult sophomore album "October" nearly derailed the band then and there. Adam's struggle with the bottle, Larry's prickly nature, Bono's time consuming charity efforts, and the Edge's ongoing battle with his daughter's serious illness, have all put an occasional strain on the unit. Still, they have stuck together. How? Because they share the money equally, because they are still chasing greatness, and because they are friends. Best friends. Like I said, it's a love story.
These are the reasons why I love this band. All of this and more. So last week, with my sweetheart by my side, my best friend, and his lovely wife next to us, I got to be a part of a 60,000+ person sing-a-long. And sing we did, at the top of our voices, together, for two and a half hours, and to paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, the world was a "wonderful place, and worth fighting for." Where else on earth would I have rather been?
Sumo-Pop
September 22, 2009
P.S. To all those who don't get it, who may think me too effusive in my praise, I will leave you with a quote by the late, great Louis Armstrong:
"some people, if they don't know, you just can't tell 'em."
There are reasons for this level of devotion, and if you're still reading then let me just say, here it goes.
First off, no one (and I do mean no one) sounds like U2. From the start, bursting out of the post-punk, new wave scene in 1980 with their first American single, "I Will Follow," it was clear they were something special. Larry Mullen's pounding, tribal skin smashing, Adam Clayton's throbbing bass, Bono's soaring vocals, and the Edge's groundbreaking, chiming guitar sound separated them from the pack of contenders. They were after greatness. Beatles and Stones type greatness. And while they had their influences (Joy Division and The Clash in particular) they didn't really sound like any of them.
As good as they were on their debut album "Boy," they've only gotten better over the years. The albums they have released since then create one of the most memorable resumes in the history of popular music. Classic records like Boy, War, The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby, All That You can't Leave Behind, How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb, and this year's No Line On The Horizon set the standard for this generation's rock groups (sorry R.E.M.). Even their "lesser" albums are pretty interesting. October's sense of spiritual searching, Rattle and Hum's immersion into American music, Zooropa's atmospherics, and Pop's techno experimentations all help to illuminate the road to here. And yes I did just defend "Pop." Any album with "Staring At The Sun," "Mofo," and "Please" on it cannot be summarily dismissed.
Speaking of tunes, what an embarrassment of riches! I Will Follow, Gloria, Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, 40, Pride, MLK, Where The Streets Have No Name, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, With Or Without You, Desire, All I Want Is You, One, Mysterious Ways, The Fly, Until The End Of The World, Stay, Staring At The Sun, Please, Beautiful Day, Walk On, Elevation, Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own, Vertigo, City Of Blinding Lights, Magnificent, and Moment Of Surrender, are a wholly incomplete list of some of their best and most memorable songs. In fact, their back catalog is so deep that several of these classics don't even make the set list of their current show.
And these tunes are about something. In these songs are the personal and the political, the sacred and the profane. From subjects like the war in Northern Ireland (Sunday Bloody Sunday), the loss of family (I Will Follow, Sometimes You Can't...), the test of faith (One, I Still Haven't Found...), and the burn of romantic desire (With Or Without You, The Sweetest Thing), prove that no topic is outside of their grasp.
While it would certainly be enough if they stopped there, they insist on going further. These songs manifest themselves into action. This is a band with a clear commitment to social justice. Sure, they have performed their fair share of benefit concerts (Live Aid, Amnesty International, Live 8), but they do so much more. It's not too difficult for a famous band to turn up at a venue and perform a truncated set to assist a charity. However, it's altogether something else to create an organization dedicated to the eradication of extreme poverty (Bono's ONE.org), or another to return instruments into the hands of New Orleans' musicians who lost everything due to Hurricane Katrina (the Edge's musicrising.org).
Martin Luther King Jr. once said "...when you pray, move your feet." Well no one in popular music or in almost any other walk of life moves their feet quite like Bono. His efforts to fight poverty and disease in Africa have resulted in his nomination for the Nobel Peace Prize the last two years running. In one of their finer deep album tracks (Crumbs At Your Table), Bono sings "where you live should not decide whether you live or whether you die." Ain't it the truth.
These four Irish lads have never felt it was enough to simply "entertain." When they head out on tour, they do more than put together a great set list, and a fancy stage, they build their themes of social justice into the show. Pleas to support the revolutionaries in Iran during Sunday Bloody Sunday, and the imprisoned, democratically elected President of Burma (Walk On), are just two examples. I can remember seeing them in South Bend just one short month after 9/11 and watching a curtain drop down with the names of the victims of September 11th written upon it during Walk On. Let me tell you, there wasn't a dry eye in the house. This is what you get when you go to a U2 show.
And what a show this current incarnation is! With a huge spaceship-like claw hovering over the main stage, with a massive circular, retractable video screen that extends and contracts like some sort of "tractor beam" out of Star Wars, it is a set up that would leave Major Tom, David Bowie, Ziggy Stardust and everyone of his Spiders From Mars caught up in fits of envy.
