Jammed Up

Some of the strangest thoughts come to me while jogging, and for many different reasons.

As I was heading up an enormous hill today, westbound through the Mission and onward toward Noe, I was fiddling with my iPod (which I wondered if it was outdated) trying to get to the right song, which was not Phish. I could have toggled through most of the rune until the right motivating moment arrived, but that really just distracts me from the workout. Other problems associated with this move are: 1) when you don't pay attention to your workout you actually get less out of it. That's a fact. 2) I have this thing I do where at the end of my run, rather than just look at the clock on my device I cycle back through all the songs I heard, add them up, and calculate how long I was active for.

It's my thing; I like it. I'm well aware there's an App called a stopwatch which would more easily handle this for me, but as I said, it's my thing. I walk, breathe heavy, sweat, and....do the math. Seconds later I tell myself, "Should've ran longer..."

Half way through today's jog, once I rounded the park and headed back across the Mission is when I had this moment of clarity: "jam music is so dead...and has been."

When I chose to listen to "Like Humans Do" and "Like, Like, The, The, The Death..." over Reba, I knew something was up. Those songs are mellow by comparison yet even I, an expat 'jammer' wanted the "to the point" track.

This isn't to say I don't like some of it, depending on what qualifies as "jam music", cause I most certainly do. I am patient with music, so I can wait for it. But others, in this day and age? Not really.

Here's what happened to long-form jam music, in my opinion.

At one point in the 60's, 70s, 80s, and part of the 90s there were many bands who jammed a lot, some still playing today. Bands like Grateful Dead, The Allman Brothers Band, Jimi Hendrix, and on and on and on, all jammed, and were all amazing. Then there were many bands in between with the final super successful band being Phish, who artfully mastered it, on certain levels.

There were a lot of kids, children of Baby Boomers who grew up on the classic rock/jam band types, many of which came to like Phish, Widespread Panic, various Grateful Dead offshoots, etc. These kids had a great base of music to start from, and then had their own. When it came to music the kids born in the 70s, and early 80s, still had the patience of mind to know a good thing when they heard it because as they went to high school, and aged, there was still no internet. It wasn't an immediate society, like it is today. The music we're talking about takes a certain patience, one which has by and large vanished.

These kids were basically the last ones holding the torch for the long form jamming community, and some of them still are. Now of course there are young kids today who hear a Who song, or a number of Woodstock era bands, and really like the songs they hear. It just so happens that all of those bands actually performed singles and hits! The more modern jam bands focused on the jam itself, not so much the song. Some may have had more talent on the latter than they did the former. Actually, that's a fact. But the kids who are now youngest, around 28, they are the last ones carrying the flame (yes, there are always a few outliers).

Then came the internet, and everything in life was immediate. The thought of a young kid having the patience to listen to a song for 7, 10 or 20 minutes seems ANCIENT! And on some level if you consider the speed at which we're moving, it is. The last of the patient audience is in their 30s. The kids in their 20s? They want the Strokes, Modest Mouse, and Arcade Fire. They're not waiting for something. They want something yesterday, and in the broadband world they can get it.

With the growth of the internet world so went the growth of jam music. It pretty much died. The marketability of long-form in a day and age when we're so concerned with FAST FAST FAST is hardly existent.

"Yeah, these guys are great! Just wait, listen to this song. Like 7 minutes into this tune, right after the drum solo, the guitarist is going to play this riff, which will then become the basis of the next song! Which is also an awesome song, but you really have to get the first song to appreciate the song. It's a deeply profound album..."

"NEXT!"

I was told today by this guy that Phish has less than half a million Facebook "fans." Really? And 1/5 of them were at Big Cypress? I didn't believe him so I checked. It's true, the number is: 421,058. That's not a lot relative to their fame. To give you an idea of where they stand, Jack Johnson has like 3.4 million. Yep. Jack Johnson. Ironically, Phish was the first band to really capitalize on the internet, and take the music sharing experience to another level. Then again, tripod was gonna be myspace, and myspace was once gonna be facebook, soooo...who has a sick idea?!?!? facespace? No, I checked, it's taken...

The death of jam music comes in a couple of parts, but the biggest slice is the way we are as a society: impatient. There are many reasons the level of music produced by most so-called "jam bands" is average at best, but that's a different story altogether, and one I am well versed at telling. Regardless though, the modern "jam band" era has largely ended. The bands which built the foundation for the current bands, they'll still continue to thrive for reasons mentioned. They are all-timers.

In the end it's unfortunate to see it happen because the level of musicianship achieved by some of these bands was often phenomenal. Few will get to enjoy it live as we move forward, which was the best part of the music experience for many of us (can still be). I fear few have much to build on looking back, and realize "there's no market" for it...unless...

Unless we become a society bent on slowing down, being patient, savoring the moment, shit like that.

Stop. That's not happening.

But it could!

No, it can't!

I know, it totally can't.

But it should!

Yes, you're right, it should. But why?

Because an impatient society like ours should be relaxing in its down-time, settling, and learning how to slow our minds down. This music actually provides that; rewards the patient listener in a big way!

