Women...Where Is Your Outrage? The truth about Islam pt. 1

WOMEN.....WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE?

The truth about Islam pt. 1

This is the first in a series of essays I hope to write leading up to the release of the fourth Babylon Mystery Orchestra CD, "Axis Of Evil," to be released early next year.

Rarely do I let things affect me this much. Ok, that is probably a lie, I do it all the time, but it does take a lot to motivate me to take the time to research one of these and write it. That all happened very fast for this one, causing me to move some others aside, because I wanted to get this one out. I believe this is important.
This was sparked by seeing an interview with a woman named Ghazal Omid, the author of a book called "Living In Hell." The interview, and her book, is about the treatment of women living in Iran. She went on to tell about some recent protests in Iran, not the government sponsored (ie. planned and paid for) protests chanting "death to America and President Bush" that the media love to show, but instead an apparently un-newsworthy protest against their own government. This was a gathering in support of teachers who had not been paid. As should be expected, some of these women were arrested, which led to still more protests. These were not small protests either. Apparently 8000 women took to the streets to protest the arrests of these women. I know what you are thinking, it sounds hopeful doesn't it? Protests in Iran against their government. Well it gets ugly from here.
Asu Zaladida was one of these protesters. This 22 year old woman was subsequently arrested and taken to jail where, in keeping with a time honored Iranian tradition, she was brutally raped. Multiple times. Lets speak a little more plainly here....She was repeatedly anally raped with a baseball bat. After her family found, and then parted with enough money to convince the authorities to release her, she was then taken to the hospital. Her injuries got the best of her and she died. Taking treachery to the next level, the government would not allow the family to have her body for burial. Her family was warned not to speak against the government or they too would be arrested. Considering the arrest of Miss Zaladida led to her death, it would not be unreasonable to call this a death threat for the entire family.
As Ghazal Omid told this story, it was the next words she said that actually meant the most to me; "This is how women in Iran stand up to their abusers, and you guys don't hear about them because apparently they're not important." Is this true? Are these women just not important? She continued: "We need five minutes of your time per day to show you whats going on inside Iran." Apparently we can't spare that much time in America for these truly courageius women. After all we have Anna Nicole Smith, Sanjaya Malakar, Don Imus and his ghetto basketball commentary and Rosie O'Donnell to consider. Where can we find the time?
What happened to Asu Zaladida is NOT an isolated incident. You want another example? Take the case of Roya Tolouee, a 40 year old woman beaten and raped when she refused to sign "confessions." They finally coerced her by threatening to burn her two children to death right in front of her. Strange how she believed they would actually do it. Let her tell her story:
"Four armed men and three armed women barged into my house at night and took me away," she said. "My kids were terrified and crying. I was questioned all night by different interrogators and then thrown alone into a cell. When I wouldn't do what they wanted, they slapped me. But after the sixth night, the routine changed. I was left alone in a small dark room with two men. One was the assistant prosecutor and called himself Amiri. The other had a filthy mouth and said terrible things. They started slapping me again. For the rest of the night they did to me what no woman should ever experience. Amiri said, 'I'm going to hang you, but before I hang you, I will make an example of you so that no woman will dare to open her mouth here again'." He then sexually assaulted her. When she asked Amiri how he could act like that, he told her that only Islam and clerical rule were important to him. The attack left her badly bruised and bleeding internally, but she still refused to sign the papers they put before her. To further anger her attackers, she demanded to see a lawyer and cited international treaties on human rights. The following night they did not sexually assault her because she was still bleeding from the first assault. According to Islamic law, this rendered her "unclean" and therefore unfit to rape. So they told her they would kill her children by setting them on fire before her eyes.
Mainstream Islam takes a dim view of women's rights. When Islam reaches a level of authority that enables it to control and subjugate a population under Islamic law, oppression of women becomes the norm and these atrocities are NOT the exceptions. They even use their own belief system to enhance the enthusiasm for those who perpetrate these atrocities. Many years ago I remember reading a biography of the Spanish conquistador Hernando Cortez (yes, I really do read those kind of books all the time), and I was interested to learn that the Spaniards under his command would often "baptize" the native women before they took them sexually. This was all part of being a "good" catholic, since having sex with a "heathen" female, consent notwithstanding, would go against the acceptable church policies of the time. It appears our Islamic friends take that a step further. Sexual abuse as an interrogation technique is common. Young women are often raped BEFORE execution so they cannot reach heaven as virgins!!! This, as you can imagine, provides a considerable incentive to obey the Islamic state. This is the truth about Islam.
Meanwhile here in America, we are blessed with the ever illuminating political wisdom of Rosie O'Donnell who has recently taken to accusing the Bush administration of orchestrating the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center. She also believes that the kidnapping of the British Sailors and Marines by Iran was a conspiracy, and a plot to start a war with Iran by Britain and the United States. She has made herself one of the biggest detriments to womens rights in the Islamic world by making such a spectacle of herself. The jhihadist puritans of Islam can point to this loudmouthed lesbian woman speaking against her own country in a time of war and say "this is what we are fighting against." You would think she would want to speak up for these women, but her own anti-christian and anti-American crusade is more important to her than the plight of women seeking not just freedom, but the simple dignity of being treated better than a dog. To Ms. Odonnell the question has been answered. These women are NOT important.
The New York Times, in an article published on May 28, 2006, accused Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of being "a proponent of women's rights." The ever liberal newspaper is interested in portraying him as a reformer, and Iran as a negotiating partner that we can trust. Speaking of a "negotiating partner," we also have senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama, who on a recent lovefest appearance on David Letterman's program, insisted that the United States should seek what he called "aggressive negotiations" with the Islamic regimes in Iran and Syria. Just exactly how do you aggressively negotiate? The President has chosen a policy of isolating these governments because decades of negotiations have failed. If these Islamic fundamentalist regimes will treat their own women as less than dogs, just what kind of negotiating partners can they be? Appeasement is in the air, but when has it ever worked? In the 1930's "aggressive negotiations" were attempted with Nazi Germany even as the world was well aware of the atrocities already being committed against their Jewish citizens. Did these aggressive negotiations prevent a war? Did they improve the conditions of the Jewish people in Germany? No! It bought the Nazi regime more time, making both the war, and the ultimate treatment of the Jews, worse by far. In fact, negotiations have never prevented a war. They only delay the inevitable, to the advantage of the aggressors. This has the effect of making the wars that follow worse. Remember that when we get into a shooting war with Iran....and we will. By negotiating with Iran, or likewise with its sister regime in Syria, we would be not only displaying weakness in their eyes, but also tolerating these atrocities committed against women. But I forget, liberals do preach tolerance don't they? So long as it suits their short term political needs.
Nancy Pelosi may be the worst of all. She takes it upon herself to show support for the plight of women in Islamic countries by going to Syria and offering, essentially, an alternate foreign policy. One that validates and endorses this treatment of women. Yes it does validate and endorse it because nowhere has she called for any human rights reform. You can add to that her "leadership" in attempting to get the United States to militarily withdraw from Iraq. Just what do you think will happen to the rights and wellbeing of the women there if we leave? Do you think women will be able to retain what rights they have gained after a longstanding 5 year history of them? There was a story on Nightline the other night where the president of Afghanistan pointed out that, legally, women do have rights, but that in reality, they may not be allowed to exercise them. It takes a culture awhile to adjust to change. The American civil rights movement should have taught us that. How much harder must it be in countries without a traditional belief in individual liberty and with violent militias working against them. When the American military leaves Iraq, so will any and all gains for women. Like it or not, President Bush has done more for women's rights in the Islamic world than any president in recent history. You won't find a statement like that in the media!
Ghazal Omid had this to say: "We need five minutes of your time per day to show you what's going on inside Iran, because we don't have podiums. If we don't, this government will not go anywhere. If you really want to get rid of this Iranian regime, help us to help you." The trouble is that Miss Omid does not understand how America works. The media is the podium, and the people who control it will do anything to oppose this administration and its policies. The media likes to portray America as unpopular in the Islamic world. Women represent over half the population in those countries. They don't have freedon to speak out without fear of reprisals. We are their only hope. Don't kid yourselves, we are wanted there, and when women are no longer afraid to speak out, they will tell us just that. If we just have the resolve to stay.
It amazes me to no end that the feminists in America refuse to speak out about the mistreatment of women in Muslim countries. Where is the outrage? Is the alliance with feminism to the liberal democratic party so important that they would remain silent just to help them win some more seats in goverment? Are muslim women being sacrificed on the altar of American liberalism? I would say these women, who would dare to resist their own government in the face of certain humiliation and death, represent the best of everything we claim to stand for. In this instance, the president has been taking exactly the right approach in not negotiating with these governments. Women's groups, however, not only won't stand with him, they joyously celebrate their opposition to his administration's policies with their continued adherence to an outdated alliance with the liberal democratic party! Their silence on these Islamic atrocities is deafening. In a word: outrageous!
There is a massive movement by the American media to be tolerant of Islam. Just be sure what it is you are tolerating. Islam is not and has never been a religion of peace or freedom. This is doubly true if you are a woman. There are those who would have you believe that it is extremist radical Islam and not mainstream Islam that is the problem. If that is so, where are the voices of the so called moderates speaking out against this behavior? Either they are silent on this subject or the media is keeping them silent by not reporting them. Meanwhile Islamic women, many of them brave enough to stand against their own government, continue to be tortured and abused as apart of Islam's continuing policy of subjugating them and rendering them docile and obedient. This is the truth about Islam.

