Call me naive or just properly brainwashed by Skip Humphrey and Mike Ciresi, but I still find it surprising to find out that some individuals engaged in professional athletics also smoke cigarettes. Reusse's column today recounts a story which includes a reference to former Twins' manager Gene Mauch's on-field smoking antics.
I remember years ago, Reusse mentioning that many members of the '87 Twins enjoyed a post-game heater, along with their cans of Old Style (Kent Hrbek specifically comes to mind). Despite this evidence to the contrary, there's a part of me that finds it impossible to believe that a smoker can make it up a flight of stairs at a good clip, let alone perform at the highest levels of sports. Drinking, smoking dope, shooting heroine, freebasing cocaine, all seems plausible to me, in fact I'm surprised to hear about an athlete who doesn't engage in these past times. But smoking cigarettes? I'm still reflexively aghast!
Less surprising, but funnier, are stories of the gargantuan food appetites some of these guys have and which don't really match up with the image of anyone professionally employed as an athlete. What follows is an excerpt from the current issue of GQ about world class eaters. (FYI--the current issue of GQ is known as "The Sports Issue," which is not to be confused with next month's Persnickety Fop Issue--which I wouldn't be caught dead reading).
"History is bursting at the seams with athletes who couldn't resist a good meal. In the 1950's Forrest Gregg of the Green Bay Packers routinely polished off six hot dogs in the locker room at halftime. John Kruk of the Philadelphia Phillies often ate four dogs before games during the team's 1993 run to the World Series (he batted .316). And Nate Newton of the Dallas Cowboys celebrated pregame in the '90s with a heaping plate of pasta, chicken, hash browns, a plate of eggs, bacon, and a half dozen slices of French toast. But Tony Mandarich must take the cake, the cookies and the ice cream too. He was inhaling up to 15,000 calories a day when he bottomed out in the NFL. That's twice what a sumo wrestler eats.
Babe Ruth has to be the big man in the eaters' Hall of Fame though: The Babe liked to see eighteen eggs in his omelets. He ordered his porterhouse with a side of lamb chops. Is it any wonder he had bicarbonate of soda delivered to the Yankee's dugout? "I've seen him at midnight, propped up in bed, order six club sandwiches, a platter of pigs' knuckles and a pitcher of beer," Ty Cobb said. "He'd down all that while smoking a big black cigar."
Saturday, October 12, 2002
Friday, October 11, 2002
Life In The Deli Express Lane
A quick observation on why some members of the lower class remain in their strata for life:
You know where working guys eat lunch? I mean the seasonal kind of working guys like carpenters, lawn workers, landscapers, etc. You might think fast food Mc Donalds, B.K., etc.
Nope. Gas stations.
Go to a Super America at lunch around here and the place is full of these types buying Deli Express sandwedges, chips, Mountain Dews, and maybe a pack of smokes. Easily dropping between $5-$10 I imagine. This is in addition to their morning trip to the gas station to get coffee or Dew, a donut, and their first pack of smokes for the day.
I experienced this first hand in a couple of my summer college jobs and these guys make it a routine. So how does this affect their economic status? They plan nothing and so never buy economic quantities of these goods. Instead a getting a case of soda at Cub for $5 they drop $1-2 a day on it. Instead of cartons of smokes they get individual packs. They could buy bread and meat and make sandwedges at home but its easier to drop $2-3 at the store each day. Many of them buy their booze in the same manner picking up a six or twelve pack on their way home to be consumed that evening and repeated the next day.
Perhaps they are like dogs and that if they had these items around they would be unable to not eat or drink them all at once. Whatever the reason it hits em' hard in the pocket book. When people talk about giving up your daily latte to save for retirement I usually scoff at the idea of frugality for the future. But for these guys there is usually no retirement plan from their jobs. No 401k or profit sharing. The $25-$50 a week that they could potentially save actually would have an impact on their future. If not for the future then as savings to pay the down stroke on a truck or house. Instead they're dumping their cash on the Apus of the world, willingly being gouged at every turn and then wondering why they don't have any money.
You know where working guys eat lunch? I mean the seasonal kind of working guys like carpenters, lawn workers, landscapers, etc. You might think fast food Mc Donalds, B.K., etc.
Nope. Gas stations.
Go to a Super America at lunch around here and the place is full of these types buying Deli Express sandwedges, chips, Mountain Dews, and maybe a pack of smokes. Easily dropping between $5-$10 I imagine. This is in addition to their morning trip to the gas station to get coffee or Dew, a donut, and their first pack of smokes for the day.
I experienced this first hand in a couple of my summer college jobs and these guys make it a routine. So how does this affect their economic status? They plan nothing and so never buy economic quantities of these goods. Instead a getting a case of soda at Cub for $5 they drop $1-2 a day on it. Instead of cartons of smokes they get individual packs. They could buy bread and meat and make sandwedges at home but its easier to drop $2-3 at the store each day. Many of them buy their booze in the same manner picking up a six or twelve pack on their way home to be consumed that evening and repeated the next day.
Perhaps they are like dogs and that if they had these items around they would be unable to not eat or drink them all at once. Whatever the reason it hits em' hard in the pocket book. When people talk about giving up your daily latte to save for retirement I usually scoff at the idea of frugality for the future. But for these guys there is usually no retirement plan from their jobs. No 401k or profit sharing. The $25-$50 a week that they could potentially save actually would have an impact on their future. If not for the future then as savings to pay the down stroke on a truck or house. Instead they're dumping their cash on the Apus of the world, willingly being gouged at every turn and then wondering why they don't have any money.
A Double Axe Attack
NRO's John Derbyshire outdoes himself with a blisteringly funny deconstruction of New Jersey's newly named poet laureate. It's a good thing to have a guy like Derbyshire on your side of a partisan dispute. Because he's a scholar of English literature and the Classics and he's able to fight those battles without my assistance, I can redirect my intellectual energies to other fields. Tune in tomorrow for my editorial on fat people who wear spandex shorts while biking.
Thursday, October 10, 2002
Television: teacher, mother, secret lover!
Caught an amazing piece on PBS's Frontline last night on John O'Neil. He was one of the FBI's foremost counter terrorism experts and was one of the first to recognize the the threat that Al Qaeda posed to the United States. Unfortunately, his style was not appreciated by some of his superiors and he left the FBI in the summer of 2001. His new job was as security director at the World Trade Center and was he killed in the September 11th attacks. It was a riveting and utterly fascinating story delivered to the usual standards of excellence that Frontline has established. I don't always agree with the perspectives presented on Frontline but it is easily the most detailed, in-depth program of its kind on television. And the guy who usually narrates the show has a serious yet soothing vocal delivery that I first noticed on the documentary series 'Vietnam: The Ten Thousand Day War'.
Yet another rebuttal of the notion that television is all mind numbing garbage devoid of intelligent thought. James Lileks has made this point on more than one occasion in his daily Bleats but it bears repeating. There are a number of pseudo intellectuals out there who like to throw a blanket over all TV viewers and belittle us as ignorant dullards while acting is if reading the latest Barbara Kingsolver novel is the height of intellectual enlightenment.
The problem is that these pointy headed poseurs make it an all or nothing proposition.You either watch four hours of junk TV a day (bad) OR you read books (good). Au contraire, I say. Rather than satiating my desire for information, watching a well done television program only whets my appetite and often sends me to the local library, bookstore, or the Internet in a quest to further my knowledge of the subject matter.
By no means am I say it's all good. It ain't. Or that watching 'Friends', 'Survivor', or 'Boston Public' will make you a better person. It won't. Watching TV is like drinking whisky. You need to be discriminating to get the most out of it. There's a lot of Windsor out there but you can still find the Oban if you know where to look.
