@Sarah Burris Lowe, who asked this morning "Is Facebook trying to push us into something?"
Great question. Though I'd suggest they've already been successfully doing that for a few years now. No one in the world has more sheer dominance over how we act and interact with each other online than Facebook has at the moment. For better or worse, they are the global controller of social networking, making nearly all others that have come before or since insignificant also-rans. The one-time leading MySpace for instance, which at one point in the not too distant past actually had a "value" so ridiculously high that media mogul Rupert Murdoch purchased it for a figure purportedly in the billions, looks, feels and acts like a shabby mess now, more akin to a swap shop or a flea market than a website.
Actually in early 2007 when I was researching the book I was writing at the time, We Are the Revolution: Welcome to the Personal Expression Age, I told everyone around me that I had a hunch that "essentially Facebook, if it keeps up this pace, will become our new desktop, or user interface if you will. It won't just be a website. It'll be the literal backdrop of our entire computing experience." It was at best a hunch, a possibility. But fortunately for them, Mark and company have gone exactly in that direction. I'm actually quite surprised that they had the insight to see the opportunity there; to not just be a favorite online destination, but instead to be the control center of our entire computing experience as mentioned above. With the merging of more streamlined music and video services, and the Facebook "Like" button's rampant spreading all over the Web, in addition to the trend by other online destination sites to replace their own log-in systems with Facebook's log-in, they are acheiving this mass takeover of the internet faster than most of us even imagined they could.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Perry-Palin for President? Don't laugh. It could happen.
Yep. You read it here first. As the paper pushing TV puppets and pundits debate and argue over ad nauseum the question of whether right-wing wacko Sarah Palin is going to eventually announce a run for President of the United States this year, an even more frightening and harrowing possibility may be staring us all in the face: New GOP front-runner Rick Perry, a man who makes the rest of the republican candidates look almost sane and compassionate, may do more than just hire Palin to travel around the hillbilly South campaigning for him; he might just ask her to be his running mate if he wins the nomination. And for as anti-progressive and simple minded as he may seem to some, that may be more likely than many would shudder to think. Over the last thirty years, the Republican Party has changed. A lot. They seem to like cowboys. Or at least men on horses. Starting with Reagan at least.
Thus far Perry has done such an excellent job at seeming the perfectly coiffed and well suited lapdog for this strange breed of radical extremists who've taken over the once noble Republican Party that he's almost gauranteed an Obama re-election. The only problem with that kind of thinking is that most Americans and indeed most of Western Civilization thought the same thing back in the years 2000 and 2004 about another hick with a stick from the great State of Texas, George W. Bush. Putting aside the fact that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election by more than half a million votes by the American people, which was then handed to GW by the US Supreme Court -- an unprecedented event in American history and one that bears no resemblance to a democracy nor a republic, the American people still somehow managed to "officially" elect the man in 2004. So laugh if you will at the idea of Perry for President, but stranger things have happened.
Thus far Perry has done such an excellent job at seeming the perfectly coiffed and well suited lapdog for this strange breed of radical extremists who've taken over the once noble Republican Party that he's almost gauranteed an Obama re-election. The only problem with that kind of thinking is that most Americans and indeed most of Western Civilization thought the same thing back in the years 2000 and 2004 about another hick with a stick from the great State of Texas, George W. Bush. Putting aside the fact that Al Gore actually won the 2000 election by more than half a million votes by the American people, which was then handed to GW by the US Supreme Court -- an unprecedented event in American history and one that bears no resemblance to a democracy nor a republic, the American people still somehow managed to "officially" elect the man in 2004. So laugh if you will at the idea of Perry for President, but stranger things have happened.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
The Music Never Stopped
Watching this great movie called THE MUSIC NEVER STOPPED featuring music by Dylan and The Dead. Good movie. Such good music. Bring it all back home for me in such a big way. I miss the Dead so much and those times. Those very very special times... Def a movie worth seeing btw. does a damn good job illustrating the connective and healing powers of music.
Wednesday, September 14, 2011
Transcendent Man?
Take what we learned about the IBM designed super computer WATSON this year, machine leaning, AI or Artificial Inteligence, combine it with equal parts Kurzweil's SINGULARITY IS NEAR theories and one cannot help but be intrigued, if not downright excited about what the future is going to look like, regarding that specific paradigm at least.
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Where Were You on September 11th 2001?
 |
| Ed Hale studying at a language school in San Jose Costa Rica |
Throughout the Summer of 2001 I was living in San Jose Costa Rica. Having been advised that if "The Ambassador" wanted to perfect his Spanish to semi-fluency, as I had done with several other foreign languages previously, that I would need full immersion, I would need to live somewhere where Spanish was the native tongue. Word on the street was that the two best countries to learn Spanish "accent free" were Colombia or Costa Rica. (Colombia as it turns out, I would explore later). But I didn't know that then. I chose Costa Rica over Colombia primarily due to the civil and governmental unrest in Colombia at the time compared to the placid laid back atmosphere that was promised in Costa Rica.
And they were right. From the moment you get off the plane in San Jose you can feel it. The police officers in Costa Rica appear and feel more like Tour Guides. Costa Rica has no standing army. If they need help militarily they call on the United States. Gambling and other such vices are perfectly legal, though not often spoken of. The people are warm and friendly, welcoming. Not quite Brasilian mind you, but what is? A cab took me to my new school and standing outside the school there on a street corner was a young smiling Costa Rican holding a sign on a long pole that said "Bienvenido Senor Ed Hale." This was going to be a good summer.