Yeah, whatever. Shut the fuck up. I'm trying to workout here, bro. Goto the next song already!!!!

Over There...

When the Middle East became once-again inflamed a couple weeks ago (months?) with the initial Egyptian revolts I started wondering "Could this be?"

What began in Tunisia suddenly was in Egypt, is now in Syria, and obviously Libya.

Day after day as uprisings were happening I was waiting for that one sentence to sum up the whole thing. One sentence that would put this thing into perspective. That ONE SENTENCE that I always hear when I'm hearing about Iraq, Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Pakistan...

"It's Israel's fault!"

And holyfuckingshit, there's nary been a word about Israel. Yeah, there were some early rumblings from leaders in Egypt and Libya (btw, I refuse to try and spell the Leader Of Libya's name until some news organization can establish the actual spelling, so for now it's the LOL), but those claims were suppressed, which was incredibly shocking!

It was like, "Yeah, we know, we know, the Jews, they did it, but lets talk about who ALSO did it!"

Progress!

So now things are going crazy everywhere, and people are getting uppity back here in the US for a host of different bullshit reasons.

Lets start with Congressional leaders, who are about as valuable as a fly on a horse's ass in these times.

In the beginning of this the Republican leadership was saying, "We need to do something!" Seeing it was a crisis, yes, something needed to be done. Things weren't being done fast enough, for "the President needs to act!"

They were all for a RUSH into the region. Until he did something. Then it's like, "Whoa, whoa, whoa, slow it down there, lead foot. Lets talk about this for a minute before we put US soldiers in harm's way..."

Laughable.

After we're in it was all, "Wait, what? Obamacare didn't seek Congressional approval!"

Really? Congressional approval? Is that what we're talking about here?

Congress is a leviathan, and is completely inept at getting anything done, ever. Approval ratings are lower than the President's, who they claim has poor approval ratings. You wanted him to go to Congress while people were systematically being DESTROYED?

Soon after the President acted the FRENCH were bombing. Yep, the French. I mean, what more information do you need as to whether action is required than the FRENCH BOMBING?!? Did you want the Swiss to get involved? How about the Jamaicans?

Congress is a long-standing joke at this point, doing very little for the country. The last time we trusted Congress regarding decisions to go to war they didn't do their job, took the bait hook line and sinker, and embroiled our nation in what was probably the worst decision the country has ever made in modern history. Yes, worse than Vietnam regardless of the body count.

Does President Obama have the authority to take military action in a foreign land without the approval of Congress? Uhh, no. Do I give a shit? Uhh, no. Why don't I give a shit? Because I've seen Congress, and I've seen that a humanitarian situation has been turned into an American political situation which is solely being used to gain favor with voters. I'm not into that.

He felt it was time to act. The world community felt it was time to act. We are supposedly leaders, or at least we were prior to Iraq, and I think we should lead. Congress doesn't care about that.

In the President's eyes the situation required immediate action, and in the eyes of current coalition leaders.

This doesn't mean I agree with the decision, but I'll get to that...

As for the media, I get your whole thing about this. You have a show to do, and this is the big topic of the day.

Do I have complete faith in Laura Ingraham's ability to dissect what's going down on the ground in Libya? I mean, don't you?!?! I actually heard this idiot arguing with Bill O'Reilly (who agreed with the strikes) last week about "tactical" errors. Seriously, tactical errors on FOX News.

Then of course the whole, "have to goto Congress" first thing.

Anything to win favor, and undermine the goal's in Libya by undermining the President.

Why? Because the left undermined a war sold on lies, but once we were in the war we needed to just blindly support. It's the ole adage, 'do what we say, not what we do' thing-majiggy.

Just because the war in Iraq was a poor decision does not mean this is a poor decision. They're not the same things. In fact, the Iraq conflict, as sold to the American public, IS THE LIBYAN CONFLICT!

That whole "he's killing his own people", and "he's a threat to the region" thing. This guy was currently killing his own people, and is a threat to the region. Pay attention here, folks.

"But is he a direct threat to us?"

Yes! LOL is a direct threat to us! No doubt!

How can I say this? Let me break it down for you as simply as I can.

The REGION is of strategic interest to us, which is why we went to Iraq, etc., in the first place. No nukes, no threat to other countries, none of it. President Bush and his douchebag minions wanted a war to change the region because Iraq has oil. The country seemed ripe for the TAKING. The hope was democracy would come about, the region would settle down, markets would open up, etc. etc.

Didn't happen. Then they lied about why.

Well, now you have your "why." Humanitarian crisis, dictator, democracy, freedom, all that bullshit.

"Well why not Africa," asks Liberal hippie (Republicans don't now where Africa is, so they don't ask)?

"Because Africa isn't a strategic interest to us. When we find useful natural resources there then we'll go to Africa. One region at at time. Show some patience, for crying out loud!"

So this whole region starts to see largely peaceful protest, some turned violent because of the actions of certain rulers.

Now here comes the free and democratic world, watching from a far, wondering what to do in the face of all of this. The United States completely stained because of it's involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. We're viewed skeptically at home and abroad because any mistake made could turn out to be tremendously costly because of our previous mistakes. The mistake in Iraq lingers, and that has to be considered.