Yet another rebuttal of the notion that television is all mind numbing garbage devoid of intelligent thought. James Lileks has made this point on more than one occasion in his daily Bleats but it bears repeating. There are a number of pseudo intellectuals out there who like to throw a blanket over all TV viewers and belittle us as ignorant dullards while acting is if reading the latest Barbara Kingsolver novel is the height of intellectual enlightenment.
The problem is that these pointy headed poseurs make it an all or nothing proposition.You either watch four hours of junk TV a day (bad) OR you read books (good). Au contraire, I say. Rather than satiating my desire for information, watching a well done television program only whets my appetite and often sends me to the local library, bookstore, or the Internet in a quest to further my knowledge of the subject matter.
By no means am I say it's all good. It ain't. Or that watching 'Friends', 'Survivor', or 'Boston Public' will make you a better person. It won't. Watching TV is like drinking whisky. You need to be discriminating to get the most out of it. There's a lot of Windsor out there but you can still find the Oban if you know where to look.
You Label Me? I Label You!
The Democratic Party has announced they are preparing to dispatch thousands of lawyers on election day to monitor polling places in Florida so as to ensure proper procedures are being followed and that the so-called "disenfranchisement" of minority voters, experienced during the 2000 election, is not repeated.
(Incidentally, the preceeding sentence is a rare double play from the pages of the New York Times Stylebook; namely the dismissive bludgeoning of the subject with the use of "so-called" with the simultaneous disparagement of the "scare quotes." Maureen Dowd would be proud. Which, come to think of it, should be the chant that goes up whenever one of these Democrat lawyers publically flogs some poor 75-year-old election judge in Boca Raton for not bowing obsequiously enough when confronted with a non-registered, illegal alien, convicted felon, who thinks he might live in that precinct).
Needless to say, there is no substantive evidence of any disenfranchisement in 2000. It simply didn't happen. Yet the strategy the Democrats are adopting is that of a policeman (with an ax to grind) who chooses to follow closely behind behind a motorist until the poor sap, now under durress, happens to violate any one of hundreds of statutes and laws that have been enacted to regulate driving. And then the sirens go on and the hammer drops.
As I've previously stated in this forum, the typical poll worker is nothing more than a common citizen who has a heighted interest in public service. Usually these individuals are under-trained (at least by professional, lawerly standards) and subject to very trying working conditions. Proper implementation of election procedures relies on the poll worker's innate intelligence, quick-thinking ability, and an unstated social contract between the voter and poll worker that they're both going to act in good faith and they're going to do their best to move things along efficiently. As with driving, at times technical violations are made, yet the primary goal of the excercise is usually achieved, and it's all well within the spirit of the law and meeting the intent of all interested parties (in this case, the electorate and the candidates). Injecting hyper-interested vultures with goals other than the administration of elections into this process will only erode the de facto and necessary framework that has evolved around the act of voting. And I wouldn't be surprised that if these Democratic operatives chose to interefere (which they'll do only if they're losing), the very inefficiencies and "disenfranchisement" they claim to be fighting will ultimately be increased.
It also seems disingenous for the Democratic party to be enlisting thousands of lawyer-observers during the election, in the name of ensuring proper procedures are followed, when at the same time most counties are in desperate need for more (and more competent) election judges and poll workers. (In fact, the Miami Herald reports that South Florida still needs thousands of volunteers). These Democratic lawyers would be welcomed whole-heartedly if they volunteered to serve as poll workers. And given their professional credentials and presumed competence, they would naturally be assigned to the very precincts that were in dispute. If the Democratic Party truly had the proper implementation of election laws as their goal, they would simply have to encourage their educated elite to get involved with the mechanics of running elections and then they themselves would be personally and legally responsible for oversight. Yet, instead, they'd rather direct their resources toward the establishment of a class of professional finger pointers, second guessers, and hectorers. Rather than ensuring that voting rights are safeguared, it appears as if their real goal is to simply delegitimize any election result they don't like.
(Incidentally, the preceeding sentence is a rare double play from the pages of the New York Times Stylebook; namely the dismissive bludgeoning of the subject with the use of "so-called" with the simultaneous disparagement of the "scare quotes." Maureen Dowd would be proud. Which, come to think of it, should be the chant that goes up whenever one of these Democrat lawyers publically flogs some poor 75-year-old election judge in Boca Raton for not bowing obsequiously enough when confronted with a non-registered, illegal alien, convicted felon, who thinks he might live in that precinct).
Needless to say, there is no substantive evidence of any disenfranchisement in 2000. It simply didn't happen. Yet the strategy the Democrats are adopting is that of a policeman (with an ax to grind) who chooses to follow closely behind behind a motorist until the poor sap, now under durress, happens to violate any one of hundreds of statutes and laws that have been enacted to regulate driving. And then the sirens go on and the hammer drops.
As I've previously stated in this forum, the typical poll worker is nothing more than a common citizen who has a heighted interest in public service. Usually these individuals are under-trained (at least by professional, lawerly standards) and subject to very trying working conditions. Proper implementation of election procedures relies on the poll worker's innate intelligence, quick-thinking ability, and an unstated social contract between the voter and poll worker that they're both going to act in good faith and they're going to do their best to move things along efficiently. As with driving, at times technical violations are made, yet the primary goal of the excercise is usually achieved, and it's all well within the spirit of the law and meeting the intent of all interested parties (in this case, the electorate and the candidates). Injecting hyper-interested vultures with goals other than the administration of elections into this process will only erode the de facto and necessary framework that has evolved around the act of voting. And I wouldn't be surprised that if these Democratic operatives chose to interefere (which they'll do only if they're losing), the very inefficiencies and "disenfranchisement" they claim to be fighting will ultimately be increased.
It also seems disingenous for the Democratic party to be enlisting thousands of lawyer-observers during the election, in the name of ensuring proper procedures are followed, when at the same time most counties are in desperate need for more (and more competent) election judges and poll workers. (In fact, the Miami Herald reports that South Florida still needs thousands of volunteers). These Democratic lawyers would be welcomed whole-heartedly if they volunteered to serve as poll workers. And given their professional credentials and presumed competence, they would naturally be assigned to the very precincts that were in dispute. If the Democratic Party truly had the proper implementation of election laws as their goal, they would simply have to encourage their educated elite to get involved with the mechanics of running elections and then they themselves would be personally and legally responsible for oversight. Yet, instead, they'd rather direct their resources toward the establishment of a class of professional finger pointers, second guessers, and hectorers. Rather than ensuring that voting rights are safeguared, it appears as if their real goal is to simply delegitimize any election result they don't like.
Wednesday, October 09, 2002
Be Careful When Playing the Age Card
There is a series of commercials running on the radio in which an announcer gravely informs us "as recently as July, Norm Coleman said that he still favors a partial privatization of social security." It then goes on to say that this runs counter to more recent claims by Coleman that he is against privatization and that merely the mention of the word privatization would result in senior citizens being forced to burn their furniture for heat, sell their gold fillings, and learn the 101 different ways you can prepare Alpo for dinner. Well, not exactly.
But the ad sponsored by the DFL Party of Minnesota is clearly a scare tactic to stampede the vulnerable senior voters into the camp of Paul Wellstone. It really is not all that surprising considering that the Senior Scare has been a favorite of Democrats going way back to the early '80s when it was the cruel and heartless Ronald Reagan who was ready to throw Grandma out into the street. The problem that the Democrats run into today is that this blatant pandering to the senior constituency might backfire and cost them support among other age groups.