Friday, September 09, 2011
Cool New Finds: Brian Houston & Hillsong TV
Recently discovered a pastor by the name of Brian Houston. Yes he heads up what some refer to as "one of those mega-churches" -- in fact from what I gather he's got two or three of them, Australia, London, New York and even Johanesberg. But he's got a cool vibe. Hip sincere not cocky or preachy. Very un-evangelical, which for me personally is always usually a deal breaker, any religion or religious leaders who are too evangelical or preachy or literal fundamenalist or dogmatic. Just not my thing. One of the reasons why this week's Rebublican Candidate Debates felt so terrifying. The whole damn lot of them appear to be in some sort of contest with one another to determine which is the most fundamentist far right conservative Christian. And though I personally choose to actively practice the Christian faith tradition, as an American I think that's something that needs to stay S far away from government as possible. These bible thumpin gun slingin cowboys and aliens who've taken over the once prestigious Republican party are so far removed from what the old GOP used to stand for. It's dificult to recognize good old fashioned Republicanism anywhere in the party. No wonder the US Congress has the lowest approval rating in American history. Just as partisan politics do not belong anywhere near traditional journism, and yet that is precisely what is being pawned off these days as journalism more and more with FOX News and MSNBC leading the pack, so too does religion need to stay as far removed from politics and government as humanly possible. The whole idea of "America the land of the brave and home of the FREE" is that as a country are. Giant melting pot of all sorts, including agnostics and atheists. Hence every single one of us who call ourselves America need to feel safe and secure that our elected officials in government would never consider allowing their oen personal religious beliefs enter into any of their decision making as a leader. It may be one thing to know that a president attends church with his family regularly; I don't see anything wrong with that. But when a president starts claiming publicly that "God told me to invade Iraq..." mission control we've got a problem. Unfortunately it appears that so far that's all the Republican party has been able to dig up for their prospective candidates. And that is one scary prospect.
In the meantime, check out Brian Houston and Hillsong television if that's your thing. Always a good message without being too preachy. Speaking of which, Joel Osteen gave a damn good sermon on Sept 6th if you can find it on YouTube or their website. Joel always finds a way to deliver a positive message without seeming too exclusionary or extreme. It feels good. That's the litmus test isn't it really? If someone is using their own personal religious beliefs to make people feel bad, like Santorum or Bachmsn or the others...the way they want to restrict fellow US citizens' constitutional rights because of their religious beliefs... That just isn't going to feel good to a lot of Americans Nd therefore not oy are they showing that they wouldn't make a good president of such a wide variety of different people all who call themselves America, but they also give a bAd name to those who are also Christian but who recognize how random and subjective one's personal relious beliefs are. There are actually plenty of us. And we're not such abD sort at all. It's a relatively smsll few who give the whole lot of us a bad reputation. And that's too bad.
In the meantime, check out Brian Houston and Hillsong television if that's your thing. Always a good message without being too preachy. Speaking of which, Joel Osteen gave a damn good sermon on Sept 6th if you can find it on YouTube or their website. Joel always finds a way to deliver a positive message without seeming too exclusionary or extreme. It feels good. That's the litmus test isn't it really? If someone is using their own personal religious beliefs to make people feel bad, like Santorum or Bachmsn or the others...the way they want to restrict fellow US citizens' constitutional rights because of their religious beliefs... That just isn't going to feel good to a lot of Americans Nd therefore not oy are they showing that they wouldn't make a good president of such a wide variety of different people all who call themselves America, but they also give a bAd name to those who are also Christian but who recognize how random and subjective one's personal relious beliefs are. There are actually plenty of us. And we're not such abD sort at all. It's a relatively smsll few who give the whole lot of us a bad reputation. And that's too bad.
Friday, September 02, 2011
Recent Finds
Current Read: Death of the Liberal Class by Chris Hedges. By far the most astute intelligent and insightful collection of thoughts of the year. In less than one hour Hedges walks the reader through the last 110 years of American history boldly and honestly and finally a voice manages to rise above the meaningless drivel jamming our airwaves that clearly explains how America fell to the tragic precipice on which it now sits. Disturbing, yes. But for once someone is simply telling the truth without a self invested or corporate agenda. A MUST READ.
Last Screening: Barney's Version. Paul Giamatti and Dustin Hoffman. Need one say more? Put it this way: it's the kind of film that stays with you forever. As if it were real. Yes they both won Golden Globes. But the film itself should have won the Oscar. Hands down one of the best films I've seen in recent memory.
Last Screening: Barney's Version. Paul Giamatti and Dustin Hoffman. Need one say more? Put it this way: it's the kind of film that stays with you forever. As if it were real. Yes they both won Golden Globes. But the film itself should have won the Oscar. Hands down one of the best films I've seen in recent memory.
Monday, June 27, 2011
Gays On Parade
Yesterday New York State passed landmark equal marriage rights for same sex couples legislation. Perhaps not coincidentally smack dab in the middle of Gay Pride Week. I've been watching the colorful and flamboyant festivities of Gay Pride Week each year on the tele since I can remember. The first few years that I saw the parade participants as a very young boy I found the images disturbing and almost frightening. I had never seen men dressed up as women before. And certainly not with full beards and mustaches. As I grew up and learned about the wide diversity of humankind on planet Earth, the purpose behind the flamboyant nature of the annual parade -- awareness to the cause -- began to interest and eventually impress me.
No, dressing up like a clown in drag was not going to get any laws changed and in fact it probably did more to set the movement back than it did to push the equal rights agenda forward. But like many, I appreciated the raw brute force of persistence and resilience that these brave warriors showed the world each year as they gayly paraded down the various Main Streets of the United States. I admired them even more for the courage behind their smiles in the face of a life threatening disease that seemed hell bent on single-handedly destroying them once we started hearing about the terrifying HIV and AIDS diseases when they kept marching. Even more when they continued to march and dance in our Mean Streets in spite of nationally publicized hate crimes such as murder and near fatal beatings began to bear down on them as seems to always happen to a minority group of humans just before the last of the ignorant among us give in to the greater good; and give way to their higher selves as we collectively evolve to a more loving and caring species.
As heinous as they were, the hate crimes were also a good sign. Though not many knew it at the time. Violent physical acts of bullying and oppression by close minded neanderthals on the weakest among us in number usually precipitate extreme legislative acts in order to protect those who are being oppressed. That trend is usually followed by outspoken calls for equal rights. Call it what you will. The martyrdom syndrome. Sometimes it takes a few hundred or a few thousand Harvey Milks or Matthew Shepards before the rest of us wake up long enough to shout "stop!" And so it is.
