To believe in God is to tell your highest faculties that they are incapable. This is not to say that God does not exist. This is only to say that belief in God is fanatical. Strive to believe in what you can affect, and what is available. Do not strive to believe in that which you cannot relate.
However, don't mistake: God does not exist. This is not only the most realistic approach to our existence, it is utterly romantic. To take-in your environment for what it is, rather than what it might be, is to be fully available to experience.
Devotion to God is not noble. Nobility is dedication to what you have. Mincing words with what might be and what you imagine to be subtracts from what is. How is it that we can't realize this?
If God exists, so be it. God will not discharge me for disbelief. More likely is that if God exists, I'll have favor for believing what is good and right is only good and right for its own sake...not for faith.
Wednesday, January 1, 2014
Friday, January 6, 2012
Belief in the Presidential Election Process
I have a rock'n'roll bar room, and, a room dubbed the "Lion's Den" in my house. I keep a realistic and often-called "creepy" drawing of a friend up in my hallway. I have four couches and a captain's chair in my main living area! It's not big enough for all of that! All in all, there are some quirky things in my house, without even discussing the activites. But, isn't that the way it is in every house? We all operate on our own ideologies, rituals, habits, organizational skills, and creativity. And, we all enjoy this slice of isolation because it defines what we call "home."
This way of living is a right in this country, but unfortunately may only be a priviledge when you think about it in an international context. For the sake of this conversation, let's focus on the national aspect of our in-house individualism. We live as we please within the framework of our secluded surroundings. What we ask is that our neighbors advocate a safe enivronment in a manner that aligns somewhat with ours. We rely on our neighbors to maintain a healthy enough living space in so much that it does not impede on our own health. Financially, our home value depends on the habits and upkeep of our neighbors' homes.
The point is, although we can operate freely within our own space, we still count on those around us to operate in a manner that does not affect us. Issues can arise when we affect the living conditions of others.
In terms of ideologies, can we peacefully live when we know our neighbor has a drastically different view than ours? Can we be function democratically when while living next to a stern Republican? Can we respect our Muslim neighbor? Can we enjoy our smaller family when the Johnson's across the street have 9 kids? Of course we can! It is likely that those reading this blog value this diversity, and others that may not still have to allow people and families to operate individually. It's an ingredient in the American potion. As as long as people keep their lunacy next door, we tend to let it be.
As we approach another presidential election, this very intuitive concept has increased importance because in most cases our neighbors have a right to influence who is elected to lead our country. In this scenario, your neighbor's ideologies alone can affect your life. Knowing that, I find it irresponsible and unacceptable that masses of people can make assertions about their beliefs without any sort of research, evidence, or reason. When your BELIEFS affect the lives of others, you inherit a responsibility to be educated on what you believe in, advocate, propose, and support. On the topic of belief and religion, you hear it all the time: "It is what I believe." Well, now, what you believe is influencing your vote, and thus influencing how this country considers issues of health care, defense spending, economic recovery, etc. Now, your beliefs are infringing on my yard, and I want you to tell me WHY you believe.
This is not a rant against your beliefs, as I spend plenty of time doing that. This is a rant proposing that you understand your beliefs before you blindly support them. For the sake of most Americans, if you are Christian, it does not suffice it to say that you go to church every week and thus know what you are worshipping. Yet, as we begin the 2012 caucuses and primaries to soldify the GOP presidential candidate, we witness a tussle for the Evangelical vote. Santorum surprised everyone in Iowa partially because of late campaign contributions, but partially due to his Evangelical following. I watch people discount Romney simply on the grounds that he is Mormon. Perry asked thousands of people to go to Reliant Stadium to pray for our "Nation in Crisis" as a means of taking action. That spurred support from the religious factions in Texas, and has helped push is campaign to this point.
We don't operate without evidence or reason in any other American function, besides religion. Yet, as we attempt to elect a president, religion has become a campaign tool. If I was an Evangelical and my belief system was being used for election purposes, I would feel used. I would question the entire campaign process, AND, question what it means to be an Evangelical. We arrest and prosecute criminals based on evidence. Our children succeed academically based on their ability to reason, not their strong belief system. Our jobs and careers advance based on performance, not belief. It is not acceptable to vote for a candidate simply because they believe in the same God as you do, especially when you don't know the details of what YOU believe.
