Bugger Off

Since I first started using social media, I've run into a few characters, and some really interesting people.  I guess it's like anything else in life; you take the good with the bad, the beautiful with the ugly, the brilliant with the fucking stupid.  The thing is, to try to avoid arguing too long with the latter. Some people are just a waste of time.

Problem is, they seem normal until that moment when they stick a screwdriver up their nose, pose with their AK-47, or confess that one batshit crazy thing that just makes you go,"whoa…."

And usually, your first reaction is to say,"No, no, dude/lady…..that's not how it is," but you have no freaking idea how intrenched they are in their particular fetish/fantasy/philosophy/politics.  And part of you wants to give them the benefit of the doubt, because up to that point, they seemed rather interesting, rather nice, rather…..rational.  Granted, people are people, and we're going to have different points of view and opinions, but some people are like trying to argue with a KKK member that blacks are equal to him.  Na gaa happen.  No way.  No how.

The weird thing is, they're probably thinking that you're reasoning is as fucked-up as you think theirs is.  They may tell you that they're free-thinking, liberal, worldly, open to new ideas, etc., etc., but in that one special way, they live in a very airtight bubble and there's no way you're going to burst it for them.

So, what you just have to do is stop.  Just stop, and put behind you all the time you fucking wasted getting to know this person.  Seems like a bit of a loss, actually, but you have to realize that they're basically on a mission with their particular line of thought, and you're now the enemy.

Oh, well.  C'est la vie……

Dealing With An Artful Dodger

This blog entry is addressed to a former internet contact who shall remain nameless.  They know who they are.  To be perfectly honest, this person un-friended me because, during a discussion (argument) I decided I had heard enough from them on the topic, and I said so. The person said,"I'm not finished," to which I replied,"You're finished."  Hey, at least I didn't tell them to STFU.  I simply indicated I had had enough.

The argument we were having centered around appearance, specifically a woman's appearance in public.  I offered some information that was business/employment related; to wit that many hiring managers said (paraphrasing) that given two candidates with equal resumes and skills, they would prefer to hire the candidate that was not overly-decorated with tattoos and/or facial piercings.

My (former) contact basically acknowledged the unavoidable fact that appearance/clothing can make the difference between getting hired or rejected, but consistently refused to admit (or essentially avoided) the fact that one of the many modes of appearance that affect people's opinion of you is that of being provocative.  In other words, this contact had to admit that while being too shabbily-dressed or overly-adorned with tattoos and piercings could result in a person not being hired, they would not concede that there was a point past which most anyone would consider a woman's mode of dress/appearance to be overtly sexual.

My (former) contact kept trying to re-direct the conversation/argument to the topic of rape, insisting that a woman's appearance has nothing to do with being sexually assaulted, and I repeatedly kept reminding this person that I NEVER SAID that a woman's appearance was tantamount to consent to sex.  What I said was that in terms of basic risk assessment, there were certainly situations that people had the option of avoiding.  

Referring to the images above, I certainly would not walk down certain streets after dark (and some during the daylight hours), advertising the fact that I was flush with cash, making myself an easy mark to thugs and gang members that might reside in that part of town.  Similarly, I wouldn't be so stupid as to walk down a predominantly black part of town - especially a poorer section - wearing a sandwich sign like the guy above.  He may be exercising his First Amendment rights, but the odds are, he's going to get his ass kicked.  Maybe worse.

So no, I NEVER suggested that any woman was asking for it based upon the way she was dressed, but I strongly assert that BASED UPON your mode of dress, you attract certain personality types.  It's no different than an experienced angler using a specific kind of bait to attract a specific kind of fish.

Look…let's cut the crap and be honest about why people go out in public the way they do.  For women (some women), the whole point of dressing sexy is to be the center of attention.  And not just because it fills a childhood void left by their father's neglect (although it can do that).  When it comes right down to it, women can be craven little toads just like men.  They want their needs met to the fullest extent, some of which - such as adoring adoration - require the participation of other people.  And getting that requires some kind of leverage.

