Mobtown Shank

GodWatch: SuperJesus, Christ Of Steel

by Benn Ray

Superman died for somebody's sins, but not mine.

Well... not really, but Christian revisionists would have us believe that Superman's willingness to sacrifice himself for humanity makes him just another version of Jesus - whom they seem to be under the  faulty impression was the "Original Superhero."

In fact, in conjunction with the release of the new Warner Bros. Superman movie Man Of Steel, there's a whole mess of Christian resources being made available to churches to encourage this Christ/Superman conflation.

According to CNN, Man Of Steel is being marketed to Christians as a Christian movie.

Warner Bros. Studios is aggressively marketing "Man of Steel" to Christian pastors, inviting them to early screenings, creating Father’s Day discussion guides and producing special film trailers that focus on the faith-friendly angles of the movie.

The movie studio even asked a theologian to provide sermon notes for pastors who want to preach about Superman on Sunday. Titled “Jesus: The Original Superhero,” the notes run nine pages.

“How might the story of Superman awaken our passion for the greatest hero who ever lived and died and rose again?” the sermon notes ask.

...
“When I sat and listened to the movie I actually saw it was the story of Christ, and the love of God was weaved into the story," said the pastor [Quentin Scott of Baltimore].

"It was something I was very excited about that with the consultation of our senior pastor, we could use in our congregation.”

Check out the Man Of Steel Sermon Notes here [.pdf].

I thought something smelled a little off when a local church had got itself excited about superheroes right before Man Of Steel opened and was offering a series of sermons conflating superheroes with Christianity. They were passing out these snappy brochures:

"Oh, no, no, no," I thought. "The only thing the Bible and superhero comics have in common is that they are both works of fiction requiring an immense amount of suspension of disbelief to succeed."

I briefly entertained the thought of attending these Jesus/superhero sermons and pointing out any superhero-related leaps or inaccuracies, but honestly, I'm not the "getting up early on Sunday mornings to force my intolerant beliefs upon others" sort of guy.

Superman is not Jesus, regardless of what Zack Snyder's new movie (or its marketing) is trying to assert. Jesus was not a superhero, regardless of what preachers desperate to connect their message to an increasingly disinterested mainstream via a momentary/popular trend or fad might have you believe.

Superheroes, by and large, are products of science (or, more specifically, science-fiction - not fantasy/magic). Superman is an alien from another planet - the sort of lifeform, that if he did exist, would shake the tenets of Christianity (which has a significant portion of its followers still wrestling with the existence of dinosaurs) to their foundation.

Batman is a man. With gadgets. The sorts of gadgets that are created by science (and a whole lotta money).

Iron Man? The same thing.

Spider-Man? A radioactive spider bite causes a genetic mutation. Again, science.

And the Avengers - well, they do have Thor, and he is a god, but he's a Norse god, not a Christian one. Captain America is a product of science - the Super Soldier Serum,  The Hulk is a product of science - gamma rays, actually (similar to that ones that turned a group of scientists into the Fantastic Four).

Interestingly, the church promotional card above makes no mention of the X-Men or Wolverine. They are, after all, mutants. You know, evolution. Also science.

This is not to say there aren't superheroes that are magical in their origins, but I somehow don't see a church giving a sermon on Dr. Strange, Dr. Fate, Sandman, or John Constantine. Most of the magic-based superheroes tend to be more occult-oriented than Judeo-Christian.

Science is the antithesis of religion. Both compete for ownership of same territory - to explain that which we don't understand. The former uses a method of observation and testing relying on empirical, measurable, reproducible, verifiable data and the latter relies on magic and authoritative proclamations and a strong insistence that questioning is a character flaw.

But to claim superheroes to be gods - or to try to conflate them with some form of Christian mythology is to not only misunderstand (or even try to claim ownership of) the concept of a hero, but to attempt to culturally usurp and historically revise beloved characters for a narrow agenda (which, if we're being totally honest is just the sort of thing Christianity excels at).

"...[the trend of trying to conflate gods with superheroes] is contrived, because they're not at all the same. Superheroes are the copyrighted property of big corporations. They are purely commercial entities; they are purely about making a buck. That's not to say there haven't been some wonderful creations in the course of the history of the superhero comic, but to compare them with gods is fairly pointless." - Alan Moore (The Believer #99)

Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster were both children of Jewish immigrants and created Superman while in high school in the 1930s. Originally called "The Superman," there is an unavoidable connection between Superman and Nietzsche's Ubermensch - an idea that Hitler found particularly inspiring. Except that Siegel and Shuster put a spin on it.

Kal-El fled the holocaust of Krypton for America much in the same way Jews fled the holocaust in Germany for America. Kal-El is an immigrant, like all non-Native Americans. Like many immigrants, his name was changed/localized. He became Clark Kent, and he was raised on a farm in the heartland, later leaving it for work in the big city, and making good as a journalist - a truth seeker (this migration from rural areas to urban areas was similar to what many Dust Bowl/Depression/Industrial Era Americans had been doing). Like so many soldiers in World War II, Superman (clad in a costume of predominately red, yellow and blue - primary colors suggesting the American flag with white being replaced with yellow for printing/artistic reasons) fought against evil tyrants intent upon global domination and was willing to sacrifice himself for truth, justice and the American way.

That is to say, if Superman is a symbol of anything, he is a symbol of America itself. He is not, as some are insisting, a symbol of the Christ.

And so that brings us to Wesley Morris (of Grantland) and his review of Man Of Steel:

"Christliness has always been an element of the Superman myth. But this film's near literal insistence upon it becomes absurd since director Zack Snyder and screenwriter David S. Goyer don't dramatize the analogy, they presume it. ... The movie is so serious about comparing Clark to the Messiah that it starts to feel like church.  ... Man of Steel is actually more interested in trying to conflate religiosity and topicality."

So Warner Bros. is using Grace Hill Media, a Christian marketing firm to sell Man of Steel as a Christian movie. Is it?

Is this what director Zack Snyder intended?

Is this what writers David Goyer and Christopher Nolan intended?

Should more interviewers be asking them these sorts of questions?

Is it appropriate for Christian leaders to attempt to reappropriate the mythology of Superman as a Christian parable?