Sure we all know that seniors vote in far higher percentages than any other age based demographic groups. But most seniors are also already more politically involved than their junior citizen counterparts and with less than a month to go before the election I would guess that most of them are pretty much locked in on one candidate or another. The DFL ad may cause a couple of previously undecided seniors that Wellstone is their man but I suspect the impact will be minimal.
For those of us from the younger set however the ad may be interpreted positively for Coleman. Despite the recent mauling that the bear market has inflicted on our investments, I believe that most of my generational cohorts ( Personally I hate the Gen X and Gen Y labels. Let's just call ourselves the "not Boomers" and leave it at that) would much rather have the option of investing even a small portion of our social security contributions in the stock market rather than relying on the continuation of the Ponzi scheme that is the current SS system. When I hear that Coleman still supports some sort of privatization my reaction is the complete opposite of what the DFL ad intends. I actually wish that Norm would stick to his guns and push for privatization and I'm betting that a number of other of non-gray hairs agree with me.
According to a Star Tribune editorial Republican pollsters have advised candidates to duck the issue and avoid using the "P" word for fear of incurring the wrath of the senior voters. Obviously the DFL has picked up on the anti-privatization sentiment and is hoping that the ad will drive seniors away from Coleman. And they may have some limited success. But they also may unintentionally attract younger voters to Norm's side of the fence. Playing generational politics can be tricky and the DFL might not like the results they see come November.
But the ad sponsored by the DFL Party of Minnesota is clearly a scare tactic to stampede the vulnerable senior voters into the camp of Paul Wellstone. It really is not all that surprising considering that the Senior Scare has been a favorite of Democrats going way back to the early '80s when it was the cruel and heartless Ronald Reagan who was ready to throw Grandma out into the street. The problem that the Democrats run into today is that this blatant pandering to the senior constituency might backfire and cost them support among other age groups.
Sure we all know that seniors vote in far higher percentages than any other age based demographic groups. But most seniors are also already more politically involved than their junior citizen counterparts and with less than a month to go before the election I would guess that most of them are pretty much locked in on one candidate or another. The DFL ad may cause a couple of previously undecided seniors that Wellstone is their man but I suspect the impact will be minimal.
For those of us from the younger set however the ad may be interpreted positively for Coleman. Despite the recent mauling that the bear market has inflicted on our investments, I believe that most of my generational cohorts ( Personally I hate the Gen X and Gen Y labels. Let's just call ourselves the "not Boomers" and leave it at that) would much rather have the option of investing even a small portion of our social security contributions in the stock market rather than relying on the continuation of the Ponzi scheme that is the current SS system. When I hear that Coleman still supports some sort of privatization my reaction is the complete opposite of what the DFL ad intends. I actually wish that Norm would stick to his guns and push for privatization and I'm betting that a number of other of non-gray hairs agree with me.
According to a Star Tribune editorial Republican pollsters have advised candidates to duck the issue and avoid using the "P" word for fear of incurring the wrath of the senior voters. Obviously the DFL has picked up on the anti-privatization sentiment and is hoping that the ad will drive seniors away from Coleman. And they may have some limited success. But they also may unintentionally attract younger voters to Norm's side of the fence. Playing generational politics can be tricky and the DFL might not like the results they see come November.
Tuesday, October 08, 2002
Setting em' up and knocking em' down
Three months ago the Bush administration's Iraqi policy seemed disorganized and aimlessly adrift. Today, it is clear that the administration has been following a carefully prepared plan of action all along which has allowed them to outmaneuver their opposition and has all but assured them of ultimate victory (on the political battlefield at the least). GW's speech last night was just the latest example of Bush deftly knocking another barrier to war aside.
When the administration first started to turn up the rhetoric at the beginning of the summer they made almost no mention of the U.N., congressional approval, or the need to make the case to the American public. The message seemed to be "we can go to war if and when we want to and we don't have to explain why". This brought those who opposed military action out into the open and they began laying down a gauntlet of demands that the administration would have to meet before they could support a war. They acknowledged that Iraq was a problem but before the U.S. could act specific conditions must be satisfied:
We would have to get our allies involved, we would have to go through the U.N., Congress would have to debate the matter and approve a resolution supporting the president, and Bush would have to convince the American people that war was the only option.
In reality the opposition never had any intention of supporting the Bush administration. The conditions they had set out were designed as road blocks that they were sure the administration either would or could not overcome. They had begun to believe the hype that Bush was a vigilante cowboy who was determined to act unilaterally and would never allow the U.N. or the Congress to interfere with his vendetta against Saddam. Not for the first time did his opposition grossly underestimate him. Bush allowed the opponents of the war to huff and puff for a while and then he systematically began to kick the legs out from under their arguments.
It started with the diplomatic work behind the scenes that secured support for military action from Britain, Turkey, Kuwait, Canada, Qatar, and even a shaky endorsement from the Saudis. Next he went to the U.N. and presented his case against Iraq to the world body. While it still is not clear whether the U.S. will get the type of resolution from the Security Council that Bush desires, the fact that he sought approval from the U.N. allows him to at least say that he tried. That will probably satisfy the majority of Americans who hold no special love for Khofi's boys anyway.
The U.S. Congress has been debating the war for the last few weeks and even Daschle's crying about "politicizing the war" (isn't a debate political by its very definition?) hasn't dampened the chances for successful passage in both the House and Senate of a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. Last night the President clearly and concisely laid out the reasons that he feels that war is necessary and at the same time addressed nearly all the coherent arguments against war, explaining the flaws in each of them. The speech was the capstone to what has been a remarkable couple of months of Bush appearing to let the opposition dictate the terms of debate while in reality he was forcing them into fixed defensive positions which he has rolled over one by one.
Not bad for a guy now officially hated by Jessica Lange and once described by the Minnesota born star as "such a stupid man". I hope he can still sleep at night.
When the administration first started to turn up the rhetoric at the beginning of the summer they made almost no mention of the U.N., congressional approval, or the need to make the case to the American public. The message seemed to be "we can go to war if and when we want to and we don't have to explain why". This brought those who opposed military action out into the open and they began laying down a gauntlet of demands that the administration would have to meet before they could support a war. They acknowledged that Iraq was a problem but before the U.S. could act specific conditions must be satisfied:
We would have to get our allies involved, we would have to go through the U.N., Congress would have to debate the matter and approve a resolution supporting the president, and Bush would have to convince the American people that war was the only option.
In reality the opposition never had any intention of supporting the Bush administration. The conditions they had set out were designed as road blocks that they were sure the administration either would or could not overcome. They had begun to believe the hype that Bush was a vigilante cowboy who was determined to act unilaterally and would never allow the U.N. or the Congress to interfere with his vendetta against Saddam. Not for the first time did his opposition grossly underestimate him. Bush allowed the opponents of the war to huff and puff for a while and then he systematically began to kick the legs out from under their arguments.
It started with the diplomatic work behind the scenes that secured support for military action from Britain, Turkey, Kuwait, Canada, Qatar, and even a shaky endorsement from the Saudis. Next he went to the U.N. and presented his case against Iraq to the world body. While it still is not clear whether the U.S. will get the type of resolution from the Security Council that Bush desires, the fact that he sought approval from the U.N. allows him to at least say that he tried. That will probably satisfy the majority of Americans who hold no special love for Khofi's boys anyway.
The U.S. Congress has been debating the war for the last few weeks and even Daschle's crying about "politicizing the war" (isn't a debate political by its very definition?) hasn't dampened the chances for successful passage in both the House and Senate of a resolution authorizing military action against Iraq. Last night the President clearly and concisely laid out the reasons that he feels that war is necessary and at the same time addressed nearly all the coherent arguments against war, explaining the flaws in each of them. The speech was the capstone to what has been a remarkable couple of months of Bush appearing to let the opposition dictate the terms of debate while in reality he was forcing them into fixed defensive positions which he has rolled over one by one.