But often, men are just collateral damage.  Women dress up (anything from tasteful and classic to full-on provocative) because they know men aren't the only ones who will notice.  When it comes to getting attention, women can be some competitive bitches.

Women display their assets prominently for the same reason men leave their car keys out on the bar - to flaunt them.  To be fair, men do the same kind of preening.  Like when a man tools up to valet parking in a Ferrari.  He's not doing it because he's going racing after dinner.  One of the reasons he's driving that car to make other guys look like pathetic Honda Accord-driving losers.  It's pure Darwinism - except with cars.

People do specific things to get attention and sometimes it ends up being not the kind of attention you had hoped for.

So, if my (former) contact is reading this, you just keep on avoiding admitting to the fact that some women dress in a trashy fashion intentionally….that past a certain point (between the Amish and strippers) one's appearance becomes undeniably provocative…and that depending on the situation, a woman may or may not be putting herself at risk regarding unwanted attention and harassment.  And keep right on shaming fathers for daring to exercise their parental rights by suggesting that their daughter's appearance is in some way inappropriate. As my son said,"I'd rather be known as a hard-ass father than the one whose daughter was found dead in a ditch."

You keep on hobnobbing with your little rabid feminist mutual-admiration society.  I don't need to deal with that kind of thing.

"Personal Expression" and Priorities

While present-day corporate dress code policies are all over the map, from "liberal" to "rigid," Forbes business magazine suggests that,"…most HR managers conceded that all things being equal, they will hire the more clean-cut employee."  In fact, piercings are the top physical attribute that may limit an employee's career potential - 37%, followed by bad breath - 34%, and visible tattoos - 31%. (from a 2011 CareerBuilder poll of 3,000 managers)

With the millennial generation making up about 40% of the unemployed, and with a tight job market, young students may want to reconsider their priorities regarding personal expression.  What's more important?  A large gauge septum ring or getting a job that pays more than making fries at McD's?

In a recent Harris poll, 27% of the respondents without tattoos said that folks with tattoos are "less intelligent," (ouch) and 50% said they're more rebellious.

There a lot of grumbling and gnashing of teeth on the internet these days about the importance and liberation of "personal expression," and just like with any other human endeavor/interest, there are those who understand that less is more and those for whom nothing but excess will suffice.  Like, if one is cool, man…10 is rad.

For the record, I was your average rebellious teenager when I graduated high school in 1967, the year Jimi Hendrix released his debut album,"Are You Experienced."  In the song,"If 6 was 9," he sang one of his iconic lyrics,"…let your freak flag fly."  Up to this point in time, the whole concept of teen popularity and acceptance centered around conformity.  To wit, if you were to be considered cool, you shopped at the same clothing stores as the "cool" kids.  But Hendrix was really the musical/cultural vanguard for freaky individuality.  Now, "cool" kids all attempted to be as different from one another as possible.

Make no mistake, conformity was still a powerful factor for expression, appearance and fashion, but a whole new market exploded for those wanting to appear unique.  That market has flourished and grown to this day, ushering in an increase in tattoo and piercing "parlors," and the whole hipster movement has become the epitome of understated egoism.  Just about everyone has seen jokes and cartoons depicting a bearded young man in a plaid wool shirt, tight jeans with the cuffs turned up and work boots, who laments that his favorite band has just gone mainstream.

But back to the 60's.  When I was performing onstage, I was doing my best to fly every freak flag I had, but when I went to present myself to a club owner or a talent agent, I put on clean dress pants, a freshly-ironed shirt and I didn't talk…like…you know…a teenager.  At that time, there were hundreds of bands out there looking for work; hundreds of lightweight, would-be rock stars that only knew three chords and how to turn the amplifier knob up to 11.  There was a market for those low-talent lightweights, to be sure, but consistently, I got more work and better-paying work because I put forth an image of an artist who was not just serious about his art, but smart enough to act like a professional businessperson.  Think of it as being a repairman or mechanic.  If you've only got a hammer and pliers in your toolbox, you're not going to be able to do much work…or get people to take you seriously as a pro.