This is one reason why I believe its VERY important to study your faith, and gain awareness. We can debate the legitimacy of an ideology on a separate plain. That is not the issue here. The issue is a lack of knowledge and blind acceptance without reason. Do not think that you are not the one I am speaking to...as if you have done the research. A vast majority of this country's citizens, many of my closest friends and family, believe this is a Christian Nation and this idea is inherit in their every decision. In-house, that if fine. When electing for the office of President of the United States of America, you better have a rationale for your beliefs!
This way of living is a right in this country, but unfortunately may only be a priviledge when you think about it in an international context. For the sake of this conversation, let's focus on the national aspect of our in-house individualism. We live as we please within the framework of our secluded surroundings. What we ask is that our neighbors advocate a safe enivronment in a manner that aligns somewhat with ours. We rely on our neighbors to maintain a healthy enough living space in so much that it does not impede on our own health. Financially, our home value depends on the habits and upkeep of our neighbors' homes.
The point is, although we can operate freely within our own space, we still count on those around us to operate in a manner that does not affect us. Issues can arise when we affect the living conditions of others.
In terms of ideologies, can we peacefully live when we know our neighbor has a drastically different view than ours? Can we be function democratically when while living next to a stern Republican? Can we respect our Muslim neighbor? Can we enjoy our smaller family when the Johnson's across the street have 9 kids? Of course we can! It is likely that those reading this blog value this diversity, and others that may not still have to allow people and families to operate individually. It's an ingredient in the American potion. As as long as people keep their lunacy next door, we tend to let it be.
As we approach another presidential election, this very intuitive concept has increased importance because in most cases our neighbors have a right to influence who is elected to lead our country. In this scenario, your neighbor's ideologies alone can affect your life. Knowing that, I find it irresponsible and unacceptable that masses of people can make assertions about their beliefs without any sort of research, evidence, or reason. When your BELIEFS affect the lives of others, you inherit a responsibility to be educated on what you believe in, advocate, propose, and support. On the topic of belief and religion, you hear it all the time: "It is what I believe." Well, now, what you believe is influencing your vote, and thus influencing how this country considers issues of health care, defense spending, economic recovery, etc. Now, your beliefs are infringing on my yard, and I want you to tell me WHY you believe.
This is not a rant against your beliefs, as I spend plenty of time doing that. This is a rant proposing that you understand your beliefs before you blindly support them. For the sake of most Americans, if you are Christian, it does not suffice it to say that you go to church every week and thus know what you are worshipping. Yet, as we begin the 2012 caucuses and primaries to soldify the GOP presidential candidate, we witness a tussle for the Evangelical vote. Santorum surprised everyone in Iowa partially because of late campaign contributions, but partially due to his Evangelical following. I watch people discount Romney simply on the grounds that he is Mormon. Perry asked thousands of people to go to Reliant Stadium to pray for our "Nation in Crisis" as a means of taking action. That spurred support from the religious factions in Texas, and has helped push is campaign to this point.
We don't operate without evidence or reason in any other American function, besides religion. Yet, as we attempt to elect a president, religion has become a campaign tool. If I was an Evangelical and my belief system was being used for election purposes, I would feel used. I would question the entire campaign process, AND, question what it means to be an Evangelical. We arrest and prosecute criminals based on evidence. Our children succeed academically based on their ability to reason, not their strong belief system. Our jobs and careers advance based on performance, not belief. It is not acceptable to vote for a candidate simply because they believe in the same God as you do, especially when you don't know the details of what YOU believe.
This is one reason why I believe its VERY important to study your faith, and gain awareness. We can debate the legitimacy of an ideology on a separate plain. That is not the issue here. The issue is a lack of knowledge and blind acceptance without reason. Do not think that you are not the one I am speaking to...as if you have done the research. A vast majority of this country's citizens, many of my closest friends and family, believe this is a Christian Nation and this idea is inherit in their every decision. In-house, that if fine. When electing for the office of President of the United States of America, you better have a rationale for your beliefs!
Monday, October 24, 2011
Ralph Waldo Emerson, from "Heroism"
"The heroic soul does not sell its justice and its nobleness. It does not ask to dine nicely, and to sleep warm. The essence of greatness is the perception that virtue is enough. Poverty is its ornament. It does not need plenty, and can very well abide its loss.
But that which takes my fancy most, in the heroic class, is the good-humor and hilarity they exhibit. It is a height to which common duty can very well attain, to suffer and to dare with solemnity. But these rare souls set opinion, success, and life, at so cheap a rate, that they will not soothe their enemies by petitions, or the show of sorrow, but wear their own habitual greatness."