But, more importantly, is it really what the creators of Superman intended?

Related articles

Is Man of Steel all about Jesus? Warner Bros hopes Christians think so

Warner Bros is not only hoping you notice the Superman comparisons to Christ: they're counting on it

Superman: Coming to a church near you

Jesus is the Real Man of Steel

American Standard: My Generation

by Benn Ray

Among the many shit-storms erupting last week, my favorite has to be the one caused by Joel Stein's Time Magazine cover story on the Millennials (previously Generation Y) - where he goes on to call an entire generation lazy, narcissitic, stunted, etc. Essentially, he did to the new, up and coming generation what previous generations have done to younger generations time and time again.

Well, more specifically, it's what Baby Boomers have been doing to other generations ever since the Greatest Generation pointed out their narcissistic qualities.

The thing I really feel bad about, however, is that the guy who is shitting all over the Millennials is a member of my generation, Generation X. We know better, having spent our entire lives in the shadow of the most narcissitic generation in history, the Baby Boomers. A generation that  prides itself on "getting us out of a war" (Vietnam) only to send following generations into bogus and unnecessary wars. A generation that fully takes advantage of social programs like Social Security while telling younger generations they need to get used to the idea of not having those types of programs. A generation that... well, I could go on all day about Baby Boomers, but this isn't about them (no matter how much they like to believe everything is about them).

Stein's argument seems to both confuse the narcissism of youth with the narcissism of a generation and blame the Millennials for the technology they grew up with - just imagine what Boomers would be like if they grew up with access to smart phones, the internet, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc.

So on behalf of Generation X, I'd like to apologize to the Millennials for the dumbassery of the Time Magazine-sanctioned Joel Stein. We're not all like him, really. And don't take it too seriously. Being slandered in Time is a generational rite of passage. And in a few years, they'll do another cover article about you, taking it all back, saying that maybe they were wrong about the kids and they're not so bad after all (most likely after your generation takes over the editorial staff, that's what we did).

Also, just be happy that they've now stopped calling you "Generation Y." It was way too derivitave of my generation.

I agree with Stephen Colbert's comment at this past weekend's 2013 UVA commencement, "You do not owe the previous generation anything." In fact, we owe you. Well, honestly, the Boomers do. They owe us all.

But reading Stein's article and a lot of the responses to it, I was reminded of a series of articles I wrote for my college newspaper, The Salisbury Flyer, about 20 years ago (actually, it might be exactly 20 years go this month).

This was before the Generation X name had been permanently affixed to my generation. There was a lot of talk in the media about what to call us, but no one was really asking us - it wasn't put up to a vote - it was more like the media was crowd-testing brand names to see which was the most marketable, and I thought that perhaps we should have some say in what those of us born between 1960-1980 were called.

So I present those articles here, just for posterity (and well-deserved mockery).

Note: The articles appeared over serveral weeks in the campus newspaper. They intitially received little response while they were running but resulted in a fair amount of hate mail (which I, unfortantely, neglected to save) after I finished the series. They have been edited from their original format to form a more cohesive whole (and updated where it made sense, with a few corrections and a few minor editorial changes that I couldn't resist making).

American Standard: All Parked Up In Hampden

by Benn Ray

There are situations in which even the most rational among us can behave irrationally. For city dwellers, parking seems to elicit almost completely and consistently irrational attitudes and behavior.

Unfortunately, being aware of the situation doesn't necessarily make it go away.

For example, I'm aware of how crazy, illogical and downright incorrect it is to look at public city street parking as private parking. I know, intellectually, that I do not have a right to a parking space. I do not pay for one. I am in no way promised one. But that the same time, there is a spot across the street (because in front of my house there is Restricted Residential Parking which means during the week I can't usually park there) that is "my spot." That doesn't mean I have a sense of entitlement and that if I come home and "Tweety Bird" (which is what I call the short blonde woman who drives the yellow Honda) is parked in that space, as she often is, that a vehicular rage washes over me (although I may wag my fist and yell "Damn you, Tweety Bird!" in a self-mockingly as a way to acknowledge my irrational response). But when I come home and get "my spot," I do feel a minor flush of elation - of victory.

But it's easy to see where irrational attitudes toward parking can spiral out into crazy land. For example, one time when I lived in a different neighborhood and I came home from work early, the only parking space available on the block was in front of my next door neighbor's house. Several hours later that evening there was a knock at my door. It was my slightly annoyed neighbor who asked if it wouldn't be too much trouble for me to park "in your own space in front of your own house" (which had eventually opened up) and not in "her space." Instead of explaining how insane this conversation was, I looked at her in disbelief and said, "Okay, give me just a second and I'll go pull my car 12 feet forward."

There is a red Ford truck that is illegally parked in front of its owner's house which I drive past twice a day, every day. The house is at the end of a block of rowhomes, and right next to it is an alley and next to that alley is a convenience store. At some point, the city came out and expanded the "No Parking" region so that people coming out of the alley or the convenience store lot could actually see oncoming traffic without having to nose out into it. Unfortunately, this means the red Ford can't be parked directly in front of the last house on the block. While it could still be parked close, like in front of the next to last rowhouse on the block, that clearly isn't good enough for the red Ford as he is always, ALWAYS parked on the illegal side of the "No Parking" sign (which is the side directly in front of his house), and I have never seen him ticketed. Not only does this negate the point of expanding the "No Parking" region but it makes exiting the alley and the convenience store lot (both things I've done), a little dicier.

In Hampden, along the Avenue, I remind my fellow merchants all the time to not park at meters because when you do it actually negates the point of having metered parking. Metered parking exists to not just generate revenue for the city, but it also exists to encourage turnover. In fact, we found back in the early 2000s, that when we would do free parking days - people would leave their vehicles in those metered spots all day long (usually merchants, employees and area residents), and it would create more parking problems for people coming into the neighborhood. Yet I see it all the time, business people who think they are entitled to leave their vehicle in the parking space in front of their business all day long, every day. Generally, as a business community, we all know who these merchants are.

Yet despite this, there are still merchants (especially a handful of more ideological ones whose libertarian sensiblities are somehow offended by regulated parking), who think they are exempt from this arrangement.

