Flashback Friday - The Wedding Present

I kind of lost track of The Wedding Present after their first couple albums which were so brilliant came out in the late 1980's, although we did see them at Slim's in San Francisco in, oh it must have been about '93 or '94. Hell of a show!

Anyway, please enjoy these selections from the albums Bizarro and George Best












And I have no idea how I originally heard about the "Ukranian Peel Sessions," But I somehow ended up with a 10" vinyl pressing of this album, in which the Wedding Present performs a selection of Ukranian folk songs in Ukranian.

People who will never be President Chapter 4

Chapter 4: Rick Santorum



First of all, the guy has zero charisma. Zero. He makes Jeb Bush look like George Clooney.

He looks like Seinfeld that time he got the bad haircut.




Plus, even for a party infected with  theocrats, Santorum is pretty far out there.

A lot of Republicans want the government to impose "Christian" values. Santorum wants them to be specifically hard-core Catholic values.

Rick Santorum Even Opposes Birth Control

Not only is he personally opposed to birth control, not only does he believe crazy things about the supposed "harm" that birth control supposedly does to users, but he thinks that states have the right to ban birth control - even though it is a matter of settled law that no, they can not.

Then there's this:

Rick Santorum Makes Stop At Gaffney Cookout

Frank fucking Gaffney held a dickhole convention and Santorum showed up.  (So did Ted Cruz, of course, but we needn't concern ourselves with him right now.)
Gaffney is so far beyond the pale, even the other nuts don't want anything to do with him:

CPAC Conservatives Shun “Crazy Bigot” Gaffney

Do you have any idea how awful you have to be to be too awful for CPAC? You could murder puppies on stage and as long as you said "Obama sucks" during the performance, you'd get an ovation from these cretins.

So there has to be some consequence to hobnobbing with a noxious racist like Frank Gaffney. You can't just go speak at a gathering hosted by this hate-monger and not suffer any kind of blowback. There has to be some downside to courting this kind of venomous lunacy.

Trust me. There is!

It just has to cost you votes to associate with a scumbag like Gaffney. Not in the primary, of course, but in the general election, something like this has to come back to bite you in the ass:

You can't listen to a psychotic spew this kind of bizarre bullshit and not push back at all.
This demented crackpot accused the President of not only the standard communist Kenyan dictator shit, but of actually trying to nuke an American city, and you don't have anything to say about that? Like, No, ma'am, that's incorrect?

Yeah, I wouldn't recommend that either.

But you do take offense at being lumped in with the other lawmakers because you're no longer a sitting Senator? And never will be again? Or any other type of officeholder? Ever again?  And specifically, will never ever be President?

People Who Will Never be President, Chapter 3

Chapter 3: Louisiana Governor Piyush "Bobby" "Bubba" Jindal.



One would have thought that after the State of the Union fiasco Jindal would no longer be considered even a dark-horse candidate, but there does seem to be at least the possibility of presidential run in his future, even if it is just a Gingrich/Cain book deal kind of run. Which for his sake, I hope it is because there is no way in Hell that Bobby Jindal will ever be President.

First of all, no matter what they may say to pollsters, the Republican base is not about to hand the keys to the White House to a guy whose family tree doesn't have it roots in Western Europe.

You can whitewash the portrait all you want, "Bubba."

Secondly, can you imagine this feeble little milquetoast in a debate against the Republican flamethrowers? Chris Christie's walking out of there with Jindal's lunch money.

And then there's the way he runs an economy:

Louisiana governor: Sell tobacco settlement for upfront cash

Wow. It's the J.G. Wentworth approach to macroeconomics. What's plan B, a payday loan? Auto pawn?
Maybe just buy some time until the check comes in from that Nigerian prince?
Gawd!  What are you, running the state out of a trailer park?

BATON ROUGE, La. (AP) — Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's administration moved ahead Tuesday with a plan to sell the state's remaining share of a massive tobacco settlement, despite criticism the move would waste a valuable asset for a quick fix to budget problems.

A board that oversees the settlement agreed to the idea, though several more approvals would be needed before any sale. Treasurer John Kennedy objected, saying Jindal's plan is driven by desperation to find money for a budget awash in red ink.