Of course, all this technology would mean little if U2 weren't a cracking live band. Which they are, in spades. Last week, me, my wife, my best friend and his wife, had the pleasure to attend U2's opening night in America at Chicago's Soldier Field. So, when I tell you that Ringling Brothers and Barnum and Bailey got nothing on these guys, I know from whence I speak. It was my tenth time seeing them live and never have they been so fierce. The set roared at a breakneck pace for nearly two and a half hours. From the stomping opener "Breathe" to the soulful closer "Moment Of Surrender," they performed these songs and every one in between with the vitality of a much younger band. How many groups have been together for thirty years (with no line up changes!) and still remain relevant? It would be easy for them to simply go on tour every few years and cash in on past achievement whenever they wanted to buy an Irish castle or a new yacht, but that's not enough for these guys. They are still pushing themselves to be the biggest and best band in the world. Their current album, No Line On The Horizon, is every bit as ambitious as The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were when they were released. And here's the important part, it's nearly as good too.
All of this started over three decades ago when a teen aged Larry Mullen Jr. posted a "let's start a band" flyer on the school bulletin board. Among the barely post-pubescent lads who showed up to rehearse in the drummer's family kitchen were a charismatic, would-be guitarist who played so poorly they decided to make him the singer, a bass player whose most distinguishing asset was a massive blonde afro, and a shy, unassuming guitarist who turned out to be a genius. When they first got together they could barely play at all. But they knew they had something. A chemistry, an energy, and that shamelessly charismatic lead singer. As Bono once said "God did a lot with a little."
What an amazing journey. It's really a love story if you think about it. A gang of four who form a band in a Dublin kitchen, became best friends, and thirty years on are the biggest band in the world. They've had their ups and downs for certain. A crisis of faith that enveloped Larry, Bono, and the Edge while making their difficult sophomore album "October" nearly derailed the band then and there. Adam's struggle with the bottle, Larry's prickly nature, Bono's time consuming charity efforts, and the Edge's ongoing battle with his daughter's serious illness, have all put an occasional strain on the unit. Still, they have stuck together. How? Because they share the money equally, because they are still chasing greatness, and because they are friends. Best friends. Like I said, it's a love story.
These are the reasons why I love this band. All of this and more. So last week, with my sweetheart by my side, my best friend, and his lovely wife next to us, I got to be a part of a 60,000+ person sing-a-long. And sing we did, at the top of our voices, together, for two and a half hours, and to paraphrase Ernest Hemingway, the world was a "wonderful place, and worth fighting for." Where else on earth would I have rather been?
Sumo-Pop
September 22, 2009
P.S. To all those who don't get it, who may think me too effusive in my praise, I will leave you with a quote by the late, great Louis Armstrong:
"some people, if they don't know, you just can't tell 'em."
Sunday, September 6, 2009
What Would Jesus Do?
W.W.J.D. What Would Jesus Do? Well, what would Jesus do? It's a question that begs serious consideration.
I wonder what Jesus would think of his flock. What would cross his mind while watching these town hall criers shout down not only the politician whose words they presumably came to hear, but the questions of their own neighbors as well? What might he think of those that would come to a presidential speaking event "strapped" with an AK-47 or handgun? How about the folks who show up with signs comparing our current president to Adolf Hitler. Or even worse, the politicians (Palin, Boehner, Shelby, etc.) and commentators (Beck, O'reilly, Hannity and the rest of clusterFOX) who simply make shit up. Things like "death panels" and presidential birth certificate controversies.
While it's certainly fair to disagree with the president and the options on the table regarding health care, it's certainly not fair to compare him with the man who attempted to take Europe by force and kill all the Jews along the way. But what I think Jesus would be most upset by is the fact that many of these people consider themselves "traditional" Christians. If by traditional they mean old testament then I might buy that. However, these "traditionalists" seem to have no problem throwing the name of Christ around when supporting their hateful views.
Now, please understand, I don't mean to say that all Christians are like this or that Christianity itself is a bad thing. On the contrary, Christianity at it's best has given us Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Theresa. However, far too often it has given us Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Hagerty, and Pat Robertson.
There is a name that right wing activists give to moderate republicans. They call them R.I.N.O.'s. Republicans In Name Only. Well, maybe there should be a name for these hateful, mean-spirited "Christians" as well. Perhaps these folks should be referred to as Christians In Name Only or C.I.N.O.'s. We could pronounce it chee-no like the city in California. Because really, what else can you call those that say they believe in Jesus but don't seem to believe in anything that he said?
These "Christians" seem to have the old testament down, with it's wrathful, angry God and his harsh punishments for those that go astray. But they seem to have little regard for the new testament and the words of the man whose name their religion carries. Words like "love one another," and "help the poor." Because really, who is this health care debate about? Well, it's about poor people. I heard one man at a town hall yelling at a woman without health care that "why should I pay for your health care?" Even if you throw out the fact that the uninsured cause premiums to go up due to the fact that they don't seek care until they are in crisis at an emergency room, whatever happened to "I am my brother's keeper." Would they suggest that we begin to turn away the uninsured at the E.R.? What would Jesus do?