Even worse is the abuse of the "Loading Zones." There are a number of business owners who feel like, again, they are entitled to park in front of their business. And in front of their business, there happens to be a loading zone, so they leave their trucks there all day long. Because of the timing of the loading zone, they are less likely to get ticketed and, presumably, they feel like they can fight the more expensive ticket if they do get one by saying they were loading stuff into their business. But what happens then is that the delivery trucks who have a legitmate use of those loading zones can't access them, so they illegally double park to make deliveries (frequently to the very business who blocking the loading zone) and create traffic problems in the neighborhood.

Residents have their own ways of irrationally dealing with parking.

If you've ever driven down Cold Spring in Evergreen, you may notice some people with yard signs that say "No Loyola Parking." This is clearly the act of residents frustrated with the inadequate parking the institution is providing for its students. It is also completely bogus.

Public city streets are simply that. Public. They can't be restricted on a regular basis to give preferential parking to one type of person over another.

One easy way to spot unofficial parking restrictions (as in they don't legally apply so ignore them) is if the notice is posted on private property. In fact, every time I drive down Coldspring and I see someone with a "No Loyola Parking" sign in their yard, I want to park there.

Over in Hampden, on Wellington, residents took it upon themselves to construct a "Residential Parking Only" sign and fix it to a light post (pictured above). Just a general rule of thumb here, but legitmate street parking signs aren't made with labelmakers.

Also, in both of these signs, there are no outlined means of enforcement. If the signs were legitmate, there would be a notice as to how the city would be able to discern between "Residential" parking and non-residential parking - as in some kind of permit.

But that's part of the genuis of signs like these - they don't have to be legitimate (or even well thought out or realistic looking) to work.

The average non-resident who is looking for a parking space is most likely not very familiar with where they are parking. If they see a sign like this, a cautious driver, even with suspicions, would say, "Why risk it?" and move a block over. Plus, there's no telling that if a resident is irrational enough about public parking to create and post exclusionary signs, what other things they may do to one's vehicle should you not listen to them.

On the block where I live, we have Residential Permit Parking on one side of the street, and unrestricted public parking on the other. I've lived in this house for almost 10 years, and I've never gotten a residential permit. In fact, I'm not even really sure how, and I've never taken the time to figure it out.

So on weekdays, from 7AM to 7PM I can only park in front of my house for 2 hours. Since I don't generally leave the house before 9AM, that means during the week, I have to park on the unrestricted side - along with almost all of my other neighbors who, like me, have never bothered to get permit stickers. But, of course, I sometimes can't park on the unrestricted side, so I park on the restricted side and either forget or have no place to move the car later. This ends up costing me a little over $150 a year. The point being, that on my block, we have restrictions on one side of the street and a very small minority of residents take advantage of it.

Some may argue that I should just take the time to buy a parking permit. My response to that is that I don't really think I should have to and while that may be the pragmatic response, the behavior of me and most of my neighbors suggest there is some sort of flaw in convenience and accessibility.

Restricted Residential Permit Parking isn't free parking - you're paying the city to park. And you don't have any control over rate increases.

And what's more, it doesn't fix the problem.

The best way to look at parking is to think of the cars as fluid. They will move around areas of resistance and settle where they can. So if one block has restricted parking, cars will just park on the next block over where the parking isn't restricted and now you have twice as many vehicles trying to park in a smaller space which creates more problems for neighbors on that block which in turn motivates residents to enact more Residential Parking Restrictions which in turn creates more problems. It essentially creates a cycle of parking problems for a whole neighborhood until the whole area is residential permit parking which can strangle a business district with finite metered parking and no parking garage.

We have convenient models we can look to here in Baltimore - like Federal Hill or Canton (which has recently moved to get rid of its Residential Permit Parking because it creates more problems than it solves) - to get a sense of what's in store for neighborhoods who enact, on a large scale basis, Residential Permit Parking.

Ever since I first moved to Hampden in 2000, there have been complaints about parking problems. Having lived in Fells Point and Mount Vernon for years, these complaints have always surprised me. If you can park within a two block radius of where you want to go, I've always felt, then you don't have a parking problem. But parking attitudes are as relative as they are irrational.

Years later, I become involved in the Hampden Parking Task Force to help find additional parking in the neighborhood, which we did. And one way we did it was through reverse angle parking. This type of parking would generate several additional spaces per blocks that wished to participate. In order to participate, we had to collect signatures from a majority percentage of residents.

Unfortunately, there were some blocks who simply refused to participate. Even though it meant they would get more parking for themselves, they didn't want to participate because it meant it could also benefit a local business whose owner they had a longstanding beef with. Talk about biting off your nose to spite your face...

Over the years in Hampden, parking density, along with all other kinds of density (especially residential, were single family homes who may have had one car are now multi-family units with multiple cars), has increased. I still wouldn't describe Hampden as having a parking problem, but again, as I've said, it's all relative.

Tonight the Hampden Community Council is hosting a meeting on the parking situation in Hampden at 7PM at the Hampden United Methodist Chuch (3449 Falls Rd.).

More.

American Standard: Feel The Feelies

by Benn Ray

The Feelies. The Ottobar. Baltimore, MD.
Saturday, March 23, 2013

I'm at that point in my life where, sadly, age sometimes plays a part in my going to see live music.

I don't mean that I miss shows and I use the excuse that it's because I'm too old because I don't have the energy or can't hack getting up for work the next day - I'm still fine in that area, thankfully.

The age problem I have is that I've become all too aware that I am now, sometimes, "The Old Dude."

You know the guy I'm talking about. Imagine you're young (if you're not) and having fun at a show and what the fuck is this geezer doing at your show? What's that about?

Is this music for old people?

Is he just weirdly cool? If he's cool, how come he's all alone?

Is he some kind of generational vampire?

Does he think he's cool?

I now realize my past discomfort with the Old Weird Guy at the Show is that it was an uncomfortable vision of my future self.

Also, there are occasionally shows I'll skip because I expect the crowd will remind me too much of a '90s Baltimore Alterna-rock Scene Reunion. I skip those for the same reason I skip my high school reunions.

Yet, lately, I've felt like there have been a number of bands coming through that I've always liked and not seen, and, well, none of us are getting any younger, so maybe I better see them now, because who knows?