Emerson's quote regarding the essence of greatness strikes a strong, resonating chord. And, it can be taken as a report on material posession or fortitude of the giving soul. However you relate, I feel that it's an immensely important concept. It's infinitely altrustic yet self-satisfying. If there is a gentle god, this embodies his lessons without myth or structure, and more so than anything that can be learned while under the umbrella of pious duty. Such duty and instruction invites the bending of any goodness around one's individual desires.
Can you imagine a community that abides by virtue first and foremost? Start from this bedrock and forget antiqued story-telling. Take away the crutch of religious ceremony and all of it's social context. Relieve the pressure that innately couples belief in an unknown and unlikely afterlife, and subscribe to an unflinching, unyielding push for the virtuous present. It will translate into greatness within your life, and what more can you control?
Do you think that a book of sensational anecdotes edited by the power-wielding men of the time has more value that an amiable spirit? Do you think a god would be so selfish as to think that universal virtue must come through the jaded teaching of a book or fellow man? It is no longer honorable to be naive. Greatness in life is not the sheepish following of mysticism...it is being virtuous without instruction to be so.
But that which takes my fancy most, in the heroic class, is the good-humor and hilarity they exhibit. It is a height to which common duty can very well attain, to suffer and to dare with solemnity. But these rare souls set opinion, success, and life, at so cheap a rate, that they will not soothe their enemies by petitions, or the show of sorrow, but wear their own habitual greatness."
Emerson's quote regarding the essence of greatness strikes a strong, resonating chord. And, it can be taken as a report on material posession or fortitude of the giving soul. However you relate, I feel that it's an immensely important concept. It's infinitely altrustic yet self-satisfying. If there is a gentle god, this embodies his lessons without myth or structure, and more so than anything that can be learned while under the umbrella of pious duty. Such duty and instruction invites the bending of any goodness around one's individual desires.
Can you imagine a community that abides by virtue first and foremost? Start from this bedrock and forget antiqued story-telling. Take away the crutch of religious ceremony and all of it's social context. Relieve the pressure that innately couples belief in an unknown and unlikely afterlife, and subscribe to an unflinching, unyielding push for the virtuous present. It will translate into greatness within your life, and what more can you control?
Do you think that a book of sensational anecdotes edited by the power-wielding men of the time has more value that an amiable spirit? Do you think a god would be so selfish as to think that universal virtue must come through the jaded teaching of a book or fellow man? It is no longer honorable to be naive. Greatness in life is not the sheepish following of mysticism...it is being virtuous without instruction to be so.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
From the Pious Mind: Justifying Religion's Role
In a recent publication on a TruthDig website, Chris Hedges claimed that Sam Harris is a racist who wants to initiate a nuclear attack on all predominantly Muslim countries. Anyone who has read Sam Harris knows that this claim is absurd. But, that is for Sam to rebut. In doing so, he provided a link to a debate with Chris Hedges.
The piece that I took from it, which I want to share for rhetorical purposes, stems from Sam Harris's opening statements in said debate. In regard to justifying religion's role in society, here is what he had to say. Suffice it to assume that non-believing groups/individuals will provide argument against all three(3) claims:
1. The pious will claim religious authenticity and truth-value.
2. The pious will claim religious utility, as a positive societal function.
3. The pious will claim that non-belief (atheism) is just as much a religion as any monotheistic or polytheistic sect.
I think it is important to think about this. I am going to leave any further commentary aside, because I want you to ponder these claims. If you are a believer, which resonates with you? If you are not a believer, which claim(s) do you think needs the most opposition?
The piece that I took from it, which I want to share for rhetorical purposes, stems from Sam Harris's opening statements in said debate. In regard to justifying religion's role in society, here is what he had to say. Suffice it to assume that non-believing groups/individuals will provide argument against all three(3) claims:
1. The pious will claim religious authenticity and truth-value.
2. The pious will claim religious utility, as a positive societal function.
3. The pious will claim that non-belief (atheism) is just as much a religion as any monotheistic or polytheistic sect.
I think it is important to think about this. I am going to leave any further commentary aside, because I want you to ponder these claims. If you are a believer, which resonates with you? If you are not a believer, which claim(s) do you think needs the most opposition?
Monday, May 16, 2011
The Romance of Reason
What does the word "reason" (in its noun-form) conjure for you? Does its factual connotation denounce or pronounce its value, for you? Does it present itself with a face of arrogance, or perhaps a discord with creative thought? Does it pop, or does it fizzle?
