The Most Comprehensive Review of the GOP Debates That Will Never Be Read or Published

(Warning: This is only a rant. It contains no useful information whatsoever. Using this to inform your political opinion will only make you an equal target of scorn. Proceed with caution.)

Alright. I’ve now watched the last two GOP debates and I’m not really sure what I’m supposed to be feeling. This isn’t a Republican discussion of Republicans because they’re the only choice. But Obama’s the incumbent and there’s no Democrat debates to dissect and get sick thinking about, so I’ll just have to settle for one. First of all, I’m fucking sick of it. The whole debate charade. Here’s an idea. I’ll be the next moderator and the debate will be titled “The No Bullshit Debate,” where I scream “Bullshit!” and a candidate gives up their time for talking absolute shit. I don’t characterize all the political discussion as bullshit, though most of it is. I’m talking about the BULLSHIT that is completely irrelevant. A few examples.

Rick Perry (when asked about faith): Look, I can’t separate myself from my faith any more than I can separate from the fact that my father was a tenant farmer…

BULLSHIT! Next candidate. Shut up, Rick Perry.

Michelle Bachmann (when asked about Occupy Wall Street): Y’know, I’m a mother of 9,000 children and I…

BULLSHIT! Next candidate. Shut up, Michelle Bachmann.

Those are just the highlights from tonight. Most candidates fall into this category, I just don’t have the time or patience to come up with more examples. I don’t like Mitt Romney, but at least he handles himself with some dignity, at least compared to Rick Perry. I have MAJOR suspicions about Herman Cain, but aside from his apple and oranges bullshit, he handles himself pretty well. I do like Ron Paul, but I know he can be a little extreme for some people. At least he handles his unfairly small amount of time well and gets his message across the best he can. Honestly, I might just not do a “No Bullshit” debate and just have those three debate and tell everyone else to fuck off. Were you expecting analysis in this ironically titled blog? Professionalism? Well, too bad. I don’t know how Anderson Cooper didn’t leave that stage a murderer. It’s ridiculous. And all those bullshit responses are getting APPLAUSE. Meaning that not only do people not have a problem with them, they are supporting it. They’re buying it. Look, if we want to even pretend to be an educated voting populace, statements like that tenant farmer bullshit from Rick Perry should simply not be tolerated. I can watch a debate, like the ones between Obama and McCain in 2008, for example, where two people are debating that I do not support or agree with in most matters. But if that debate tells me something or holds a semblance of an informative stance, I’ll tolerate it; I’ll even pay attention. But I’m sick of all this posturing, pretending to stand for something that isn’t anything different. What’s the point? If someone like Ron Paul can’t get time to explain some different ideas, but Michelle Bachmann can talk about her 28 foster kids who aren’t allowed to be gay, what is the goddamn point? Just put them in a room with 3 guns and 6 bullets randomly dispersed. It’ll handle itself. I’m not suggesting murder, but if the whole process is going to be idiotic and arbitrary, why not make it extreme and bloody as well? The results will be the same. A random choice made by uneducated blind luck. The scary part about that is: a) someone might just take me seriously and do it, and b) Rick Perry would almost certainly come out on top because, let’s be honest, he’s probably killed someone before.

When Do Principles Become Failed Dreams?

I’ve just found myself in celebration of my 27^th birthday, somehow suggesting that I might be significantly older or at least under expectations to take on more responsibility. I’ve done that as well lately. I’ve had to truly take responsibility for my own life and decisions I’ve made well into adulthood. I’ve paid some prices for these decisions and I’ve put some of the debt on layaway, hoping to work it off in slow, sometimes painful, increments. After years spent as an acknowledging but still-in-denial drug addict, I’m learning to make the kind of acknowledgements that actually mean something. I’m learning to do what I’ve always expected of everyone else; be a god-damn responsible adult. And with that late blooming, I’ve reexamined many parts of my life that might otherwise remain undisturbed if I weren’t so hell-bent on overthinking everything all of the time. But I am, and so, I do. Which brings me back to the title, or rather, finally to the title after the always annoying and confusing intro-tangent. I could apply the title to many different aspects of my internal life, and I just may go back and re-title this “When Do Principles Become Failed Dreams: Part 1,” but for now, I’ll focus on my political and ideological standing in this nation of ours.