That's why I hit the Jonathan Richman show at the Golden West (well, that and also because it's location was so intimate and convenient).

I had intended to see Mission of Burma at the Ottobar but my plans fell apart.

And that's why I was at the Ottobar on Saturday, March 23 to see The Feelies play what will go down as a legendary show.

Yeah, I knew it was gonna be Old Timers night at the rock club, we all knew it. And I am not exempting myself from that (but it is also nice seeing a show when you're not the oldest person in the room). It started off awkwardly when my friend who had picked up tickets tried to get in the door using a receipt from a local toy store for an item she'd bought her son earlier in the day.

We all had a laugh about that. Well, not the bouncers. Bouncers never laugh.

Once inside the Ottobar it was reunion time - I ran into a number of friends I hadn't seen in ages. And of course, when we saw each other, we all had to acknowledge the average age of the crowd (as well as our own age): "Old timers night tonight, eh?"

But the weird thing was there were a number of kids there too. Because the event was all ages, it was a family affair for some. "Oh those poor kids are going to be so bored," I thought looking at the middle/high schoolers who were brought there by their parents.

I'd already set my expectations low. Best case scenario? I was hoping to be mildly entertained.

The Feelies began the first of two sets shortly after 9 and I was immediately sucked in. They started alternating originals and covers, which I thought was both weird and cool.

They were tight. Not only were they tight, but precise and with each song they got better. And they also got faster.

After the first song, I looked around, and the kids looked bored and the adults looked thrilled. Three songs later, everyone's head was nodding along with the Feelies' rhythm - including the kids'. By 5 songs in, everyone, even the kids, were dancing. Even me.

The Feelies were mixing old songs, new songs, and covers. Their set list was unpredictable and awesome.

One of the things I like most about them is that they don't really care about the audience. They are there to play, period. So there's very little onstage banter. They are far more interested in making sure their instruments are tuned than what some knucklehead in the audience is hollering out at them.

In fact, the only real interaction between the band and the audience would come when bassist Brenda Sauter would announce the song they just finished - which she would always do while the audience was still applauding so as to almost intentionally obscure the information from those who might have needed it.

Then a few songs from the end of what would have been most shows, Brenda announced they'd play a few more and take a break for a few minutes and come back for another set.

And they did.

Set one was great. It was tight. The song selection was interesting. The momentum was building. I could have left at set one with expectations exceeded.

But when the band came back for the second set, they played balls out. Now, when I say The Feelies don't care about the audience, that doesn't mean they're not laying it all out on the stage. They just aren't there to chat or goof or make jokes (or even acknowledge you). They are there to play with everything they have. And you can be into it or not, although I can't imagine anyone not being into it.

In set two each song got faster than the last. The pace was frantic and the two guitarists would jerk about the stage.

But then came the encores - by my count 5. And not just paltry one song encores either but 3 song encores. So essentially, what the audience got was three sets by a band that was founded in 1976. The Feelies took the stage a few minutes after 9 and played until around 12:30. When you factor in the break times, that's a three hour show - and that is a Guided by Voices-style herculean effort.

And the songs just spilled out of them, their tunes blending with covers by The Velvet Underground, R.E.M., Television, The Stooges, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, and on and on.

I ran into a local show promoter friend on my way out of the bathroom, and he summed it up thusly, "Holy shit, this is the most punk rock thing I've seen in a long time. They just played The Stooges 3 times faster than the Stooges ever did, and they've done three encores!" At this point there were still 2 more encores to come.

I'm no Feelies expert. I own a few of their records, Crazy Rhythms, Only Life and last year's surprisingly good Here Before. But nothing prepared me for the magnificence of seeing them live.

Nothing had prepared me for what The Feelies poured into the Ottobar on Saturday night. But if any of their other shows on this tour are half as good, any weird ageist hangups will be almost immediately eradicated - until the lights come up and then you see an array of aging faces, stunned and exhausted by being witness to a show we all know would have been unreasonable to expect and we were thrilled to be there for.

For more, check out Brian Line's take over at the Baltimore CityPaper.

American Standard: Meet The Nirveatles

by Benn Ray

I admit it. When it comes to music, I'm a jaded old fuck. I'm cynical. I've had my heart broken by rock and roll so many times, it's all calloused up.

But something happened this week that left me so confounded, it may have exfoliated that heart-callous away if I can just wrap my mind around what it is I actually witnessed.

I'd heard about it only hours before it happened on Wednesday, the 12/12/12 Sandy Relief  Concert. It was a benefit for the New York and New Jersey area victims of superstorm Sandy - a storm that massively devastated a significant portion of the East Coast and is largely seen as a harbinger of more extreme weather as a result of global climate change (despite shameful and embarrassing denials of folks like local Baltimore Meteorologists Tony Pann (WBAL) and Mike Masco (WMAR)).

The other thing that I'd heard only hours before, and when I heard it  I had to verify it wasn't a flat Onion joke, was that Nirvana was reuniting with Beatle Paul McCartney in the Kurt Cobain position.

What?

Damn right I was curious - but no way this could actually be good, right? My cynical rock fan disposition wanted to find a way to prepare myself for disappointment - to lower my expectations.

I tried to imagine McCartney's agent saying, "We need to make you relevant with the kids. Play with Nirvana," but in no universe does that make any sense.

I may have even done a few preparatory eye-rolls.

So on Wednesday night, I found myself following the 12-12-12 Concert with increasingly the same excitement and attitude I had as a kid watching events like Live Aid or the Amnesty Concerts instead of the same jadedness I'd had attending Lollapalooza or an HFStival. 

Yeah, there were a lot of dinosaurs of rock, but most looked alright and sounded decent.

Springsteen was solid as ever.

The Rolling Stones looked good enough in their brief set. In recent years I've really come around on the Stones.

Chris Martin was almost amiable enough to get me to stop hating Coldplay. Almost. And Michael Stipe's temporary return from retirement made for a classy duet with Martin.

Billy Joel reminded us that yes, that sonofabitch has some songs.

The Who were weird.

And while some if it did feel a little bit like, "Oh, maybe they're doing this because they have a book to sell" (instead of records since people still buy books but not music), it didn't feel opportunistic, exploitative or sleazy. Yes, maybe it was a tad hyperbolic or overly dramatic at times, but sincere. Authentic.