In recent years the right wing has gotten so bogged down in minutiae like gay rights, prayer in schools, and the anti-abortion movement that they have failed to articulate anything that they are "for." As far as gay rights are concerned, do you know how many times Jesus refers to homosexuals in the Bible? That would be zero. Zilch. None. Now, I'm not saying that Jesus would be in favor of gay marriage, I'm just saying it wasn't high on his list of priorities. And while I'm pretty sure he would be for the right of children to pray in school, I don't think he would be against the president giving an address to students about the virtues of working hard and staying in school. The current controversy (such that it is) about President Obama speaking to kids in the classroom has less to do with whether a president should be allowed to do so, and more to do with the protesting parents political views. I'm no fan of the previous president, but I would never take issue with any president attempting to share a positive message with children. Why would anyone? And as far as abortion is concerned, it's important to remember who Jesus tried to reach while he was alive. It wasn't the converted. No. It was the tax collectors, eunuchs, and prostitutes. He tried to change their hearts with kindness and compassion, not screaming and shouting.
In fact, Paul, one of Jesus' most faithful apostles had been a self-proclaimed "persecutor of Jews." See, Jesus was big on forgiveness. Take two of his other apostles, Judas and Peter. As most Christians know, Judas betrayed Jesus to the Romans for a few pieces of silver, which lead to Jesus' crucifixion. But many forget that Peter, in fear of being crucified himself, denied any affiliation with Jesus on three separate occasions! So, what did Jesus do? He forgave them. Hell, he even forgave the Romans! "Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do."
Which brings me to a new point. The death penalty. What would Jesus think of capital punishment? It's worth remembering that Jesus was a victim of such. A Roman law that was unfairly adjudicated and lead to the horrible death of not only Jesus, but many more who were guilty of following him. It's much the same now. Quite often, those on death row "find" religion. And while it's difficult to discern their sincerity, who are we to judge? One thing we can be certain of is how the death penalty disfavors minorities and the poor. It's a fact that the odds of being put to death are directly related to your race and ability to afford an attorney. And look at how many people have been cleared of their crimes in recent years due to the court admission of DNA evidence. I think it's a safe bet that Jesus (not a white guy by the way) would be against this practice. I think that Jesus would prefer that God decide when people die.
Most of these arguments come down to class. If you're poor, you are more likely to have an abortion, end up on death row, or be without health care. I know that many out there believe that all poor people are on welfare and are looking for a handout. Which is largely untrue. Most poor people work for a living. They are the waitresses pulling double shifts, the janitor who works at Wal-Mart in the evenings, and the laid-off factory worker who takes a job at McDonald's before his unemployment runs out.
So what, if anything, do the rest of us owe these people? Well, if you believe in Jesus then we owe them our comfort and consideration. Which brings me back to health care. No one in this country should die or go broke because they can't afford health care. It is a sin to leave these people behind because they are "lesser," or because we didn't vote for the guy who is trying to help them.
So, I would urge Christians who believe in a day of judgement to consider what Jesus would do. Because the truth is, it would be something other than this.
Sumo-Pop
September 6, 2009
I wonder what Jesus would think of his flock. What would cross his mind while watching these town hall criers shout down not only the politician whose words they presumably came to hear, but the questions of their own neighbors as well? What might he think of those that would come to a presidential speaking event "strapped" with an AK-47 or handgun? How about the folks who show up with signs comparing our current president to Adolf Hitler. Or even worse, the politicians (Palin, Boehner, Shelby, etc.) and commentators (Beck, O'reilly, Hannity and the rest of clusterFOX) who simply make shit up. Things like "death panels" and presidential birth certificate controversies.
While it's certainly fair to disagree with the president and the options on the table regarding health care, it's certainly not fair to compare him with the man who attempted to take Europe by force and kill all the Jews along the way. But what I think Jesus would be most upset by is the fact that many of these people consider themselves "traditional" Christians. If by traditional they mean old testament then I might buy that. However, these "traditionalists" seem to have no problem throwing the name of Christ around when supporting their hateful views.
Now, please understand, I don't mean to say that all Christians are like this or that Christianity itself is a bad thing. On the contrary, Christianity at it's best has given us Martin Luther King Jr. and Mother Theresa. However, far too often it has given us Jimmy Swaggart, Ted Hagerty, and Pat Robertson.
There is a name that right wing activists give to moderate republicans. They call them R.I.N.O.'s. Republicans In Name Only. Well, maybe there should be a name for these hateful, mean-spirited "Christians" as well. Perhaps these folks should be referred to as Christians In Name Only or C.I.N.O.'s. We could pronounce it chee-no like the city in California. Because really, what else can you call those that say they believe in Jesus but don't seem to believe in anything that he said?