Heavy Metal's Golden Goose....Cooked! By the Ku Klux Klan

HEAVY METAL'S GOLDEN GOOSE....COOKED!
By the Ku Klux Klan

Its now official, the proverbial goose that laid the golden eggs for heavy metal's glory years is now dead. Murdered by the narrowminded bigotry of those who claim to love the genre the most. The pursuit of "metal purity" that began in earnest in the wake of grunge's successful overthrow of the "Hollywood Hair Metal Club," is now complete. As with all puritanical cleansings that came along, heavy metal's pious arbiters of purity have killed the genre in the name of "true metal."
I have been staking this opinion for quite some time, but several recent revelations have confirmed the demise of this once vibrant and powerful genre of music. Recently I was reading an interview with Iron Maiden in Classic Rock or Metal Hammer magazine (sometimes they seem almost interchangeable), where Maiden doesn't see themselves as a metal band. At first this might seem strange that the defining band of "The New Wave of British Heavy Metal" would be shying away from calling themselves a metal band, but in the current climate of heavy metal it makes perfect sense. Many of the artists whose careers have been associated with the words "Heavy Metal" are not wanting to be associated with the genre anymore. This is not because of what heavy metal was....but because of what heavy metal has become. This genre that once represented empowerment, freedom and, dare I say.....fun, has largely become a community of self-serving sycophants who are addicted to the culture of metal...not the music. Therein lies the problem. By seeing metal as more of a cultural movement rather than a strictly musical one, they have choked the genre with all sorts of definitions and restrictions as to what constitutes "true metal." The majority of the metal media, in order to stay on good terms with this highly vocal crowd, have largely acquiesced to the demands of this "Ku Klux Klan" of heavy metal puritans. This has enabled a relatively small group of people (I will be demonstrating just how small later in this essay) to decide not only who is metal but also, and perhaps more importantly, they take it upon themselves to annoint the bands that will carry the genre's flag as the true front line of Heavy Metal. The currently annointed ones being Mastodon and Lamb Of God.
Don't ever let anyone tell you that heavy metal is a genre populated with individual thinkers, for the "Ku Klux Klan" of heavy metal has run all of those off, even as they are likewise running off the very artists who have contributed to heavy metal's great past....all in the name of "true metal." The extreme metal crowd has pushed their narrow vision of metal, transforming it into a drum dominant, gutteral vocal embarrassment. We are all the worse for it.
If you peruse any of the metal media (internet or print) you could be led to believe that heavy metal was born in the 80's. It seems a common belief that Metallica created it out of thin air with their first record, and perfected by the time they released "Master Of Puppets." A veritable heavy metal "creationist" theory because, as you know, there are no "evolutionists" in this Ku Klux Klan. There is a complete denial that heavy metal existed in the seventies in spite of the fact that the fossil record shows that prehistoric dinosaurs called Black Sabbath, KISS, Judas Priest and Deep Purple all existed and even thrived, in that decade. The words "Heavy Metal" were actually coined just to describe the music of these bands. Mark Gromen of BW&BK, in reviewing the new Dimmu Borgir record, took the opportunity to belittle KISS by saying of them: "the mainstream media and music fans outside the genre typically regard (them) as 'a metal band.'" We can't have that now can we! This is of course a ridiculous rewriting of history but it appears to be the attitude of too many of the most vocal of fans, and they are enabled by the metal media. Metal creationism is a natural byproduct of metal bigotry.
The biggest fallacy of this crowd, however, is an overwhelming belief that Slayer's "Reign In Blood" is the greatest metal record ever. There is an entire "metal religion" devoted to this idea and without a doubt this is the single most influential record in destroying the genre. Before "Reign In Blood" heavy metal is unquestionably a guitar dominated form of music. After "Reign In Blood" it has been transformed into a drum dominant one. The cult that has sprung up in its aftermath has given us the concept of "extreme metal." Everything faster than everything else. Speed is the single most important defining characteristic to the Ku Klux Klan of metal. It is also this crowd that has unleashed the indistinguishable, and usually incoherent, croak and growl vocal style. This has had the effect of rendering all the vocals, and therefore all the lyrics, inconsequential and irrelevant. Thanks a lot.
All this has been perpetrated in the name of "brutality." Pick up any metal magazine or go to any website and try to count how many times the word "brutal" is used. Its like sand on a beach. They can't help themselves. Savvy music fans know that the word "brutal" is synonomous with "clueless metal musicians full of themselves" and never buy these records. Also, wrapped up in this festival of "brutality" is the underlying belief that all this speed is indicative of a technical prowess and complexity that marks them as superior musicians. They view music as a "craft" rather than an "art," so displaying their percieved skills is more important than actually having a purpose. The music exists for the craft, and like professional wrestlers, who delude themselves into believing they are "competitors" and "atheletes," this new breed of metal musician is more than willing to tell us how good they are. This would and should be a minor amusement but since the commercial death of hair metal in the early nineties, this cult has successfully waged a campaign to define heavy metal according to their rules. They have pruned all the other branches off the heavy metal tree. This has not only led to a funny looking tree, and rest assured metal is quite funny looking these days, it has also killed the tree. Only the lemmings of heavy metal's "religious right" (those for whom metal is their religion) persist in their delusions and barely keep this sonic embarassment afloat.
Sakis Tolis, of the band Rotting Christ, recently made this statement to Decible magazine: "This is a well organized trick in order to control society, so when I see someone thats very much Christian, I feel sorry for him because he is not free." Strange, because if you replace the words "society" and "christian" with the word "metal" you have accurately described the current state of the world of heavy metal. It has become a religion and a culture for too many people, and like the real Ku Klux Klan, they view their culture through a very narrow lens.
Which now brings me to the consequences of this foolish line of thinking. What has this Ku Klux Klan of brutal heavy metallers done to this once proud and powerful genre? It would appear that they have finally succeeded in rendering it totally irrelevant. As a case in point, take my favorite example....MASTODON. As you may remember I wrote an editorial at the time of Blood Mountain's release bemoaning all the "affectionate" reviews that were heaped the CD. This is the band chosen by the "powers that be" of heavy metal to be the next big thing. The next Iron Maiden. According to all the fawning metal media this is top of the line modern metal performing at its peak. Universal praise always looks suspicious and "annointing" a band as the next big thing has a habit of backfiring...and so it has. According to their manager Nick John, in speaking with Decibel Magazine, Blood Mountain has sold.......are you ready for this?......a grand total of......75,000 copies in the United States. No I did not leave off any zeros. 75,000 copies! With all the power, money, and influence of a major label, and all the good reviews that money could, and did, buy, that is all it sold. In the independent metal world this might be seen as a small setback and satisfactory sales but in the world of the major labels this was a failure more disasterous than the Union assaults on the Confederate lines at the battle of Fredericksburg (ok, get a history book).
Also of interest, in the same article, was the sales figure for Lamb Of God's most recent CD "Sacrement," likewise on a major label. It has sold only 200,000 copies. A better showing than Mastodon, but bands that deliver gold records (500,000 units sold) are dropped regularly as being unprofitable for major labels. Both Mastodon and Lamb Of God had their records firmly notched at the top of most of the metal media's year end polls for best record. Yet they have been resoundingly rejected by the record buying public. This is what heavy metal has come to...failure. the major labels, in a sense, shouldn't be blamed for not knowing any better than to sign these bands. After all, these are the bands that the metal underground and its media satellites have annointed as the best in true metal. But they can't sell it and for a good reason. The albums are nothing but infomercials for the musicians playing on them. Utterly void of content or purpose. I will concede that these records prove that the musicians involved can play their instruments extremely well. But why? The musicianship is the LEAST important reason to buy a record!
Here is something that must be said. Those people of heavy metal's religious right have been trying to convince themselves for quite some time that metal music is some sort of panacea of musicianship. Those of the heavy metal religious right will tell you that not selling a lot of records is a good thing. It keeps metal pure. They actually believe that this form of music is the modern day equivalent of classical music. "If Beethoven were alive today he would play metal." Anyone who believes that is an imbecile! The creationists of the metal Ku Klux Klan, who deny metal's origins and history, don't want to admit what the record buying public has never forgotten. HEAVY METAL IS ROCK AND ROLL MUSIC! It is NOT classical music. No amount of self percieved importance will ever change that. More importantly, that which kills Rock and Roll...kills metal! This music is meant to be a populist form of entertainment and it cannot survive as an elitist musician's disease infected genre. In the April edition of Decibel Magazine, the editor Albert Mudrian, claims he has been getting calls from National Public Radio inquiring of him about the current state of metal. His implication is that this bastion of Jazz and classical music, and international news has started to look upon metal as more musically favorable. Not just "music for dummies" anymore. See, it didn't take them but one issue to go from reporting the Mastodon disaster to seeking yet another annointing, this time from the "important" people of NPR. I guess if NPR approves of musician's disease metal, then their belief is that we will be compelled to acknowledge the greatness of the bands they tell us to like. I repeat, that which kills Rock and Roll kills metal. Snobbery is so not metal. Please make this stop. Why can't we insist that these bands work for their audience and not for themselves and their position in the "metal culture." Maybe then the shows of these bands will be attended by people other than fellow musicians. Audience Deficiency Syndrome is fatal 100% of the time.
Rock music, and its heavy metal descendant, was never meant to be exclusionary. It is not a fraternity, religion or a culture. It is music. Music is supposed to communicate with people, not impress them. Especially since the sales figures of Mastodon and Lamb of God indicate that not that many people were impressed anyway. As the English would say...."They've lost the plot." The low record sales of Mastodon and Lamb of God are not reflective of "successful elitism" or a "puritanical" adherence to the metal faith. It just means nobody likes it. That is the sad state of metal, and will continue to be, so long as metal's Ku Klux Klan are able to hold an influence over the way this music is percieved.
The solution is simple. A return to the roots, and the great and glorious history of the genre. This was once a dominant force in the music industry, it can be again. Lose the intolerance and maybe bands like Iron Maiden and Motorhead won't bristle at the thought of being labeled a metal band. Welcome back AC/DC and KISS. They have had more positive influence over this genre than Mastodon ever will. Do as the magazine Metal Hammer does and embrace all the various genres of metal. They put My Chemical Romance on their cover in spite of the complaints they get from the metal KKK. They sell more magazines and somebody finds out about Dimmu Borgir, who never would have otherwise, and buys their CD's. A rising tide lifts all boats. Or do you not believe that some people in the past might have used Motley Crue as a stepping stone to Megadeth and Anthrax. A low tide grounds all the boats. We are seeing that in metal now.
Gee, I just realized that all this talk about inclusiveness and tolerance makes me sound like a musical li......lib.......liberal. I feel dirty just saying the word. I think I'll take a bath, put on some good American metal like Ted Nugent or Manowar, and read a copy of the Weekly Standard. I gotta get my "neocon" back on.
Death to False Metal!