In fact, if anything felt weird (aside from watching Kanye in his leather kilt), it was that I, like most Americans, was watching this benefit for free, without contributing any money to it (something I plan to rectify as soon as I publish this post) - which is sort of a smaller metaphor for the music industry as a whole.

Finally, Paul McCartney came out to close out the hours long show. He called Nirvana up on stage and they played a song I didn't recognize, but sounded like it could have been a later-Beatles or a later-Nirvana song. I'd never melded those lines before, between the Beatles and Nirvana, but it works.

"Cut Me Some Slack" was a new song, being played live for the first time, co-written by McCartney and Nirvana, and not only did it not suck, it was actually fairly decent. 

The thing that keeps echoing in my head was when McCartney introduced Pat Smear. A former Germ was not only being introduced on stage by a former Beatle, but he was playing with him. How did this happen?

How did the icons of my generation end up on stage playing with the icon of the Boomer generation? And how is it not terrible?

Days later, I'm still not sure what I saw, but I loved it.

Was it a testament to how small the Gods of Rock have become?

After all, a concert this size years ago would have easily swallowed up a Woodstock instead of just filling Madison Square Garden.

Does it mean that Nirvana, the figureheads of the alterna-rock movement, the band that helped punk break, does it mean they are now Beatles level significant? Were they always?

What does it mean that I'm not responding with jaded cynicism, but instead I'm gushing like a teenage music fan, truly and genuinely excited by something that must be contrived but yet feels authentic?

I'm still trying to figure it out.

Maybe it means nothing.

Regardless, it was great.

Go donate.

American Standard: An Open Letter To The Republicans In My Life

by Benn Ray

So, you lost.

Again.

And it seems like you lost big. Romney/Ryan lost. Republicans lost seats in the Senate. And while you didn't lose control of the House, you did lose seats there, too.

Obama got 332 electoral votes to Romney's 206. Nearly 61 million Americans (50.4%) voted for Obama. Only about 58 million Americans voted for Romney (48%).

Tight, right?

Imagine what could have been had you fielded a serious candidate during your primaries instead of  that collection of clowns.

Imagine if you had picked a candidate who didn't despise 47% of America.

Imagine if you had picked a candidate who actually believed in something. In anything.

Imagine if you had picked a candidate your own party didn't dislike.

And a lot of social conservative issues lost throughout the country - or, more precisely - a lot of progressive issues - same sex marriage, the Dream Act, marijuana legalization - won. 

So you know what that means, right? The next four years are going to be socialism for everyone! You're probably going to have to gay-marry someone, someone's gonna get you high, and your hard-earned tax money might go to educating the child of an undocumented immigrant. Scary.

While the image of 4 years of a Homosexual Socialist Stoner Immigrant-Friendly Utopia freaks you the fuck out, take a moment to imagine what could have been... if only you hadn't picked Romney.

Pricks a bit, doesn't it? Trust me, I know. Remember John Kerry and Bush in 2004? I've been there.

But a lot of you are probably feeling pretty bad right about now. And judging by the unfortunte comments I'm seeing from Republicans on social media, you're pretty bristley about it.

Suck it up.

America survived (just barely) 2 terms of Bush. You'll get through a second term of Obama. I promise.

But you may want to pull out that can of "Irrational Clinton Hatred" y'all had on the deep freeze and let it thaw. Two terms of Hilary Clinton loom rather large. 

Now you're going to be telling yourselves a lot of strange things in the upcoming weeks to explain why you lost because, well, as a party, you're not very good with self-reflection.

Just remember, Romney didn't lose because of Sandy.

He didn't lose because of changing demographics.

He didn't lose because of an improving economy.

He didn't lose because the color of his skin.

He didn't lose because of the liberal media.

He sure as hell didn't lose because he didn't have enough money.

Mitt Romney lost because the American voting public rejected his Republican ideas. Americans would rather elect a Socialist Kenyan Secret Muslim Gay than your candidate.

I know you. You're going to want to move further right. And you may. Just keep in mind that this isn't necessarily going to result in America moving further right. Most likely, you're going to keep losing elections because you're just going to seem crazier and crazier.

But at this point, you really shouldn't get too down about things because you didn't really lose all that much.

Sure, your Republican Pro-Rape Caucus was completely defeated, but you still control the House. And you still have more than 40 members in the Senate (enough to require a super majority to even get to vote on legislation under current rules). So that means y'all can just keep being as obstructionist as ever.

You may not like the gloating from the Democrats, but tough shit. You know you kind of deserve it because you never liked Romney to begin with. Not really.

But no one believes you when you complain about the gloating by calling for national unity.

Back in George W. Bush's first term, when I dared to question things like the wisdom of going to war with Iraq, it was people in your party who called me "unAmerican."

More than a few Republicans even pulled out the old standby (hackneyed though it is), "America, love it or leave it!" They were essentially telling me that I should leave my country because I wasn't, by their perverse standards, a real American.  And when that was happening, I don't recall hearing any Republicans calling for unity.

Or how about back when W won reelection against Kerry with fewer electoral and popular votes than Obama just got re-elected with?

Remember what he did almost right away? He went on TV and declared he had a mandate. A fucking mandate! He had political capital and damn if he wasn't going to spend it right away (this should have been a clear indicator of his bad economic policies that would derail the nation) on dismantling social security. 

And he blew through that political capital like pro-Republican Super PACs blowing through the majority of $1.5 billion in outside money. At the end, they, just like Bush, had nothing to show for it. You realize y'all are no longer the Party of Fiscal Responsibility, right? You lost that claim years ago.

But I don't recall hearing a Republican outcry for unity when Bush was proclaiming his pathetic mandate.

Take just a moment to suppose what might have happened had FOX New's Fantasyworld Forecast come to fruition.

Imagine what would be happening had Romney/Ryan won and Republicans regained the Senate. I don't think a single Republican would be using the words "country" and "unity" together in the same sentence as they demanded dismantling of healthcare/social security, as they passed laws outlawing abortion/birth control, lowered taxes on the rich and raised taxes on the working class.