These "Christians" seem to have the old testament down, with it's wrathful, angry God and his harsh punishments for those that go astray. But they seem to have little regard for the new testament and the words of the man whose name their religion carries. Words like "love one another," and "help the poor." Because really, who is this health care debate about? Well, it's about poor people. I heard one man at a town hall yelling at a woman without health care that "why should I pay for your health care?" Even if you throw out the fact that the uninsured cause premiums to go up due to the fact that they don't seek care until they are in crisis at an emergency room, whatever happened to "I am my brother's keeper." Would they suggest that we begin to turn away the uninsured at the E.R.? What would Jesus do?
In recent years the right wing has gotten so bogged down in minutiae like gay rights, prayer in schools, and the anti-abortion movement that they have failed to articulate anything that they are "for." As far as gay rights are concerned, do you know how many times Jesus refers to homosexuals in the Bible? That would be zero. Zilch. None. Now, I'm not saying that Jesus would be in favor of gay marriage, I'm just saying it wasn't high on his list of priorities. And while I'm pretty sure he would be for the right of children to pray in school, I don't think he would be against the president giving an address to students about the virtues of working hard and staying in school. The current controversy (such that it is) about President Obama speaking to kids in the classroom has less to do with whether a president should be allowed to do so, and more to do with the protesting parents political views. I'm no fan of the previous president, but I would never take issue with any president attempting to share a positive message with children. Why would anyone? And as far as abortion is concerned, it's important to remember who Jesus tried to reach while he was alive. It wasn't the converted. No. It was the tax collectors, eunuchs, and prostitutes. He tried to change their hearts with kindness and compassion, not screaming and shouting.
In fact, Paul, one of Jesus' most faithful apostles had been a self-proclaimed "persecutor of Jews." See, Jesus was big on forgiveness. Take two of his other apostles, Judas and Peter. As most Christians know, Judas betrayed Jesus to the Romans for a few pieces of silver, which lead to Jesus' crucifixion. But many forget that Peter, in fear of being crucified himself, denied any affiliation with Jesus on three separate occasions! So, what did Jesus do? He forgave them. Hell, he even forgave the Romans! "Forgive them Lord, for they know not what they do."
Which brings me to a new point. The death penalty. What would Jesus think of capital punishment? It's worth remembering that Jesus was a victim of such. A Roman law that was unfairly adjudicated and lead to the horrible death of not only Jesus, but many more who were guilty of following him. It's much the same now. Quite often, those on death row "find" religion. And while it's difficult to discern their sincerity, who are we to judge? One thing we can be certain of is how the death penalty disfavors minorities and the poor. It's a fact that the odds of being put to death are directly related to your race and ability to afford an attorney. And look at how many people have been cleared of their crimes in recent years due to the court admission of DNA evidence. I think it's a safe bet that Jesus (not a white guy by the way) would be against this practice. I think that Jesus would prefer that God decide when people die.
Most of these arguments come down to class. If you're poor, you are more likely to have an abortion, end up on death row, or be without health care. I know that many out there believe that all poor people are on welfare and are looking for a handout. Which is largely untrue. Most poor people work for a living. They are the waitresses pulling double shifts, the janitor who works at Wal-Mart in the evenings, and the laid-off factory worker who takes a job at McDonald's before his unemployment runs out.
So what, if anything, do the rest of us owe these people? Well, if you believe in Jesus then we owe them our comfort and consideration. Which brings me back to health care. No one in this country should die or go broke because they can't afford health care. It is a sin to leave these people behind because they are "lesser," or because we didn't vote for the guy who is trying to help them.
So, I would urge Christians who believe in a day of judgement to consider what Jesus would do. Because the truth is, it would be something other than this.
Sumo-Pop
September 6, 2009
Friday, August 28, 2009
The Other Kind
The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, the National Cancer Act of 1971, Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, the Voting Rights Act, funding for AIDS treatment, equal funding for women's sports under Title IX, the Comprehensive Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986, the COBRA Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the Ryan White Care Act, the Civil Rights Act of 1991, the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, increases in the minimum wage law, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, the Mental Health Parity Act, and the State Children's Health Insurance Program.
These are just some of the legislative accomplishments of one, Edward Moore Kennedy. Teddy (as he was called by nearly everyone), may have been the most productive senator who ever lived. He in fact, like Indiana's own Dick Lugar, is a great argument against term limits. Looking at the above list of bills that Kennedy created, sponsored, and guided to passage simply puts the average senator to shame. Hell, throw in the above average too.
And who would've thunk it? In 1962, at the age of 30, he won a special election in Massachusetts to replace his brother John in the senate. Decidedly unaccomplished, it was clear that Ted won on his name not on his merits. On top of that, he had two extraordinary older brothers to live up to. Both of his brothers' legacies have been burnished by time, glamour, and early death. First, the incredibly popular President John F Kennedy and his assassination in 1963. Then the equally untimely death of brother Robert, also by an assassin's hand in 1968 while running for the democratic nomination. Over time both of his brothers would go from beloved figures to legendary, mythological ones. How in the world was the "little" brother to live up to these two giants whose name he carried.
It's not like he always helped himself either. There was the drinking and carousing that seemed as much an inherited trait as it was a choice. His divorce of first wife, Joan in 1982. The paparazzi photos of him having sex with a woman in a motorboat in 1989. All these instances made him look buffoonish and unstable. There was also his devastating loss to Jimmy Carter for the democratic presidential nomination in 1980. Think of that. A Kennedy lost to Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter!