Not bad for a guy now officially hated by Jessica Lange and once described by the Minnesota born star as "such a stupid man". I hope he can still sleep at night.
Say It Ain't So
Remember the 1979 Pittsburgh Pirates and the feel good vibe they spread across the nation with their high spirited antics (literally, according to later revalations by the Pittsburgh Narcotics Squad), their dramatic come from behind victories and wild, joyous celebrations, all set to the funky, rollicking "We Are Family" by the Pointer Sisters? Of course you do!
Music has a long and distinguished history of being intertwined with sports teams. Certain songs, be they standards from the classic rock catalog or the Top 40 zeitgeist capturing hit of the summer, just seem to capture the spirit and essence of certain teams. Who can forget the 1985-86 Boston Celtics and their championship run, which most observers credit to the inspiration provided by their theme song "A Whiter Shade of Pale” by Procul Harem? And how about the 1996 Green Bay Packers, who wrapped themselves and their fans in George Michael’s “Careless Whisper” and “never danced again” all the way to the Super Bowl.
Well it appears our young heroes in sanitary hose (to those not paying attention - that would be the Twins) have chosen the song that best exemplifies the achievement of their dreams and defines just exactly who they are. According to the Star Tribune, the post-victory celebration that broke out on Sunday afternoon in Oakland included the following:
it was downright fun to see the 2002 Twins dance party, clubhouse edition. For those not fluent in hiphop, it was a Ludacris tune called "Move" that some of the young men -- a rainbow chorus that included David Ortiz, Matthew LeCroy, Tony Fiore and Jacque Jones -- were performing while celebrating.
OK, we've got our marching orders. The song for the 2002 Twins is "Move" by Ludacris. As I imagine most of you aren't familar with this song yet (at least those of you not doing time in a state prison), I present the chorus and first verse. Amazingly, it has the same melody as "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald."
"Move" by Ludacris, featuring Mystikal
Move b*tch, get out the way
Get out the way b*tch, get out the way
Move b*tch, get out the way
Get out the way b*tch, get out the way
[ed. note - well .... it does rhyme and it's easy to remember. I guess it's just too bad they didn't start singing this in Denny Hocking's direction immediately after the game, or we just might have a slap hitting utility infielder with a heallthy middle finger for the Angels series. Now back to the music....]
OH NO! The fight's out
I'ma 'bout to punch yo...lights out
Get the F*CK back, guard ya grill
There's somethin' wrong, we can't stay still
I've been drankin' and bustin' two
and I been thankin' of bustin' you
Upside ya motherf*ckin' forehead
And if your friends jump in, "Ohhh gurrlll", they'll be mo' dead
Causin' confusion, Disturbin Tha Peace
Since not into lution', we run in the streets
So bye-bye to all you groupies and golddiggers
Is there a bumper on your ass? NO N*GGA!
I'm doin' a hundred on the highway
So if you do the speed limit, get the F*CK outta my way
I'm D.U.I., hardly ever caught sober
and you about to get ran the F*CK over
For a complete listing of the lyrics, click here.
Be sure to print this out and get copies to grandma and the kids, as we'll all want to sing along with the Twins during their future celebrations this season. And it's very likely that this is the song that we'll seranade them with during the post World Series victory parade down the Nicollet Mall and around the State Capital and of course at the impromptu parties that will break out in Cottage Grove, Albert Lea, Lester Prarie, Bemidji, Cloquet, etc.
Music has a long and distinguished history of being intertwined with sports teams. Certain songs, be they standards from the classic rock catalog or the Top 40 zeitgeist capturing hit of the summer, just seem to capture the spirit and essence of certain teams. Who can forget the 1985-86 Boston Celtics and their championship run, which most observers credit to the inspiration provided by their theme song "A Whiter Shade of Pale” by Procul Harem? And how about the 1996 Green Bay Packers, who wrapped themselves and their fans in George Michael’s “Careless Whisper” and “never danced again” all the way to the Super Bowl.
Well it appears our young heroes in sanitary hose (to those not paying attention - that would be the Twins) have chosen the song that best exemplifies the achievement of their dreams and defines just exactly who they are. According to the Star Tribune, the post-victory celebration that broke out on Sunday afternoon in Oakland included the following:
it was downright fun to see the 2002 Twins dance party, clubhouse edition. For those not fluent in hiphop, it was a Ludacris tune called "Move" that some of the young men -- a rainbow chorus that included David Ortiz, Matthew LeCroy, Tony Fiore and Jacque Jones -- were performing while celebrating.
OK, we've got our marching orders. The song for the 2002 Twins is "Move" by Ludacris. As I imagine most of you aren't familar with this song yet (at least those of you not doing time in a state prison), I present the chorus and first verse. Amazingly, it has the same melody as "The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald."
"Move" by Ludacris, featuring Mystikal
Move b*tch, get out the way
Get out the way b*tch, get out the way
Move b*tch, get out the way
Get out the way b*tch, get out the way
[ed. note - well .... it does rhyme and it's easy to remember. I guess it's just too bad they didn't start singing this in Denny Hocking's direction immediately after the game, or we just might have a slap hitting utility infielder with a heallthy middle finger for the Angels series. Now back to the music....]
OH NO! The fight's out
I'ma 'bout to punch yo...lights out
Get the F*CK back, guard ya grill
There's somethin' wrong, we can't stay still
I've been drankin' and bustin' two
and I been thankin' of bustin' you
Upside ya motherf*ckin' forehead
And if your friends jump in, "Ohhh gurrlll", they'll be mo' dead
Causin' confusion, Disturbin Tha Peace
Since not into lution', we run in the streets
So bye-bye to all you groupies and golddiggers
Is there a bumper on your ass? NO N*GGA!
I'm doin' a hundred on the highway
So if you do the speed limit, get the F*CK outta my way
I'm D.U.I., hardly ever caught sober
and you about to get ran the F*CK over
For a complete listing of the lyrics, click here.
Be sure to print this out and get copies to grandma and the kids, as we'll all want to sing along with the Twins during their future celebrations this season. And it's very likely that this is the song that we'll seranade them with during the post World Series victory parade down the Nicollet Mall and around the State Capital and of course at the impromptu parties that will break out in Cottage Grove, Albert Lea, Lester Prarie, Bemidji, Cloquet, etc.
Monday, October 07, 2002
Looking For Mr. Reagan (or Mrs. Thatcher)
Germany is in trouble. The economy is stagnant thanks to inflexible labor laws, an expensive social welfare system, and the on going costs of reunification. Ordinary Germans seem to recognize this and understand that their country is not headed in the right direction. However, they seem strangely apathetic about their future, an apathy borne out by the recent elections. Most of the Germans I spoke to before the election were going to vote for Schroeder although none of them really articulated any good reasons to support him other than they found him personally more appealing than Stoiber. In fact they didn't really seem all that interested in the upcoming election or concerned about the outcome. Most thought that Schroeder would win (a correct prediction) but didn't seem to mind if Stoiber would have been the victor. The overriding sentiment they expressed was that didn't matter who won because neither would make any significant changes to the status quo. The status quo that most had acknowledged was stumbling and headed for deeper troubles. It was an attitude that Homer Simpson might have expressed as "Yeah, but whaddya gonna do about it? "
Part of the reason for this was the two candidates themselves. Schroeder has essentially been a caretaker chancellor making small changes here and there but careful not to upset the unions and government dependents by undertaking any real reforms. At the same time he kept his Green allies at bay for the most part protecting German industry from further regulation and bailing out a couple of corporations on the verge of bankruptcy to retain favor from big business. His campaign slogan of "A modern chancellor for a modern country" was hardly awe inspiring although it did include a not-so-subtle dig on the age of his opponent.