Ask yourself this:  do you want your interviewer to remember how smart and capable you are - or do you want him/her to remember your tongue?

As Diane Gottsman - president and executive recruiter of Ally Resource Group - put it,"If it's a distraction, it's an issue.  It's just like wearing two different colored shoes."

On gender, feminism, etc.

This will be a rather stream of consciousness piece; not because I'm too lazy to compose a proper essay, but I'm really strapped for time right now.  There are a few things I want to say and I'd like to get them in print (text) while I've got the chance.

OK, for starters, let me just state the obvious: I think women should get equal pay for equal work.  A no brainer.  Why anyone would have an issue with this is beyond my comprehension.  And women should be able to work any job for which they're capable.  The basic rule/criteria in the working world is can you do the job?  Do you have the necessary skills, health, coordination, etc. to do the job.  If not, you don't get the job. If a woman wants to be in law enforcement, fire fighting or the military, they should be given the chance, if they meet the criteria.  It has nothing to do with gender.  Besides, there are plenty of men who also might not be able to meet the criteria/demands.

Appearance?  I think you should have the courage to dress and behave in whatever manner you feel most fits/reflects your lifestyle, your personality, your sexuality.  If you're a woman and don't like pink frilly things, then wear something else.  Wear bib overalls if you like.  But at least be fully cognizant of who you are and why you are dressing/behaving the way you do.  If you just want to dress to be comfortable, then for god's sake, be comfortable.  But if your appearance is more a manner of making a statement, then at least be cognizant and genuine about what that is.  Example:  for a lot of teenagers, appearance is not just self-expression or group acceptance, it involves a sense of rebellion.  Let's be honest about that.  Whatever it is, they're rebelling against something, whether that thing is real and concrete or just in their own minds. Certainly things like mohawks, neon-colored hair, tattoos and piercings fall into that category.  In short, as the song by Hall & Oates said,"Do what you want, but be who you are." 

OK, now regarding men (which includes boors, pigs, misogynists and other assorted jerks).  There are a lot of jerks out there.  Let me tell ya.  I worked with many of them for 40 years.  They were enough to almost make me ashamed that I was of the male gender. There are a lot of men with some pretty twisted, repressive and unimaginative ideas of what they should be and what women should be.  I don't think these guys are fully developed human beings.  I'm surprised that some of them have actually evolved to have opposing thumbs. I think that their lives are just somewhat narrow in scope; they need to have things simplified.  They cannot imagine themselves (or women) in non-stereotypical roles.

One guy I knew…the only thing you'd hear him talk about was hunting.  It didn't matter what, as long as he had some kind of animal to stalk and kill.  And I'm not against hunting.  I used to do it when I was younger.  And then I developed other interests.  It was not my sole reason for existence.  So, I'm not saying this particular individual was a bad guy.  He'd help you out if you needed something. But otherwise, he was really kind of one-dimensional.  He knew who he was and he was comfortable with it.

And on the other side of the gender scale, I knew women who were apparently quite content to be feminine, or if you prefer, to wear dresses, do their hair, do their makeup, etc.  And they knew how to do other things.  They had other skills besides cooking and housekeeping.  Some knew how to hunt, some how to fish, some how to work on cars and had mechanical skills, but when they weren't doing that, they were perfectly happy to maintain a softer appearance.  Again, do what you want but be who you are.

But I start to get a rash on my behind when I feel like I'm taking the heat for all the stupid guys out there.  The same way I get irritated at people like Ricky Gervais or Richard Dawkins, who are just blatantly arrogant about their atheism, to the point of having to ridicule religion in general.  There are a LOT of people in this world who are not deserving of their ridicule.  Plain, ordinary, unassuming folks who aren't hurting anyone, annoying anyone, or denying anyone else their rights (i.e. Kim Davis).  People just trying to get through Life without banging their shins on the coffee table.  People who find a little bit of comfort in scripture.