Of course, nothing affected his career like the 1969 death by drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne when the car he was driving went off a bridge in Chappaquiddick. It wasn't just her tragic death that left a negative impact on his reputation. It was the fact that he left the scene of the accident and didn't report it until the next day after Kopechne's body was found. At best, his behavior was cowardly. Some even considered it criminal. He would spend the rest of his life trying to live down this self-imposed humiliation.
Yet, somehow the man persevered. He was on the right side of history so many times that it's hard to fathom. Whether it was the civil rights movement in the 60's, expansion of health care for children and adults, aids research, raising the minimum wage, pushing for fair treatment for women in the workplace, and voting against the Iraq war, his judgement as a senator has been the epitome of soundness.
Kennedy could work the other side of the aisle too. While often referred to as the "liberal lion of the senate," he defied that generalization. He co-authored legislation with Republicans John McCain and Nancy Kassenbaum. He helped George W Bush achieve the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. Hell, the very conservative Republican Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch actually has a painting of Kennedy hanging in his office!
This was a life lived in full. A life so boundless that like Teddy Roosevelt or Muhammad Ali, no single book, movie, or mini-series could effectively encapsulate its measure. Still, I was greatly saddened when he passed away on Wednesday due to brain cancer. Because even though he was 77 and had been gravely ill for long enough that his death came as no surprise, I still felt that he had more to give. It fills my heart with pain that the man who referred to universal heath care as "the cause of my life," will not be here to fight for it or to see it pass into law. What a bitter irony.
But most of all, I will miss what he stood for. He was a wildly wealthy man who stood for those who could not stand for themselves. The poor, the sick, the disabled, and the disadvantaged. He made many mistakes in his life, but I think it's fair to say that in the end he exceeded both of his brothers' accomplishments and quite likely, his own expectations. Imperfect as it may be, he left a true legacy. How many of the people who have walked through the halls of congress can say that? Will we some day look at Mitch McConnell and Evan Bayh the way we do Teddy Kennedy? I think not.
The sad fact is that we live in a country where too many of our politicians would rather be re-elected than be remembered. Well, Teddy Kennedy was the other kind.
Sumo-Pop
August 28, 2009
These are just some of the legislative accomplishments of one, Edward Moore Kennedy. Teddy (as he was called by nearly everyone), may have been the most productive senator who ever lived. He in fact, like Indiana's own Dick Lugar, is a great argument against term limits. Looking at the above list of bills that Kennedy created, sponsored, and guided to passage simply puts the average senator to shame. Hell, throw in the above average too.
And who would've thunk it? In 1962, at the age of 30, he won a special election in Massachusetts to replace his brother John in the senate. Decidedly unaccomplished, it was clear that Ted won on his name not on his merits. On top of that, he had two extraordinary older brothers to live up to. Both of his brothers' legacies have been burnished by time, glamour, and early death. First, the incredibly popular President John F Kennedy and his assassination in 1963. Then the equally untimely death of brother Robert, also by an assassin's hand in 1968 while running for the democratic nomination. Over time both of his brothers would go from beloved figures to legendary, mythological ones. How in the world was the "little" brother to live up to these two giants whose name he carried.
It's not like he always helped himself either. There was the drinking and carousing that seemed as much an inherited trait as it was a choice. His divorce of first wife, Joan in 1982. The paparazzi photos of him having sex with a woman in a motorboat in 1989. All these instances made him look buffoonish and unstable. There was also his devastating loss to Jimmy Carter for the democratic presidential nomination in 1980. Think of that. A Kennedy lost to Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter!
Of course, nothing affected his career like the 1969 death by drowning of Mary Jo Kopechne when the car he was driving went off a bridge in Chappaquiddick. It wasn't just her tragic death that left a negative impact on his reputation. It was the fact that he left the scene of the accident and didn't report it until the next day after Kopechne's body was found. At best, his behavior was cowardly. Some even considered it criminal. He would spend the rest of his life trying to live down this self-imposed humiliation.
Yet, somehow the man persevered. He was on the right side of history so many times that it's hard to fathom. Whether it was the civil rights movement in the 60's, expansion of health care for children and adults, aids research, raising the minimum wage, pushing for fair treatment for women in the workplace, and voting against the Iraq war, his judgement as a senator has been the epitome of soundness.
Kennedy could work the other side of the aisle too. While often referred to as the "liberal lion of the senate," he defied that generalization. He co-authored legislation with Republicans John McCain and Nancy Kassenbaum. He helped George W Bush achieve the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001. Hell, the very conservative Republican Senator from Utah, Orrin Hatch actually has a painting of Kennedy hanging in his office!
