Red Mosquito

harmless wrote:Anyway, boring.

Its not boring at all. The guy has a point. Why is this boring? i dont get it.

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:Anyway, boring.

Its not boring at all. The guy has a point. Why is this boring? i dont get it.

Is it possible that you just don't like my posts anymore? I criticise Pearl Jam's new album and I'm boring. I criticise somebody ripping the shreds out of new Pearl Jam and I'm boring.

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:Anyway, boring.

Its not boring at all. The guy has a point. Why is this boring? i dont get it.

Is it possible that you just don't like my posts anymore? I criticise Pearl Jam's new album and I'm boring. I criticise somebody ripping the shreds out of new Pearl Jam and I'm boring.

I fucking love you. Keep that in mind.

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:Anyway, boring.

Its not boring at all. The guy has a point. Why is this boring? i dont get it.

Is it possible that you just don't like my posts anymore? I criticise Pearl Jam's new album and I'm boring. I criticise somebody ripping the shreds out of new Pearl Jam and I'm boring.

I fucking love you. Keep that in mind.

I know that, sweetie. I'm just confused about when IlluminEddie's whining about modern-day PJ got more interesting than my whining about modern-day PJ.

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:Anyway, boring.

Its not boring at all. The guy has a point. Why is this boring? i dont get it.

Is it possible that you just don't like my posts anymore? I criticise Pearl Jam's new album and I'm boring. I criticise somebody ripping the shreds out of new Pearl Jam and I'm boring.

I fucking love you. Keep that in mind.

I know that, sweetie. I'm just confused about when IlluminEddie's whining about modern-day PJ got more interesting than my whining about modern-day PJ.

It might have to do with the ongoing bashing of IlluminEddie views here. I feel the guy has a point and he gets trash because its a new poster.

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:Anyway, boring.

Its not boring at all. The guy has a point. Why is this boring? i dont get it.

Is it possible that you just don't like my posts anymore? I criticise Pearl Jam's new album and I'm boring. I criticise somebody ripping the shreds out of new Pearl Jam and I'm boring.

I fucking love you. Keep that in mind.

I know that, sweetie. I'm just confused about when IlluminEddie's whining about modern-day PJ got more interesting than my whining about modern-day PJ.

It might have to do with the ongoing bashing of IlluminEddie views here. I feel the guy has a point and he gets trash because its a new poster.

I'm a relatively old poster and I still get trash from you Some people just find their groove and stay there.

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:Anyway, boring.

Its not boring at all. The guy has a point. Why is this boring? i dont get it.

Is it possible that you just don't like my posts anymore? I criticise Pearl Jam's new album and I'm boring. I criticise somebody ripping the shreds out of new Pearl Jam and I'm boring.

I fucking love you. Keep that in mind.

I know that, sweetie. I'm just confused about when IlluminEddie's whining about modern-day PJ got more interesting than my whining about modern-day PJ.

It might have to do with the ongoing bashing of IlluminEddie views here. I feel the guy has a point and he gets trash because its a new poster.

I'm a relatively old poster and I still get trash from you Some people just find their groove and stay there.

I guess. Anyway, how is life?

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:Anyway, boring.

Its not boring at all. The guy has a point. Why is this boring? i dont get it.

Is it possible that you just don't like my posts anymore? I criticise Pearl Jam's new album and I'm boring. I criticise somebody ripping the shreds out of new Pearl Jam and I'm boring.

I fucking love you. Keep that in mind.

I know that, sweetie. I'm just confused about when IlluminEddie's whining about modern-day PJ got more interesting than my whining about modern-day PJ.

It might have to do with the ongoing bashing of IlluminEddie views here. I feel the guy has a point and he gets trash because its a new poster.

I'm a relatively old poster and I still get trash from you Some people just find their groove and stay there.

I guess. Anyway, how is life?

Things are not bad externally. Internally they are pretty fucked, but hey ho. How's you?

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:

VinylGuy wrote:

harmless wrote:Anyway, boring.

Its not boring at all. The guy has a point. Why is this boring? i dont get it.

Is it possible that you just don't like my posts anymore? I criticise Pearl Jam's new album and I'm boring. I criticise somebody ripping the shreds out of new Pearl Jam and I'm boring.

I fucking love you. Keep that in mind.

