Red Mosquito

it's pretty much the Ralph Nader of music videos.

dimejinky99 wrote:

B wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:So B writes all the RM blogs?

That explains a lot.

My name appears on everything I post.

I was referring to the fact that nobody bothers reading the main page and even at that its a safe hope that if Stip wrote all those posts, people would. if he doesn't, mores the pity.

Well, shit. That's just mean.

Some people are being assholes and enjoying it, it seems

Heathen wrote:

stip wrote:MYM is more general social/political commentary in the vein of DTE or Grievance rather than the specific stuff targeting Bush that you'd find on Riot Act and S/T. It's condemning the United States for sure (which would imply a shot at Obama, since he is president), but not Obama by name. Maybe it's because he doesn't want to harm obama (lets see what's said on tour this year, if anything), but Obama has been challenging to the psychology of the mainstream left. It was easy to assume that everything the left hated during the Bush years was because of Bush, and so blaming Bush makes sense. Get rid of bush, fix the problem. But if the same problems survive across two presidencies headed by two seemingly very different people than they become far more structural in nature, and so railing about a president kind of misses the point. What Obama taught a lot of people is that while who is president certainly matters, the issue runs into the core of how America functions.

If you ever get bored of teaching, I think you have a great future as a spin doctor.

Always in demand in the field of Ballooning.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:MYM is more general social/political commentary in the vein of DTE or Grievance rather than the specific stuff targeting Bush that you'd find on Riot Act and S/T. It's condemning the United States for sure (which would imply a shot at Obama, since he is president), but not Obama by name. Maybe it's because he doesn't want to harm obama (lets see what's said on tour this year, if anything), but Obama has been challenging to the psychology of the mainstream left. It was easy to assume that everything the left hated during the Bush years was because of Bush, and so blaming Bush makes sense. Get rid of bush, fix the problem. But if the same problems survive across two presidencies headed by two seemingly very different people than they become far more structural in nature, and so railing about a president kind of misses the point. What Obama taught a lot of people is that while who is president certainly matters, the issue runs into the core of how America functions.

I do like your interpretations of the music. But, I think you need to be honest with yourself. You're not Eddie Vedder. Neither am I. My take is that this is a song about speaking up when there's something wrong.

Eddie has paid up and is now 100% vested in Obama. He knows this. He won't dare challenge him and I'm pretty sure you know that too. In this sense, I disagree with your full take on the song - my point is: if this song is about speaking up when something's wrong... how about DOING THAT? I mean the opportunity is staring at him in the face. Or does he really think Obama is infallible? If so, he's the exactly like those blind Bush supporters he loathed.

you seem pretty rock solid confident about his motives though. Two things

1--not every piece of art can be about everything. Even on an album like Riot Act there was Bushleaguer (quite specific) and there was Green Disease (very general)

2--Eddie may very well love everything about Obama. We don't know. But Eddie raised money for Obama's reelection campaign. I know many many many people who are tepid about obama but loathed romney (and more generally the reaction conservatives who would be driving the party). Raising money to stop one does not imply unconditional support of the other.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote: like I said, it's not about Obama. I also don't think Obama is a terrible president (although he's bad on some issues). Obama's presidency speaks in a lot of ways to the limits of the presidency.

It's also not just a video about war. It's a video about collapse, and not doing anything about it.

No, Obama is a terrible president.

Oh, I didn't realize. Thank you for clarifying.

IlluminEddie wrote: Obama's presidency has been held afloat, barely, by money printing. Let's see what happens when QE-to-infinity stops, if they raise rates, watch out below. Anyway, I find issue with your final statement, if it's a song about collapse and not doing anything about it... why is debt not discussed? Fair enough, Ed doesn't care about debt and has very little econ knowledge. How about privacy then? Or better yet, let's just stick with war? What about Obama's use of drones, Ed?

There was a shot of the printing press in the video. I think Eddie's target in that video is war and environmental collapse, not fiscal policy. I, perhaps like Eddie, would also rank QE pretty far down on the list of challenges facing this nation. And certainly debt. And obviously Eddie cannot come close to mastering the economic knowledge I'm sure you've amassed reading blogs on the internet, given your slick use of QE-to-infinity.