Although the United States is still vehemently and violently opposed to homosexuality in general -- especially those who want to get married and enjoy the rights of marriage (go figure) -- it will not be long before this too shall pass and we look back fondly on our bold struggle to rid the world of yet another crop of wicked short-sighted witch-hunters. Lest we ever find ourselves discouraged in this current fight for freedom, let us remember that "being gay" is all the rage now in our media and entertainment, just as "being black" was fifty years ago when we finally passed historic legislation to protect African Americans with the Civil Rights Act. At that time, it was common and accepted to see a black person be pushed, kicked, shoved, punched, hosed, beaten, bruised, or even murdered in plain view for all to see. It may have tugged at our heart strings, some of us that is, but seeing that I wasn't there myself, I just bet the feeling in the air was the usual "well sure it's sad, but we just can't do anything about it..." At the same time though, African American people from all walks of life were busy transforming the world quietly and steadfastly through a variety of art-forms and academic achievements. Unless you were just plain dumb as an ox and had your head half up the arse of one of your farmyard animals, you couldn't help but notice nor be impressed or awed.
So here we are again with yet another group that has come to eat at our American table. There aren't but a few left who are dumb enough to feel compelled to bitch and moan about it. Frankly I'm usually quite shocked when I hear someone who under normal circumstances I admire or think intelligent spit out some half-cocked rationale for why they believe same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married or enjoy the same rights as anyone else. And yes I must admit I do lose more than a fair share of respect for that person. One just cannot help it. The rationale is usually religious based and therefore has no right in our governance as a country. Occasionally they instead opt to reason that their views are based purely on "the definition of marriage" in the dictionary. One assumes they just don't realize how moot a point that is considering that for thousands of years that same dictionary told us that the Earth was flat and was at the center of the universe. We even imprisoned people for believing otherwise. But dictionaries change; because humankind changes. So let's stop the dictionary rationale. It's old and tired and just doesn't apply.
I've toiled over this subject for years, and written far too many pages about it, attempting to understand the mind of the few among us who sincerely believe that it is somehow inherently wrong or "sinful" for a person to follow their natural instinct when it comes to which sex they are most attracted to. Their claim is not just stupefying, but also appears alarmingly dim-witted due to the fact that the basis of their belief is that we human beings deliberately choose which sex we are most attracted to at some point in our early childhood. A mind boggling concept because one would think that all they need do is sit back for a few seconds and reflect on the first time they ever felt "attraction" to another person and the argument would be over. I bet ten times out of ten any average gay hating heterosexual would tell you that from the day they were born they just liked the opposite sex. Probably can replay in their mind the first crush they ever had if asked. It wasn't anything they had to think about or decide on. It wasn't a choice for them. Or me. Or you. Or any of us. (there are of course exceptions to this... for all of us... deliberate deviation from "our norm" out of boredom trauma or curiosity, but that isn't the group that's being targeted)
So how can they stigmatize others with this irrational belief that they are choosing to be that way when they do not and cannot apply that same belief to themselves? Next time you meet one of these types ask them to reflect on their very first crush, when just looking at the opposite sex made their heart beat faster, and then ask them to explain to you how and why they decided to feel that way. That's when the fun begins. Watch the eyes. Listen for the stuttering to begin. They've got no clue how to answer. Because it is not something they can explain. It was a natural feeling inside that they just never even bothered to pay attention to because they had no reason to.
But alas before we venture too far down that slippery slope let us remind ourselves that in the end that argument isn't even relevant to the issue at hand. Even if it were a choice, just a flat out rebellious fuck you I'm sick of being like everyone else act of t/reason, what is the problem with someone choosing who they are attracted to and want to marry as long as they don't break any laws or hurt anyone? That's the real issue. There is no justifiable cause for us to ban ourselves from choosing which sex we want to mate with unless we are on the verge of extinction and to do so would mean the end of us all. OK fine. And yes I am sure they'd make the sacrifice and screw a few of the opposite sex if it meant keeping the human race alive and running rampant all over the world. But since we don't have that problem, and in fact many of these same haters are also population control proponents (which makes NO sense), there's just no argument there. The only reason they ARE breaking any laws is because the laws need to be changed; just as our dictionaries need to be.
If you listen carefully, every single cause reason or rationale that comes out of their mouth is fear based ignorance. And I remain as always completely surprised and just a wee bit pissed that there is still media that doesn't just erupt into laughter when they start ranting about the incredibly horrific things that are going to happen to "society" if same sex couples were allowed to marry. If it were me, and it has been a few times, I would just excuse myself so I didn't laugh directly in their face just out of respect for their right to free speech. God only knows what they're truly frightened of. Some of them claim that they don't want their kids to see Jim and John together instead of Jim and Jan. Why? Are their kids going to then become gay? Are they that close themselves to turning? Maybe. But chances are it's something much deeper. More akin to when they said that people of color were not fully human in order to enforce their bigotry laws and restrictions. Or when they said that women weren't intelligent enough or emotionally neutral enough to be able to vote in presidential elections. This was fear mongering out of a deep strong human urge to dominate; and a desire to keep separate that which is different from what we are familiar with. Plain and simple.
But of course as we now know from our struggles to create equal rights for women, labor, and African Americans, the tide will soon quickly shift towards the positive now that the worst is over. New York has stepped up. As Hawaii and Vermont and Massachusetts have already. More will follow. The Southern States will be last as always. Hey don't shoot the messenger. If the shoe fits, wear it or get different feet. But don't blame us for telling it like it is. In the meantime perhaps those who are still on the other side and just can't see their way through all their fire and brimstone fear and hatred sat down and reflected on what the true definition of "marriage" actually is... loyalty commitment partnership and fidelity to another person for the entirety of the rest of one's natural born life, then they'd begin to realize that "the sex" of that other person isn't nearly as important as meeting the challenge to stay true to these deeper core values of what a good marriage is really all about.
Can I get an amen?
No, dressing up like a clown in drag was not going to get any laws changed and in fact it probably did more to set the movement back than it did to push the equal rights agenda forward. But like many, I appreciated the raw brute force of persistence and resilience that these brave warriors showed the world each year as they gayly paraded down the various Main Streets of the United States. I admired them even more for the courage behind their smiles in the face of a life threatening disease that seemed hell bent on single-handedly destroying them once we started hearing about the terrifying HIV and AIDS diseases when they kept marching. Even more when they continued to march and dance in our Mean Streets in spite of nationally publicized hate crimes such as murder and near fatal beatings began to bear down on them as seems to always happen to a minority group of humans just before the last of the ignorant among us give in to the greater good; and give way to their higher selves as we collectively evolve to a more loving and caring species.