In conversations about the topic of reason, with those in favor of and opposed to secular thought, I often get the feeling that reason lacks romantic appeal. For clarity, I am suggesting that romantic appeal is the sentimental capsule for love, hope, kindness, and empathy. That being said, its as if reason, or a belief in concepts that evidentially align with fact, are worse for the wear because they protect reality, rather than foster mysticism.
Upon thinking about this, my natural instinct said to form a case against the romanticism of belief in unreasonable and antiquated concepts. But, like in any debate, the more time one spends dogging on the opposition, the more likely the opposition is to close their mind and put up a barrier. So, I'm going to fight that instinct and spend your valuable Internet-time bolstering a case for the romance of reasonable thought. Herein:
Creativity is a rich, often therapeutic way of seeing and thinking about existence, and beyond. Its a medium of thought that allows the mind to either break from the restraints of our linear life path, or at the very least, loosen them a bit. Creativity often translates into art of many kinds. Its safe to say that we all find value in the art of language, canvas, invention, sculpture, sustenance, etc. Even when intangible and metaphorical, creativity can bond individuals because its a forum for subjective thought. Fact is not required; fiction is as welcome as any other characteristic.
Creativity can translate to fact, especially when it comes to invention. It does not have to remain in dysfunction with fact. Before planes became the norm, the idea of flying like a bird was a radical idea reserved for dreamers. As we all know, it took creative, innovative minds to discern that flight is possible, and can be factually diagnosed. This can be said for a number of staples in our life today, from unlikely food combinations to space exploration.
However, the inverse of its ability to translate into something factual is its ability to remain fanatical. Creativity more commonly translates to fiction. I will not give examples or go into detail, because we can all reference stories, books, and tall-tales that exemplify creative genius, but have no home on the plane of fact.
We harbor adoration for this type of creativity. It may be in the form of a child's imagination. We do not fault a 6-yr old child for thinking that whales could flap their tail and fly out of the water into the sky. In fact, we find it cute! It demonstrates a richness of the mind, and a stage in learning. Creativity can be beautiful, even when naive. It cultivates a random, spontaneous thought and molds it to the taste of the thinker. For those in my age range, it can turn ordinary turtles into pizza-loving crime fighters, with a giant rat sensei. That's entertaining!
Drawing you back to my original point, when advocating reason as it relates to pious or secular topics, the romantic appeal of fictional creativity is at play. Its romantic to think that one has a relationship with an unknown, unspoken deity and is both nothing and everything, simultaneously. Its romantic to think that a spared life in a brutal car accident is an act of God. Its romantic to believe that we have an individual purpose on this planet, one that nobody can take away from us. This is fictionally creative because we have no evidence to suggest that any of this is true.
Reason becomes flat and unappealing. When arguing that the pious individual is simply talking to himself, that the spared life is nothing more than a complex physics equation, or that purpose on this planet is to reproduce like all other living species, those speaking on the behalf of reason look like a Debbie Downers. I can see how this is the case, because we are trained from our youth to be creative and romantic. Art and music are staples in most school curriculum, and excelling in these fields brings about local, if not national honor.
For this reason, I posed the question about how the word "reason" resonates with you. If it boxes you into a mindset of textbooks and science tests, take this opportunity to adopt a new likeness:
Reason is one of the most rich and personal concepts that we are fortunate to experience. It blends the past, present, and future of our experience and emotions. It is dynamic and honest. As individuals, do we not seek honesty before deception? Is it not more appealing to know what IS, rather than what ISN'T likely? Factual creativity is more useful in our adult world because ideas turn into inventions, such as airplanes.
This is not to say that fictional creativity is useless. It is not. Its a catalyst for our youth. But, as our concept of reason develops with age, it is criminal not to apply it. It is criminal to allow child-like creativity to guide our understanding of this life. As children, we were spurred towards creativity because of its catalytic and developmental value. However, as adults, we would be better to apply this creativity to music and art, and separate it from our existential opinions. Ignorance towards reason as it relates to religious thought is an allowance for fiction...the same fiction the guides our youth. Ask yourself: as much as you may love your child, would you allow him or her to repair your car, operate on your spouse, or explain the laws of physics?
Now, if a child was diagnosed a genius of the functional sort, would you allow a him or her to conduct any of these activities? What separates a genius from his or her peers? ...the ability to reason at an age when reason has not generally developed. The ability to learn, more quickly, how reason dictates our being is a prime characteristic of a child-genius.
The indisputable answers do not always lie in reason, but the likelihood does. The absolute truth is not available to any of us, but it leans towards reason. Reason is an ally. Reason does not yearn to deceive you. Reason is clear and sunny in a sky where religious manifestations cloud. Reason offers free thought in an existence that perpetuates irrationality through child-like religious ideas. While many succumb to this romance of the religious imagination, reason awaits your better judgement.