ALL HAIL TRUE METAL.....OR ELSE

The Rock and Roll Hall of Sham

THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF SHAM

"Kiss is not a great band, Kiss was never a great band, Kiss never will be a great band, and I have done my share to keep them off the ballot." Dave Marsh; Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame historian and pompous ass.

Another year, another induction ceremony for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Another opportunity to deride KISS by refusing to even nominate them for this fraternity of Rock and Roll elitism. Yet again the most popular and influential band not already in the hall has been passed over for reasons that actually reinforce the validity of their claim to join the status of the so called "rock elite."
One of the most common ways to criticize the omissions for nomination to the Hall of Fame is to call into question many of the lesser candidates who have already been nominated and inducted to the Hall. Certainly the "fame" and "influence" of many of the bands is questionable. I submit, for example, The Pretenders. An appropriately named band, but a great one? If you were reading any of the rock press during the band's heyday, (particularly the Rolling Stone Magazine cabal that controls entry into the Rock Hall) they were a band that could more accurately be described as a "critics darling." How much influence have the Pretenders had? Maybe a few women will claim Chrissy Hynde was influential in making them want to get into a rock band but not much otherwise. Certainly they did not get in the Rock Hall because of overwhelming record sales or a volumous list of hit songs. They had neither. Where is the Electric Light Orchestra? The Moody Blues? Is the Pretenders claim to fame and influence greater than theirs? I think not. The Pretenders are just good buddies with the right people.
Then there is the case of The Velvet Underground. How many of you have truly ever heard one of their songs? Have you even heard of the Velvet Underground at all? I have tried really hard to like them myself. I bought all their CD's. I suppose I can appreciate some of what they were trying to do, especially in their time, but famous? Most people still don't even know who Lou Reed is, their most famous member. So much for fame. But how about influence? Even though they didn't sell many records, it has been said that everyone who did buy their records started a band. This may very well be true, but look who all those bands were. The New York Dolls, Patti Smith, Television, Talking Heads etc. The whole New York avante-guarde scene of the 60's that evolved into the punk and new wave scene of the CBGB's 70's. "Critics darlings" all. A few of them had a couple of hits, particularly the Talking Heads, but all of them will be in the Rock Hall before long. Why? Because with the Rock and Roll Hall Of Fame its all about who you know. They know the right people. Sorry Jethro Tull, you didn't hang out with the guys at Rolling Stone Magazine so you'll have to wait outside. But hey, you can keep the Doobie Brothers, Deep Purple, Thin Lizzy and Chicago company. They can't come in either.
This wouldn't bother me so much except that they aren't even consistent with their own arbitrary rules of disenfranchisement. Why is Blondie in there?! Sure, compared to the Pretenders, the Velvets and all their descendants, Blondie actually had hits. Lots of them even. And if Chrissy Hynde influenced a few women Debbie Harry influenced way more. But Blondie certainly violates all the rules of "taste" that the Rock Hall, and their Rolling Stone Magazine benefactors, look upon with such disdain. If KISS was considered somewhat tasteless with their disco tryst in 1979 with the "I Was Made For Lovin' You" single, where does that leave Blondie? They never found a passing trend they wouldn't jump on and ride. Be it pop, disco or even a pathetic (ie. mighty white of em' version) attempt at rap. Does any one remember "Rapture?" But they were all successes with the record buying public.
But hey, I'm not bitter. I don't particularly begrudge anyones induction into this unnecessary institution. However it is somewhat useful to determine just what Rock and Roll music has been over the years. Taken in its rightful and proper context, induction into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame appears to be more of an indictment than a tribute. Since when has Rock and Roll and its true practitioners ever sought out acceptence by any so called "establishment?" Historically Rock and Roll has been associated with rebelling against such notions. Each successive generation has created its own musical heroes while discarding those of its predecessors. Rock music has always sought to seek and create a new path, at least in terms of its consistent pursuit of new performers. The so called "next big thing." The very concept of a Hall of Fame actually flies in the face of all that rock music has ever stood for. Remember "hope I die before I get old?"
Hall of Fames are ALWAYS associated with something that no one thinks about with rock and roll.....retirement. In most other endeavors that celebrate the careers of their practitioners with a hall of fame, you have to have completed your professional career before you can be considered for induction. Now it certainly can be argued that, from a realistic and practical perspective, everyone inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is "done" as far as the validity of their careers are concerned. Hardly anyone pays attention to any new records released by "geezer" bands, even if they can still sell out an arena, reguardless of the quality of their new material. Why is that? Because rock and roll is not associated with being old! People tend to stop seeking new bands and buying new records when they start their working lives and/or get married. But everyone always continues to listen to the music they grew up with. They will always buy new reissues of the music of their youth, even as they lose interest in keeping up with the new acts coming along. Why? Because it makes them feel young! Rock and roll is always about youth.
So where does that leave a band like KISS or other highly influential rockers like Alice Cooper? Strangely enough, it proves that as rock artists go, they were among the very few who really got it right. They still aren't accepted by the "rock establishment." Denying their induction into the Rock and Roll Retirement Home actually validates their their careers. They are the "supreme" rock artists.
Which brings me back to this statement from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame's gatekeeper Dave Marsh:

"Kiss is not a great band, Kiss was never a great band, Kiss never will be a great band, and I have done my share to keep them off the ballot."

Though he thinks he is deriding KISS, his statement amounts to more of a coronation. Rock and roll is not about good taste. Rock and roll is about what tastes good! That KISS is still viewed by the likes of Dave Marsh as being in bad taste all these many years later, and in spite of the sucessive layers of tastelessness since applied, only makes the taste of their brand of rock and roll that much sweeter. It's populism's inevitable triumph over elitism, and Rock and Roll is nothing if not a populist movement. The KISS Army has won. KISS is still a thorn in the side of the "rock establishment" and I wouldn't have it any other way.
I'll give the last words to the architect of some of the greatest rock and roll ever made:

"The beauty of America is that you can basically start any kind of private club you want to. This one happens to be called the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. It's a very impressive name for a club but it's an illusion. It's the creation of a group of industry people and critics who decide who they deem as qualified to be in their little admiration society. It's their Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, but it's not the people's Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. Have you ever voted? I know I haven't. That's why the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, besides having people who very much belong in there, have an abundance of people who most people will scratch their head and not even have a clue who they are. I don't have anything against anybody who's been inducted, but more than a couple of them are a joke. A band or musician's impact is measured by how they change and influence society and other musicians. That and how many albums and concert tickets they sell should be what gets them into the Hall of Fame. As far as I'm concerned it's a private club with a misleading name. It's a sham." Paul Stanley; KISS

Well said Starchild.