Yes, there are real and legitimate feminist issues out there.  I don't happen to believe that the diatribe about pink or blue toys or boy's and girl's toys happens to be at the top of the list. 

If you want to be angry about something, then be specific about it.  Direct it at an individual person, or if appropriate, an entire corporation if you think the ad their running is particularly insulting or offensive.

I get a little tired of hearing men this or men that, just like I'd get weary of going out to listen to a comedian who only told jokes about women drivers.

I don't know how long it will take for us (the U.S., anyway) to achieve full (or sufficient) gender equality.  Obviously, we're not doing that well with racial equality or sexual equality (same sex). 

I'm not saying there aren't things worth complaining about.

Let me put it this way:  I once performed in this great country band.  Oh, man, were they talented people.  I wasn't personally that woo-hoo about country music, but it was a joy to perform with such (musically) professional people and the money was pretty good, too.   BUT….two of the women in the band were married to guys that…shall we say…were a little lower on the evolutionary tree of Life.  I met these guys.  They were rather Neanderthal.  But when the band would go out to do a gig and break time rolled around, and you just wanted to unwind for 15 minutes and have a drink….what did I have to listen to?  "My husband this….my husband that….men….men…men…"   And I just had to walk outside to get away from it.  Normally, with a band that tight you'd want to hang with your comrades on break time, but sweet Jesus…..I couldn't take the pissing and moaning.  And I'm not saying that these women didn't have something to cry about, but it just got old.  They were like the guy I worked with who could only talk about hunting.

So, I'm not anti-feminist.  No way.  No how.  I just tend to get a little sunburned now and then from some of the feminist heat.

Music - Yesterday and Today

Ideally, each generation produces its own "great" performers, but I have to seriously ask, who are the so-called "greats" of present day music?  I've been listening, appreciating, performing, writing and recording music for over 50 years.  As a child, I was exposed to the "greats" of the 40s - the big bands and vocalists like Sinatra.  I was heavily influenced by just about all of the music of the 50s.  I began an actual career before the 60s.  Obviously, the 70s gave us a cornucopia of performers - instrumentalists and vocalists.  The 80s produced some gigantic talents.  And then, I began to feel that with the 90s things were starting to get a little thin.  If the 90s were a beer, it would be Miller Lite.

Fast forward to the present day and I'm just not seeing the level of talent - performing or song writing - that I've seen in the past, and this has nothing to do loving the performers of my generation or being stuck in the past.  I've always appreciated a wide variety of music; from big bands, blues, rock, folk, jazz.  I will agree that there are a few people from the last decade I appreciate, even if I don't really enjoy their music as a whole.  Even though I haven't purchased any Dave Mathews albums, I have to admire his level of creativity.  He's trying to create his own sound and I'd have to say he's succeeded at it.

But the question remains, who are the "greats" of the present generation?

I'm also quite aware that marketing plays a big part in the whole picture.  To really be on top of the charts and playing the big venues, you have to have a good agent.  But on the flip side of that, an agent also needs to have someone with actual talent.  Not that you can't sell something that's of poor quality.  Of course you can and it's happened many times in my life.  But ideally, you start with a huge talent and a good agent.  That's a recipe for success.

I'm just not seeing that level of talent or commitment in a lot of present-day performers.  It's said that Chet Atkins would fall asleep in his chair with a guitar in his hands.  That speaks volumes.  By the time Eddie Van Halen hit the big time, I wasn't specifically into their music, but again, I did admire the level of ability and creativity it took to make that happen.  Speaking as an accomplished guitarist, you simply do not fake a Van Halen guitar solo.  Men like Clapton, Santana and Les Paul all created their own individual signature sounds.