This was a life lived in full. A life so boundless that like Teddy Roosevelt or Muhammad Ali, no single book, movie, or mini-series could effectively encapsulate its measure. Still, I was greatly saddened when he passed away on Wednesday due to brain cancer. Because even though he was 77 and had been gravely ill for long enough that his death came as no surprise, I still felt that he had more to give. It fills my heart with pain that the man who referred to universal heath care as "the cause of my life," will not be here to fight for it or to see it pass into law. What a bitter irony.
But most of all, I will miss what he stood for. He was a wildly wealthy man who stood for those who could not stand for themselves. The poor, the sick, the disabled, and the disadvantaged. He made many mistakes in his life, but I think it's fair to say that in the end he exceeded both of his brothers' accomplishments and quite likely, his own expectations. Imperfect as it may be, he left a true legacy. How many of the people who have walked through the halls of congress can say that? Will we some day look at Mitch McConnell and Evan Bayh the way we do Teddy Kennedy? I think not.
The sad fact is that we live in a country where too many of our politicians would rather be re-elected than be remembered. Well, Teddy Kennedy was the other kind.
Sumo-Pop
August 28, 2009
Saturday, August 8, 2009
Where Have You Gone, John Dillinger?
During the 1930s John Dillinger robbed banks. And he was loved for it. Why? Because during the 1920s banks such as JP Morgan Chase and Bank Of America became heavily involved in the securities business, leading to huge investments in short term loans that failed, and in turn, created the great depression. Basically, they took other people's money and put it in high risk investments and screwed their customers. Which forced President Franklin Roosevelt to expand government programs in effort to save the failed financial system. Sound familiar?
I'm sure it does, because that's what we're living with now. I know we'd like to believe that banks are for their customers, but that's not the truth. The banks are for their customer's money. Not to benefit those that bank with them, but to benefit the institution itself.
It's not just that modern banks over leveraged themselves with risky investments or made loans to people that they knew couldn't afford them and therefore created the current recession. No, the most reliable way that banks continue to stick it to their customers is with fee income.
The three most common ways that banks do this is through credit cards, debit cards, and the order of check clearance.
I'll start with credit cards. Many people get a new credit card to take advantage of 0% interest rates for a predetermined length (often 6 months). But a common practice used by banks is that of switching your payment date on you. Say your monthly payment is on the 15th of each month. Then the bank changes your date to the 7th. How do they notify you? Do they put a card in with your new statement that declares that your payment date has been changed? Do they pay you a courtesy call or send a separate notice? No. They simply change the date on your statement in that teeny tiny little black ink that no one looks at. What happens next is you make your payment on say, the 13th. You think you're good. Then on your next statement you find that not only do you have a late fee of $39.00, but that your interest rate is jacked up to anywhere from 18% to 29%. Then, you call customer disservice, er service, and they say there is nothing they can do. Now your 0% rate is gone, you've got a late fee, and they don't care.
Next is debit cards. In the old days, if you attempted to use your debit card and you were short of the necessary cash in your account, then the transaction would reject. Which might cause some embarrassment but at least you didn't overdraw your account. Nowadays, the bank will not reject those purchases and allow you to overdraw at will. Once again this leads to more fees.
Similarly, the policies surrounding the clearance of checks also is set up to cause as many fees as possible. Say you have $600.00 in your account. You pay your rent for $550.00. Say you also have 6 other checks out at $20.00 each for a grand total of $670.00 in promissory notes. So now you're $70.00 short. But what the bank will do instead of paying the items in the order that they came through is wait until the end of the business day and send the check with the highest amount through first. If they were to do you a solid and pay the smaller items first, you would only have one overdraft fee. However, in this scenario you now have three overdraft fees. And just so you know, your debit card works in the exact same way. Highest to lowest.
Now, what the bank will say is "don't you want your biggest check to go through first." Their argument being that your rent is more important than your lunch purchase. True enough, but if you are someone whose money is tight (and nowadays whose isn't), then you may not be able to afford to pay the additional fees and eat too. Of course, they extend this rationale as if they are somehow looking out for you, but don't you believe it.
What they will say next (assuming you haven't accepted the first lame explanation), is that it is the customer's responsibility to know how much money they have in their account. Once again, true enough. But wouldn't it be in the customer's best interest to not create a system that maximizes fees? I mean who do they think they're helping with these policies? I can tell you who they are screwing, the working men and women of this country who are scraping to get by. The only thing they are helping is themselves.
Of course these fee policies aren't what got us in this mess in the first place. That was done by over leveraging debt and offering adjustable rate, "sub-prime" mortgages to people with weak credit. Not every bank was so foolish as Citibank, Bank Of America, Wells Fargo and so on. Although, only one bank really stands out in this morass. That would be JP Morgan Chase. Chase was much more conservative with their balance sheet and did not get nearly as deep in the "sub-prime" market as the other big banks. Which makes them fiscally and ethically superior to their competitors. Of course, that's a little bit like being the tallest midget, but you get the idea. And Chase still has the same awful fee policies as the rest of these ass clowns.