I know that, sweetie. I'm just confused about when IlluminEddie's whining about modern-day PJ got more interesting than my whining about modern-day PJ.

It might have to do with the ongoing bashing of IlluminEddie views here. I feel the guy has a point and he gets trash because its a new poster.

I'm a relatively old poster and I still get trash from you Some people just find their groove and stay there.

I guess. Anyway, how is life?

Things are not bad externally. Internally they are pretty fucked, but hey ho. How's you?

weird man, weird...im good i guess...

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:Most people on the serious/populist left don't like being democrats. But we sure do despise the alternative.

Hate to remind you of this, stip, but Ed's not a politician. He's a rock singer.

He can be "democrat" or "serious/populist left" and vocally disagree with the President on an issue.

stip wrote:And politics is about responding to and shaping reality. Moralizing is about the consistent principled stand. It's not a question of giving a shit or not. Clearly he cares. He played a fundraiser for Obama. But (not knowing, just reading the general temperament of people who share eds politics back onto him) I suspect that had less to do with love for Obama than the realization that everything he doesn't like, and then some, will be 10fold worse with the other guys.

So, the NSA scandal would be 10 fold worse with the other guys? Seriously? It got worse under Obama. How would you know it would be "worser" under Romney or someone else? You don't.

You and I both know, Ed's doing a disservice to all the political rhetoric and soapbox style preaching he's done for years by not at least acknowledging Obama's faults there on that single issue. Ed's silence on singular issues, the likes of which he would have been outspoken on if a R was in the white house, is deafening.

stip wrote:We have ideological parties. For a person with political principles the alternative is almost always too horrible to contemplate.

Once again, Ed's not a politician. He's not running for anything. He can be Democrat or Socialist or whatever and vocally disagree with a Democratic administration on A SINGULAR issue. Particularly, one's that are touched on in his very lyrical catalog (Grievance). You act like every human is running for office and therefore can't disagree with party line. Most aren't, Ed's not. People can label themselves R or D or whatever, but disagree with the R stance here or D stance there. It's called not being a sheep.

Does Ed's lack of voice today really matter? No. It doesn't. I'd prefer he write non-political songs anyway. Yet, for his own legacy, his muted approach (with the guy he likes today, Barry O) seems hypocritical due to his outspoken approach (about the guy beforehand, Mr. Bush). Bush sucked and sure, there was plenty to pick on. But, Obama sucks too. And, yes, there's plenty to pick on. Anyone trying to pretend there's vast differences in the output from the two is seriously delusional. Yet, my point all along is sure, everyone's entitled to a preference. Yet, let's atleast be real about issues that fall in line with party ideology (privacy) and yet are being broken by the commander of that party (NSA). It's not like it's in the Democratic party platform that "we should spy on both citizens and non-citizens". Hollywood hates it. Grievance says Ed hates the idea back in the Binaural era. Why doesn't current day Ed?

The problem is that, in a hyper partisan climate, rightly attacking the president on NSA issues undermines general support for him on other issues, which means, for many people (not for everyone) there is a need to balance your desire to criticize against the harm it would do to your other causes.

What Ed did/has done is pretty common. Since criticizing these issues now would potentially undermine support for other fights where he probably supports Obama he's instead just focusing on other issues. Ed never signed a contract saying there is only one/issue cause you are allowed to harp on.

You are totally right--if it was a republican in power right now he might be all over this. Attacking on a particular issue damages the overall brand. This is a good thing when you hate the people in power, and challenging when you don't.

But having said all that, your issue seems to primarily be that Eddie didn't call Obama out on an issue that he'd likely make a big deal out of if it was a Republican. That's likely true. But downplaying his political critiques makes him inconsistent (as most people are), not hypocritical. He becomes hypocritical if he starts to defend NSA spying or saying that the issue doesn't matter.

I'm going to regret that post

IlluminEddie seems to be able to draw a pretty clear distinction between writing about politics (which I guess it what Ed was doing before) and writing about religion (which Illum seems to think Ed is doing now). I don't really think Ed is making that differentiation, nor should he. Getaway and MYM may be about the religious influence in politics, but they're still political songs; they're much more in line with the political songs he was writing before Bushleaguer and the like.

digster wrote:IlluminEddie seems to be able to draw a pretty clear distinction between writing about politics (which I guess it what Ed was doing before) and writing about religion (which Illum seems to think Ed is doing now). I don't really think Ed is making that differentiation, nor should he. Getaway and MYM may be about the religious influence in politics, but they're still political songs; they're much more in line with the political songs he was writing before Bushleaguer and the like.