So let’s start with the title itself, outside of the title conflict, but only as a posed interrogative: when do our principles become failed dreams? We’ve all had both, often going hand-in-hand as we stand by crying and screaming in utter futility, proof that our knack for red-faced temper tantrums never leaves us. Just as with that sugary cereal or movie on after our bedtime, our pleas for those dreams to come true fall upon deaf ears. And I find myself on a strange fence between fist-beating futility and my desire to “grow the fuck up”. I’ve always considered myself to be defined politically by the specific beliefs I hold. Somewhere, sort of, between a constitutionalist and libertarian, I truly believe that our role as human beings is to look after ourselves and our own and keep our fist away from others’ noses and our noses out of others’ affairs. Anarchy certainly fits in there somewhere, but being born in 1984, a dream for the peaceful realization of that ideology has never been even a whisp of reality in my world. But perhaps I’m not applying that exact same realistic expectation to my own beliefs. After all, how is one able to even define their beliefs with recognized labels anymore? Republicans certainly don’t value a true conservatism anymore; if anyone clutched to their chest any hope after Nixon, Bush certainly dealt the fatal blow. Anything else is simply relabeling and deep-seeded denial. It’s difficult to walk away from that label, from the belief that an elected group represents the core beliefs you hold so dear. Partisanship and bi-partisanship has become increasingly limited to semantics, rather than labels of partnership and spirited debate.

So where do the chips fall for the outsiders? I’m not making any mind-blowing revelations about the two major parties in American politics, but since I’ve been of voting age, I’ve touted the necessity of the third party, the expansion of power to shake up the stagnancy and laziness of our political landscape. And I still believe that. But how long do I stand outside sound-proof glass and continue to scream? I’m not the only one, not by a long shot, and many have been doing it far longer than I’ve been alive. Are they unrealistic? In denial? Or is there hope for the fringe? I’ve come to two conclusions that are briefly holding up for me as I write this, however, all that may change as early as tomorrow. First, what’s the other choice? Giving up. Apathy. I’m certainly not going to be a “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em” joiner. Out of the question. So the other choice is saying, “Who cares? If I can’t make a difference on my terms, I’ll just let the whole damn thing go down.” Aside from the inherent self overestimation in that statement, because the whole damn thing is going down with or without my permission, it’s actually being a joiner after all. Sure, maybe that path wouldn’t lead me to a Republican or Democrat label on my chest, but it still got me to the same place that I have to have something on my chest if I want to be of any worth. I have to find that label, be it Libertarian or Conservative or Anarchist or whatever. Well, fuck that. Conservative has ceased to fully embody my core beliefs, Libertarian (at least with a capital “L,” which can become an exhausting distinction to make in conversation) aligns me with a party that nominated a former furious anti-medical marijuana, pro-war on drugs lobbyist as their presidential candidate, and I’ve already discussed the futility of being an Anarchist, although that one might just carry the most unfamiliar whimsy for a time where a peaceful realization of anarchy just may have been possible. So the realization is that standing beside my core beliefs without searching for a matching label, or even a small group of people that may agree with them, is simply my only choice. And that’s alright. Which leads me to a second realization.

Well, not really a realization. I know that paragraph break brought with it all sorts of anticipatory forward leans, bated breath, but it’s true. Just an old adage revealing its wisdom to me on my own terms. There is no revolution without violence. Or as Che famously, regretfully, admitted, a revolution without guns would just never work. This doesn’t just apply to radical outsiders or a suppressed opposition to a brutal stranglehold by government powers. It applies to us long-winded, literary, argumentative revolutionaries, blindly dedicated to our cause of convincing just enough people through dinner-parties, casual bar conversation, and blog-writing that the tide will suddenly shift, and the wave of dogma we’re fighting will break and roll away. But that won’t happen.

There’s a million of us, working at our own small projects endlessly in isolation. This doesn’t just apply to liberty-minded, small-government, pro-education anti-liberal liberals like myself, but to the red-blooded, patriotic American socialists, hippie commune and biker gang and isolationist anarchists, and everything that falls through the giant cracks that separate us all. We’re everywhere and equally as hard to label as our beliefs are different. But we all believe in one thing: that the current system, this runaway machine, is broken. That those who are supposed to represent our beliefs or their beliefs or just fucking something need to be held responsible. That the level of debate be raised while we lower the level of hostility. That we believe in material prosperity while believing in spiritual and intellectual prosperity as well. That the country starts thinking about how to fix our own colossal cluster-fucks at home before installing even more colossal cluster-fucks all over the globe. That someone answer the question of why a large portion of our skyrocketing debt is just assumed as being necessary because “Defense” is somehow defined as the spending of billions around the globe. In an extremely difficult to define nutshell, we all want a country that is worth all the belief we have in it, even if it doesn’t fit each of our own definitions of a perfect society. I can live with that. And anything is possible, as we have seen in North Africa recently; they didn’t need the might of the American military to overthrow the governments that had overstayed their welcome. They didn’t need UN intervention to realize their vision (well, it helped grease the wheels in Libya, but something tells me that it was going to happen, with or without the UN and Obama’s brief posturings). But it also proved what we fringe American idealists fear, but never want to admit. We’re either going to have to pick up a gun or face the barrel of one if we ever want to see the change we believe in. That theory may have been proven wrong before, but if there’s anything turning 27 in a world of neo-imperialism has taught me, it’s that days like that are far gone or in some yet unrecognizable future. So the question I’m left asking myself is, if not me, who? If not now, when? If those two questions are answered for me while I sit around pondering them, as is my nature, will I at least have the conviction to stand up behind that “who” when it happens, and bear arms or face them to be the change I keep saying is so necessary. And I don’t have any of those answers just yet, because I’m thinking it through, being honest with myself, and, although it’s really difficult, trying to be a god-damn adult.