But it came much closer to capturing the "vision thing" than Stoiber's promise of "competency for Germany." Hardly the rousing anthem for change that might have generated some excitement among the electorate and "energized the base" as American political analysts like to say. Basically Stoiber promised to reduce unemployment, cut taxes, and curb spending while not endangering any social welfare programs or changing the generous work benefit culture. His plan of gain without pain was greeted with cynical skepticism by the media and led many voters to come to the conclusion that there really wasn't a dimes bit of difference between the two contenders.
Schroeder's win means that Germany will continue to struggle economically without any prospect of the sort of long term changes taking place that are needed to right the ship. Of course a Stoiber win would likely have meant the same. What Germany needs is a strong leader with a clear and uncompromising view of what needs to change and how to get it done. (A strong democratic leader of course.) In the early 80's both the United States and Britain had such leaders emerge and pull their countries out of the economic and psychological doldrums that they had become bogged down. In the United States the answer to Jimmy Carter's "malaise" was Ronald Reagan. The answer to years of socialization of industry and bloated unions in Britain was Margaret Thatcher.
Today, Germany needs its own Reagan or Thatcher to bring about the reforms required to free up the enormous potential of the German economic machine and once again make it the envy of the world. Unfortunately, during this last election the choice for Germans was more like one between a Bill Clinton and a Bob Dole. Perhaps the apathy is understandable after all.
Part of the reason for this was the two candidates themselves. Schroeder has essentially been a caretaker chancellor making small changes here and there but careful not to upset the unions and government dependents by undertaking any real reforms. At the same time he kept his Green allies at bay for the most part protecting German industry from further regulation and bailing out a couple of corporations on the verge of bankruptcy to retain favor from big business. His campaign slogan of "A modern chancellor for a modern country" was hardly awe inspiring although it did include a not-so-subtle dig on the age of his opponent.
But it came much closer to capturing the "vision thing" than Stoiber's promise of "competency for Germany." Hardly the rousing anthem for change that might have generated some excitement among the electorate and "energized the base" as American political analysts like to say. Basically Stoiber promised to reduce unemployment, cut taxes, and curb spending while not endangering any social welfare programs or changing the generous work benefit culture. His plan of gain without pain was greeted with cynical skepticism by the media and led many voters to come to the conclusion that there really wasn't a dimes bit of difference between the two contenders.
Schroeder's win means that Germany will continue to struggle economically without any prospect of the sort of long term changes taking place that are needed to right the ship. Of course a Stoiber win would likely have meant the same. What Germany needs is a strong leader with a clear and uncompromising view of what needs to change and how to get it done. (A strong democratic leader of course.) In the early 80's both the United States and Britain had such leaders emerge and pull their countries out of the economic and psychological doldrums that they had become bogged down. In the United States the answer to Jimmy Carter's "malaise" was Ronald Reagan. The answer to years of socialization of industry and bloated unions in Britain was Margaret Thatcher.
Today, Germany needs its own Reagan or Thatcher to bring about the reforms required to free up the enormous potential of the German economic machine and once again make it the envy of the world. Unfortunately, during this last election the choice for Germans was more like one between a Bill Clinton and a Bob Dole. Perhaps the apathy is understandable after all.
Friday, October 04, 2002
A windy, rambling look at "Euro-pacifism"
One thing that struck me on my recent trip to Germany was the prevalence of what I would call "Euro-pacifism". Simply put I define it as the belief that "all war is inherently wrong and we have the experience to prove it." This attitude cropped up numerous times at museums, war memorials, and historical sites that had been damaged by war in the past.
Because the Germans did suffer tremendously in the World Wars and the Cold War they tend to view themselves as victims of war and proof that war is never justified. And when you see the evidence of how thoroughly their country was ravaged, particularly from the aerial bombing in Word War II, it is possible to understand the basis for their belief. They witnessed the horrors of World War II firsthand and the fact that they are now able to peacefully coexist with their past enemies from that conflict leads them to believe that the war was avoidable and so are all future wars. The nearly sixty years of peace that they have enjoyed since 1945 is attributed to their diplomacy and communication and they feel that the fall of Communism was inevitable.
This view seems to ignore the fact that it was not diplomacy or communication but rather war that ended the terrors of Nazism. It also does not recognize that the fall of Communism was not a historic inevitability and that only the threat of war (the U.S. nuclear umbrella, 350,000 American troops in West Germany) ensured the security of Western Europe during the Cold War.
The Germans, the Italians, other small European countries, and even the French were at one time or another defeated on the field of battle, occupied by foreign powers, and to differing levels had their countries devastated during World War II. Even the countries that were on the victorious Allied side, emerged beaten down physically and psychologically from the conflict. The French were allowed to be a part of the Allied coalition that reestablished peace in Europe but they knew in their hearts that they had lost the war and that their country was much weaker as a result of it. So for most of the countries of continental Europe the Second World War was a disaster for their peoples, their economies, and their national psyches. After what had happened many lost their faith in their national identities and patriotism was seen as outdated and unnecessary. The ensuing Cold War cloaked this uneasiness as the U.S. rebuilt the economies of Western Europe through the Marshall Plan and the Iron Curtain descended on Eastern Europe.
But the end of the Cold War and the rise of the European Union has brought this lack of confidence in their individual countries to the forefront of European attitudes about themselves. Like insecure school children they crave acceptance by the group (in this case the world) and so are unwilling or unable to stand on their own. Besides they are not really sure anymore about what is right or wrong so they go along with the majority seeking safety in numbers. They want disputes to be handled by the U.N. rather than having to become involved and individually pass judgment or take action. The fact that many European countries have already ceded much of their national sovereignty to the E.U. (currency, banking system, etc.) makes this surrender of power to the will of the "international community" all the easier.
Contrast this with the United States and Britain. Both countries have well established democracies that have survived independently for hundreds of years. Neither country has lost a war that involved their total defeat and occupation by foreign powers. Since the Second World War they both have pursued strong independent foreign policies willing to buck international opinion if they believed it was in their best national interest (numerous cases for the U.S., the Falklands provide a good example for the Brits).
Although the British paid a heavy price in World War II in blood and treasure and emerged from the war as a shadow of the international power they were before it, they were one of the victors and had earned their place with their spirited defense of their country in 1940 and 1941 when they were virtually alone. Psychologically they had never been defeated and retained their national pride and belief in the British nation. And the war cemented the strong relationship between the U.S. and the British. The US emerged from the war as the strongest nation in the world economically and one of two military superpowers The victory over Communism in the Cold War made the U.S. the sole world superpower and marked the third time in the century it had triumphed over the forces of tyranny.
Today when the U.S. and the British perceive a threat to their countries they are willing to act with or without the rest of the world. Their leaders can look back on their past as a guide and see that their nations core believes and values have been tested and proven again and again. History is on our side. We're the strong, confident kids willing to take on the school yard bully if even the rest of the school may not approve.
The Euros (I don't consider Britain a part of Europe except in strictly geographic terms) have no such reservoir of success to draw on and so are left to fret and worry about whether this action is appropriate or not and maybe we should talk some more or wait for international support. They lack the moral clarity and conviction that the U.S. and British possess and are afraid of taking chances. Considering their past this attitude is not all that unreasonable. I am not a European sympathizer but rather a European empathizer. I don't agree with their views but I believe I understand them. We should not expect nor wait for full fledged European support in any upcoming military campaign. The best we can hope for is that they sit quietly on the sidelines and let us do what needs to be done. Their pacifism will allow for little else.