Does anyone think for a SECOND if this had happened under George W. Bush, a year or two after 9/11 that people would be asking for "Congressional approval?" If this had, and it turned right for Bush, he'd be in my pocket already, pictured on every bill and coin I own!!!

But it didn't. It's happening now, in the face of the mistakes already made.

And not for a second can someone speaking with anyone intellectual honesty say, "Without Iraq we may not have seen these uprisings." Yes, I actually heard that in Florida, which is the dumbest thing that's been said.

Without Iraq this situation would be UNBELIEVABLY beneficial to the world. It's because of Iraq that it's a risk.

Now take a step back for a second and think about this situation in contrast to Iraq and Afghanistan. When the US unilaterally acted in Iraq we weren't viewed as "liberators" by the Arab world at all. Most of the world saw it as an act of aggression. Since acting in Libya this week, and in the face of all of these other uprisings hardly a word against the US is being spoken by proponents of democracy in the Middle East.

Shouldn't that be our standard? What the PEOPLE IN THE REGION THINK?

Other than some celebrating Iraqis who hated Saddam, the Iraq War was viewed negatively by Arabs everywhere, and again it was considered a war by the United States and....AND...wait for it....WAIT FOR IT.........ISRAEL!

Yep. Those two places, again.

This time, hardly a word. Hardly a word in the streets. American flags not being burned. American troops not being killed. None of it. Rather clean, and necessary. A limited strike aimed at leveling the playing field between LOL's loyalists and supposed rebels.

Now again, why does this matter to us, and how is it a direct threat?

Because the region's stability, which already made more unstable by the Iraq War, has presented the World Community with an opportunity to make things better, safer, and possibly beneficial to everyone on the planet. What skipped from Tunisia, to Egypt, to Syria, to Libya, and elsewhere can easily SKIP BACKWARD, a force moving against these champions of democracy. To even suggest we have no "direct" interest in Libya, yes, from a theoretical perspective maybe that's true. But from a realistic perspective? Not on your life.

An opportunity to help those asking for help, in the Muslim world has presented itself, and President Obama took it.

Whether you think that will work out is your call. I for one would have chosen otherwise.

But to sit here and try to score political points with it is absurd. To claim he didn't have a "right" to do so, also absurd. He has the right derived from common sense, which should be the standard by which Presidents act.

As for my personal opinion, I do not think that acting on behalf of the Libyans is going to work out in the end. When I think about that region as a whole I fall back on my favorite quote, "that place is a fucking mess. Nothing's gonna change." And I believe that. So in my opinion, acting on behalf of any country there (sans-Israel, where it's only a mess because of everyone else) is usually a bad idea, and a waste of time and money.

I am not suggesting the Libyans are not dying, or being killed in large numbers, but lets be honest here: does it matter? Over 60% of the Middle East and North Africans are under the age of 30! Apparently, killing people, death, etc, is more the norm than anything. I'm not suggesting I want to see these people killed, or dying in any way because I don't. I am just wondering if it MATTERS TO THEM!?!?

Clearly it matters to people who value every day they get to spend on this planet, but judging the number it seems "life" is considerably less valuable to a region of the world with seemingly little to be happy about.

My opinion on not going there rests on the belief that we are not going to change what happens in the end. They have to change it. It's the theory that something has to get markedly worse before it gets better. Yes, we are helping stave off the deaths of people in Libya and elsewhere, but our actions haven't scared people who are oppressive not to act. Had our actions ever worked in the first place you wouldn't have dictators in the region!

The only way things will change is if we let them take a natural course, and by that I mean allowing people to be killed. Pushing the region to it's true boiling point. Allowing the situation to fester nearly into chaos without our involvement.

If oil prices rise, so be it. If more people are killed, so be it. It's all part of a sacrifice to the region which has never been able to work itself out.

Yet it seems there are younger forces in action there, connected to the rest of rest of the world through technology, hence the start of these revolts in the first place. It all happened so quickly, and as soon as it did we jumped on the opportunity to help. We shouldn't have. It should be allowed to continue uninterrupted for an extended period of time. If things get worse, they get worse. Clearly the people there are unhappy, and it's a growing movement against dictatorships. The offering of help is not making them stronger, but on some level weakening them by letting them believe help is around the corner.

Help should not be around the corner. This thing should play itself out on it's own. And if no change comes of it, then no change comes of it. Same shit, different day, different year.

From an American perspective, the only real effect of the Iraq War regarding this conflict is people actually believe "democracy" and "freedom" are possible. It become such a talking point for years; part of the rationale for "why"; part of the lexicon, that it may have become something people believe is realistic.

I'm not of that mind, not until I see some real gains. Not just a revolt, a gathering, or something similar. I'd like to see tangible results, something you can point a finger at. When I see that I'll start to believe in this momentum. As of now, and based on history, it seems to me it'll be more of a fad. But who knows? Technology has changed the world in so many ways, and it has made a huge splash in that part of the world. Maybe it continues to, and maybe change really takes hold.

I'm hopeful it does.

But I'm certainly not going to sit here and argue the merits of "if he was allowed to." For that's just fucking ridiculous.