So... About Iraq And Afghanistan? (And Maybe Pakistan, too?)

            Admittedly, I've quickly lost aim in exactly what this blog has meant to be about. But this is relevant to me, to us, to our culture, and I felt it was worth posting. This is by no means meant to be some heavily researched, expert opinion, only one man's two-cents. And hopefully, just hopefully, some of it rings true to those of you who read it.

             Lately, it seems difficult to get any news about our continued presence and activities in Iraq and Afghanistan. Short of finding a good, up-to-date site with an RSS feed, staying on top of the news coming out of these countries is difficult, to say the least. I just had to do a few differently-worded Google searches to find a relevant site or two that had news from within the last month. These wars, particularly Afghanistan, represent some of the longest American military engagements of the last century. Both of them, with Iraq recently “celebrating” its 8^th anniversary since our Shock and Awe campaign on Baghdad, have now surpassed twice the length of time we spent involved in World War II. Twice as long. As WORLD fucking War II. And according to a New York Times article, one of the most recent I found with actual good information, referred to Obama’s declaration on August 31, 2010 that American combat operations were over in Iraq, despite our continued presence there. Despite finding this particularly informative article, I’ve still had some trouble clarifying what this declaration actually means. Active operations? Perhaps. Which would make sense, even with the continued presence there, which could be one of security, training Iraqi military forces, cleaning up 8 years of involvement and still figuring out the logistics of removing ourselves entirely from the country. But with all those explanations, which admittedly do make sense in some regard, I still find myself a bit confused.

            It’s become painfully easy for Americans to let our presence in Iraq (and especially Afghanistan, the original war that has still yet to become the buzz word that “Iraq” had from the beginning) slip from the collective consciousness. Sure, it’s still brought up and discussed from time-to-time, but its presence in the news has certainly petered out, some of which is legitimate as news of current, dramatic instability in the region (North Africa, the Middle East) has dominated that area of media coverage. But the fact remains, with Real Housewives and Jersey Shore and Teen Pregnancy shows filling up the hundreds of channels available to cable television viewers, it’s become a task to find this information that should be constantly available. In fact, I’d wager that even with the insane variety of outlets and sources of news information, these wars are the ones the general public has become the most unaware of as they grow older, at least in the age of television, and the irony in that is that we don’t have four to eight stations to reference, but literally tens to hundreds, not even mentioning the inconceivable vastness of the internet. And just because I’m writing about this observation now hardly makes me any less guilty.

            So, I suppose, the question becomes why? Why has the coverage dropped off so much? IED attacks are still occurring. Osama bin Laden is now dead, but what of the terrorist camps that supposedly existed in Iraq and certainly existed in Afghanistan? As far as I’m concerned, as long as we have a military presence there, news should still be readily available about what exactly is happening on the ground. Now I’m not saying I perfected my news search in any way or that I’ve previously found the perfect sites to stay on top of this. In fact, I’m saying the opposite. I’m saying that shouldn’t be necessary. We’re talking about two fairly large-scale wars that have been ongoing for a decade and nearly a decade respectively. And somehow, Americans as a whole (and this is a very large generalization) have found it fairly accessible to let these wars move from their focus to their periphery to out of sight entirely. I posted a comment on my Facebook page that started quite the mini social networking scuffle the night all the news about Osama bin Laden’s confirmed kill was released. The quote seemed to say I didn’t care at all that he was dead, which isn’t true but not entirely untrue; instead, my quote was responding to the sudden tsunami of news about it, as if it had been even discussed in some relative amount of time. Speaking in front-page news terms, bin Laden had been off the map for some time. People had forgotten about it. Not about him, of course; 9/11 was the largest military/paramilitary/terrorist event on our soil and has become a firm part of American consciousness, and that includes bin Laden. But all of the sudden, it was filling up every news channel, time-slot after time-slot, as if we had all been following the progress. But we hadn’t. And that’s the thing about all this that irks me so much.