Were Republicans seeking unity when they called the President of the United States a lazy, Kenyan, secret Muslim, Socialist, racist retard?

Look, we all see you for what you are now. We all know that Republicans don't want unity. You want Democrats to act like Republicans. And then, when Democrats do act like Republicans, you beat them up for it and move farther right.

And we're kind of tired of these Charlie Brown games. Your whining and griping and complaining may have worked on liberals years ago, but the world has changed. Liberalism has hanged.

So suck it up. Get used to the taunting. You know you deserve it. Plus, you can still prevent America from getting back on track. And who knows, with a little luck, you may even be able to drum up an impeachment. C'mon, that brought a little smile to your face, didn't it? Admit it.

Oh yeah, and stop talking about rape. You really aren't doing yourselves any favors.

http://www.atomicbooks.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/z/o/zombiesvszombiehunts.jpg

The Shank Maryland Voter's Guide

by Benn Ray

So tomorrow is the big day.

On Tuesday, we not only get to vote on national issues, we also vote on state and regional issues too. And here in Maryland, we have a lot of issues. So we recommend you do some prepping before you walk into the polling booth to save yourself and everyone else some time.

Below is how the Shank sees the candidates and issues put before us.

But hey, don't just take our word for it. Check out the issues for yourself. The Baltimore Citypaper has a good guide here.

President/Vice-President: Obama - Biden
The Obama Administration was handed a crap deal. Not only was the country's economy tanked by years of Republican economic policies, but Obama faced an obstructionist, filibuster-happy Senate and by the 2010 mid-terms, a hostile House.

Center-Right Republicans like to argue that Obama should have done more to compromise, but let's not forget the level of frustration of Democrats who kept pointing out that Republicans were not interested in compromising and that Obama should just stop trying.

The #1 job of Republicans were, in the words of Republican Senator Mitch McConnell, to make sure Obama is a 1 term President. And yet, despite Republicans willing to once again drive the US into a ditch because they put party over country, Obama still managed to halt the ecomomic freefall, help save the American auto-industry, pass comprehensive health care reform, get us out of Iraq, and, oh yeah, kill Bin Laden. By any measure, those are a lot of accomplishments.

Plus, it's impossible to know what Romney/Ryan will do as Team Romney is running 2 campaigns, one where they try to sound somewhat reasonable to the mainstream and the other where their surrogates crazy-talk the base and take back anything sane Romney might be saying.

Outlawing birth control? Criminalizing abortion? Dismantling FEMA? Eradicating environmental and financial regulations? Undoing health care? Killing social security? Who the fuck knows! At some point Romney has agreed to all these things. And his economic plan, in typical Republican fashion, is a stricter application of disatrous Bush-era economics.

Senate: Ben Cardin
House of Representatives: Elijah Cummings.
Basically any Democrat.

First, there's the above mentioned, party-over-country mindframe of modern Republicans.

Second, there's the woman problem - in that, Republicans believe in things like "legitimate rape" and "God-willed Rape Babies" and ... well, just a bunch of anti-woman lunacy.

The Republican Party is no longer the party of grown-ups. And while some members of that party may be sane people, one of the main, enviable traits of Republicans is party unity. They stick/vote together.

Judges: we don't really have any choices here.
That being said, I'm voting against all continuances out of principle. I'd like to have options.

Question 1: For
Question 2: For.
Baltimore city already does this. It makes sense that we would require judges to be lawyers.

Question 3: Against.
Politicians should not have to relinquish their office until they are found guilty and their conviction becomes final. It's innocent until proven guilty. Just like anyone else, they deserve due process.

Question 4: For.
Just because your parents might illegally drag you to the US as a child, that doesn't mean you should be penalized for it. In fact, it makes more sense for us to help make sure you are a productive member of society. Question 4 helps do that.

Personally, I think legal citizen status should be granted with a college diploma. But that has nothing to do with this question which just makes money available for students who want to go to college.

Question 5: For.
While we may not be comfortable with redistricting, it is a legal part of the process. In fact, this new redestricting plan was already upheld in court. Yes, this new map is designed to favor Democrats. But you better believe if Republicans were in control, the map would favor them.

Question 6: For.
There is absolutely no reason to deny two consenting adults the right to marry each other. There is no argument against this.

If you vote against Question 6, it is a mean, nasty vote that will be on the wrong side of history. And the groups opposing this question know it - their main argument (and a false one at that) is simply - if you vote for Marriage Equality, they'll teach kids same sex marriage in school (which is code for "public schools will make your kids gay").

Also, if you vote for Question 6, Maryland has the opportunity to make history.

We're already beyond this debate. There's no rational reason to oppose this. Do the right thing. Vote FOR Marriage Equality.

Question 7: Against.
This is a bad deal every way around. It will end up costing taxpayers money. And it doesn't even legalize gambling - meaning small businesses can't get permits for poker nights - it just makes a select few out of state corporations exempt from Maryland's gambling ban.

Also - Maryland casinos are already under-performing - so there's no demand for more.

I go into more detail here.

Question A: For.
This helps the city acquire property.

Question B: For.
This helps fund and update parks, rec centers,  and helps plants more trees.

Question C: For.
This helps the city with community development.

Question D: Against.
This is broad. This money would help the city with "commercial economic development." Unfortunately, that could help bring a Wal-Mart to your neighborhood.

Question E: For.
This helps the city maintain Enoch Pratt Library.

Question F: For.
This money goes to help The Walters Art Musuem.

Question G: For.
This money goes to help the Maryland Zoo.

Question H: For.
This money goes to help the Maryland Science Center.

Question I: For.
This money goes to help the Baltimore Museum of Art.

Question J: For.
This sets up a self-sustaining stormwater utility. Public utilities are always perferable to private contractors.

Question K: For.
While this may give current city officials an extra year in office, it will, in the longterm, make for a heartier election season by removing the off-year elections for city positions. Finanically it makes more sense too.

Question L. For.
This opens up Baltimore City boards to a boarder array of viewpoints - not just Democratic and Republican. Minority parties and independents should be allowed to sity on city boards and commissions as well.

Question M. For.
Quadrennial city audits mean more oversight. More oversight means more accountability. More accountability could mean less corruption.

Now go vote!