So why did the US government bail these shysters out you might ask? Because they were too big to fail. If these institutions would have been allowed to go down for the dirt nap, the entire financial system would have collapsed. Most everyone knows that if a bank fails that FDIC insurance covers up to $250,000 in deposits for that bank's customers. However, if Citibank and Bank of America had gone down, the FDIC would have needed it's own bailout. So either way, we lose. Let 'em fail or prop 'em up. It's the same proposition.
Now, this doesn't mean that there are no good people working at banks. At the branch level, you will find some decent people who are willing to work with you during trying times. But you should know that they are not encouraged to do so. Banks rely so heavily on fee income that for many institutions it is their make or break point.
So yeah, John Dillinger robbed banks. It was against the law and morally wrong. But people loved him. They understood that Dillinger may have been a crook, but the real criminals had their names on the front of the building. Over 70 years later, ain't a damn thing changed.
Sumo-Pop
August 8, 2009
Full disclosure:
I spent the last 3 1/2 years working for a bank. No more. "Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, I am free at last."
I'm sure it does, because that's what we're living with now. I know we'd like to believe that banks are for their customers, but that's not the truth. The banks are for their customer's money. Not to benefit those that bank with them, but to benefit the institution itself.
It's not just that modern banks over leveraged themselves with risky investments or made loans to people that they knew couldn't afford them and therefore created the current recession. No, the most reliable way that banks continue to stick it to their customers is with fee income.
The three most common ways that banks do this is through credit cards, debit cards, and the order of check clearance.
I'll start with credit cards. Many people get a new credit card to take advantage of 0% interest rates for a predetermined length (often 6 months). But a common practice used by banks is that of switching your payment date on you. Say your monthly payment is on the 15th of each month. Then the bank changes your date to the 7th. How do they notify you? Do they put a card in with your new statement that declares that your payment date has been changed? Do they pay you a courtesy call or send a separate notice? No. They simply change the date on your statement in that teeny tiny little black ink that no one looks at. What happens next is you make your payment on say, the 13th. You think you're good. Then on your next statement you find that not only do you have a late fee of $39.00, but that your interest rate is jacked up to anywhere from 18% to 29%. Then, you call customer disservice, er service, and they say there is nothing they can do. Now your 0% rate is gone, you've got a late fee, and they don't care.
Next is debit cards. In the old days, if you attempted to use your debit card and you were short of the necessary cash in your account, then the transaction would reject. Which might cause some embarrassment but at least you didn't overdraw your account. Nowadays, the bank will not reject those purchases and allow you to overdraw at will. Once again this leads to more fees.
Similarly, the policies surrounding the clearance of checks also is set up to cause as many fees as possible. Say you have $600.00 in your account. You pay your rent for $550.00. Say you also have 6 other checks out at $20.00 each for a grand total of $670.00 in promissory notes. So now you're $70.00 short. But what the bank will do instead of paying the items in the order that they came through is wait until the end of the business day and send the check with the highest amount through first. If they were to do you a solid and pay the smaller items first, you would only have one overdraft fee. However, in this scenario you now have three overdraft fees. And just so you know, your debit card works in the exact same way. Highest to lowest.
Now, what the bank will say is "don't you want your biggest check to go through first." Their argument being that your rent is more important than your lunch purchase. True enough, but if you are someone whose money is tight (and nowadays whose isn't), then you may not be able to afford to pay the additional fees and eat too. Of course, they extend this rationale as if they are somehow looking out for you, but don't you believe it.
What they will say next (assuming you haven't accepted the first lame explanation), is that it is the customer's responsibility to know how much money they have in their account. Once again, true enough. But wouldn't it be in the customer's best interest to not create a system that maximizes fees? I mean who do they think they're helping with these policies? I can tell you who they are screwing, the working men and women of this country who are scraping to get by. The only thing they are helping is themselves.
Of course these fee policies aren't what got us in this mess in the first place. That was done by over leveraging debt and offering adjustable rate, "sub-prime" mortgages to people with weak credit. Not every bank was so foolish as Citibank, Bank Of America, Wells Fargo and so on. Although, only one bank really stands out in this morass. That would be JP Morgan Chase. Chase was much more conservative with their balance sheet and did not get nearly as deep in the "sub-prime" market as the other big banks. Which makes them fiscally and ethically superior to their competitors. Of course, that's a little bit like being the tallest midget, but you get the idea. And Chase still has the same awful fee policies as the rest of these ass clowns.
So why did the US government bail these shysters out you might ask? Because they were too big to fail. If these institutions would have been allowed to go down for the dirt nap, the entire financial system would have collapsed. Most everyone knows that if a bank fails that FDIC insurance covers up to $250,000 in deposits for that bank's customers. However, if Citibank and Bank of America had gone down, the FDIC would have needed it's own bailout. So either way, we lose. Let 'em fail or prop 'em up. It's the same proposition.
Now, this doesn't mean that there are no good people working at banks. At the branch level, you will find some decent people who are willing to work with you during trying times. But you should know that they are not encouraged to do so. Banks rely so heavily on fee income that for many institutions it is their make or break point.