As heinous as they were, the hate crimes were also a good sign. Though not many knew it at the time. Violent physical acts of bullying and oppression by close minded neanderthals on the weakest among us in number usually precipitate extreme legislative acts in order to protect those who are being oppressed. That trend is usually followed by outspoken calls for equal rights. Call it what you will. The martyrdom syndrome. Sometimes it takes a few hundred or a few thousand Harvey Milks or Matthew Shepards before the rest of us wake up long enough to shout "stop!" And so it is.
Although the United States is still vehemently and violently opposed to homosexuality in general -- especially those who want to get married and enjoy the rights of marriage (go figure) -- it will not be long before this too shall pass and we look back fondly on our bold struggle to rid the world of yet another crop of wicked short-sighted witch-hunters. Lest we ever find ourselves discouraged in this current fight for freedom, let us remember that "being gay" is all the rage now in our media and entertainment, just as "being black" was fifty years ago when we finally passed historic legislation to protect African Americans with the Civil Rights Act. At that time, it was common and accepted to see a black person be pushed, kicked, shoved, punched, hosed, beaten, bruised, or even murdered in plain view for all to see. It may have tugged at our heart strings, some of us that is, but seeing that I wasn't there myself, I just bet the feeling in the air was the usual "well sure it's sad, but we just can't do anything about it..." At the same time though, African American people from all walks of life were busy transforming the world quietly and steadfastly through a variety of art-forms and academic achievements. Unless you were just plain dumb as an ox and had your head half up the arse of one of your farmyard animals, you couldn't help but notice nor be impressed or awed.
So here we are again with yet another group that has come to eat at our American table. There aren't but a few left who are dumb enough to feel compelled to bitch and moan about it. Frankly I'm usually quite shocked when I hear someone who under normal circumstances I admire or think intelligent spit out some half-cocked rationale for why they believe same-sex couples shouldn't be allowed to get married or enjoy the same rights as anyone else. And yes I must admit I do lose more than a fair share of respect for that person. One just cannot help it. The rationale is usually religious based and therefore has no right in our governance as a country. Occasionally they instead opt to reason that their views are based purely on "the definition of marriage" in the dictionary. One assumes they just don't realize how moot a point that is considering that for thousands of years that same dictionary told us that the Earth was flat and was at the center of the universe. We even imprisoned people for believing otherwise. But dictionaries change; because humankind changes. So let's stop the dictionary rationale. It's old and tired and just doesn't apply.
I've toiled over this subject for years, and written far too many pages about it, attempting to understand the mind of the few among us who sincerely believe that it is somehow inherently wrong or "sinful" for a person to follow their natural instinct when it comes to which sex they are most attracted to. Their claim is not just stupefying, but also appears alarmingly dim-witted due to the fact that the basis of their belief is that we human beings deliberately choose which sex we are most attracted to at some point in our early childhood. A mind boggling concept because one would think that all they need do is sit back for a few seconds and reflect on the first time they ever felt "attraction" to another person and the argument would be over. I bet ten times out of ten any average gay hating heterosexual would tell you that from the day they were born they just liked the opposite sex. Probably can replay in their mind the first crush they ever had if asked. It wasn't anything they had to think about or decide on. It wasn't a choice for them. Or me. Or you. Or any of us. (there are of course exceptions to this... for all of us... deliberate deviation from "our norm" out of boredom trauma or curiosity, but that isn't the group that's being targeted)
So how can they stigmatize others with this irrational belief that they are choosing to be that way when they do not and cannot apply that same belief to themselves? Next time you meet one of these types ask them to reflect on their very first crush, when just looking at the opposite sex made their heart beat faster, and then ask them to explain to you how and why they decided to feel that way. That's when the fun begins. Watch the eyes. Listen for the stuttering to begin. They've got no clue how to answer. Because it is not something they can explain. It was a natural feeling inside that they just never even bothered to pay attention to because they had no reason to.
But alas before we venture too far down that slippery slope let us remind ourselves that in the end that argument isn't even relevant to the issue at hand. Even if it were a choice, just a flat out rebellious fuck you I'm sick of being like everyone else act of t/reason, what is the problem with someone choosing who they are attracted to and want to marry as long as they don't break any laws or hurt anyone? That's the real issue. There is no justifiable cause for us to ban ourselves from choosing which sex we want to mate with unless we are on the verge of extinction and to do so would mean the end of us all. OK fine. And yes I am sure they'd make the sacrifice and screw a few of the opposite sex if it meant keeping the human race alive and running rampant all over the world. But since we don't have that problem, and in fact many of these same haters are also population control proponents (which makes NO sense), there's just no argument there. The only reason they ARE breaking any laws is because the laws need to be changed; just as our dictionaries need to be.
If you listen carefully, every single cause reason or rationale that comes out of their mouth is fear based ignorance. And I remain as always completely surprised and just a wee bit pissed that there is still media that doesn't just erupt into laughter when they start ranting about the incredibly horrific things that are going to happen to "society" if same sex couples were allowed to marry. If it were me, and it has been a few times, I would just excuse myself so I didn't laugh directly in their face just out of respect for their right to free speech. God only knows what they're truly frightened of. Some of them claim that they don't want their kids to see Jim and John together instead of Jim and Jan. Why? Are their kids going to then become gay? Are they that close themselves to turning? Maybe. But chances are it's something much deeper. More akin to when they said that people of color were not fully human in order to enforce their bigotry laws and restrictions. Or when they said that women weren't intelligent enough or emotionally neutral enough to be able to vote in presidential elections. This was fear mongering out of a deep strong human urge to dominate; and a desire to keep separate that which is different from what we are familiar with. Plain and simple.
But of course as we now know from our struggles to create equal rights for women, labor, and African Americans, the tide will soon quickly shift towards the positive now that the worst is over. New York has stepped up. As Hawaii and Vermont and Massachusetts have already. More will follow. The Southern States will be last as always. Hey don't shoot the messenger. If the shoe fits, wear it or get different feet. But don't blame us for telling it like it is. In the meantime perhaps those who are still on the other side and just can't see their way through all their fire and brimstone fear and hatred sat down and reflected on what the true definition of "marriage" actually is... loyalty commitment partnership and fidelity to another person for the entirety of the rest of one's natural born life, then they'd begin to realize that "the sex" of that other person isn't nearly as important as meeting the challenge to stay true to these deeper core values of what a good marriage is really all about.