In conversations about the topic of reason, with those in favor of and opposed to secular thought, I often get the feeling that reason lacks romantic appeal. For clarity, I am suggesting that romantic appeal is the sentimental capsule for love, hope, kindness, and empathy. That being said, its as if reason, or a belief in concepts that evidentially align with fact, are worse for the wear because they protect reality, rather than foster mysticism.
Upon thinking about this, my natural instinct said to form a case against the romanticism of belief in unreasonable and antiquated concepts. But, like in any debate, the more time one spends dogging on the opposition, the more likely the opposition is to close their mind and put up a barrier. So, I'm going to fight that instinct and spend your valuable Internet-time bolstering a case for the romance of reasonable thought. Herein:
Creativity is a rich, often therapeutic way of seeing and thinking about existence, and beyond. Its a medium of thought that allows the mind to either break from the restraints of our linear life path, or at the very least, loosen them a bit. Creativity often translates into art of many kinds. Its safe to say that we all find value in the art of language, canvas, invention, sculpture, sustenance, etc. Even when intangible and metaphorical, creativity can bond individuals because its a forum for subjective thought. Fact is not required; fiction is as welcome as any other characteristic.
Creativity can translate to fact, especially when it comes to invention. It does not have to remain in dysfunction with fact. Before planes became the norm, the idea of flying like a bird was a radical idea reserved for dreamers. As we all know, it took creative, innovative minds to discern that flight is possible, and can be factually diagnosed. This can be said for a number of staples in our life today, from unlikely food combinations to space exploration.
However, the inverse of its ability to translate into something factual is its ability to remain fanatical. Creativity more commonly translates to fiction. I will not give examples or go into detail, because we can all reference stories, books, and tall-tales that exemplify creative genius, but have no home on the plane of fact.
We harbor adoration for this type of creativity. It may be in the form of a child's imagination. We do not fault a 6-yr old child for thinking that whales could flap their tail and fly out of the water into the sky. In fact, we find it cute! It demonstrates a richness of the mind, and a stage in learning. Creativity can be beautiful, even when naive. It cultivates a random, spontaneous thought and molds it to the taste of the thinker. For those in my age range, it can turn ordinary turtles into pizza-loving crime fighters, with a giant rat sensei. That's entertaining!
Drawing you back to my original point, when advocating reason as it relates to pious or secular topics, the romantic appeal of fictional creativity is at play. Its romantic to think that one has a relationship with an unknown, unspoken deity and is both nothing and everything, simultaneously. Its romantic to think that a spared life in a brutal car accident is an act of God. Its romantic to believe that we have an individual purpose on this planet, one that nobody can take away from us. This is fictionally creative because we have no evidence to suggest that any of this is true.
Reason becomes flat and unappealing. When arguing that the pious individual is simply talking to himself, that the spared life is nothing more than a complex physics equation, or that purpose on this planet is to reproduce like all other living species, those speaking on the behalf of reason look like a Debbie Downers. I can see how this is the case, because we are trained from our youth to be creative and romantic. Art and music are staples in most school curriculum, and excelling in these fields brings about local, if not national honor.
For this reason, I posed the question about how the word "reason" resonates with you. If it boxes you into a mindset of textbooks and science tests, take this opportunity to adopt a new likeness:
Reason is one of the most rich and personal concepts that we are fortunate to experience. It blends the past, present, and future of our experience and emotions. It is dynamic and honest. As individuals, do we not seek honesty before deception? Is it not more appealing to know what IS, rather than what ISN'T likely? Factual creativity is more useful in our adult world because ideas turn into inventions, such as airplanes.
This is not to say that fictional creativity is useless. It is not. Its a catalyst for our youth. But, as our concept of reason develops with age, it is criminal not to apply it. It is criminal to allow child-like creativity to guide our understanding of this life. As children, we were spurred towards creativity because of its catalytic and developmental value. However, as adults, we would be better to apply this creativity to music and art, and separate it from our existential opinions. Ignorance towards reason as it relates to religious thought is an allowance for fiction...the same fiction the guides our youth. Ask yourself: as much as you may love your child, would you allow him or her to repair your car, operate on your spouse, or explain the laws of physics?
Now, if a child was diagnosed a genius of the functional sort, would you allow a him or her to conduct any of these activities? What separates a genius from his or her peers? ...the ability to reason at an age when reason has not generally developed. The ability to learn, more quickly, how reason dictates our being is a prime characteristic of a child-genius.