 

American Standard: No On Question 7 - UPDATED

by Benn Ray

I've had a number of friends ask me about Maryland's Question 7 and how I'm voting on it. Instead of cutting and pasting the same info over and over, I thought I'd write out my reply here and just share this link.

I'm voting NO on Question 7. And I urge you to vote NO on Question 7 too.

My rationale has nothing to do with being moralistic or anti-gambling. While I do think gambling is for suckers, I have enjoyed doing it myself.

My rataionale for being opposed to Question 7 is based on pragmatism.

Most studies I've read suggest that the tax dollars collected from gambling revenue don't offset the tax dollars spent on the costs of legalized gambling. This means it ends up being a net loss, therefore the public is again covering the costs while an elite few get rich.

If the taxation numbers are right, and it's set up in such a way that it benefits the public, I'd be for this question. But Question 7 is not something that will benefit the public - which is how the large corporate casino interests who want to expand gambling in Maryland are presenting the argument.

I am, for example, for drug legalization, but I favor it only if the taxation is handled correctly - to make sure the public doesn't end up eating the costs involved in legalizing drugs. If there is a massive legalizing effort sponsored by large corporations looking to externalize expenses - then its benefits to the common good would be negated and I wouldn't support it. Which is how I see Question 7.

The money promised to schools is fungible (the State Comptroller says the promise is completely bogus). The "good jobs for Marylanders" argument is the same bogus rationale used when large corporate interests and city leaders wanted to drop a Wal-Mart into my community. The job numbers and the quality of the jobs are greatly exaggerated.

But the main problem I have with Question 7 is that if a large industry is going to make big profits off of something, and that something creates issues that cost society - that industry should have to pay those costs instead of dumping those expenses on the public.

Every study I've seen of gambling shows that it costs taxpayers money. So until it doesn't cost the public money, I'm voting no on Question 7. I don't need more of my tax money that could be going to schools, roads, rec centers, subsidizing yet another billionaire.

The social costs of gambling, such as increased crime, lost work time, bankruptcies and financial hardships faced by the families of gambling addicts, have reached epidemic proportions, costing the economy as much as $54 billion annually, Earl L. Grinols, an Illinois economist, has written in “Gambling in America: Costs and Benefits,” published this month by Cambridge University Press.

...

Casino gambling causes up to $289 in social costs for every $46 of economic benefit, according to Grinols. “In 2003 dollars, the cost to society of an additional pathological gambler is $10,330 based on studies performed in the mid-1990s, whereas the cost to society of an additional problem gambler is $2,945,” he wrote. “Accounting for the cost of raising tax dollars to cover some of these costs raises the totals to $11,304 and $3,222, respectively.”

Put differently, Grinols said, “The costs of problem and pathological gambling are comparable to the value of the lost output of an additional recession in the economy every four years.”

Source.

Let's say that again, gambling has a social cost of $289 for every $46 it generates.

From a cost-benefit analysis - voting for for more gambling in Maryland in the hopes of generating more tax revenue is a sucker's bet.

But let's be honest - every single person I've spoken to who favors Question 7 doesn't favor it for the jobs. They don't favor it for the promised tax revenue. They favor it because they want to gamble. Period.

And they don't want to drive out of state to do so. If Question 7 is the best deal we can get, let them drive out of state.

If casino owners are getting rich, and the revenue we're generating off the casinos' profits don't cover the public costs increases in crime, substance abuse, violence, etc. that come along with gambling, then we aren't keeping money in Maryland at all - we are increasing expense in Maryland.

Furthermore, Maryland casinos are already under-performing. So there is no logic to expanding them.

Again, I'm not specifically arguing against legalized gambling in Maryland, I am arguing against this deal - which will put the burden of the increase of expense on the taxpayers - even those who don't go to the casinos.

It should also be pointed out that Question 7 doesn't legalize gambling. Gambling in Maryland isn't legal. I, as a small business owner, can't get a permit for a poker night. What Question 7 does is make legal exceptions for a handful of large corporations to engage in behavior small business people can't engage in. And we're giving them tax breaks to do it.

I know people want to gamble. But I don't want to pay for the damages that will result from allowing that, and it's unfair to expect others to pick up the costs.

And anyone voting for Question 7 is probably terrible at gambling because it's a very bad bet.

But then - aren't the odds always in favor of the house?

American Standard: Republicans Concern Trolling Over Small Business

by Benn Ray

As the owner of a small business, and the President of a regional business association comprised almost completely of over a 170+ area small businesses, I'm a bit sensitive when I hear politicians talk about the importance of "small businesses" and the need to do things to help them.

Saying you are for supporting small business is like saying you are for a strong economy. Aside from a handful of big business ideologues, not too many folks are going to disagree with you. It's political catnip.

The main problem I see is that while politicians frequently talk about how we need to help and encourage small businesses, their voting records almost always show a history of voting against the interests of small businesses, embracing policies that, instead, tend to favor big businesses. Big business, after all, have the lobbies and the wealth to apply pressure to elected officials.

If, for example, McDonald's doesn't like a piece of legislation that'll help businesses like Bob's Corner Carryout, well, since in today's America money = speech - who do you think has more access to a politician's ear?

I've found that most Democratic politicians are at least able to listen and show emapthy when you present them with small business issues. Republican politicians, on the other hand, have zero interest in even pretending to listen to the concerns of small business. What Republicans do is address the concerns of big business while pretending it will somehow help small business. It won't. Big business seeks to devour, consume, destroy any competition and it expects the politicians it pays for to help them in this endeavor.

So when I see Republicans talking about wanting to help small businesses, few things seem more obviously ridiculous to me. 

And yet, Republicans continue to try and run on being friendly to small business. And places like The Baltimore Business Journal are trying hard to help them.

For example, take a look at the article "Survey: Small businesses scared to expand because of government, uncertainty" by Greg Bianco.

Now, as a small business owner, the headline struck me as odd. From my experience, with the possible exception of one or two of the more ideological Libertarians, almost none of the small business owners I know are complaining that government regulations keeping us down.

Really, that is a big business gripe.

Bianco says:

Nearly seven in 10 small businesses and manufacturers say federal policies and regulations are hurting American small businesses and manufacturers, according to a survey conducted by the National Association of Manufacturers and the National Federation of Independent Business.