Can I get an amen?
Thursday, June 09, 2011
Softening - What Makes Certain Songs So Special
StuGuru commented: "
Thanks man. Sincerely one of my all time favs. As you well know, every new song we write is "awesome"... until a few days pass. Then reality sinks in and that new song gets put in its proper place amongst all the others. Some seem later a darn near total waste of time and energy they're so bad. But most fall into that 'fair to alright' category. Then there are those very rare super special ones that just won't stop being awesome no matter how much time passes or how many times we listen to them. 'Softening' is like that for me. So I'm glad to read you say that. It is quite incredible in a car. True that. Strangely enough, for whatever reason (i know the other guys tend to feel the same way), the Nothing Is Cohesive album seems to have more of those "special songs" on it than any of the others we released thus far. (I say "released" because we've still not released two others that have already been recorded, and I dare say that both of them might compete with NIC once they're released). Again, for me only, personally as a listener I tend to still like more songs on this particular album than any of our others. "Somebody kill the DJ' 'Caetano' 'All this is beginning to feel like an ending' 'Tomorrow' 'Softening' 'Bored' 'Cleopatra Ecstasy'... every single one of those falls into that "holy crap that's awesome" category for me. What was it? Just the song choice? We always have hundreds to choose from... and usually we do choose good ones. But i do think it was that Sir Basil; there's hardly a bad song on the album. (one might ask at this point "well why would anyone put a "bad" song on their album in the first place?" The answer to that is "they wouldn't. no one does. we just don't know it's a bad song when we are recording. We are fooled by the allure of the newness of the song into thinking it is good... only to discover later that it wasn't that great) But more than just good song choosing, i also think it was "the sound" and "the vibe of the band"... that made that album so seemingly chock full of great songs and tasty.Nothing Is Cohesive was certainly our most critically acclaimed album to date. It was A+ and five stars across the board; it appeared on "short lists" and went out to "taste makers lists" -- something you work your whole career to attain. And that felt great. Both Rise and Shine, and the Sleep With You album had their fair share of poor reviews. NIC didn't receive one. Part of that was because we were so free recording that album. With Rise and Shine we had a definite agenda to "push the boundaries as far as we could, push the envelope as far as possible" in terms of what could be accepted as "popular music", adding all the different 'World Music' styles into it and throwing everything in but the kitchen sink. And with Sleep With You I personally as the singer and songwriter had a definite agenda of then trying to disprove all the critical hype that I was a "starry-eyed New Age optimist that had never lived the rock 'n' roll life style", that I "had just floated in on a cloud and a dream and saw the world through rose colored glasses." I didn't think that image fit the whole me. So looking back I think I missed the mark a bit by over-shooting on that one. But with Nothing Is Cohesive, we didn't have any agenda other than simply trying to create "the best damn album of the year" or "of all time." I mean, we really were just five guys in a band trying to do our absolute best to write and record great music. THAT vibe soaked through us, soaked through our instruments, and soaked into the beat up old computer that Vancouver used to run Pro-Tools while he primitively attempted to record what we were laying down in his rehearsal space in the garage of his mom's house. That's how primitive the surroundings were and I really think it helped.
The other thing WAS the SOUND. We did sound great. As a band. By that point we had been recording and performing and touring regularly for five straight years. So we had our shit together big time in terms of being a tight unit as a band. We could read each others' minds, musically speaking. I was still writing as vociferously as I always do. anywhere from five to ten songs a week is the norm. So the song choices were a combination between the newest of the new, such as "I wanna know ya" -- which was literally written while it was being recorded, to some older "classics" such as "Bored" -- which I had written almost ten years prior but had not yet recorded with a band. All we did was "listen" to me or one of the other guys play a song and almost immediately we knew if it was "in" or "out". It either fit or it didn't. Most did. So picking songs for the album was a no brainer. Another thing that helped was the other members of the band starting to introduce songs of their own, rather than it all just being about me and my songs. Vancouver contributed the music for "I wanna know ya" and the entire song "Andrea's Fault" (which got cut last minute and was later released on the City of Lost Children rarities album. Father Bloopy contributed the music and melody of what would eventually become "Cleopatra Ecstasy" -- a song he had laying around called "Crazy Paving." I just changed the lyrics to make them more relevant to my own personal life so when I sang the song it made more sense and had more meaning for me to sing passionately. Even our drummer #2 Young William contributed a poem entitled "All this is beginning to feel like an ending," which was so moving that it prompted me to sit down at the piano and write melody to it. That turned out to be one of our most popular songs ever. Thank God we opened that up, allowing everyone to contribute. It helped tremendously. Not just with the music, but also with the feelings and the morale of the group. It felt like a real group project.
"Softening" -- since that's what started all this reflection initially -- was a massively collaborative project. The title and concept of the song came from a suggestion by a girl I was communicating with often over long distance Skyping and video-phoning. This idea of "letting go" and becoming 'softer' as a person... that was the trip that we were on. Still are. I started composing the music to it and would play it for her over the computer through Skype and she would type lyrical ideas that I would then copy and paste and then print out and leave on my piano. A few weeks later, while singing the song through the loudspeakers in my rehearsal studio, my cousin Rosie Posie was visiting from the UK and she started singing the middle section "I'm letting go... I'm letting go"... out of the blue. It fit perfectly. And it was one of the few times that I let a song take on that many contributors. Not for any particular reason other than the fact that usually when I am writing a song I am alone and I get them done pretty fast. But this one I let marinate a lot before calling it "complete."
And re "the vibage"... all I can say is that, again, due to how long we had been together by that point, there was a really good vibe going within the group. And I think that translates to the finished product. Our morale was so high that it allowed us the rare opportunity to cover an old McCartney B-side, 'Tomorrow.' Normally, being an original band trying to forge new ground and territory and make a name for ourselves, we wouldn't have permitted ourselves to record a cover of somebody else's song. But we did it because we wanted to. Because it felt right.