But again, this is a 2:30 second song. Not a 400 page treatise. You kinda have to pick your targets. Not everything can be about everything.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote: Oh sure, and he definitely wanted Obama to win. But you are implying that he is therefore someone who loves everything he does, and one does not follow from the other.

What does follow is this.... Voting for someone is showing support. Vocalizing support shows stronger support. Giving money and time to elect someone shows a ton of support. Giving money and time and NOT saying a word about any area in which you disagree with the candidate "implies that he supports mostly everything he does". He's never said anything for which he's disagreed. And he's been quite vocal, so that's odd.

When campaigning for someone it is generally an effective strategy to not badmouth them. If I was speaking about Obama in a classroom I'd say different things, far more nuanced and critical than if I was introducing him at a fundraiser or investing time and money into ensuring that Romney does not get elected.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:This goes far beyond this thread, but a vote for a green (in Obama's case) IS the same thing as a vote for Romney. That's a problem, obviously, but no less true. As a nader voter in 2000 I can speak from experience.

No, a vote for one candidate is not a vote for another candidate. That's simply false. Don't get me wrong - I understand your point is on preferences, but I'd respond... staying home (no vote) is not a vote for the alternative.

Yes, it is. It empowers the alternative. Had Nader not run in 2000 Al Gore wins. The lesser of two evils, perhaps, but probably significantly lesser.

You seem to be upset by the fact that politics is messy and that the clean bright lines we like to draw when moralizing don't easily apply there. The decision to vote, not vote, how you vote, how you engage politics more broadly, has consequences. The fact that following your conscience can lead to sup optimal real world consequences is unfortunate, but no less true for being unfortunate.

I pretty much get : God/Religion might save your soul but God/Religion isn't going to save the planet. Do something.

I feel both the song and video are pretty far removed from any specific agenda or policy.

I absolutely hate the argument that Nader cost Gore the election. First, it's one of a number of factors. If the Democrats in Florida who voted for Bush didn't cross party lines then Gore would have won, so why isn't it their fault? Also, it's false to assume that all the Nader votes would have gone to Gore anyway. I'm sure many of them wouldn't have gone to anyone.

Also, weren't the recounts continuously pushing the tally closer to Gore's favor when the Supreme Court stepped in and halted it?

stip wrote:I think Eddie's target in that video is war and environmental collapse, not fiscal policy.

There actually seems to be more environmental imagery in this video than anything else.

It's a phylosopical video that addresses concepts in general rather than naming any actual names. War - bad, pollution - bad, religios delusion - bad.
Some could argue it turns it into an empty rhetoric, but I'm on the bright side and will call it conscience raising.

had to break that up in two. sorry

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:what about it?

It's a corporation. Doesn't Ed loath corporations? Isn't he for small business? When did Pearl Jam start caring about efficiency? It's lol'able.

I am not sure how often I heard the word small business coming out of his mic. Let me check and see if my local better business bureau has him listed as a speaker. Most of the rants seemed to be about corporate POWER. We live in a world where most everything is controlled by corporations and large scale organizations. It’s hard to avoid them.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:I've talked about this ad infinitum on this board and the old one, but someone has to release your records, and when your boycott fails and one venue controls access to the places you want to play it is not hypocrisy to understand that you have to deal, and instead try and make deals on your own terms.

No, it's very much hypocrisy given what he's lectured on in the past.

Hypocrisy is not simply failing to practice what you preach. Hypocrisy is profiting by deceiving others--pretending to be something that you are not. But semantics aside, there is another word for when you said something in the past and then, in response to evidence and experience, change your position to account for what you've learned. And it's not hypocrisy.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:excuse me?

Romney was a borderline Democrat. He was not very conservative. That was his issue in the primary.

I'm not sure you know what a democrat is.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:yes, clearly taking shots at organized religion is something they've never done before, and would alienate the demographics this song is clearly otherwise trying to reach.