Because the Germans did suffer tremendously in the World Wars and the Cold War they tend to view themselves as victims of war and proof that war is never justified. And when you see the evidence of how thoroughly their country was ravaged, particularly from the aerial bombing in Word War II, it is possible to understand the basis for their belief. They witnessed the horrors of World War II firsthand and the fact that they are now able to peacefully coexist with their past enemies from that conflict leads them to believe that the war was avoidable and so are all future wars. The nearly sixty years of peace that they have enjoyed since 1945 is attributed to their diplomacy and communication and they feel that the fall of Communism was inevitable.
This view seems to ignore the fact that it was not diplomacy or communication but rather war that ended the terrors of Nazism. It also does not recognize that the fall of Communism was not a historic inevitability and that only the threat of war (the U.S. nuclear umbrella, 350,000 American troops in West Germany) ensured the security of Western Europe during the Cold War.
The Germans, the Italians, other small European countries, and even the French were at one time or another defeated on the field of battle, occupied by foreign powers, and to differing levels had their countries devastated during World War II. Even the countries that were on the victorious Allied side, emerged beaten down physically and psychologically from the conflict. The French were allowed to be a part of the Allied coalition that reestablished peace in Europe but they knew in their hearts that they had lost the war and that their country was much weaker as a result of it. So for most of the countries of continental Europe the Second World War was a disaster for their peoples, their economies, and their national psyches. After what had happened many lost their faith in their national identities and patriotism was seen as outdated and unnecessary. The ensuing Cold War cloaked this uneasiness as the U.S. rebuilt the economies of Western Europe through the Marshall Plan and the Iron Curtain descended on Eastern Europe.
But the end of the Cold War and the rise of the European Union has brought this lack of confidence in their individual countries to the forefront of European attitudes about themselves. Like insecure school children they crave acceptance by the group (in this case the world) and so are unwilling or unable to stand on their own. Besides they are not really sure anymore about what is right or wrong so they go along with the majority seeking safety in numbers. They want disputes to be handled by the U.N. rather than having to become involved and individually pass judgment or take action. The fact that many European countries have already ceded much of their national sovereignty to the E.U. (currency, banking system, etc.) makes this surrender of power to the will of the "international community" all the easier.
Contrast this with the United States and Britain. Both countries have well established democracies that have survived independently for hundreds of years. Neither country has lost a war that involved their total defeat and occupation by foreign powers. Since the Second World War they both have pursued strong independent foreign policies willing to buck international opinion if they believed it was in their best national interest (numerous cases for the U.S., the Falklands provide a good example for the Brits).
Although the British paid a heavy price in World War II in blood and treasure and emerged from the war as a shadow of the international power they were before it, they were one of the victors and had earned their place with their spirited defense of their country in 1940 and 1941 when they were virtually alone. Psychologically they had never been defeated and retained their national pride and belief in the British nation. And the war cemented the strong relationship between the U.S. and the British. The US emerged from the war as the strongest nation in the world economically and one of two military superpowers The victory over Communism in the Cold War made the U.S. the sole world superpower and marked the third time in the century it had triumphed over the forces of tyranny.
Today when the U.S. and the British perceive a threat to their countries they are willing to act with or without the rest of the world. Their leaders can look back on their past as a guide and see that their nations core believes and values have been tested and proven again and again. History is on our side. We're the strong, confident kids willing to take on the school yard bully if even the rest of the school may not approve.
The Euros (I don't consider Britain a part of Europe except in strictly geographic terms) have no such reservoir of success to draw on and so are left to fret and worry about whether this action is appropriate or not and maybe we should talk some more or wait for international support. They lack the moral clarity and conviction that the U.S. and British possess and are afraid of taking chances. Considering their past this attitude is not all that unreasonable. I am not a European sympathizer but rather a European empathizer. I don't agree with their views but I believe I understand them. We should not expect nor wait for full fledged European support in any upcoming military campaign. The best we can hope for is that they sit quietly on the sidelines and let us do what needs to be done. Their pacifism will allow for little else.
Wednesday, October 02, 2002
Radio, Someone Still Loves You
Springsteen is over.
(......I'll pause to accomodate your gasps and shrieks of protest....)
(ahem...) Saying again, Springsteen is over. Yes, he'll continue to be very popular and prominent nationally, he'll continue to sell lots of records to his fan base, and hell continue to pack arenas and concert halls for his live appearnaces. However, as these statements can also be applied to the comedy stylings of Gallager they alone are not evidence of worth.
As a vital, creative artist, making contributions to the conversation of the mass culture, Springsteen is done. As a continuing benchmark for people to measure the significance of their own lives, he's through. And as a conduit for which people can make new memories, it's all over, and it has been for decades.
I attended the concert on Tuesday night at the Excel arena, and while it was a good show (and by that I mean I didn't have to wait in line for beer or at the men's room) the event and "happening" itself was seriously flawed. A few observations will serve to prove (and expose) my vague reasoning.
1) Any artist that compels forty year old men, with graying hair, owlish eye glasses, and soft underbellies, to dance about clumsily, with wild abandon, is doing a disservice to our culture. Physical signs of age, especially on men, should generally be considered a badge of honor. They mean that you have faced the challenges life inevitably puts in front of you and that you have endured. So you should get respect. But, when witnessing these individuals jumping around like Scotsmen at a pay toilet and shouting "woo hoo" like wild Mdewankaton Sioux on dividend disbursement day, all gravitas earned by 45 years of living immediately and irrevocably disappears. Those that witness this display lose respect for them and I would surmise these individuals lose a certain level of respect for themselves.
I'm sure most of these men are reasonable citizens, they hold responsible jobs and are raising children with the requisite amount of self esteem. Yet, out of context from the rest of their lives and historic stations in life, they choose to behave, in public, like inebriated adoloscents when listening to songs from decades ago. Needless to say, there was no celebrating during the dirge-like selections from "The Rising"--except perhaps when Patty Scalfia stopped bellowing during her throaty and coarse, Linda McCartney-like vocal solos. Most people seemed bored during all of these new songs and reacted as if they were a temporary (and over-long) respite between the nostalgia they came to hear. Which brings up another point.
2) For all practical purposes, Springsteen is nothing more than a nostalgia act. Yet the fawning media and his fans regard this music (and themselves) as something much higher and more significant. From my observations, people are really only there to wake up the echoes of songs they heard in high school or community college and to dredge up the memories of booting in the Met Center parking lot back in '87. There were explosions of acclimation whenever a classic hit cranked up. Yet the mood was sleepy and suffocating during the new songs (and no, that's not because people were acting intentionally solemn based on the substance of the songs themselves, they were intentionally zoned out and biding their time for the next opportunity to move spasmodically with their arms and legs akimbo). And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. But, this limited appeal, as defined by his own fans, makes Springsteen no different than say Jimmy Buffet or Steve Miller. And not that much different from Creedence Clearwater Revisited and Joey Mullond's Badfinger. Yet these acts are treated with indifference and outright disdain by rock journalists and by the Springsteen fans, who no doubt fancy themselves much more hip and cutting edge than that.
3) Finally, very few of the fans seem to appreciate the anti-establishment and anti-American subtext of the entire Springsteen catalog. Since most of those in attendance are the establishment, it furthers leads to a disconnect between what the scruffy millionaire on stage is saying and how the soccer dads and office gals with attitude in the audience are reacting. The clearest example of this was Bruce's prelude to "Born in the USA"--which was the final song of the night. As anyone who's paying attention realizes, the song is nothing more than a muddled rant and a laundry list of complaints about being poorly educated and low skilled and the lifestyle that leads to in an advanced, information based economy. Oh yes, it also has a big, empowering chorus that's intended as an ironic condemnation of the land of the free. But, as is usually the case, irony is lost on the masses, and most people reasonably accept the chorus for what the words actually say, out of context from the rest of the song. (This misperception may have been exacerbated by the Reagan Administration's brilliant co-opting of the song during the 1984 presidential campaign, but I suspect that didn't have much of a lasting affect.).