One of the things I love about cable TV is that I can watch a variety of live music events (live or recorded).  It's almost as good as being there, and sometimes, even better, in terms of the sound quality and camera angles.  So, when I check out something like Coachella or Bonnaroo, I have to squint, cock my head and go….this….this is talent?  People are paying money to see/hear this??

Even though I wasn't specifically into much of the heavy metal/death metal bands, I had to admire some of the talent; like James Hetfield and Kirk Hammett.  Again, you don't fake that kind of stuff.  Well, you can but the difference is obvious.

One of the more talented, interesting, unique modern-day groups I've seen/heard is Alabama Shakes.  Singer/guitarist Brittany Howard just puts it out there.  This is creative, bold blues.  The difference between Alabama Shakes and most of the groups I saw on the previous-mentioned festivals is like a Thanksgiving dinner and a picture of a Thanksgiving dinner.  One has a mountain of flavors, the other, nothing.

Otherwise, I really don't see/hear anybody following in the footsteps of performers like in the above photo montage.

So, tell me…who are some of the greats of this generation of musicians and performers.  Whom am I overlooking that deserves the credit and recognition of some the aforementioned performers?

Leonard Pitts, Jr. on the "Party of Trump"

Leonard Pitts, Jr. - Miami Herald

"Somehow, the party of Teddy Roosevelt, Gerald Ford and Bush the elder has become the party of secession talk, revolution talk and vigilantes harassing children on the Southern border, the party of the 'war on whites,' 'the war on Christmas,' tea parties and birthers, the party of anti-science, anti-history and fear that the U.S. military is, right this moment, preparing for the invasion of Texas.  In a word, the party of crazy.

Small wonder it is also the party of Trump.

We should take no solace in the fact that Trump will eventually fall from his lofty perch.  Rather, we should wonder what it says about the GOP that he was up there in the first place."

Anyone with mature intelligence and logic literally reels at all the nonsense and insanity.  But what really boggles the mind is those who DON'T see it - or worse - refuse to acknowledge it.  That's the scary part.

Here's a wonderful video by Monty Python's John Cleese about how people can be so stupid, they don't know how stupid they are:

http://geekologie.com/2014/12/john-cleese-explains-why-stupid-people-a.php

Work, Work, Work

Bush lll wants Americans to work more hours, but doesn't want to pay them overtime.

Huh?  What?  How the f*k does THAT work, J.B.??

And how about a little fact check, here buddy?  Americans work more than anyone else in the industrialized world!  More than the British, the French, Germans, Norwegians, and even - lately - the Japanese!!  We take LESS vacation and even retire later.  Check out this chart:

How much more blood, sweat and tears do you need, Bush?

And for a lot of hard-working Americans, more work leads to more stress.  Without time to unwind, take care of your home, spend time with loved ones, enjoy our hobbies, connect with friends, we're hardly engaged in the pursuit of happiness.

It doesn't take much intelligence to understand that - for most of us - you can have either a lot of money or a lot of time, but you can't have both.  So, most of us struggle to maintain whatever balance we can.

And if you don't already know, let me dispel this old myth for you:  quality time.
There is no such thing.  You might think you can make up for lost family time by taking everyone to the water park, but you're just fooling yourself.  There are only good times and no times.  You can't buy time.  If you've neglected your spouse and family because you thought it was more noble to put in countless hours at work, that's your choice, but time passes more quickly than you imagine.  When we're young, we think we've got endless time, but when you've reached 50 or 60, you realize that most of your time is now behind you.  So, you choose how you want to spend what you've been given.

While I certainly haven't worked as many hours as some people, my running average during my career was just over 50 a week; alternating between 48 and 53.  So, I definitely was never slacking.

I'm not suggesting that you're a bad person if you choose to work more; I just get a bit pissed when pompous, rich frat boys like the Bush brothers - who were born INTO wealth - run off at the mouth about how the rest of us need to buckle-down more. 

House members worked only 113 days last year, at a base salary of $174K each!  

What the f*k, J.B.!?!?