The Worthless, The Less Than Worthless & The Currency Of The Beast

THE WORTHLESS, THE LESS THAN WORTHLESS AND THE CURRENCY OF THE BEAST

There is an epidemic of arrogance in this country. I assure you this will not be about what you think it is. The foolish worship of the god of "self-esteem" has created a nation of people who literally have no clue of their true station in life. Americans, by and large, believe themselves, their opinions and their desires are actually important to others, particularly as that pertains to national and world affairs. The results of the last election attest to this presumption. Therefore I feel compelled in this small and insignificant space to take a stab at correcting some of this misperception. A "self-esteem" reduction, so to speak.
The source of the problem can be stated in one word.....credit. See, I told you it would not be about what you thought it would. The American people (and its government) are addicted to the illusory concept of spending capital (ie money) they don't have, based on the estimate of future income they have yet to earn. This allows them to further the illusion of their own self importance by surrounding themselves with the accoutrements of a lifestyle greater than their true worth. You see the thin edge of this wedge all the time. Offers from credit card companies via mail, email, TV etc., offering you lines of credit with no preconditions or qualifiers. People in America are, at a younger and younger age, self imposing themselves with the burden of more debt than they can hope to repay in a lifetime. They are presented with the idea that this credit is in fact money and they, irresposibly, feel compelled, even entitled, to spend it. The truth is, its not money, and because of it most of them never will have any true monetary worth in their lives. This phoney currency is every bit as addictive as any other "feel good" narcotic and just as much represents a lack of character and self control both as individuals and collectively as a society.
It is really quite simple to understand. In spite of the language that is used to mislead and further misguide the indebted, you do have a monetary value that can be placed on you. To be succint: If you owe more than you have you are officially LESS THAN WORTHLESS! How is that for a self esteem buster? It matters not what you surround yourself with; If its not paid for...ITS NOT YOURS! I don't care if you get lots of offers through the mail calling you a "homeowner." If you have to send a check to the bank every month to keep living there then truthfully.....ITS NOT YOUR HOUSE! If you don't believe me then don't make those payments and see how not only will you not be living there, but every legal instrument of government will be employed to depose you from the property that doesn't belong to you. The same holds true for most Americans and their other precious status symbol: their car. If you are sending a payment to a finance company (fancy wording for lender), then likewise....ITS NOT YOUR CAR! More proof that its not your car comes with the insurance requirements. If you owned it you could decide how much insurance to carry on it. You don't own it so the financer insists on enough coverage to cover HIS risk. They can even take your car in repossesion, sell it, and force you to pay the difference in what they sold it for verses what you owed on it. Does that sound like car ownership? This doesn't even take into consideration the fact that after years of making payments you may finally own it when its value has considerably depreciated, and after having paid enough interest to buy it twice. Interest is nothing more than an impatience fee. You could have saved your money and paid for it all in one day, but then you would have all those years not been seen riding around in your status symbol.
I know this type of thinking flies in the face of the materialism that has conquered the American consumer. Virtually every American is in debt to some degree. Savings in this country is at an all time low while spending is spiralling out of control. But it is the spending of money that does not currently exist and may very well never exist. The entire US economy is intoxicated on this illusion.
So why do we do this? Is it really that we as a people are truly so petty that we would rather be secretly (unsurprisingly most people don't habitually make their finances public) in debt while putting out the illusion that we are something we truly are not. Do we need to think well of ourselves and to believe that others think well of us also? Apparently the American people are convinced this is the case. It is nothing but a facade that masks the truth that most Americans are worth less than nothing. Don't let anyone's "apparent" status in life fool you. People who live in big houses and drive nicer cars are no different than those living in mobile homes and driving beat up trucks. They are just as much in debt. If you have a title in your name like Dr. CPA, or CEO you are just considered a better credit risk with a bigger "potential" income so you are allowed to accrue greater debt. But if what they have is not worth more than they owe, they are still worth less than nothing. Debt is debt. If anything they are just bigger criminals. There is an irony in the fact that, though they live in poverty, people in third world countries are merely worthless. They are at least solvent in the sense that they are not in debt. Technically, they are worth more than their upscale living counterparts in America. Is it any wonder why the world seems to have such contempt for us?
I used a word in there....did you catch it? Criminal? There in lies the difference. It is something that has been applied to many facets of American life to "alter" our perception of things once considered bad, immoral or....criminal. Like many behaviors that in the past were considered bad or "immoral," debt has had its stigma removed. Did you know that when this country started you could actually be thrown in jail for failure to pay debt? There were such things as debtors prisons and many people who initially came to America were escaping their debt. That might seem to explain a lot. The concept of perpetual debt as we know it today did not exist. If you owed you paid. Bankruptcy meant incarceration...or worse. Now borrowing against future (ie unearned) income is not only acceptable, its encouraged. Worse still, many of the people doing all this irresponsible borrowing and spending think nothing about filing for bankruptcy, defaulting on their creditors, and then have the audacity to start the cycle all over again! This is nothing more than stealing. Admittedly it becomes difficult to work up a lot of sympathy for the people and businesses making all this credit readily available. They act in many ways like a drug pusher preying upon an addict. Still, whatever became of the concept of living within your means?
It appears that true character has no real relevance in society anymore. In the past it was considered dishonorable to die owing money. Just dying financially solvent was taken as a sign of a life well lived as a person with strong character. Now death is just another opportunity to erase debt.
It reminds me of the example of the father of Confederate General Robert E. Lee. Henry Lee (Or Light Horse Harry as he was affectionately known) was a revolutionary war hero. An outstanding cavalry officer who won the praise and admiration of General George Washington himself. It was he, who at Washington's funeral, coined the famous phrase "First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen" to describe the nation's first president. He would also be a member of the Continental Congress and governor of the state of Virginia. You would think this is a man to be held in high esteem, but what did his wife and future Gen. Robert E. Lee's mother consider him......a bad influence. Why? Because when young Robert was just a child, his father was carried off to a debtor's prison in Montross. It led to her bringing her young son up with a very strict philosophy of life. She was thoroughly embarrassed by the dishonor her husband brought on the family. In spite of all his previous accomplishments. Oh, how the times have changed. This certainly is not the attitude of anyone alive today now is it?
Is this all some great conspiracy perpetrated against us? I do seem to look for that a lot don't I? And for good reason. Who could be behind such a thing? Or is this merely a reflection of the erosion of character in our instantaneous culture, where we feel entitled to have things we have not yet earned? The truth is, both are correct. Societies that become more tolerant (code word for the obscene word...liberal) of once ostracized and persecuted behaviors soon become as economically and politically insovent as they are morally compromised. A democratic form of government's supreme weakness is a population of sub groups that cast their votes for their own comfort, convenience and self interests over that which is best for the nation as a whole. In other words, Irresponsibility becomes the national identity. The November 2006 election is a perfect example this.
Those who look to the Bible should easily see where this leads. The the Bible lays out the entire history of the angelic conspiracy against mankind from the very beginning of the earth. "For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places." Ephesians 6:12. Earthly behavior is a reflection of the current state of the ongoing conspiracy against mankind. One that which almost everyone is either a willing or unwilling participant. Forget about the "moral decay" aspect of it, I am talking about that great final financial transaction between the public and..........the ANTICHRIST! Yes, those of you who are in debt and are currently worth less than nothing are already OWNED by him. Whether or not the great beast of Biblical prophecy is even aware of his own destiny or not, the transaction that will give him power over you has already occured. History has shown that those who owe are in fact those who are owned and you have already handed over control of your future to those who hold your debts. You have NO say in the matter. You never even noticed when it happened did you? They don't call our favorite rebel angel the devil for nothing.
If you think you can or will reject him just remember he owns everything for which you are indebted. ALL of it. It was never yours. You haven't paid for it yet. So when he tells you that currency as we know it will be discontinued in favor of a new one.....you will go along. For everyone worth less than nothing, it is pretty much a done deal. For the worthless and true property owners there will still be much to struggle with when this new world economy clenches its talons, but you still have a lot more options. But also know, you will be the primary targets of any future persecution. And what about the truly rich and elite in this world? Well they are the ones behind all this. But that will have to wait for some future writeup on the infamous Illuminati.
The sad state of affairs is that the United States of America truly has the government it deserves. At only one time, during the administration of Andrew Jackson, has the United States EVER been debt free. The government, like its foolish citizens, is hiding behind an illusion. Trying to be all things to all people. Unfortunately the government, like most of the people who elected it, is worth less than nothing. Your house, your TV, your car and your government are already wholly owned by The Great Beast. Can you say "I'll have a 666 with that?" Rest assured, you will do what he asks, when he asks. We already know the strength of your character. And know this: In the eyes of your master, your opinion, your voice and your vote are all worth......less than nothing.