Good post.

But he is right about something, Ed is standing right there in Obama´s camp. He is not vocal about pretty much nothing he is been doing, like...i dont know, the war that almost happened recently. He is choosing to shut up about certain issues.
Thats ok with me, but i can see how someone could be upset with that.

digster wrote:IlluminEddie seems to be able to draw a pretty clear distinction between writing about politics (which I guess it what Ed was doing before) and writing about religion (which Illum seems to think Ed is doing now). I don't really think Ed is making that differentiation, nor should he. Getaway and MYM may be about the religious influence in politics, but they're still political songs; they're much more in line with the political songs he was writing before Bushleaguer and the like.

MYM and Grievance give me very similar mental imagery

stip wrote:
The problem is that, in a hyper partisan climate, rightly attacking the president on NSA issues undermines general support for him on other issues, which means, for many people (not for everyone) there is a need to balance your desire to criticize against the harm it would do to your other causes.

Before going any further, ever since I remember it's been the "most polarized" ever or hyper partisan... it's such a joke. It's always divided - reason - we have a two party system. It's not rocket science.

But, anyway, once again, you're assuming Ed has no independent mind whatsoever or assuming his point of view matters in some broad sense in impacting elections. In other words, he HAS to follow party line (even when party line is breaking party platform). He can't possibly contradict the Democratic Party line even when the very policy in question goes against the Democratic Party platform itself? Aren't Democrats for privacy rights? Even Democrats Senators are outwardly and openly disgusted by this NSA issue. They seem capable of speaking their minds on the issue, yet still showing support for the President and their party.

stip wrote: What Ed did/has done is pretty common. Since criticizing these issues now would potentially undermine support for other fights where he probably supports Obama he's instead just focusing on other issues. Ed never signed a contract saying there is only one/issue cause you are allowed to harp on.

What other issues is he focusing on? Gun control is the only direct political issue I can think of he's spoken about recently.

I'd say what Ed did (for Ed himself and his past) is not common, and I suppose that's why it bothers me. Ed has rallied against issues during every single administration except -> this one. During Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr... he had political issues that didn't please him and spoke outwardly about them. Now, he's mute, even on issues where you and I both know he most likely doesn't like deep down.

That, right there, that he doesn't like it deep down (see Grievance) and is still going mute (when he's been so outspoken in the past), is what bothers someone like me.

I didn't always agree with Ed, but I at least thought he wasn't a political dolt waving a "D" flag.

stip wrote: You are totally right--if it was a republican in power right now he might be all over this. Attacking on a particular issue damages the overall brand. This is a good thing when you hate the people in power, and challenging when you don't.

See, you and I disagree about him a bit here. You seem to think he should blindly support a party and never question singular issues of that party. Why? It's stupid. An individual has more likely to die on the way to the polls than affect the outcome of a national election. Ed might have broader pull, but not much.

To me, this is exactly what I call the game and why I use references like pompoms and sweaters with Ds and Rs on them. People, seemingly like yourself, see this as a game, and the "good" side needs to win. It's not real issues. To me, there's never really a "good" side. It's not a fucking game. The NSA thing is pretty easy because it's not really grey, it's either right or wrong. You either agree or disagree with it. It's pretty black and white. You seem to really believe that people's opinions matter so much on "singular" issues, that they can't disagree with party line on said single issue vocally, because it could undermine the party. I completely disagree. First, Ed doesn't matter that much in dictating election results, so what's there to worry about? Second, he's disagreed with singular issues in the past on both sides of the aisle (under every other Presiden I can think of)... so the unquestioned approach, on display, recently, is actually very, very new.

stip wrote: But having said all that, your issue seems to primarily be that Eddie didn't call Obama out on an issue that he'd likely make a big deal out of if it was a Republican. That's likely true. But downplaying his political critiques makes him inconsistent (as most people are), not hypocritical. He becomes hypocritical if he starts to defend NSA spying or saying that the issue doesn't matter.

