Superman

Why you should only vote for Democrats

I know some local Republicans who are running for office, and they’re running for things like Clerk of Courts and Register of Wills and boring jobs that really have no political agenda or political power. So in some ways, you can say “What’s the big deal if I vote for this person?”

But you need to ask yourself how you could vote for someone who supports a party that stands for the following:

  • Discrimination against gays and lesbians
  • Eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency
  • Open carrying of firearms and reduction of any gun control laws
  • Lowering the minimum wage
  • Opposition to equal pay for women
  • Tax breaks for billionaires
  • Reproductive decisions made by government and employers
  • Deporting of refugee children
  • Denying of climate change and science
  • Creationism taught in school
  • Health care only for those who can afford it
  • Elimination of unions
  • Banning of books that they disagree with politically
  • Support for treasonous Presidents and denial of democracy

If I vote for a Republican Dog Catcher, am I thus supporting someone who believes in discrimination? That thinks my wife is a lesser person who can’t make her own decisions? Who supported overturning an election?

More importantly, why should I help that party at all? Every lower office run by a Republican helps the party raise money for the bigger offices, and legitimizes their positions.

So if and until the Republicans go back to the days when there were reasonable conservatives, don’t give them more power.

And it’s important to vote in every election. The GOP has spent its time filling our school boards with radicals who want to censor what your kids can learn, defund public schools to help private schools, and give us an educational crisis we haven’t seen in years, where dedicated teachers are leaving all over the country because of these extremists. Don’t just pay attention to election day every four years! Every election counts!

Be sure to vote, and only vote for Democrats. It’s the only way we’re going to stop them.

So worried

The Beatles’ “new” song “Now and Then”

Back in the late 70s, when John wasn’t recording regularly, he’d still make music. With his trusty boombox, he’d record bits and pieces of song ideas he might use later. Then in 1980, he decided to make a full album again, which turned out to be “Double Fantasy.” Other songs were recorded at the same time but deemed not good enough for that album, and so were never finished. They later were finished by other musicians and released on John’s posthumous album “Milk and Honey.”

In the 90s, the three remaining Beatles were organizing a series of three collections known as the “Anthology” series. Yoko gave Paul some of the tapes John had made during the 70s, and with better technology, they were able take John’s voice and add new instruments and vocals to make the songs “Free as a Bird” and “Real Love,” which were placed on the first and second Anthologies respectively.

However, the third one, “Now and Then,” was just not good enough sound-wise to complete. John’s voice was overshadowed by the piano and other noises. George called it “rubbish” (although it’s not clear whether he meant the recording or the song itself) and so it was never completed.

Fast forward thirty years or so, and technology has improved. Peter Jackson’s company created a process by which a specific sound can be identified by the computer and isolated from all the sounds around it. This was used extensively in the “Get Back” movie he produced and directed. (Despite headlines saying “The Beatles used AI,” it’s really no more AI than any other sound-reducing technology that has been around for years — it’s just better at it.)

Anyway, with John’s voice now clear, Paul and Ringo worked to complete the song, using clips of George’s guitar playing and previous harmonies. And so we finally get “Now and Then.” It sounds great.

But… is it a great song?

Well, that’s the problem. We Beatles fans are thrilled to hear this, but honestly, the song underneath isn’t that great of a song. It’s certainly not up to Beatles standards.

But that’s understandable.

I’ve been in bands and written hundreds of songs, and I’ve written novels and short stories, and there’s one thing I can guarantee: the first drafts suck. You take your first ideas, throw them together, and then work at it until it’s what you want.

And these three songs of John’s were first drafts. They were all recorded prior to his last album and obviously, he didn’t think they were good enough to use on that album. The lyrics are rather pedestrian (especially for John) and while they’re still better than many songwriters could do (Come on, it’s John Lennon), they could have used work — because they were first drafts.

In the bands I have been in, I would take my new songs to the group and we’d work on them. If you have really good fellow musicians who also write songs, they will give suggestions on how to improve the song. Despite one person being the songwriter, making music like that is a group project, and I can’t think of a single example of a song I wrote that wasn’t improved by practicing with the other musicians.

And that’s true for the Beatles as well, as any Beatles scholar will tell you. Recordings of early versions of their songs and the final versions show how much the songs changed and improved thanks to the musicianship and suggestions of their fellows.

And, of course, with neither John nor George here to make those suggestions, there was only so much Paul and Ringo could do with that original recording of “Now and Then.”

Some people are using that to say it really isn’t a “Beatles” song, but I disagree. You don’t need all four together for that. There are many songs in the Beatles catalogue that don’t have all four playing (“I Me Mine,” “Yesterday,” “The Ballad of John and Yoko,” “Blackbird” and so on).

So let’s enjoy this new song while understanding the limitations Paul and Ringo were under. Yeah, it’s not a new classic, but to hear John’s voice clear again sure is wonderful.

(By the way, if you’re really a Beatles fan, shouldn’t you have my book “The Beatles on the Charts“?)

Eye of the beholder

Let’s talk Constitution

I’m the guest on the latest edition of the Leftscape podcast, where we discuss the Constitution! Please check it out!

No Words

Hire me so I can destroy your company!

Republicans hate government and think it’s the problem. They then get elected and spend their entire time making government underfunded and inefficient, thus proving their point about how terrible government is. And that’s their reason for electing them.

Imagine applying for a job where you say “I hate your business and I want to destroy it from within, so please hire me.”

The latest GOP plan is to defund the IRS, which will costs us billions when the IRS won’t have the staff or budget to go after people who don’t pay their taxes.

But the GOP is fine with that, because the people who don’t pay their taxes are almost all the millionaire class that votes for them. And if the government becomes more inefficient because we don’t have the money, they can use that to complain.

(As an aside: October was a tremendously depressing month for me for many reasons and not just politics, so forgive me for not updating this blog regularly. I guess I needed a month off.)

The Thomas Clown Affair

Fetterman and the dress code

Forget the terrible problems facing our country today. What has conservatives mad? That my senator John Fetterman doesn’t like to wear a suit.

Oh horrors! You all know that the Constitution demands that all politicians dress appropriately: Powdered wigs, knee britches, and long-tail coats only!

Anyway, political cartoonists had fun with this, so I thought I’d share these, along with a post from Fetterman referring to a certain Republican who was recently kicked out a play for vaping marijuana, talking during the performance, and groping her partner — and to which the Republicans have been amazingly silent about.