Idealism and the Iraq Conundrum

IDEALISM & THE IRAQ CONUNDRUM

Much is being made of the recently released Iraq study group findings here in America. This is a blue ribbon panel of mostly ex-statesmen of extremely high repute. Their words portray a bleak assessment of Iraq, describing the situation as "grave" and "deteriorating." It is easy to not see the silver lining in the clouds, especially while it looks like its raining and the rain will never stop. The words "grave" and "deteriorating" could easily describe many situations in the history of our country. Washington's winter predicament at Valley Forge, the cause of Texas freedom after the battle of the Alamo, the Union of the United states after Lee routed the Army of the Potomac at Chancellorsville and, since this is the 65th anniversary of the Pearl harbor attack, the period from Dec 7, 1941 to the June 1942 battle at Midway, all these were "grave" and "deteriorating" situations that our country has faced. In every instance, and so many more, this was also a time when the American spirit of independence, perserverence and resourcefullness rose to the occaision and led to some of the greatest moments in American history. Which is to say, some of the greatest moments in the history of the world. It is an unfortunate reality that the media is not looking for that certain triumph that is neccessarily born out of "grave" and "deteriorating" situations, but instead wishes to assist the enemies of freedom throughout the world by trying to convince the American people that the hand of certain, inevitable doom is upon us and we are bound to fail. Worse, the media often try to portray America as deserving to fail. But failure is not an American concept.
World War II was a popular war for the American people in that it was easy for the entire country to get mobilized behind the war effort after being directly attacked by the Japanese on December 7, 1941. It also didn't hurt that the American people could easily see it as a war of survival. A battle between the forces of freedom and totalitarianism. The Japanese at least had the (decency?) to attack a military target. How is it that in the wake of an equally costly (in lives) attack against a civilian target on September 11, 2001, the country is so willing to avoid the fight that is necessary. YES NECESSARY!! For this is just as much a war of survival.
In the aftermath of the attack, President Bush vowed to go after the terrorists, and the states who support them, wherever they are found. At the time he had what appeared to be an angry, indignant nation behind him, ready to do anything that was necessary to bring the wrath of the United States against them. After the quick disposal of the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, Saddam Hussein foolishly went out of his way to make himself an enemy of the United States.....again. A plethora of arguments can be made for and against attacking Iraq. Certainly there turned out to be no substantial supply of weapons of mass destruction, but after 9/11 would you be willing to give Saddam's regime the benefit of the doubt? This is a regime that violated 16 UN resolutions since the conclusion of the first gulf war. After destroying his army in the field, we, GENEROUSLY, allowed the government to continue as this was the wish of the members of the coalition that joined us in that engagement. We had every reason to expect, and every right to insist that he follow the terms of the surrender agreement. He had every reason to expect and we had every right to carry out his destruction for failing to live up to the terms. It is as simple as that. That Saddam was being uncooperative with the international community and himself having dealings with certain members Al-Qadea in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks was extreme suicidal foolishness on his part. I have no problem with destroying him.
I even have a particular fondness for some of the thinking behind President Bush's actions. The idea of seeding a free and democratic government into the middle east is truly thinking with foresight, despite what his detractors would have you believe. Rather than accept the "reality" of the middle east and look for "practical" and "pragmatic" solutions for dealing with it's ongoing problems, the president chose the bold approach of attempting to alter the reality of the area. (or, as Captain James Tiberius Kirk would say: "He Changed the conditions of the test.") Now that is the kind of thinking that is uniquely American.
I have recently seen a couple of speeches on cable TV by both former President Bill Clinton and Senator Barack Obama. Amazingly they use such similar language in promoting their own personal agendas, as well as in their criticism of President Bush's policies. They both criticize his "idealist" approach preferring to, as they put it "live in reality." Their approach in dealing with Iraq and the middle east (and really everything else as well) is to assess the situation and look for "practical" and "pragmatic" solutions. This has a high minded and intellectual tone to it, and it may even sound reasonable when spoken by charismatic politicians such as these, but it fails to answer the primary question in dealing with the issue of Islamic terrorism: How can you be reasonable with unreasonable people? Those people who seek to undermine freedom in the middle east are themselves idealists. Their ideology is a particularly harsh and fascist brand of Islam. They are fighting a religious war and therefore so are we. Mainstream and supposedly moderate Islam has failed to address or condemn the actions of these groups. Therefore they act with courage and conviction with idealistic principles and, in their minds, with the endorsement of their God. It provides them with an unrestrainable ambition to fight against the "unbelievers" of the world. How are you going to be "practical" and "pragmatic" in dealing with people who will strap a bomb on their own child to blow up an infidel or apostate muslim? The only way to defeat an ideology is to meet it head on with a superior ideology, delivered with just as much courage and conviction as they bring against us. Fortunately we have a superior ideology, for what is America if not.....an ideology. That which has made this nation literally the greatest nation ever to exist is not its land, economy or even its fiercely independent people. It's the principle "that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
After the unprovolked and undeserved attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon it was our right, and our entire duty to project the full weight of American power against those who dared to strike us. We could have been extremely vindictive and annihilated everything in the middle east. The infernal celebrating and dancing in the streets of Islamic cities could have been stifled in seconds if we had wished. We could have (and still could) destroyed every nation that ever in any way supported the Islamic extemist terrorist groups that brought us to this. Instead, we quickly and efficiently eliminated 2 governments and, in a move that once again shows the uniqueness of the American spirit, we then brought our ideology to that part of the world. And with that ideology, the promise of all the freedoms and individual rights that go along with it. Where we could, by right, annihilate we instead offer....a chance. A fair chance at that. Inserting our ideology into the middle east was not only a bold strategy on the part of this president, it was the right strategy. It takes a leader with ideals and principles to do this as these are the very weapons being drawn agaist us. Now is not the time to get weak and impatient.
So what do we do now to deal with this so called "grave" and "deteriorating" situation? The answer is as blatantly obvious as it is peculiarly unpopular with the American people. WE STAY IN IRAQ..INDEFINITELY!
Our policy should be based on an American presence in Iraq for a minimum of 50 (yes, I said FIFTY) years. We should immediately establish permanent (ie. safe and defendable) military bases with the intention of maintaining our influence in both Iraq and the region for the next half century. I know what you are thinking, this goes against what everyone from the president on down has tried to convey to the American people. However it is the only strategy that will work. We cannot change Iraqi society in the short run, except to make it worse. If we withdraw now, Iraq will sort this conflict out itself. There is no doubt that a Shiite leader will rise to power after enough people have been killed to pacify his opponents. Then what will we have? A fundamentalist Islamic regime that will act as our enemy. What will the American people want to do when a terrorist attack against America is traced back to Iraq, just as the 9/11 attack was directly traced to Afghanistan. You KNOW that it will happen as that would be the exactly correct thing to do if you were part of this Jihadist movement. How could a future president re-invade Iraq after the debacle an American withdrawal will produce? Even though he must. No. Regardless of the current cost of this situation, leaving will make it worse. We must stay.
Here is why staying is the only strategy that can succeed...and why it will succeed. The model, in as much as you can have one, is Japan. After they were vanquished in their failed war against America, we likewise insisted on not dealing with the reality of Japan as it was and had always been. We insisted on changing their reality just as we now find ourselves changing the reality of Iraq after vanquishing that government. We did not allow the Japanese government to continue to operate as it had before the war. The ideals of democracy and a free market economy were set upon them even though, like Iraq, they had no history of such ideals. The lives of Japanese people were thrown into turmoil by rapidly-implemented democratization policies and dramatic social and economic changes. Though we are all aware of how well the Japanese have prospered under this system of government it is often forgotten that this prosperity really did not begin to assert itself until the late 1950's. Things don't change overnight. And here is something to consider: America STILL has military bases there. This is the type of commitment that is likewise required in Iraq. We need to keep a presence there so long that this generation of people that have, and continue to tolerate, political and religious totalitarianism will die off and be replaced by younger generations that will grow up with freedom and democracy. We need to monitor their school systems and government institutions and make sure that anti-western and anti democratic ideology is not tolerated. With force when necessary. Thats what you do when you conquer someone. As an idea it is quite simple. In the world of American political realities, and the general impatience of the modern American public, it may turn out to be impossible.
Why are the American people so impatient? Why doesn't the President make clear that this is the only policy that will work? The United States kept an occupation army in the old Confederacy for 12 years (1865-1877) after the American Civil War! This was in a place that had the same government philosophies, spoke the same language and practiced the same religion. 12 years! We have been in Iraq only 4! How can any so called "practical" and "pragmatic" people expect Iraq to be a stable self-sustaining democracy in this short period of time. It has NEVER happened before and there is NO model for it. This is clearly where President Bush has been at his weakest, for he is trying to placate an American tendency toward Attention Deficit Disorder. Apparently the indignation the country felt after 9/11 has worn off.
If we are to be successful against Islamic extremism and keep the fight out of America, we need to keep a military presence in a forward position in this War On Terror. Iraq is just such a position. Given time, and a constant presence and readiness, this war will cool down as our enemies see that it is us who has the stronger will to persevere and survive. In this manner, time is actually our ally. Sure we should continue to train the Iraqi army and let them take the primary and dangerous role of patrolling their country and keeping the peace. That will only happen if their is a strong American military commitment to back it up. Withdrawal is a foolish policy.
Maintaining an American presence in Iraq may, inevitably, require a greater sacrifice on the part of the American people to support it. So be it. This is a war of survival. Contrary to critics of the President's decision to invade Iraq, this was not an optional campaign. It was the next logical step following the battle for Afghanistan just as certainly as Okinawa was the next logical stage in the war against Japan after the battle for Iwo Jima. Wars are not often defined by single campaigns. The American soldiers seem to understand this. Their dedication and commitment is truly impressive. The American people need to match their dedication and get behind this President, and the soldiers in the field, instead of looking for a quick and easy way out. The fighting won't end until we put an end to our enemies. If we withdraw from Iraq, all we will accomplish is moving the battle elsewhere. Perhaps, with the aid of a weapon of mass destruction, right here.
No Mr. Clinton, Mr. Obama, and our esteemed "Iraq Study Group, the only "practical' and "pragmatic" solution that will succeed in the "real" world, is to show the idealists of Islamic extremism that our idealism is superior to their totalitarianism. America is an ideology. Does anybody believe in it any more? Or is everyone too concerned with their own individual pursuits to see what is coming against them?
An unpopular perception of the situation I am sure. But this is how I see it.