 

Red ink, huh? You know, there's a thing that you can do to get money, um. . . what's it called? It rhymes with "snacks." Um, oh yeah, tax! You could maybe have some sort of a tax, then you'd have monies to pay for things. 

 As the Republican governor has stuck to a pledge against raising taxes, Jindal and lawmakers have refused to match the state's spending to its yearly revenue. They have plugged budget holes with short-term financing like money from property sales, legal settlements and trust funds, creating continued shortfalls year after year.

Ah, the party of fiscal responsibility! All you have to do is sell off like a billion dollars worth of property each year, and then, um. . . 

  

Step Three: Profit!

 Well, you know Republicans are always saying they'd run the country like a business, and Jindal is running his state like a CEO who knows he won't be around in a year when it all hits the fan.

Kennedy, also a Republican, called the tobacco settlement plan more of the same maneuvering, as the state faces a $1.6 billion budget gap next year.

 Commissioner of Administration Kristy Nichols said the Jindal proposal doesn't involve a one-year cash infusion, but $750 million that could be spent over eight years

 Oh! Well, why didn't you say so? The $750 million isn't just getting thrown at the billion-dollar shortfall, that would be silly! It's spread out over 8 years, so it's only about 100 million to offset the on and a half billion. . . wait, how is that better?

 Louisiana is one of many states that settled lawsuits for claims of smokers' deaths and health costs against tobacco companies in 1998 in return for installments of money each year. The annual payments extend as long as the companies involved in the settlement are viable.

So, you would be getting money from this settlement for infinity years? That's what you're selling off? An infinity-year annual payment?  Who would sell that? I mean, unless you're getting magic beans in return - wait, are you getting magic beans?

 No, wait. Wrong fairy tale. You're killing the golden goose.

The state sold 60 percent of its settlement to investors for $1.2 billion in 2001, rather than risk tobacco companies going belly-up later and not making their settlement payments.

  

Really? You're the second Louisiana governor to think this was a good idea?

 The Jindal administration proposal to sell the remaining 40 percent would be structured differently. It would spend all the dollars that are received over seven to eight years — eliminating the yearly $55 million revenue stream after that, until the bond debt is paid.

Oy.

Thank God Bobby Jindal will never be President!

People Who Will Never be President, chapter 2

Chapter 2: Ted Cruz.

First of all, the guy's fucking nuts.
Secondly, he's such a huuuuuge asshole that even his Republican colleagues despise him.
Third, he's creepy as Hell.

Ughhh. . . this is the face of a guy who's used to hearing "no, it's fine, I'll catch the next one!"

 




This video sums it all up pretty well:


First of all, there are what, maybe a dozen people there to listen to his ravings? And I'm assuming that all the folks standing along the wall are getting paid to be there. And most of the audience seems to be nodding off except the senile crackpot in the leprechaun hat.

Second, everything he says is just such obvious bullshit. "Oh, if we continue along this undefined path we're going to somehow lose this country in some non-specific way."
"Oh, the Obama economy is a disaster. I don't have any numbers to quote you to back that up, but trust me, even though it seems to be a big improvement over the flaming freefall he inherited, it's actually a disaster. You could look it up!  But don't! Because the reality might contradict my narrative."
"Oh, Obamacare is a trainwreck in some way that I'm not going to bother to articulate or back up in any way. And, sure it seems to be working as designed, getting millions of people covered and what-not, but in some undefinable way, it's a trainwreck."

Third, if you're going to preach doom and gloom, you might want to not sound quite so gleeful about it. When he shouts "Yes, your world is on fire," he displays an enthusiasm not heard since Russ Hodges in 1951.

And how, once you've told a little girl that her entire world is on fire (which is more obvious bullshit) do you come back with a promise to make it EVEN BETTER?

So, you're saying it could even get better than this?

Also, the guy is most famous for taking to the Senate floor to read a children's book and fundamentally misunderstanding the point of it.

 

Not actually that difficult, Harvard!

Also, his batshit religious fanatic father raised him with a Messiah complex and delusions of grandeur that would make a cartoon supervillain blush.