The survey of 800 small business owners, manufacturers and decisionmakers (see PDF) , also find that 55 percent believe the national economy is in a worse state than three years ago, because of federal regulations, taxes and health insurance.

It's almost enough to make a small business owner question his own judgment. Almost. However, what Bianco is doing here is carrying water for Republicans.

He pretends the sources he cites aren't pro-big business and partisan, but then, it's not entirely his fault. He's just a reporter. One can't expect him to know the sources he reports on also try to pretend they're not partisan when they are, right?

The National Association of Manufacturers (NAM) is the country's largest industrial trade association, with a long anti-labor history which established its bonafides fighthing against Franklin D. Roosevelt and his New Deal.

The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) is a lobbying organization which contributes heavily to mostly Republican politicians.

And in fact, there is a survey, a Wells Fargo, Gallup Small Business Index (Jan-Sept. 2012), which reveals the reporting from places like The Balitmore Business Journal to be a sham (even though they too used misleading headlines to try and support the interests of big business).

When asked "Why are you NOT looking for new employees," this is how small businesses answered:
76% Don't need additional employees at this time
71% Revenues/sales won't justify adding employees
66% Current state of the economy
53% Cash flow/ability to make payroll
48% potential cost of healthcare
46% new government regulations
24% worried you may no longer be in business in 12 months
20% some other reason

The main reason, despite reporting from Baltimore Business Journal or headlines from Gallup, that businesses aren't hiring are that they don't need more employees, they can't afford more employees, that the economy makes them feel it's too risky to hire new employees and because they are having cashflow issues.

Small business' main concerns are not healthcare, tax and/or government regulations.

So, as much as Republicans and their water carriers posture that they are simply carrying out policies based on the interests of small business, they are nothing more than concern trolls representing the interests of big business while pretending to give a damn about small business.

American Standard: The "Both Parties Are The Same" Fallacy

by Benn Ray

In every election, there is a cynical portion of the population that likes to float the "don't bother voting, both sides are basically the same and/or just as bad" argument.

Even in divisive political times like these, there are still those who think (or at least want you to think) voting doesn't matter, as this recent image floating around Facebook reminds me.

Sure, sure, it's a poor choice of analogy.

But hey, I can understand this feeling. Politics is disappointing business. You can get sucked into a candidate's rhetoric, you can let yourself feel hopeful, only to see that candidate get mired down in political gridlock or get co-opted by the DC political machine, or worse. We are, after all, dealing with human beings here, and we are imperfect creatures.

And really, I don't think anyone denies that the Republican Party and the Democratic Party generally field corporately owned candidates who are there to serve the interests of money over the interests of citizenry.

And even the candidates offered from both sides these days seem to promise ideas from a right-creeping ideology. (Much of Obama's healthcare plan, for example, was taken from what were once considered Republican views while truly leftist views were never seriously considered.)

The one election I think this "Both Parties Are The Same" Fallacy was really most popular was in the 2000 Bush/Gore election.

And that election really provides us with a decent control subject to take a look at.

The vote-dampening cynics (which is what the "Both Parties Are The Same" fallacy is intended to achieve) argued, "Why bother to vote, Gore is just as bad as Bush."

I had friends at the time who actually parroted that meme. And these are intelligent, somewhat socially and politically aware people.

But looking back, if we ask ourselves the following questions, it shows how thin that weak fallacy actually is.

If Gore was elected, how likely is it that the United States would have invaded Iraq?

If Gore was elected, what would the government's response to Hurricane Katrina have been like?

If Gore was elected, after being part of the Clinton Administration for 8 years, how likely would his administration be to continue many of the same economic policies that oversaw one of the greatest periods of growth and prosperity in US history? The same economic policies that resulted in a budget surplus?

If Gore was elected, how likely would it be that we started taking Global Climate Change seriously sooner?

If Gore was elected, how likely would it be that the US military would become internationally known as torturers?

These are easy hypotheticals to ponder, and they clearly disprove the "Both Parties Are The Same" fallacy without even getting into what-ifs like "Would 9/11 have even have happened if Gore was president?" (Many folks would answer "no".)

But we can even apply more logic to this situation.

If both parties were the same, and elections didn't matter - would so many millionaires and billionaires be dropping millions of dollars into the these races? It seems a safe assumption to think that those who control the politicians would know it doesn't matter.

If there are no differences between Democrats and Republicans, than why are Republicans working so hard to disenfranchise the voters and make sure people can't vote in a number of states right now? It really wouldn't matter right?

But here's the thing Republicans know, as do their ideologically aligned brethren libertarians (who are typically the ones who frequently spout this sort of fallacy) - that high voter turnout bodes ill for Republicans - low voter turnout bodes ill for Democrats.

And this "Both Parties Are The Same" fallacy is employed to encourage independents to stay home. It's a vote-dampening argument cynically made libertarians to benefit Republicans.

All one has to do is stop and think about it for a moment. If it doesn't matter, if one party is just as bad as the other, imagine what a Republican controlled White House and congress would look like.

How long would Social Security last?

How long would Medicare and Medicaid last?

How long would any public entitlement or social safety net program last?

How long would public schools survive?

How long would the post office survive?

What would women's healthcare rights look like?

How long would labor unions survive?

Think about the economy. How long would it take Republicans to spend us into an even bigger hole (which is what historically Republicans do)?

How long before we went to war with Iraq?

How long until lack of governmental oversight once again tanked the global economy, again?

Don't bet me wrong, I'd love to see a multi-party system. I'd like to see the Tea Party have the bravery to start their own party and let the Republicans return to conservativism instead of extremist right wing activism. I'd love to see a viable Labor Party rise up and contribute truly leftist ideas to the national political discourse.

But until that happens, we have two major parties, and they do pose differing views of America.

Voting matters. Both parties are not the same. And those who are telling you otherwise are being cynically disengenuous.

And if their boy Republican Ron Paul had gotten the party's presidential nod, would libertarians be floating this argument right now? Of course not.

If both parties are the same, and voting didn't matter, why are libertarians trying so hard to convince you of it instead of taking, say, a more libertarian approach to the subject?

Exactly.