The MASTODON Conspiracy

The MASTODON Conspiracy

I read too much. It's true, and believe it or not, it's not all history or conspiracy related. Every month I go to the bookstores in Montgomery and grab a stack of magazines. Most, but not all, are music related magazines. There are the obvious ones you would probably expect me to read like Brave Words & Bloody Knuckles and Metal Hammer etc. that mostly cater to hard rock and heavy metal, but I also read the ones that hover more in the mainstream like Revolver, Uncut and Rolling Stone. Between these magazines and music websites from all over the world, I find myself reading hundreds, maybe even thousands, of reviews of new records every month. Reading record reviews is something I have enjoyed my entire life. Of course I don't buy most of these records. No one could. But I do find the various opinions offered on a plethora of artists and musical styles amusing. It has always led to the discovery of new and interesting music.
There doesn't appear to be any discernable patterns as to what constitutes a "good" record. All too often two records that are remarkably similar will get remarkably different opinions from the same reviewer. Likewise no two music critics see things the same way. You can always find someone who loathes what someone else loves. It is from this volumous reading of reviews that I have, in fact, discovered a disturbing conspiracy being perpetrated against fans of heavy metal all over the world. The evidence is unmistakeable and having unraveled this monstrosity I cannot avoid the inevitable conclusion: Mastodon is the worst heavy metal band EVER and their new CD "Blood Mountain" is the worst record ever made.
I know what you're thinking. I am sure many of you have read a review somewhere of the new Mastodon CD and the reviewer fawned all over it as though it was gold. That, as it turns out, is the problem. They are ALL good reviews. I haven't found anyone anywhere willing to say anything negative about it. That is entirely unnatural. I know I have been known to say that heavy metal as a genre and a culture has become entirely conformist but this is going too far. When I see this type of uniformity of opinion I immediately have to suspect that manipulation is at play.
Think of all the great rock albums of the past. The ones that are almost universally percieved to be the pillars that support the entire rock music culture. They all have one thing in common: At the time of their release there were plenty of people willing to slam them down and deride them as inferior works. Check it out. "Dark Side Of The Moon," "Led Zeppelin 4," "Back In Black," "Master Of Puppets," and more than can be listed. All records that, over time, have proven themselves to be landmark recordings that are the cornerstones of rock music. None ever recieved the kind of pandering praise that Mastodon is recieving for "Blood Mountain." In fact most of these records at the time of their release recieved what could be called undo criticism for the very reasons that have come to have them regarded as landmark records. Universal praise of the kind currently pampering Mastodon has historically been a death sentence for an artist. Terence Trent D'Arby anyone?
So where does this leave Mastodon? Damned to a conformist hell thats where. Everyone, and I mean EVERYONE, is pandering to this Atlanta band. Expectations were high for them, this being their first release on a major label. Their previous release Leviathon," recieved a healthy dose of adulation itself....but nothing like this. To an extent, you can expect this pandering praise from the rank and file media of the metal establishment like BW&BK, Unrestrained or Metal Hammer, but even the mainstream music media like Uncut, Revolver, and Rolling Stone are in on it. Rolling Stone having a history of being unfriendly to metal bands. That in and of itself should tell you something is awry.
It's not limited to the print media either. There are hundreds (really thousands) of websites all over the world that do critical reviews of rock records. Lo and behold they are all towing the line, fawning all over this band. This type of critical fellatio does not happen by accident....but by design. Purchased by their enthusiastic new label who is apparently willing to do whatever is neccessary to keep everyone in lockstep with their program. They are counting on the fact that most people only read a couple of reviews, if any at all. Hear me my friends for I am hear to warn you. You are being manipulated. Resist! Resist!
This won't end well for Mastodon. It can't. A metal band often takes pride in it's resistance to the whims of music critics. Bad reviews are almost a neccessity for a rock band to help create an us against them mentality. Now, poor Mastodon, IS THEM. To be pandered to, and pampered by the media will inevitably lead to a huge backlash. After all....pampering is so NOT metal.
Is Mastodon's label reaping the financial rewards they desired by initiating this grand conspiracy against heavy metal. So far, at least, the answer is no. Divine Justice may ultimately prevail yet again. I read somewhere (I can't remember who said this) that Mastodon would be the next Iron Maiden. Well I don't know about that but since both their new records came out close together it does make for a nice comparison to see what commercial rewards this pact with the devil has brought Mastodon. Iron Maiden's new CD debuted in the US top 10. Mastodon debuted significantly further down. As the two records ease their way off the charts as heavy metal records tend to do the Maiden record always stays well ahead of Mastodon's. Since Iron Maiden is no longer on the roster of what is considered a major label anymore, and therefore not squandering a bloated promotional budget, their record will be profitable and no one can deny that it is a commercial success. Mastodon's budget was higher. The expectations were higher. Therefore the performance will be regarded as a disaster. I guess it turns out that the next Iron Maiden....is Iron Maiden.
Will Mastodon get a second bite at the major label apple or are they doomed to be a one shot deal like Cradle Of Filth? Does this mean that the major labels will look upon this as further proof that heavy metal is no longer a viable force in the music world and condemn us to still more investment in the hip hop culture? Worse, was this a planned failure by someone who wanted to prove that very point? Why were they put on this pedestal? To fail publicly? Time will tell.
The question may need to be asked: Is the record really just so good that it DESERVES all the critical praise it is recieveing. Personally I don't think it's relevant to this writeup. It may be that good but the pampering will destroy them anyway. Universal praise ALWAYS precedes universal damnation. Especially in the world of rock music. Since everyone now has the foul aftertaste of fellating Mastodon's commercial ambitions in their mouths, I can't wait to read the reviews of their next record, no matter what label puts it out. It will be a bloodbath worse than the "St Anger" massacre......And deservedly so.
P.S. If you find a negative review of this record somewhere, tell me where it is. I would like to read it!

Save The Metal Zone

SAVE THE METAL ZONE

About a month ago I was just browsing through the names of users on myspace, looking for people that I might have known (hey, I live in Greenville Alabama, what else have I got to do?), when I came across someone in Tuscaloosa called Dave "The Metal Guy." He had a picture of himself with Judas Priest's Rob Halford, so out of curiosity I wanted to see who it was that would refer to himself as "The Metal Guy." When I clicked over there I found that he does a metal show on the radio station at the University Of Alabama, WVUA-FM. He referred to it as the "longest running specialty show of heavy metal in Alabama." Suddenly I was very familiar with what he was talking about. I knew because as it turns out I knew that very show. I was the guy who started it back in 1982/83. Once upon a time I went by the radio name of Ace. Sort of a tribute to Ace Frehley.

Now over the years I had heard that the show had continued to exist from time to time. Someone had told me it was still going as late as 1996, but that was all I knew about it. No other details about it found me. When I graduated from the University back in 1984 I only made a few trips back to Tuscaloosa. None beyond 1985. So naturally I was interested in contacting Dave to find out the details of the story of the shows survival. I was impressed with what he told me.

It turns out, much to my surprise, that the show didn't have but three hosts between me and him. A grand total of five over 24 years!! Perhaps even more surprising to me was the fact that I knew all of them. Of course It stands to reason I would know Patricia, the girl to whom I passed the torch. She was followed by Tom "the Metal Warrior" who I also knew. Strangely enough, he and I were a members of the same Fraternity. I know what your thinking...you didn't think they let long haired heavy metal rockers into fraternities at Alabama. Well they don't. I was an aberration. Literally the only one. It probably had a lot to do with the particular frat. Delta Sig. If you look for it now you won't find one of their chapters at Alabama anymore. Who knows, things like this may have had something to do with that. But thats another story. Probably the most shocking of the cast of characters who would become the host was Pat Seigler. Shocking to me because I would not have thought he would still be there in 1986 to do the show, let alone continue it till 1993! He was from the state of Washington so he was far from home. That meant he was at the University for 10 years. I'm thinking "proffessional student." C'mon Pat, find me and tell me the story here! It was at that point 1993 that Dave took over and he has been there ever since. No, Dave lives in Tuscaloosa and has graduated so he is not a "proffessional student." However being from Tuscaloosa to begin with, he had the unique distinction of having heard every version of the show.