Also,  did I mention that everybody hates him?
Seriously, do a quick Google search for "people who hate Ted Cruz" You'll see lots of headlines like these:

Why Senate Republicans Hate Ted Cruz

There’s more than one reason they despise the junior senator from Texas.

Everybody hates Ted Cruz: The most unpopular man in Congress!

Everybody Hates Ted: The Republican Party Has Turned on Cruz

Ted Cruz So ‘Hated’ by Republicans That He’ll ‘Need a Food Taster’ at Senate Lunches

So, is Ted Cruz going to run? He hasn't announced anything, but yes.
Of course he will.
Because he believes that God has chosen him to be president or king of the world or whatever.
But don't worry, Ted Cruz will NEVER be President.

The World's Weirdest Film Critic Strikes Again.

Remember David Lindsay? The film critic who views every movie through the lens of his weird right-wing Libertarian philosophy?

Well, in the latest issue of Stomp & Stammer, he takes on the global phenomenon "Fifty Shades of Rape Grey."

Fifty Shades of Grey

Written by David T. Lindsay

So there is nooooo way this isn't gonna get totally weird.
First, he opens with a totally appropriate quote:

Fifty Shades of Grey [R]:
“Today, there is no day or night
Today, there is no dark or light
Today, there is no black or white
Only shades of gray”
 – The Monkees, “Shades of Gray”

 Yes, he opens the review of the most controversial and sexually uncomfortable film since Last Tango in Paris with a quote from these guys:

  

And then it begins.

Fifty Shades of Grey focuses on two consenting adults who are about to enter into a contractual agreement to get their rocks off.

Naturally, the loud crowd that claims to be so concerned with women’s rights and moral salvation can’t stand the idea that rather than it being a movie where people suffer and die, it’s about how two people choose to enjoy themselves.

 Okay, couple things.
Um, first of all, I believe the whole point of the book and movie is that consent is a sort of blurred line, hence the whole "shades of grey" thing. As has been pointed out many places, the Grey guy is not all that concerned with Ana's consent.


And, sure, you can say that she signed this gross BDSM "contract," but that doesn't forfeit her right to withdraw consent. It's not like a normal business-type contract. It's not like if I lease an apartment from someone, he can't halfway through the lease decide that he no longer consents to my living in his apartment. This isn't a business agreement. Even if it were, even if he had hired her as a prostitute, she still would have the right to say "you know what, on second thought, here's your money back, I'm going home. I don't want to do that gross thing you just suggested." 

Also, why would people who care about women's rights, aka decent human beings, prefer to watch people suffer and die? What is that even based on?

And in light of this controversy, the irony is that E.L. James’ book is a tale of volition and free will, which constitutes the basis for ALL rights and morality.

 Ah, the sweet sound of rights and morality! God bless you, Free Will!

I remember the ad campaign for Roman Polanski’s Tess, based on the Thomas Hardy story of a young girl foisted on polite society, with its tag line, “…at a time when rape was called seduction…”!

In Fifty Shades of Grey, its lead character, Anastasia, is an English Lit major who cites Tess of the D’Urbervilles as her inspiration for pursuing a college degree. Despite a 4.0 GPA, she sees herself on the sidelines. Anastasia Steele – her very name conjures up czarist Russia. She drives a Volkswagen, aka “the people’s car.” She represents Old World values in manner, dress and approach to life.

 Huh?
Is your point supposed to be that Anastasia's love of Tess of the D'Ubervilles means that she has some sort of rape fetish? And are you conflating Czarist Russia with "people's" socialism or communism as embodied by the car built for Nazi Germany? And which of these, Czarist dictatorship, Communism, or Nazi Fascism, is supposed to represent "Old World values?"

The other player in the story is Christian Grey, a name that’s self-explanatory: he lives amongst the clouds.

The other player in the story is Christian Grey, a name that’s self-explanatory: he lives amongst the clouds.

Yes, nothing says "luxury penthouse living" like the name "Christian Grey!"

 As a kid he managed to survive a crack-addicted mom to amass a great fortune. He’s capitalism personified. He’s sure of himself and demands to be rewarded for his success, expecting things to be done on his own terms according to his values.

So, he's a narcissistic asshole?
Okay, I guess he is capitalism personified.