            We’re a country of headline chasers when it comes to news. Osama bin Laden, the headline of all headlines this past decade, of course catches our attention, and suddenly, everyone’s plugged in, competing in water-cooler conversations about who knew what when, about who said they knew he was in Pakistan all along, about this and that. And I’m not some exception to the rule, making all these comments from the outside as someone above all this. I have my TV shows that I watch. I have my stupid time-wasting sites that I visit regularly. It’s a virus that no one, generally speaking once again, is immune to, because it has become a part of our culture just like 9/11, although in very different ways. Whether you supported it fully or marched in opposition to it, Vietnam had a social relevance (on both sides) during its years of existence. World War II is still recognized for the “war effort,” where people rationed, factories began producing war products instead of their usual commodities. But this war (in its extended form to include all parts and countries) has developed its own legacy, and that’s one of selective interest. But it has little to do with the nature of the war; perhaps the somewhat indefinite “War on Terror” has played a part, less simple to nail down than a war fought in an Asian jungle or in a European or Asian theater, but that’s not really why. If Vietnam were occurring today, I feel it would be the same thing (minus the draft, of course; that’ll grab some attention). I would feel uncomfortable going quite so far as to include World War II, as the stakes and involvement were so much higher than anything else in the past century, including WWI. The war itself has little relevance to the general public anymore, which is what brought me to my troublesome, seemingly innocuous Facebook posting that fateful night. The interest in this war is one of symbolism.

            Osama bin Laden was a symbol. Am I saying that he was of no importance? That we should not have allocated resources to finding/killing him? That to write him off as just another two-bit terrorist would not have been a mistake? No, I’m not saying any of those things or anything like it. After all, I don’t think he was ever in line to strap on a vest and detonate on a bus. He was integral to the system. All we really knew was that he was a/the leader in Al Qaeda and that he/Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for 9/11. And that’s probably true. Sure, anyone can get on the web and be tangled in a web of conspiracy theories, some more complete than others, some even reasonably convincing, but most likely, those claims were all true and warranted. But we had no proof. We knew someone was behind it, someone who stood for and did the same things as these men, so Osama became the symbol. And just the same, killing him became a symbol for closure; closure for New Yorkers, for those mourning the men and women killed on 9/11, for all Americans, and especially for those in our military who risked their lives, watched friends die, lived and fought under extremely precarious situations. And it was the thought that I had disrespected that closure as seemingly unimportant or less important than something else that made me rethink my own comments; after all, closure in this type of manner is significant and important. I know what it means at the very least to men who served as Marines, as many of my own friends have or are doing currently, and I’ve spoken to them about it. And I can imagine what it means to a New York family who lost a father and husband in those attacks, although I don’t have that personal connection. But for the rest of us, it’s another time to tune in, a highlight, not even a reminder of everything else going on, but just a symbol of some kind of victory, which I suppose it is, especially in light of the previous sentences. But that doesn’t let us off the hook. My comment, the details of which are mundane and not worth getting into, were seen as disrespectful, but in fact, I believe it is the people dancing, shooting off fireworks, yelling in front of the White House that are the disrespectful ones. Their passion was so great in this one incident that, perhaps unfairly but probably accurately, shows that they spend most of the time not caring much about the actual details. People who are suddenly experts on how “bad-ass” the Navy SEAL team that carried out the mission was are probably those who would sooner watch a YouTube video on incredible SEAL sniper shots and training exercises than read an article about provincial delicacies our military has dealt with in the very much still tribal regions of Afghanistan, or a report on the difficulties in RoE (Rules of Engagement) against an enemy that fights and hides within the civilian populace. It’s sensationalism, pure and simple, just as the coverage on the death of Osama was, which began this little rant that has turned into quite a collection of words.