So before the fist few keyboard notes were hi, to kick off said song, Bruce engaged in a little anti-war rhetoric. Nothing specific or substantive of course. Rather, he merely resorted to the general and vauge "questionning" of our government's motives, that is so much in vogue among elected politicians of the Democratic party. Just like them, I guess Bruce wants to be re-elected too (that is sell more records and tickets) so he won't come out and give us any counter argument to the one proposed by the President. Bruce warned us not to go rushing into anything because "all war is real, real bad" (or something to that affect, with a similar working class affected intonation on his part). This drew shrieks of agreement and applause from about half the crowd (the other half was checking their watches, no doubt wondering if they'd get home in time before the babysitter's rate kicked into overtime).
But then an odd thing happened. The song started and those very people applauding Bruce's rhetoric and principled non-stance started waving American flags and singing along with the chorus with pride and determination. It's almost as if they weren't paying attention to anything at all, besides the monologues going on in their own heads.
(......I'll pause to accomodate your gasps and shrieks of protest....)
(ahem...) Saying again, Springsteen is over. Yes, he'll continue to be very popular and prominent nationally, he'll continue to sell lots of records to his fan base, and hell continue to pack arenas and concert halls for his live appearnaces. However, as these statements can also be applied to the comedy stylings of Gallager they alone are not evidence of worth.
As a vital, creative artist, making contributions to the conversation of the mass culture, Springsteen is done. As a continuing benchmark for people to measure the significance of their own lives, he's through. And as a conduit for which people can make new memories, it's all over, and it has been for decades.
I attended the concert on Tuesday night at the Excel arena, and while it was a good show (and by that I mean I didn't have to wait in line for beer or at the men's room) the event and "happening" itself was seriously flawed. A few observations will serve to prove (and expose) my vague reasoning.
1) Any artist that compels forty year old men, with graying hair, owlish eye glasses, and soft underbellies, to dance about clumsily, with wild abandon, is doing a disservice to our culture. Physical signs of age, especially on men, should generally be considered a badge of honor. They mean that you have faced the challenges life inevitably puts in front of you and that you have endured. So you should get respect. But, when witnessing these individuals jumping around like Scotsmen at a pay toilet and shouting "woo hoo" like wild Mdewankaton Sioux on dividend disbursement day, all gravitas earned by 45 years of living immediately and irrevocably disappears. Those that witness this display lose respect for them and I would surmise these individuals lose a certain level of respect for themselves.
I'm sure most of these men are reasonable citizens, they hold responsible jobs and are raising children with the requisite amount of self esteem. Yet, out of context from the rest of their lives and historic stations in life, they choose to behave, in public, like inebriated adoloscents when listening to songs from decades ago. Needless to say, there was no celebrating during the dirge-like selections from "The Rising"--except perhaps when Patty Scalfia stopped bellowing during her throaty and coarse, Linda McCartney-like vocal solos. Most people seemed bored during all of these new songs and reacted as if they were a temporary (and over-long) respite between the nostalgia they came to hear. Which brings up another point.
2) For all practical purposes, Springsteen is nothing more than a nostalgia act. Yet the fawning media and his fans regard this music (and themselves) as something much higher and more significant. From my observations, people are really only there to wake up the echoes of songs they heard in high school or community college and to dredge up the memories of booting in the Met Center parking lot back in '87. There were explosions of acclimation whenever a classic hit cranked up. Yet the mood was sleepy and suffocating during the new songs (and no, that's not because people were acting intentionally solemn based on the substance of the songs themselves, they were intentionally zoned out and biding their time for the next opportunity to move spasmodically with their arms and legs akimbo). And there's absolutely nothing wrong with this. But, this limited appeal, as defined by his own fans, makes Springsteen no different than say Jimmy Buffet or Steve Miller. And not that much different from Creedence Clearwater Revisited and Joey Mullond's Badfinger. Yet these acts are treated with indifference and outright disdain by rock journalists and by the Springsteen fans, who no doubt fancy themselves much more hip and cutting edge than that.
3) Finally, very few of the fans seem to appreciate the anti-establishment and anti-American subtext of the entire Springsteen catalog. Since most of those in attendance are the establishment, it furthers leads to a disconnect between what the scruffy millionaire on stage is saying and how the soccer dads and office gals with attitude in the audience are reacting. The clearest example of this was Bruce's prelude to "Born in the USA"--which was the final song of the night. As anyone who's paying attention realizes, the song is nothing more than a muddled rant and a laundry list of complaints about being poorly educated and low skilled and the lifestyle that leads to in an advanced, information based economy. Oh yes, it also has a big, empowering chorus that's intended as an ironic condemnation of the land of the free. But, as is usually the case, irony is lost on the masses, and most people reasonably accept the chorus for what the words actually say, out of context from the rest of the song. (This misperception may have been exacerbated by the Reagan Administration's brilliant co-opting of the song during the 1984 presidential campaign, but I suspect that didn't have much of a lasting affect.).
So before the fist few keyboard notes were hi, to kick off said song, Bruce engaged in a little anti-war rhetoric. Nothing specific or substantive of course. Rather, he merely resorted to the general and vauge "questionning" of our government's motives, that is so much in vogue among elected politicians of the Democratic party. Just like them, I guess Bruce wants to be re-elected too (that is sell more records and tickets) so he won't come out and give us any counter argument to the one proposed by the President. Bruce warned us not to go rushing into anything because "all war is real, real bad" (or something to that affect, with a similar working class affected intonation on his part). This drew shrieks of agreement and applause from about half the crowd (the other half was checking their watches, no doubt wondering if they'd get home in time before the babysitter's rate kicked into overtime).
But then an odd thing happened. The song started and those very people applauding Bruce's rhetoric and principled non-stance started waving American flags and singing along with the chorus with pride and determination. It's almost as if they weren't paying attention to anything at all, besides the monologues going on in their own heads.
Tuesday, October 01, 2002
Train me, beer me, smoke me
I am not a Europhile. I am not one of those who waxes on about the glories of six weeks of vacation, thirty-six hour work weeks, and free medical care while choosing to ignore the high unemployment, stagnant growth, and confiscatory tax rates (rates that would make Ted Kennedy blush) that accompany them. However, I do recognize a good thing when I see it and in two areas in particular I think there is a lot we could learn from the Euros:
Trains. My God the trains in Germany were magnificent. Efficient, clean, comfortable, and able to spirit you to almost any corner of the country without much effort. My wife on I traveled exclusively by rail and had little difficulty making a circuit that covered much of Deutschland for a very minimal expenditure. On only a few occasions did we even have to bother making reservations.
Typically we would show up at the track ten or fifteen before a scheduled departure, find open seats, and stow our luggage in the racks above us. When we arrived at our destination we simply grabbed our gear and hopped off. Since most cities have train stations in their center we were often on the streets within minutes of our arrival heading to a hotel. Contrast that with the hassles, headaches, and time required for even a short commercial flight these days. And yes the trains do run on time or very close to it, a claim that cannot be made for travel by air.