So where do we get our values? Or, to put it differently, how does one learn right from wrong?

Through the sensations of pleasure and pain!

It’s the Pavlovian concept of being rewarded with something desirable for making the right choice, or being punished for making the wrong choice. Thinking that this movie is about slapping a woman on her fanny is like continuing to believe that Fight Club is about scuffles.

And this asshole is the self-appointed administer of punishments and rewards? He will dole out pain or pleasure according to whether someone is behaving in a manner that he deems suitable. People will be rewarded if  they make choices that he thinks are correct and punished if their choices do not please him. And he gets to make these decisions because why? Because he's rich and powerful? So he gets to decide for lesser people what is right and wrong and if they are to be punished or rewarded? That's the deeper meaning of this movie? That this kind of sick authoritarianism is some larger metaphor for life or morality or something?

Also, I'm pretty sure that Fight Club was about me dozing off about an hour in and spending the next 15 years seeing dudebros quote it on the internet.

 

So profound!

*eye roll*

In the Old World sense, marriage was established as a triad between two people and God! And let that settle in because according to God’s law, if you cheated on your spouse, you were cheating on God! Today, marriage is a contract between two people for their mutual benefit. For the most part, the romantic has been cast aside. 

Right, right, totally. Except, um, the exact opposite.
Traditionally marriages were arranged between families, so there was pretty much no romance involved at all. In the modern age, up until our parents' generation, there was certainly love and romance, but marriage was also an arrangement assumed to be mutually beneficial. The wife got a man to take over her father's responsibilities of  supporting her financially, keeping a roof over her head and food in the pantry. The husband got a woman to take over his mother's duties of cooking for him and cleaning up after him. Plus there was fucking, which was an added plus.

In today's world, when marriage has really become completely unnecessary - women can get decent jobs to support themselves, men have figured out how to cook and clean a little, people don't need to be married to do sex or raise children, two people deciding to marry is more of a romantic gesture than it ever was before. Two people saying to each other "I have no financial need to do this, I don't need to do this in order to get sex, but I choose to do this purely because I love you and want to spend my life with you and only you," that doesn't really feel like romance having been cast aside.

In a world of half-truths and moral turpitude, the contract Grey presents to Anastasia for her approval is black and white. What is one of the most often cited complaints about men in relationships? They avoid commitment. Here, Grey is completely committed.

But if you are one who insists that this movie is nothing more than a male fantasy of dominance over women, then consider Grey and how his responses play into the contract.

No.
Because that is the contract.
The contract is "sign here and I will dominate you. I will be dominant and you will be submissive." So how is this not a fantasy of male dominance? Yes, the contract is black and white, but so what? Is unambiguous assholery really that preferable to any other kind?

Far from displaying caddish behavior, Grey fights to keep his passion from being extinguished by what’s considered proper or convenient or expected. But neither is he interested in sharing Anastasia with the world, which is why he shoves her friend who’s trying to kiss her, and why upon hearing of her unannounced plans to return home, he declares, “you are mine.” 

Declaring ownership of another person, that's not caddish behavior?
And, yes, it is definitely not considered proper or expected to forbid one's lover from seeing her family, but it is also considered improper and unexpected to throw hammers at small children. Being unconventional is not equivalent to being moral or decent or right.

This from a guy who refuses to sleep over or spend the night after sex because that would play into the intangible, accidental vagueness of today’s casual sex climate which is more powerplay than mutually beneficial. Grey is the man unaffected by the pitfalls of feminism or moral tradition.

So, if you leave right after sex, it's no longer considered casual?
It's only cheap and shabby if you spend the night, is that what I'm getting here?
And BDSM is totally not about powerplay.

Anastasia holds the power of veto over the contents of the contract. A contract using specific language which establishes boundaries of her own volition that she agrees to. The certainty of romance is that to work it must be in black and white!

This cult of moral grayness is certain of nothing!

Except that when she does try to veto the contract, he doesn't stop.



Also, the line "The certainty of romance is that to work it must be in black and white!"
Tells me that you know nothing of romance.

So, is this a good movie or not?
 Did Mr. Lindsay like it or dislike it?
He doesn't say.
Which is truly the mark of a weird weird film critic.