No, it's hypocritical because he's always questioned every President on singular issues in the past. He's also spoken on the importance of having a political voice and standing up for what one believes. He seemed to hate people who drapped themselves in the flag and so on. He basically spoke about political ignorance. Now, despite what we know he thinks (see Grievance lyrics and his thoughts on Big Brother), he has remained mute... most likely because he likes the guy in power. That is hypocritical.

I'll leave you with this:

"I remember when you sang that song about today, now it's tomorrow and everything has changed".

Seemingly fits Ed just as much as Bush, in fact, Ed actually literally did that. He sang a song (Grievance) about today... and now, his silence on the issue is deafening... it's ridiculously ironic... isn't it?

digster wrote:IlluminEddie seems to be able to draw a pretty clear distinction between writing about politics (which I guess it what Ed was doing before) and writing about religion (which Illum seems to think Ed is doing now). I don't really think Ed is making that differentiation, nor should he. Getaway and MYM may be about the religious influence in politics, but they're still political songs; they're much more in line with the political songs he was writing before Bushleaguer and the like.

I disagree. I think Ed knows exactly what he's doing.

To me, Ed always needs a antagonist. Early on it was primarily his family. Soon it was corporations and fame (Vitalogy era). It became Clinton admin, his ex and greed, a bit during Binaural. Riot Act and PJ was Bush and war. With Backspacer, I have no f'ing clue... Now, it's kinda... uhhh... organized religion and God?

Like I said, I like when Ed's not super-political with his lyrics. But, I also like a noble and sincere Ed. I like thinking he really wants a better America, world. NOt just to win a political football game.

On your point, I don't think religion itself is political. In the US we have a separation of the two. When I think of politics, I'm talking government. To me, it's as if, President Obama came in and now we live in utopia, atleast in Ed's lyrics and now just need to think about loved ones, death and organized religion? Seriously?

I mean, it's one thing if the movement from gung ho politics to other issues wasn't so stark. If it was kinda diluted from album to album. But, the ending to direct political (government issues) was so stark from S/T to Backspacer and LB. It's silly to argue otherwise.

I feel Backspacer made sense. Ed wanted to talk about other stuff. Good. Probably why I enjoyed that album. I even think an album on faith is great. I like LB. But, I know from the shows I listened to and the past two albums, something happened where political issues now just don't rise up unless they fall under the umbrella of pro-Obama issues, ie gun control. I feel that people denying this are kinda blind themselves. It's obvious.

Ed wants to deflect attention away from the Commander in Chief. He needed an antagonist. It's clear that the antagonist could NOT be anything that could be pinned back to the Pres. But, he still needed that antagonist that made a ridiculously rich 50 year old rock singer powerless and the protagonist, so we got faith/death/religion stuff...

...it's starting to get predictable and boring though. I wonder what he'll write about when/if a Republican wins in 2016? Hmmm. Do you think the NSA type stuff could magically pop out then?

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote:
The problem is that, in a hyper partisan climate, rightly attacking the president on NSA issues undermines general support for him on other issues, which means, for many people (not for everyone) there is a need to balance your desire to criticize against the harm it would do to your other causes.

Before going any further, ever since I remember it's been the "most polarized" ever or hyper partisan... it's such a joke. It's always divided - reason - we have a two party system. It's not rocket science.

no, it is political science. And you are factually incorrect about this. The fact that we have two parties does not mean they are always the same distance apart from each other, or that the general level of interparty animosity stays the same. This is about as ugly as it has been in many many generations.

IlluminEddie wrote: But, anyway, once again, you're assuming Ed has no independent mind whatsoever or assuming his point of view matters in some broad sense in impacting elections. In other words, he HAS to follow party line (even when party line is breaking party platform). He can't possibly contradict the Democratic Party line even when the very policy in question goes against the Democratic Party platform itself? Aren't Democrats for privacy rights? Even Democrats Senators are outwardly and openly disgusted by this NSA issue. They seem capable of speaking their minds on the issue, yet still showing support for the President and their party.

The point I am making is that launching a public campaign against a public figure can turn the public against that figure, which means whatever issue you take issue with needs to be weighed against that larger fact. It creates a dilemma for people who may be broadly sympathetic to someone (or ferociously opposed to their enemies). Calling them out on one issue undermines them on others. there's no two ways around that.