And unlike the living hell that flying can when you're herded like cattle onto the aircraft, squeezed into a seat that anyone taller than Webster will find uncomfortable, fed bland, soggy meals by a churlish flight attendant (just about a guarantee when flying Northwest), and then charged an arm and a leg (on domestic flights) for the alcohol that you so badly need just to maintain your sanity, traveling by train can be quite enjoyable. We often brought our own food and even wine and beer on the train and were able to relax with plenty of leg room and comfy seats. And if you wanted to get up and go to the bathroom, grab a snack in the dining car, or just walk around you were able to at any time you were so inclined. And when were on the high speed Inter City Express trains we were clipping along at 260km per hour with hardly a bump.
We need better trains in the US. I'm talking about city to city, town to town trains not a light rail line from the downtown to the Mall of America to serve a bunch of Randy Moss wannabees as we're now building in Minneapolis. Why shouldn't we have the option of taking a high speed train from Minneapolis to Chicago instead of subjecting ourselves to the indignities of air travel or spending six hours driving in a car on I-94 hoping that one of the numerous Wisconsin State Troopers won't nail us with a speeding ticket? I know that it would require a considerable investment in infrastructure and the system would likely require government subsidies to operate but how much money have we shelled out to the airlines in recent years for poor, inefficient service? I ch-ch-choose trains.
The other sphere where I found the European approach to be superior was the cultural attitudes towards alcohol. Beer and wine were available for sale nearly everywhere and there seemed to be no prohibition on public consumption of alcohol. You could walk down a city street in mid morning with an open half liter of beer and not draw a second glance. On a few occasions on our trip we would have picnic lunches in public areas and never thought twice about opening a bottle of wine or downing a few beers with it. It was also not unusual in Germany to see men drinking beer with their breakfast or construction workers having a cold one on their lunch break. But we witnessed very little public intoxication (with the exception of Oktoberfest of course) and the associated behavioral problems that accompany it.
The Germans seem to understand that drinking alcohol is not a black and white thing. You don't have to be either a tee-toddler or an alcoholic. You can enjoy drinking without being a drunk. What a enlightened outlook compared to the quasi prohibitionist leanings that one encounters in the US today. A good example of such thinking is this commentary from last Saturday's Minneapolis Star Tribune in which the author decries the fact that the media coverage of the Twins celebration after winning the American League Central Division pennant included showing them drinking alcohol. Guess what? Adults (over 21) can and do use alcohol to celebrate, relax, and have fun. Instead of trying to prevent children from acquiring such knowledge how about teaching them that it is possible to drink responsibly? Part of the mythology that kids and later young adults associate with alcohol stems from the fact that it is often presented to them as the "forbidden fruit". Perhaps if we were to adopt the European approach and were more up front and open about alcohol; what it is? why people drink it? etc, it would become less of a temptation to children and young adults and their abuse and misuse of it would decline. More importantly I would be able to buy beer when and where I want and drink it when and where I want. And isn't that what America is supposed to be all about anyway?
Lastly it was a breathe of fresh air to see that the anti-smoking Nazis haven't seized the reigns of power in Germany yet. Based on my observations I'd say that over half of the adult German population pounds the nails and they do it pretty much anywhere they please. Oh, some of the train stations have adopted no smoking policies but the normally rule abiding Krauts pay these regulations no heed whatsoever. I'm not a regular smoker myself (although I do favor a heater from time to time particularly if I'm sipping on a brew) and I'm not saying that it's good that so many Germans smoke but with the second hand smoke hysteria that has gripped so many here in the US it was refreshing to see people openly enjoying one of life's little vices. Smoke 'em if you got 'em Fritz.
Trains. My God the trains in Germany were magnificent. Efficient, clean, comfortable, and able to spirit you to almost any corner of the country without much effort. My wife on I traveled exclusively by rail and had little difficulty making a circuit that covered much of Deutschland for a very minimal expenditure. On only a few occasions did we even have to bother making reservations.
Typically we would show up at the track ten or fifteen before a scheduled departure, find open seats, and stow our luggage in the racks above us. When we arrived at our destination we simply grabbed our gear and hopped off. Since most cities have train stations in their center we were often on the streets within minutes of our arrival heading to a hotel. Contrast that with the hassles, headaches, and time required for even a short commercial flight these days. And yes the trains do run on time or very close to it, a claim that cannot be made for travel by air.
And unlike the living hell that flying can when you're herded like cattle onto the aircraft, squeezed into a seat that anyone taller than Webster will find uncomfortable, fed bland, soggy meals by a churlish flight attendant (just about a guarantee when flying Northwest), and then charged an arm and a leg (on domestic flights) for the alcohol that you so badly need just to maintain your sanity, traveling by train can be quite enjoyable. We often brought our own food and even wine and beer on the train and were able to relax with plenty of leg room and comfy seats. And if you wanted to get up and go to the bathroom, grab a snack in the dining car, or just walk around you were able to at any time you were so inclined. And when were on the high speed Inter City Express trains we were clipping along at 260km per hour with hardly a bump.
We need better trains in the US. I'm talking about city to city, town to town trains not a light rail line from the downtown to the Mall of America to serve a bunch of Randy Moss wannabees as we're now building in Minneapolis. Why shouldn't we have the option of taking a high speed train from Minneapolis to Chicago instead of subjecting ourselves to the indignities of air travel or spending six hours driving in a car on I-94 hoping that one of the numerous Wisconsin State Troopers won't nail us with a speeding ticket? I know that it would require a considerable investment in infrastructure and the system would likely require government subsidies to operate but how much money have we shelled out to the airlines in recent years for poor, inefficient service? I ch-ch-choose trains.
The other sphere where I found the European approach to be superior was the cultural attitudes towards alcohol. Beer and wine were available for sale nearly everywhere and there seemed to be no prohibition on public consumption of alcohol. You could walk down a city street in mid morning with an open half liter of beer and not draw a second glance. On a few occasions on our trip we would have picnic lunches in public areas and never thought twice about opening a bottle of wine or downing a few beers with it. It was also not unusual in Germany to see men drinking beer with their breakfast or construction workers having a cold one on their lunch break. But we witnessed very little public intoxication (with the exception of Oktoberfest of course) and the associated behavioral problems that accompany it.
The Germans seem to understand that drinking alcohol is not a black and white thing. You don't have to be either a tee-toddler or an alcoholic. You can enjoy drinking without being a drunk. What a enlightened outlook compared to the quasi prohibitionist leanings that one encounters in the US today. A good example of such thinking is this commentary from last Saturday's Minneapolis Star Tribune in which the author decries the fact that the media coverage of the Twins celebration after winning the American League Central Division pennant included showing them drinking alcohol. Guess what? Adults (over 21) can and do use alcohol to celebrate, relax, and have fun. Instead of trying to prevent children from acquiring such knowledge how about teaching them that it is possible to drink responsibly? Part of the mythology that kids and later young adults associate with alcohol stems from the fact that it is often presented to them as the "forbidden fruit". Perhaps if we were to adopt the European approach and were more up front and open about alcohol; what it is? why people drink it? etc, it would become less of a temptation to children and young adults and their abuse and misuse of it would decline. More importantly I would be able to buy beer when and where I want and drink it when and where I want. And isn't that what America is supposed to be all about anyway?
Lastly it was a breathe of fresh air to see that the anti-smoking Nazis haven't seized the reigns of power in Germany yet. Based on my observations I'd say that over half of the adult German population pounds the nails and they do it pretty much anywhere they please. Oh, some of the train stations have adopted no smoking policies but the normally rule abiding Krauts pay these regulations no heed whatsoever. I'm not a regular smoker myself (although I do favor a heater from time to time particularly if I'm sipping on a brew) and I'm not saying that it's good that so many Germans smoke but with the second hand smoke hysteria that has gripped so many here in the US it was refreshing to see people openly enjoying one of life's little vices. Smoke 'em if you got 'em Fritz.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)