It was also the first album we recorded outside of a major recording studio. No producers telling us what to do or how to play our instruments. No interns. No massive recording gear sitting all over the place. In fact, it was just the opposite. Instead we were surrounded by tons and tons of junk and garbage. Vancouver is a notorious slob. But the atmosphere worked. As far as creativity goes, because we weren't on the clock and therefore spending hundreds of dollars per hour, everyone felt free to experiment more and try new things. The 7/8 time of the middle-eight bridge of "Somebody kill the DJ" is a good example of that. The bird sounds and the outside street noise one can hear behind "If your baby could" came from the fact that Vancouver thought it would be a good idea if I recorded the whole song outside "in nature" so he just set up two microphones, placed them in front of me and told me "record" a hundred times until I got it just right. This environment also allowed Vancouver to go off with his recorded parts because there was no one there telling him "no." So he laid down tens of guitar lines, often harmonizing them with one another; and he even played cello parts -- simply because he happened to have a cello laying around the studio that week. Again, normally a producer would never let a guitarist "attempt to record cello parts even though you're not a cellist." That wouldn't have happened had we been in a "real" studio. But the results were sublime; as can be heard on "I wanna know ya" and "Caetano." A non-cello playing guitarist laid down some of the coolest and gorgeous albeit out of tune cello parts ever and no one was the wiser to it.
Writing about it makes me want to put it in and listen to it once more. And that's a good thing. I normally don't enjoy listening to our albums once the novelty of them passes and they are released. But I never tire of listening to the Nothing Is Cohesive album. It is always a very viscerally enjoyable experience for me. Truly transcendent. Each and every time. I hope to say that about future albums we record or release. And I hope that others feel the same way as we do about the album. It was more than any other a real labor of love and passion for music making.
Listen to Nothing Is Cohesive on SoundCloud here: Ed Hale and The Transcendence - Nothing Is Cohseive by Dying Van Gogh
Friday, June 04, 2010
God Giveth God Taketh Away
For some reason I still don't feel that lying around the house crying sadness. But rather, a very intense painful and boiling rage; a looking forward to biting the head off of anyone who crosses my path kind of rage. Looking forward to it. Welcoming disagreement for a chance to take a swing or burst another into the kind of tears I should be shedding by now. Normally the gentle gregarious and oh so very social Ambassador. Now I seethe. Ready to pounce. This event has brought out the worst in me. Someone I know well, but have not seen in many years. When I was a boy, we knew each other very well. Best friends. Brothers in arms. We used to fight every chance we got. I tore the faces off of every kid I had the chance to with my fists back in school. I was the king of cynicism, vandalism, self destruction, and tearing people down. A rebel with many causes. The angry young man, but not the Billy Joel type (who the hell sings high soaring melodies when truly angry?), but more of the Clash, Sex Pistols, Iggy and the Stooges type. Decades have passed since those fiery days and that aspect of self had seemed to pass along with them. Or so I thought. Every now and then, he returns.
And so once again he is here. I am. So he is. So I am. United once again. Breathing and seething together as one. We need each other now. During moments like this. For sometimes life is wicked and cruel. Slaps us down like the pathetically arrogant while still unknowingly ignorant tree climbing bug eating home destroying parasites we are. Such is life for the lost baggage that we truly are. Left to live or die, fend for ourselves, suffer, groan, cry, scream, kill or be killed. Left for dead on a giant rock that floats in the middle of nowhere in what appears to be empty space. When I contemplate our fate, I welcome my new-found old friend.
Princess Little Tree falls into a puddle of tears, face soaking wet, sobbing, a few times every hour. But I don't. I am a desert. I am a weed-covered hauntingly deserted wall of no emotion. Red brick turned black from soot. Angry acerbic biting vicious cutthroat and cynical. Waiting to pounce. Hence I write. There is not much more I can do. Yesterday I was walking down the sidewalk with both shoulders held wide and broad to protect the pregnant Princess from all the thousands of people we share the city with; she who was holding my hand and walking just behind me. She who was holding our two newest members of our family in her beautiful little belly. Today there is no need for this protection we are told. It is a sudden shocking realization. Just like that. In simple terms, we are no longer pregnant. Some people call it miscarriage. Though this early on.... who knows what to call it. What I do know is that I have a printout of a microscopic photograph of our two precious twin embryos and they were living inside of her perfect body. Now they are not. She has not miscarried yet. In typical fashion. No blood. No pain. Just no more HCG, the hormone which indicates pregnancy.
And so once again he is here. I am. So he is. So I am. United once again. Breathing and seething together as one. We need each other now. During moments like this. For sometimes life is wicked and cruel. Slaps us down like the pathetically arrogant while still unknowingly ignorant tree climbing bug eating home destroying parasites we are. Such is life for the lost baggage that we truly are. Left to live or die, fend for ourselves, suffer, groan, cry, scream, kill or be killed. Left for dead on a giant rock that floats in the middle of nowhere in what appears to be empty space. When I contemplate our fate, I welcome my new-found old friend.
Princess Little Tree falls into a puddle of tears, face soaking wet, sobbing, a few times every hour. But I don't. I am a desert. I am a weed-covered hauntingly deserted wall of no emotion. Red brick turned black from soot. Angry acerbic biting vicious cutthroat and cynical. Waiting to pounce. Hence I write. There is not much more I can do. Yesterday I was walking down the sidewalk with both shoulders held wide and broad to protect the pregnant Princess from all the thousands of people we share the city with; she who was holding my hand and walking just behind me. She who was holding our two newest members of our family in her beautiful little belly. Today there is no need for this protection we are told. It is a sudden shocking realization. Just like that. In simple terms, we are no longer pregnant. Some people call it miscarriage. Though this early on.... who knows what to call it. What I do know is that I have a printout of a microscopic photograph of our two precious twin embryos and they were living inside of her perfect body. Now they are not. She has not miscarried yet. In typical fashion. No blood. No pain. Just no more HCG, the hormone which indicates pregnancy.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Different Versions of "The Golden Rule" from Different Religions
HINDU: This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others which if done to
thee would cause thee pain. (inclusive, partial)
ZOROASTRIAN: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto
another whatsoever is not good for itself. (inclusive, partial)
TAOIST: Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your
neighbor's loss as your own loss. (selective, complete)
BUDDHIST: Hurt not others in ways that you would find hurtful.