            The point is, really, that I have no point in all this. I don’t have any direct “shame on you” target, or even that sentiment. I’m simply bringing up an observation I’ve made these past few years that has been dramatically brought up recently in the most dramatic of fashions. The ultimate symbol since we captured and executed Saddam. The symbol of the gigantic “Mission Accomplished” banner draped across the deck of the aircraft carrier visited by President Bush. In a war brimming with technicalities, difficulties, confusions, international complications and consequences, the focus has rather become one of sound-bytes and photo-ops. Why was there such an outcry for the photos of Osama’s dead body? Sure, there were people out there who wanted to see it for “proof,” although it would’ve brought up just as many doubts about photo editing and the like, and thus defeated the one reasonable purpose. Sensationalism. Morbid curiosity. Citizens are suddenly aware of what IED stands for without wondering why they’re aware of it; because it’s a new type of warfare that are killing young men sent over to serve in these wars. It’s passé because it’s in every arduous news article released about the war, it’s no longer eye-catching. So to return to the beginning of this paragraph, this entire, quite long, piece really has no focus except an observation. Going back to closure, I realized from my own faux pas that I had perhaps underestimated the importance and effect of that in the recent killing of Osama bin Laden, which was a mistake. In fact, it was most likely the only tangible effect that came out of the mission, the only true importance provided by that symbolism. The danger, and I do use that word fairly lightly, of the hype of all this is that, as Osama’s name had been made synonymous with the beginning of the War on Terror, the symbolism of his death coupled with the, speaking vaguely and generally once again, ignorance of all the other elements of the past 10 years of military action may have actually ignited such an uproar at the announcement because some believed it implied the end of the war. Regardless of what level of personal or political or any other importance one places on the completed Osama mission, this couldn’t be further from the truth. America, as well as its allies though at a lower level of involvement, is now ensnared in something far bigger than one man, or even one group, or even one ideology. It is ensnared in the current state of and, subsequently, ultimate fate of an entire region. And to wrap all this up as best I can, which is a difficult task in itself, I only wish there were some way that the effectiveness of all this sensationalism could find a way to encompass that and refocus the energy that was so apparent outside the White House gates a couple weeks ago. My belief and optimism in that, however, is not overwhelming, and if I had some sort of solution, this article may actually be of some importance rather than the rambling of someone both aware and guilty of the same crimes Americans have indulged in with the help of the media in the past decade. But then again, little optimism had remained about finding and disposing of bin Laden, so perhaps now is the time for optimism if there ever were one. I’ll try, as we all should, to take some comfort in that.

Blue Blood's Stephen Sowan/Brian Whelan @ BuzzBands TuesdayNights

  I'm going to keep this site current. Although Stephen Sowan's band Blue Blood (of which Brian Whelan also plays bass in) just had a show supporting last week's Alberta Cross residency show which was a fantastic show, considering it was only their second LA (and true) show, it happened before the birth of this blog. So a mention is enough, but anyone at that show would and should be willing to attest to how great it was. Although Alberta Cross beat them out in volume, and are a great band as well (we're all friends with frontman Petter Stakee), in my definitely biased opinion (Sowan is my roommate and we've known each other since about age 5), Blue Blood was the band of the night, playing an array of tunes, mostly originals, despite closing with the nearly unknown "Grey Riders" by Neil Young, a cover arrangement that does justice if not competes with the original. It's a cover nearly everyone interested in the band would've heard on their upcoming record until recently when, scandalously to the foursome, Neil announced it would be released on some sort of retrospective due out (I believe) in January.

  This was meant to be a much shorter mention, but it really was a great show, and I'll have little chance to post more about the band playing live for a month or two, as their split-residence between Austin (Ricky Ray Jackson - Guitar and Falcon Valdez - Drums) and Los Angeles (Stephen Sowan - Guitar/Vocals and Brian Whelan - Bass) makes LA shows a bit difficult. But to wrap up a pseudo-short mention in an altogether post, it was a great show, and I can't recommend enough everyone's attendance at the next event that will be widely and emphatically promoted. Should be in June, keep an eye out. Or just follow this blog because all the info will be right here! Ok, more about Tuesday night and the true reason for this post.

"Diamonds on the Lake" by Walker Griffy

This is the first story I am choosing to post on my blog. I hope that you all find it interesting and take something away from it. There is plenty to finish on this particular version, but I feel pretty good about where it is and just wanted to test out getting my own work up on the site and see the results. Thank you in advance for the time you'll put in to read my words, and hopefully I can manage to give something back to you.

Typical Intorductory Post

I have started an absurd number of random, often pointless personal blogs over the years. They've never really had a point, whether it be random travel that turned into a place to post stories. Or a daily/multi-daily blog that just had random events and responses posted there. Faux-movie reviews as a resource for job applications. A blog following my experience through my MFA program. All of these have been abandoned. This blog is not meant to join this list. I am going to use this blog for many things, first of all my own work. Perhaps a photo every now and then, but mostly excerpts of or full copies of short stories I am working on or currently submitting for publication. I am also going to use this blog as a means to help other fellow artists in Los Angeles, and perhaps around the country, by reviewing albums, exhibitions, providing interviews, links to sites, whatever it may be. If for any reason you see this blog grow into something that may actually affect people and reach them in some manner, or you're just willing to be a part of it, contact me at the info provided and I will be more than happy to work on something to feature on the site.