The indisputable answers do not always lie in reason, but the likelihood does. The absolute truth is not available to any of us, but it leans towards reason. Reason is an ally. Reason does not yearn to deceive you. Reason is clear and sunny in a sky where religious manifestations cloud. Reason offers free thought in an existence that perpetuates irrationality through child-like religious ideas. While many succumb to this romance of the religious imagination, reason awaits your better judgement.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
A Rolling Rant...
I abhor Rolling Stone magazine in this musical era. The magazine has few rock musicians on the cover (undertones about the lack of presence of "rock stars" in today's music), and now dotes on general celebrity figures…politicians, movie stars, etc.
They have an article per magazine that is solely charged by the left-wing propaganda, and this comes across as equally guilty as Fox News in skewing facts around their agenda (which is a huge bull's eye for them)
The advertisements are extensive, and to top this hate-sundae with a bitter-cherry, they took away the vintage, thin paper material and over-sized dimensions that made it stand-out when I was a younger lad. I used to have cut-outs of rock stars and rap moguls throughout my room, locker, and folders, back in high school.
But, that being said, I still receive it and read it, depending on the topic. The most recent RS has Adele on the front, whom I understand is fantastic. I am not familiar with her music, but I’ll have to dig in a bit, as I understand that she incorporates a lot of piano. At this point in my musical-taste-progression (which is ever-subject to change and mood), it goes 1. Piano, 2. Harmonica, 3. Guitar.
Anyway…RS is tough for me to appreciate, but not impossible.
This issue has an interview with Bill Maher. OK, yes...I am VERY biased in his direction, so sift thru my elation as you see fit. The article was great. He generates in me vigor to be more pronounced in my views, and rely more consistently on what I believe to be all-too-often a concept loss in translation: simplicity. Where common-sense and comedic wit cross, you will find Bill Maher. Some may not enjoy his aggressively jaded views, but they are jaded on conceptual simplicity, which does not get its fair shake in today's world.
If you get time, read it...its a 5-minute read. I laughed aloud for portions of it. For instance, he was asked about his support towards legalizing pot, and says that its partially a personal benefit to his life, and partially "a great way to save a metric fuckton of money." I want a metric fuckton of savings…sounds beneficial to mine and the lives of many Americans.
Now that I think of it, RS has been on a roll, putting Ricky Gervais in the previous issue, with his unforgiving satire and distaste for effusive religious motivation (better said, he hates everything about the religiously fervent).
I'll leave this rant with a few old RS covers that evoke better times in RS history, and musical history alike.
They have an article per magazine that is solely charged by the left-wing propaganda, and this comes across as equally guilty as Fox News in skewing facts around their agenda (which is a huge bull's eye for them)
The advertisements are extensive, and to top this hate-sundae with a bitter-cherry, they took away the vintage, thin paper material and over-sized dimensions that made it stand-out when I was a younger lad. I used to have cut-outs of rock stars and rap moguls throughout my room, locker, and folders, back in high school.
But, that being said, I still receive it and read it, depending on the topic. The most recent RS has Adele on the front, whom I understand is fantastic. I am not familiar with her music, but I’ll have to dig in a bit, as I understand that she incorporates a lot of piano. At this point in my musical-taste-progression (which is ever-subject to change and mood), it goes 1. Piano, 2. Harmonica, 3. Guitar.
Anyway…RS is tough for me to appreciate, but not impossible.
This issue has an interview with Bill Maher. OK, yes...I am VERY biased in his direction, so sift thru my elation as you see fit. The article was great. He generates in me vigor to be more pronounced in my views, and rely more consistently on what I believe to be all-too-often a concept loss in translation: simplicity. Where common-sense and comedic wit cross, you will find Bill Maher. Some may not enjoy his aggressively jaded views, but they are jaded on conceptual simplicity, which does not get its fair shake in today's world.
If you get time, read it...its a 5-minute read. I laughed aloud for portions of it. For instance, he was asked about his support towards legalizing pot, and says that its partially a personal benefit to his life, and partially "a great way to save a metric fuckton of money." I want a metric fuckton of savings…sounds beneficial to mine and the lives of many Americans.
Now that I think of it, RS has been on a roll, putting Ricky Gervais in the previous issue, with his unforgiving satire and distaste for effusive religious motivation (better said, he hates everything about the religiously fervent).
I'll leave this rant with a few old RS covers that evoke better times in RS history, and musical history alike.
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)