Democratic Senators cannot easily avoid the issue. If eddie was pinned down I suspect he'd be against it. But maybe it is just easier to talk about something else. I only saw one show this tour. He bitched about wall street, which seemed appropriate enough for NYC. I don't know what he said elsewhere.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote: What Ed did/has done is pretty common. Since criticizing these issues now would potentially undermine support for other fights where he probably supports Obama he's instead just focusing on other issues. Ed never signed a contract saying there is only one/issue cause you are allowed to harp on.

What other issues is he focusing on? Gun control is the only direct political issue I can think of he's spoken about recently.

See above. I've only heard gun control and the shot at bankers. There may be others. Or he may just not be talking much about politics.

IlluminEddie wrote: I'd say what Ed did (for Ed himself and his past) is not common, and I suppose that's why it bothers me. Ed has rallied against issues during every single administration except -> this one. During Bush Sr., Clinton, Bush Jr... he had political issues that didn't please him and spoke outwardly about them. Now, he's mute, even on issues where you and I both know he most likely doesn't like deep down.

What specific political issues outside of abortion was he really vocal about under Clinton? These are open questions, btw. I'm not being defensive about this. Eddie's public pronunciations were never something I followed closely. I listened to a lot of bootlegs from 2000-2006 so I heard a lot of concert ramblings. I don't know much prior or post.

IlluminEddie wrote:

stip wrote: You are totally right--if it was a republican in power right now he might be all over this. Attacking on a particular issue damages the overall brand. This is a good thing when you hate the people in power, and challenging when you don't.

See, you and I disagree about him a bit here. You seem to think he should blindly support a party and never question singular issues of that party. Why? It's stupid. An individual has more likely to die on the way to the polls than affect the outcome of a national election. Ed might have broader pull, but not much.

I don't think Eddie blindly supports the democrats. I think he really really hates republicans which traps you into supporting democrats. It's also completely valid to call out a party even when you are a partisan. People do it all the time. But there are consequences which make you less likely to do it when someone you are sympathetic to is in power.

Regardless during the 2012 election he's going to spend time attacking Republicans, and I don't know what he's done since.

IlluminEddie wrote: To me, this is exactly what I call the game and why I use references like pompoms and sweaters with Ds and Rs on them. People, seemingly like yourself, see this as a game, and the "good" side needs to win.

No, I see it as anything other than a game, and I despise that analogy. that's what makes politics so complicated. But the fact that it is not a game does not change the fact that all individual political issues are situated within a vast and immensely complicated contextual web. Stands do not happen in vacuums. I bet this is something he is particularly sensitive to post 2000.

IlluminEddie wrote:

digster wrote:IlluminEddie seems to be able to draw a pretty clear distinction between writing about politics (which I guess it what Ed was doing before) and writing about religion (which Illum seems to think Ed is doing now). I don't really think Ed is making that differentiation, nor should he. Getaway and MYM may be about the religious influence in politics, but they're still political songs; they're much more in line with the political songs he was writing before Bushleaguer and the like.

I disagree. I think Ed knows exactly what he's doing.

To me, Ed always needs a antagonist. Early on it was primarily his family. Soon it was corporations and fame (Vitalogy era). It became Clinton admin, his ex and greed, a bit during Binaural. Riot Act and PJ was Bush and war. With Backspacer, I have no f'ing clue... Now, it's kinda... uhhh... organized religion and God?

Like I said, I like when Ed's not super-political with his lyrics. But, I also like a noble and sincere Ed. I like thinking he really wants a better America, world. NOt just to win a political football game.

On your point, I don't think religion itself is political. In the US we have a separation of the two. When I think of politics, I'm talking government.

If your understanding of politics is limited to discrete policy pronunciations of particular administrations you might as well just stop talking about it.

And the insane number of anti-abortion bills in state legislatures should make you wonder just how porous that wall between church and state is,

IlluminEddie wrote: I wonder what he'll write about when/if a Republican wins in 2016? Hmmm. Do you think the NSA type stuff could magically pop out then?

almost certainly. Again, understand that going after Obama on the NSA undermines support for him on health care, on gun control, on women's rights, or any other issue. Some 2000 nader supporters are probably hyper aware of that. Maybe this is penance.

I'm still baffled that in the land of the free, it's still believed that a two party system is any better than a one party system. It's worse. In many ways.

a fairly healthy majority of Americans would prefer multiple parties, Dime.