(inclusive, partial)
CONFUCIAN: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto
you. (inclusive, partial)
JAIN: In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard
all creatures as we regard our own self. (inclusive, complete)
JEWISH: Whatever thou hatest thyself, that do not to another.
(inclusive, partial)
CHRISTIAN: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
do ye even so to them. (inclusive, complete)
ISLAMIC: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother
that which he desires for himself. (selective, complete)
SIKH: As thou deemest thyself, so deem others. (inclusive, complete)
We have all at one time or another heard the famous idea that the man called Jesus, of Christianity - not of the Green Day album (though both admirable men to be sure), had once uttered the words "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." We may have even been told this was called "The Golden Rule." What one may find surprising is that those words, ones very similar at least, are not historically attributed to Jesus of Nazareth at all; but instead were actually first spoken by China's brilliant visionary philosopher Confucius FIVE-HUNDRED years prior. Five-hundred years. That's a long span of time.
Siddhattha, the first "Buddha," THE "Buddha," promoted a similar idea right around the same time (fifth century BCE), using slightly different words. Whether Siddhartha heard the idea from Confucius, or it was the other way around, or both men happened upon the concept independent of one another within their own enlightened minds, we will never know. (Though I would readily admit that it was "I" who just typed the above words, "I" also recognize that I might be entirely wrong in that assertion. That is, we may one day sooner or later but hopefully sooner rather than later be able to traverse the space/time continuum in a way that would easily permit us to view events of the past or future as to know exactly how it happened.)
Another question that arises quickly from studying this simple topic is thus: had Jesus already been familiar with the idea before he spoke his own version of it? When it comes to Jesus, THE Jesus, THAT Jesus, there is so much speculation about the man at this point that one finds it nearly impossible to even attempt to prove empirically that he even existed at all; let alone what he heard, said, or did along his travels on his journey to that mysterious moment in time when he seems to appear out of nowhere thirty years after his arrival on earth. (It is a very odd thing this. That the birth of Christianity's great foundational father and son is so well documented, and so too are his misadventures in the last two to three years of his life. But that whole middle section, the real juicy stuff one would posit, have completely vanished from humanity's historical records. Perhaps the Vatican holds the key to all this missing information in their infamous "Secret Archives." But if we cannot even get them to stop themselves from blatant and sometimes very public child molestation, how are we ever to convince them to allow us into those mysterious vaults?)
As a devoted Hindu, Zoroastrian, and Taoist as well a Christian and Buddhist, at least from a philosophical perspective, a big fan, I would certainly pay to see all of them in concert if they ever played New York, I was also intrigued, more actually pleased, to discover that each of these men, each coming successively before the other in our known though shaky history, had spoken almost the exact same thing when attempting to create that "one simple golden rule above all others." In other words, going back as far as we can in our catalog of the great thoughts of humankind we discover that the very earliest thinkers of note we know of had already spoken this same exact idea thousands of years before there ever was such a thing as a Jesus or a "Golden Rule." It is refreshing and inspiring to consider that even as far back as thousands of years ago humankind had already reached this simple compassionate understanding. And furthermore we did not need a religion to base it on, nor base it from. It is at its core purely unconditional compassionate love and tolerance from a very practical point of view.
'That's not such a bad rule,' I remember thinking when the idea was first offered to my young mind as a child. Years later I remember when studying to become a High Priest of Magic, or "The Craft" as it is also called, back in the day that I learned that there was only ONE rule to being a truly great Witch, and that was this: "Do what thou will, but harm none." Other than that, a magician or witch (or warlock if you will, but if you really want to know, the term is not really used behind closed doors - only in Hollywood; men who practice the Craft call themselves Witches just as women do, no difference) can do whatever he or she wants to. As long as they don't hurt themselves or anyone else. I liked this rule. It felt true. Right.
It also conveniently helped corroborate and further explain the Eastern principle of "Karma." Through the idea that: if a witch, or magician, attempts to use their power for bad, such as casting a black magic spell, as opposed to only casting "white magic spells," that the magician will always "know" or "feel" when their spell upon another had manifested because they themselves would first 'feel' the effect of the spell. Then and only then could they be sure that their banishing spell or whatever had worked on that other person. In other words, it was best not to use one's new found magical powers for bad in anyway, not even when one felt justified in doing so, such as when wanting revenge, or even when attempting to protect oneself from perceived potential harm, because the practitioner would first have to feel the grip of the effect of the spell themselves before it became manifest in the other's universe. "Wow," thought I, "instant karma, even in Witchcraft, Karmic Law prevails."
As much a digression as all this was, and though I do not create magic in my day to day life by practicing Witchcraft or Magic any longer but instead just find that I am able to create a very magical life from using other more subtle and less ritualistic tools, I still find it important and an interesting reminder to be vigilant in my thoughts. Karma, though a concept we will never be able to prove holds any validity whatsoever, still may turn out to hold water through our more recent advances and discoveries in Physics. Simply put, if we practice the Golden Rule, irregardless of WHICH particular one we choose - a choice in words more than anything else it would seem - we vibrate goodness for others due to our wanting to vibrate and thus create goodness for ourselves. And vice versa. If Physic's Super-string Theory eventually turns out to be our newest cat's meow and all matter and material in the known and unknown universe is indeed made up of energy vibrations as the theory suggests, then we would be right on track to creating one hell of a good life for ourselves by vibrating goodness for all as that is exactly what we will attract for ourselves through those vibrations.
Yes. Indeed. A very good idea this Golden Rule. Regardless of who thought or said it first.
And isn't it interesting how absolutely close in proximity the scientists of Physics and the New Age Metaphysical types are now vibrating to each other in the theories they are putting forth into mass consciousness? It is a good time to be alive in physical form on planet earth. I would humbly submit that I would rather be here-now than at any other place or time in space/time. (Stating this, one gets the impression that perhaps this idea that our lives are in fact deliberate and not at all random, may be much closer to the truth than we used to allow. Imagine that: I am here. I am me. Here Now. Deliberately. Yes. A good place to be.)
The above list Courtesy of The Committee For The Golden Rule (found through Google)
thee would cause thee pain. (inclusive, partial)
ZOROASTRIAN: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto
another whatsoever is not good for itself. (inclusive, partial)
TAOIST: Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your
neighbor's loss as your own loss. (selective, complete)
BUDDHIST: Hurt not others in ways that you would find hurtful.