So yeah, John Dillinger robbed banks. It was against the law and morally wrong. But people loved him. They understood that Dillinger may have been a crook, but the real criminals had their names on the front of the building. Over 70 years later, ain't a damn thing changed.
Sumo-Pop
August 8, 2009
Full disclosure:
I spent the last 3 1/2 years working for a bank. No more. "Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty, I am free at last."
Thursday, August 6, 2009
A Bag Of Bricks
God help me, I like Taylor Swift. Man, that felt good to say.
All my life I've been called a music snob by friend and foe alike. True enough, but there is something about this faux hillbilly high schooler that I can't resist. Now, before I go further, let me say that the reasons for her nearly unconscionable appeal to me are not pervy. Yes, she's a very pretty girl, but not outrageously so. So before you decide to call the cops or that guy on dateline, know that I have no carnal thoughts about her. In fact, she sort of reminds me of my sister-in-law. Someone I love very much, but could spend hours making fun of or putting in a headlock and delivering the requisite nuggy.
So it has to be something else. Musically, she isn't terribly complex. And her voice though distinctive, is not particularly strong. Her sound is hardly real country and her lyrics are pretty simple. So what the hell is it?
Well, it's honest. Here is a girl who writes her own songs that seem to be informed by her own experience. When you hear a song like 15 by Swift, there can be no doubt that she's singing it from the perspective of a 15 year old girl. She keeps the "genie in a bottle" and trolls no school hallway dressed like a catholic school Lolita. "Hit me baby, one more time?" I think not. She comes off like a classic overachiever whose parts equal a greater than expected whole. She's not necessarily great at any one thing, but put the pieces together and she's pretty damn terrific.
When I hear "Love Story" or "You Belong With Me," I am completely incapable of frowning. And I like to frown. It's like hearing Michael Jackson sing "ABC" or "I Want You Back." Yeah, I just compared Taylor Swift to the Jackson Five. Deal with it.
Now, I realize this may all fall apart and she may be next year's Debbie Gibson or Tiffany. Over the hill in your twenties is a tough thing to take. Maybe she'll go down the same road as those two. Performing at fairs, stripping for Playboy, and hosting VH1's "I love the aughts." But maybe not. Maybe she'll end up like Diana Ross. Ok, bad example. In fact, there are no good examples. There are no former female child stars that I can think of who end up turning out alright. They either sleaze out (Aguilera, Spears), freak out (Ross, Spears again) or fade away. But I'm going to root for this Swift. Because she makes me smile. And what's so bad about that.
So there. I have just confessed my guiltiest of guilty pleasures. But as Al Pacino once said in "The Devil's Advocate" (a guilty pleasure in itself), "Guilt is like a bag of bricks, you just gotta set it down."
KER-THUMP!! I just set it down.
Sumo-Pop
August 7, 2009
All my life I've been called a music snob by friend and foe alike. True enough, but there is something about this faux hillbilly high schooler that I can't resist. Now, before I go further, let me say that the reasons for her nearly unconscionable appeal to me are not pervy. Yes, she's a very pretty girl, but not outrageously so. So before you decide to call the cops or that guy on dateline, know that I have no carnal thoughts about her. In fact, she sort of reminds me of my sister-in-law. Someone I love very much, but could spend hours making fun of or putting in a headlock and delivering the requisite nuggy.
So it has to be something else. Musically, she isn't terribly complex. And her voice though distinctive, is not particularly strong. Her sound is hardly real country and her lyrics are pretty simple. So what the hell is it?
Well, it's honest. Here is a girl who writes her own songs that seem to be informed by her own experience. When you hear a song like 15 by Swift, there can be no doubt that she's singing it from the perspective of a 15 year old girl. She keeps the "genie in a bottle" and trolls no school hallway dressed like a catholic school Lolita. "Hit me baby, one more time?" I think not. She comes off like a classic overachiever whose parts equal a greater than expected whole. She's not necessarily great at any one thing, but put the pieces together and she's pretty damn terrific.
When I hear "Love Story" or "You Belong With Me," I am completely incapable of frowning. And I like to frown. It's like hearing Michael Jackson sing "ABC" or "I Want You Back." Yeah, I just compared Taylor Swift to the Jackson Five. Deal with it.
Now, I realize this may all fall apart and she may be next year's Debbie Gibson or Tiffany. Over the hill in your twenties is a tough thing to take. Maybe she'll go down the same road as those two. Performing at fairs, stripping for Playboy, and hosting VH1's "I love the aughts." But maybe not. Maybe she'll end up like Diana Ross. Ok, bad example. In fact, there are no good examples. There are no former female child stars that I can think of who end up turning out alright. They either sleaze out (Aguilera, Spears), freak out (Ross, Spears again) or fade away. But I'm going to root for this Swift. Because she makes me smile. And what's so bad about that.
So there. I have just confessed my guiltiest of guilty pleasures. But as Al Pacino once said in "The Devil's Advocate" (a guilty pleasure in itself), "Guilt is like a bag of bricks, you just gotta set it down."
KER-THUMP!! I just set it down.
Sumo-Pop
August 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)