For those who don't know, and anyone who cares, I can remeber exactly how this show was given birth. It was the fall of 1982, (Could have been the spring of 83 but I don't think so), that graduate student and WVUA manager Jon Peterson approached myself, and my friend and fellow communications student, Eric Stewart about doing an all heavy metal radio show on friday nights. It was Peterson's idea to put specialty shows on from 9-12 every night. The rest of the time the station ran a rotation of Album Oriented and college rock. Several genres were represented in the specialty shows from reggae to blues to punk etc., but friday night was the night chosen for metal. I can remember being somewhat apprehensive about doing the show on friday nights. My fear was that everyone would be out partying and no one would be listening. I should point out that this was a golden era for partying at the University Of Alabama. The drinking age was still 19 and, to be honest, If I wasn't doing the show, I would have occupied a spot in "The Booth" like I did every other night. Yes, I mean EVERY other night. From 6-9 all the draft you could drink for $3.00 followed by as much as 8 for 1 shots of mixed drinks afterward all night...........Utopia?

It turns out I was wrong to worry about the show being on friday night, as it was a resounding success from the start. Really, the only one of the specialty shows that could claim that, although the punk show did well and was also well done. We called the show "The Heavy Metal Experience" as Eric was quite the Hendrix fan, and we even had us a cool slogan: "Home taping is killing music and so are Eric and Ace." After one semester Eric didn't want to do the show anymore so I continued on by myself until I graduated.

This was probably the best time to do a Heavy Metal specialty show. The "New Wave Of British Heavy Metal" was peaking with bands like Iron Maiden, Saxon and Def Leppard still climbing in popularity. I was getting regular requests for bands like Venom, Tygers of Pan Tang, Angelwitch and Demon. It seems looking back as though this show was a great introduction for all the bands that would later be the supergroups of the 80's. I played Metallica, Anthrax, Ratt, Twisted Sister, Queensryche, Dokken, and a host of others while they were still independent unsigned acts with barely a record out. Metal was on an upward spiral and all those bands and many more would go on to sell millions of records. Kerrang magazine, the leading European metal magazine at the time, even gave the show a mention in its pages. That credibility went a long way to getting some of the metal record labels to start sending some records. Otherwise, for the most part, ithe show was built around my record collection. Fortunately, a sizeable one. WVUA even sponsored an air guitar contest and an air guitar show and the audience that showed up for these events was primarily the audience for the metal show.

There was one event above all that stood out to me as showing just how powerful this show had become. There was a campus church group that arranged to have a seminar on campus on the dangers of rock music. I first became aware of it when I saw posters all over campus embazoned with the words "Rock and Roll Hell" ( at the time a current KISS song!), and a picture of a young Jim Morrison. I had been to a few of these things before and knew that they pretty much amounted to only a small group of people preaching the evils of rock music to people who don't actually listen to the stuff. So being a generally mischievous personality, I couldn't resist giving this seminar some free publicity and encouraging the listeners to show up at this thing. I said I would be there and they should be there as well. They did not let me down. When I got there no seats were still available. This was one of the larger lecture halls on the campus that held a few hundred people. You could tell that the presenters were not prepared for such a "partisan" audience. It was a rather humbling experience to realize that I had made that happen. There is still a girl here in Greenville, who was a student then with the organization that put that seminar on, who gives me dirty looks to this day. It was one of the better seminars of its type and some of what they said even lingered with me enough to be the subject of Babylon Mystery Orchestra's second record:"On Earth As It Is In Heaven." The bottom line is that "The Heavy metal Experience" was popular and the audience, as all heavy metal fans tend to be, was dedicated and loyal.

A lot has changed since then. Heavy Metal went on to peak in the late 80's and I am sure the show never lost a bit of its popularity through those years. However metal took quite a hit with the grunge movement in the early 90's. It became, essentially, an underground form of music again. This is where Dave comes into the story as he inherited the show when metal was at its lowest period. That the show survives to this day is a testament, I believe, to his willingness to stick with it. I believe it would have been easy for WVUA to just let the show drop if he hadn't stayed with it past his graduation. A show like this one can only be done well by someone who is willing to buy a lot of music. Although I know the labels send him way more music than they sent when I was doing it, you still have to have a sizeable personal collection or the show won't have all the elements that draw people back time and again.

Now I hear that after all this time, and with heavy metal music back on a big upswing, that WVUA is considering dropping or moving the show. This probably stresses me out the most because I have just recently rediscovered the show and really for the first time listened to the thing. Its a totally different experience to hear it than it is to do the show. Thanks to the "magic" of internet radio I can listen to it. That is one thing I am truly envious about. I wish we had that back in 1983. I am sure the novelty of a metal show in deepest darkest Alabama would have been irresistable to the preconcieved notions of metalheads worldwide. I know it would have attracted attention. Maybe the strangeness of that wears off after 24 years. However Dave tells me that people from all over the world are at some point listening and let him know. Does anyone really believe the proposed replacement of a rap show would have any lure beyond the guys doing the show? Lets be honest. Have you ever heard of a rap artist toiling away for years putting out records that barely sell enough to keep him going? Heavy Metal has literally thrived on such artists. From Jag Panzer to Iced Earth and way beyond. What purpose does it serve when a noncommercial radio station starts devoting too much time rap music which only glorifies the "bling." Rap music already dominates commercial radio and video stations. Does Kanye West need this too? Heres the deal though: A rap show will have a smaller audience than the metal show. Rap music can be heard everywhere. People wont stay home to hear it. There is not, from what I have seen , anywhere near the sense of "community" that has long been developed in the metal world. that is what builds an audience for a specialty show. And yes, I will go ahead and say it. All that rap stuff sounds alike anyway. So there!

The metal show has proven itself over the years. Tamper with something that isn't working and leave it alone. Now if Dave were not willing to continue I could see how there could be a problem. That problem may in fact arrive in the futre. I am sure he won't do it forever. But even then, an attempt should be made to find someone with a sizeable collection of heavy metal records to try and keep it going. Most students currently at the University were not even born when the metal show started.

The shows survival over a generation speaks volumes about its quality over time. So why not on friday nights at 10:00 give it a shot the way I do. Go to www.newrock907.com and listen to it. Dave calls it "The Metal Zone" these days. Even though I know they are now in a different studio, the show still has that sound and feel that makes me picture what it was like to be there 24 years ago. A good blend of old and new, popular and obscure. Done the right way, where the music is the focus, these shows are hard to beat.

Just to set the record straight. When the show started none of the other DJ's at the station liked this type of music. New wave was the big musical movement. The powers that be, aside from Jon Peterson, didn't give it a chance. The Talking Heads were going to change the world. If I heard it once I heard it a thousand times: "David Byrne is a genius." That was important music. heavy metal was already a dead genre. Who got the last laugh?

Sidney Allen Johnson

aka

Ace

P.S. For anyone who remembers the original show and, subsequently, me. Let it be known that I am not entirely a bitter old metalhead.Though I am back to living in Greenville Alabama with 2 cats 2 dogs and a grumpy old man (my not so well father). There is good news.... I just saved a bundle on car insurance by switching to Geico....And I still have ALL of my LONG hair. I survive intact so I win! See www.babylonmysteryorchestra.com for proof. Pat! Tom! Patricia! Where are you? I'm talking pictures here. I never surrendered. Manowar would be so proud. DEATH TO FALSE METAL!!!!