Well, the song's lyrics "seem" to talk about religion... I mean what's the line about "vows" about?

actually, that line seems to be a shot at religion, but the song is reaching for a larger point.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:there are lots of democrats who are unfortunately silent on this stuff (although that is changing) just like there were far too many conservative libertarian types who kept their mouth shut during Bush. It's tough because criticizing your guy also empowers the enemy.

What makes you so sure Eddie is a Democrat. I voted for obama (I know you don't care) and I'm not a registered democrat. I often vote against democrats in local elections if there is a viable candidate further to the left..

The problem is the cheerleading. The problem is the let's get "your guy" in there. The problem is the special interests associated. The problem is this "game" mentality that people view politics as. Let me put my Left sticker on. Let me put my Right sticker on and root for the team. The problem is no one has any idea what monetary policy even is. They have limited understanding of fiscal policy... and yet, the major irony is thier lack of understanding is 100% rational. there's no reason for them to study up when their likelihood of influence is about .00001%.

that's what an election is. The problem with democracy is when it starts and stops with elections.

I'll leave your Ron Paul newsletter alone, but you'll find a sympathetic audience for this stuff in N+D.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:And something to keep in mind is that democrats do not necessarily equal the left. There is plenty of left wing criticism of the national security state out there. it just doesn't come from establishment democrats.

It's terribly weak. A hushed silence. This songs about breaking out of that, at least lyrically... or maybe it's just about doing that when it fits Ed's agenda. Hmmm... if so, hypocrisy does seem apt.

Look, I said this earlier, but this is a song that is working in broad generalities. In fact, these types of protest songs tend to work better when they are slightly vague and not going after dated targets. And Eddie was writing them even when he was going after Bush.

At the very least it started an energetic debate, and that's a good thing

The only thing this video needed was some Boom animation!!!

I'm trying to figure out which group is more delusional; those who think Lightning Bolt is going to be a double album full of lengthy space rock pieces, or those who think it's going to be packed with anti-Obama rhetoric.

Am I alone in being reminded of the Otherside video by RHCP? The stop motion parts have a similar feel to them, no?

Lament wrote:I'm trying to figure out which group is more delusional; those who think Lightning Bolt is going to be a double album full of lengthy space rock pieces, or those who think it's going to be packed with anti-Obama rhetoric.

How much difference does it maaaaaaake?

Reminds me more of "the raven who refused to sing" by Steven Wilson. That's a a+ song/ video combo.

stip wrote:I'll leave your Ron Paul newsletter alone

Sometimes you're my favorite, stip. I hope you take that as the compliment it's meant to be.

ItsOkay wrote:Overall I like the feel of the video and makes me more excited for the album. I'm just surprised by the dated references to the "pending" American apocalypse sung about: Vienam-style armies, atomic bombs, nuclear power plant. I guess it seems in line with the rest of the video: the PSA announcement, the old-school TV.

But why the references to images from the 30-60 years ago?

Wouldn't the aggression and frustration with the current make-up/direction of America in MYM be better accomplished with more current images?
-instead of bombs dropping drones flying
-the Statue of Liberty with eyes looking over the people (NSA-style) instead of gas-mask on.
-images of rampant unemployment
-or something else

Maybe I've just grown tired of the cliched enemies, or enemies portrayed in cliches: war, oil, money.

they are archetypal images at this point which is probably why they were used. That or being lazy. Your point is still a good one. As far as the unemployment stuff goes, like I said elsewhere not every song can be about everything. S/T split WWS and Unemployable up into two songs. Binaural had Insignificance and Sleight of Hand.

I think the larger concerns in this one were war and environmental collapse, two issues that are easier to tie up into millennial thinking. I saw the gas mask on the Statue of Liberty as a polluted air thing, not a WWI gasing, although again the archetypal image makes it more striking

stip wrote: I've talked about this ad infinitum on this board and the old one, but someone has to release your records, and when your boycott fails and one venue controls access to the places you want to play it is not hypocrisy to understand that you have to deal, and instead try and make deals on your own terms.

In theory they could have bought they way out of their contract with Epic and play to 117 people audiences in some local clubs. However i think that would have been moronic.

Also Epic and later Sony music, J Records that distributed s/t included, are a far bigger corporations than Target.