(inclusive, partial)
CONFUCIAN: Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto
you. (inclusive, partial)
JAIN: In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard
all creatures as we regard our own self. (inclusive, complete)
JEWISH: Whatever thou hatest thyself, that do not to another.
(inclusive, partial)
CHRISTIAN: All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
do ye even so to them. (inclusive, complete)
ISLAMIC: No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother
that which he desires for himself. (selective, complete)
SIKH: As thou deemest thyself, so deem others. (inclusive, complete)
We have all at one time or another heard the famous idea that the man called Jesus, of Christianity - not of the Green Day album (though both admirable men to be sure), had once uttered the words "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." We may have even been told this was called "The Golden Rule." What one may find surprising is that those words, ones very similar at least, are not historically attributed to Jesus of Nazareth at all; but instead were actually first spoken by China's brilliant visionary philosopher Confucius FIVE-HUNDRED years prior. Five-hundred years. That's a long span of time.
Siddhattha, the first "Buddha," THE "Buddha," promoted a similar idea right around the same time (fifth century BCE), using slightly different words. Whether Siddhartha heard the idea from Confucius, or it was the other way around, or both men happened upon the concept independent of one another within their own enlightened minds, we will never know. (Though I would readily admit that it was "I" who just typed the above words, "I" also recognize that I might be entirely wrong in that assertion. That is, we may one day sooner or later but hopefully sooner rather than later be able to traverse the space/time continuum in a way that would easily permit us to view events of the past or future as to know exactly how it happened.)
Another question that arises quickly from studying this simple topic is thus: had Jesus already been familiar with the idea before he spoke his own version of it? When it comes to Jesus, THE Jesus, THAT Jesus, there is so much speculation about the man at this point that one finds it nearly impossible to even attempt to prove empirically that he even existed at all; let alone what he heard, said, or did along his travels on his journey to that mysterious moment in time when he seems to appear out of nowhere thirty years after his arrival on earth. (It is a very odd thing this. That the birth of Christianity's great foundational father and son is so well documented, and so too are his misadventures in the last two to three years of his life. But that whole middle section, the real juicy stuff one would posit, have completely vanished from humanity's historical records. Perhaps the Vatican holds the key to all this missing information in their infamous "Secret Archives." But if we cannot even get them to stop themselves from blatant and sometimes very public child molestation, how are we ever to convince them to allow us into those mysterious vaults?)
As a devoted Hindu, Zoroastrian, and Taoist as well a Christian and Buddhist, at least from a philosophical perspective, a big fan, I would certainly pay to see all of them in concert if they ever played New York, I was also intrigued, more actually pleased, to discover that each of these men, each coming successively before the other in our known though shaky history, had spoken almost the exact same thing when attempting to create that "one simple golden rule above all others." In other words, going back as far as we can in our catalog of the great thoughts of humankind we discover that the very earliest thinkers of note we know of had already spoken this same exact idea thousands of years before there ever was such a thing as a Jesus or a "Golden Rule." It is refreshing and inspiring to consider that even as far back as thousands of years ago humankind had already reached this simple compassionate understanding. And furthermore we did not need a religion to base it on, nor base it from. It is at its core purely unconditional compassionate love and tolerance from a very practical point of view.
'That's not such a bad rule,' I remember thinking when the idea was first offered to my young mind as a child. Years later I remember when studying to become a High Priest of Magic, or "The Craft" as it is also called, back in the day that I learned that there was only ONE rule to being a truly great Witch, and that was this: "Do what thou will, but harm none." Other than that, a magician or witch (or warlock if you will, but if you really want to know, the term is not really used behind closed doors - only in Hollywood; men who practice the Craft call themselves Witches just as women do, no difference) can do whatever he or she wants to. As long as they don't hurt themselves or anyone else. I liked this rule. It felt true. Right.
It also conveniently helped corroborate and further explain the Eastern principle of "Karma." Through the idea that: if a witch, or magician, attempts to use their power for bad, such as casting a black magic spell, as opposed to only casting "white magic spells," that the magician will always "know" or "feel" when their spell upon another had manifested because they themselves would first 'feel' the effect of the spell. Then and only then could they be sure that their banishing spell or whatever had worked on that other person. In other words, it was best not to use one's new found magical powers for bad in anyway, not even when one felt justified in doing so, such as when wanting revenge, or even when attempting to protect oneself from perceived potential harm, because the practitioner would first have to feel the grip of the effect of the spell themselves before it became manifest in the other's universe. "Wow," thought I, "instant karma, even in Witchcraft, Karmic Law prevails."
As much a digression as all this was, and though I do not create magic in my day to day life by practicing Witchcraft or Magic any longer but instead just find that I am able to create a very magical life from using other more subtle and less ritualistic tools, I still find it important and an interesting reminder to be vigilant in my thoughts. Karma, though a concept we will never be able to prove holds any validity whatsoever, still may turn out to hold water through our more recent advances and discoveries in Physics. Simply put, if we practice the Golden Rule, irregardless of WHICH particular one we choose - a choice in words more than anything else it would seem - we vibrate goodness for others due to our wanting to vibrate and thus create goodness for ourselves. And vice versa. If Physic's Super-string Theory eventually turns out to be our newest cat's meow and all matter and material in the known and unknown universe is indeed made up of energy vibrations as the theory suggests, then we would be right on track to creating one hell of a good life for ourselves by vibrating goodness for all as that is exactly what we will attract for ourselves through those vibrations.
Yes. Indeed. A very good idea this Golden Rule. Regardless of who thought or said it first.
And isn't it interesting how absolutely close in proximity the scientists of Physics and the New Age Metaphysical types are now vibrating to each other in the theories they are putting forth into mass consciousness? It is a good time to be alive in physical form on planet earth. I would humbly submit that I would rather be here-now than at any other place or time in space/time. (Stating this, one gets the impression that perhaps this idea that our lives are in fact deliberate and not at all random, may be much closer to the truth than we used to allow. Imagine that: I am here. I am me. Here Now. Deliberately. Yes. A good place to be.)
The above list Courtesy of The Committee For The Golden Rule (found through Google)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)