Thanks for the Memories

I posted about the State of Maine banning American Indian mascots entirely, in name and symbol. Apparently this is the first state to do so, following California's partial ban that targeted the name Redskins exclusively.

Following this event, a middle school in Ohio is also contemplating a name change. While this is not that eventful on its own, I think the coverage is interesting. The masthead above has the link (click it). Also, linked here....

The school appears to be moving in the right direction, but, like with all institutions fearing public backlash, they're being cautious and seeking public opinion first by survey. Apparently majority consensus determines wrong or right. Imagine Lincoln issuing a survey before signing the Emancipation Proclamation.

The story tries to show both sides of the issue. Predictably, the reasons for keeping the mascot are limited to tradition, keeping it "just for the memories". Nostalgia isn't a reason to even have a mascot to begin with. Keep in mind, this particular story involves a middle school, not a high school or university, or professional club.

There are younger people interviewed expressing need for change, and of course, older people who want the mascot to stay. All people interviewed are beyond Middle School age, by the way, and one woman is 71 years old. I wonder what actual middle school students think about the issue. I know, it's a crazy idea, asking the group most affected by this symbol (even if they're affected at all).

Hopefully, the White Oak middle school, and the City of Cincinnati will do the right thing.

Some ideas for the future....

Cincinnati has several nicknames, some more old school than others. But... Queen City, Blue Chip City, and Porkopolis can lend themselves to some pretty cool mascot ideas.

School Mascots derived from Porkopolis would be the most fun
https://www.designevo.com/create/logos/pig.html

Worst of the Decade: Music Edition

I have come to the conclusion that, while there are plenty of terrible bands out there, There seems to be one, every ten years or so, that rises to the top (or the bottom?) of the rubbish bin. Notorious because of inept, formulaic song writing, unearned brand recognition (the sell-out phenomenon), and stupid, childish antics taken way too serious, these bands transcend bad music, way past the point of satire.

Before I start listing the cream (or scum) off the top of the garbage heap, here are some honorable (dishonorable) mentions:

Van Halen: Yes I know, everyone over 40 just shit themselves. But think about this, without David Lee Roth, this band wouldn't be on this list. The guy is the number one clown of Rock music. Also, Eddie Van Halen is probably the most self centered douchebag in all of Guitar Town. Also also, they enabled so much terrible crap from a generation of copycat bands. I guess the fact that Eddie, specifically, influenced so many other good (better) guitar players later on keeps them from not deserving to be on this list after all.

Imagine Dragons: "Overproduced shlock" is how Kory Grow from Rolling Stone describes them. Which is pretty much a bullseye. I like to think of them as leading the charge in the second coming of disco. More on this later.

Five Finger Death Punch: How many times can a band write a song with a spoken word bridge gimmick? Apparently, every time. This band and its false tough guy bravado is why Metal is dying. They are the epitome of But Rock. (See Below). 

Coldplay: A big theme here is going to be authenticity. No one likes a copycat. And while there is an argument to be made that all bands that fit into a genre, by definition, are fitting into a mold defined by the genre, this is different than attempting to be another band to the point of being indistinguishable. This is why people hate Greta Van Fleet, and why Stoned Temple Pilots and Creed received so much criticism in the 90s. Coldplay also gets criticism for trying to be Radiohead. Lately, they seem an awful lot like Maroon 5, which is weird, because Coldplay came first. In addition, the music itself is safe, boring, predictable.

The Eagles: I think this has more to do with the band's attitude, and the fact that the sum of the parts doesn't equal the greatest of these dudes when they do solo work. I love Joe Walsh, but Joe Walsh + The Eagles, while the best kind of Eagles, still sucks. I read articles about this Eagle-hating phenomenon, and adjectives like "wallpaper", and phrases like "easy listening elevator music" are used many times. While I think those are great descriptors, it comes down to the fact that they sound safe, boring, and predictable, like Coldplay, but from the 70s.

So, here we are, my list by decade, of the worst bands in history. Every decade has one. Starting from this decade, I present my theory:


The 20teens:

While Imagine Dragons, and AWOL Nation are pretty good choices, I found a better one.

21 Pilots.

"Ma! Where's my juice box!"

Aaron Cooper of Bearded Gentlemen Music (its like hipster Pitchfork... if you can imagine an even more hipster Pitchfork) describes this band as appealing to "People who are too young to appreciate legitimate art regardless if they don’t understand it, or people who refuse to become functioning adults and have accepted the mediocrity of eating Taco Bell for dinner for the rest of their lives". They are heralded as experts in blending genres. I guess that is true, they do take synth EDM and blend it with Hip Hop (sort of) and try and throw in angsty teenage rock lyrics. But the resulting product is just what I like to call the new disco. It's mass produced pop garbage for clubs, if those clubs were exclusively for depressing goth kids.

I get it, this music isn't for me. It is targeted at a certain age group. But still, music for teenagers doesn't have to be filled with so many awful cliches, and overused themes. Kids deserve good music too. And, as an aside, these two dudes are way way past young adult status and are trying to pass off what they do as "art". There are plenty of good bands with substance whose songs appeal to teenagers. Good music is universally enjoyable.


The 2000s:

This one is an obvious choice. Nickelback, for the win!

They couldn't look any more basic. Its a Band of Dads

There has been plenty written about how Nickelback went from a relatively uninspiring pop rock band in a sea of other similarly sounding bands from this decade, into one of the most notorious and hated successful acts of all time. They spawned an entire generation of mediocre rock (Medio-core, as Fat Mike calls it) known as But Rock. The term comes from a mid-2000s rock radio station tag line "nothing but rock". 

While there are plenty of bands that are contemporary to Nickleback and published similarly terrible But Rock (3 Days Grace, Seether, Buck Cherry, Shinedown), the hate for Nickelback is summed up by Salli Antonin's title for her paper "Hypocritical Bullshit Performed Through Gritted Teeth". Her hypothesis revolves around how hatred stems not from the music itself, but from how the band creates the music, preferring to craft hit songs as a factory would turn out furniture, building things they know will sell based on genre sounds, instead of innovating or creating anything new. People can smell a phony, and Nickelback is as phony as they come. Also, they are incredibly arrogant about the whole thing. Chad Kroeger is perhaps the doucheiest rock star since Eddie Van Halen.

The 1990s:

It may be too easy to just throw the Insane Clown Posse out here, I have to keep in mind that this is about rock music, specifically, and the ICP does consider themselves hip hop. And also, in their defense, they have managed to build a brand and fanbase so strong, it has become a counter culture. So I went with the next worse thing from the 90s....

Limp Bizkit.

Photobombed by the Death Metal kid

These guys are probably the worst band on this list of worst bands, regardless of the decade. I mean... G.G. Allin is pretty terrible, if you consider a psychotic, Nazi, Iggy Pop wannabe to be a rockstar, but that abomination aside, Fred Durst is the worst person ever. This band hits all the other horrible band benchmarks.

They're unoriginal hacks, riding on the backs of rock/hiphop pioneers 311 and Rage Against the Machine. The only song worth hearing was a George Michael cover. The fanbase seems to be made up of dudes who are too conservative to be punk rock, but still want to posture and brag about how tough and apathetic they are. If Johnny Rotten also played lacrosse and Call of Duty and spent all his time talking about smashing chicks, he'd be Fred Durst.

All of this would be acceptable, there are plenty of rock icons who piggy backed on other greater influences, and also were all about sex, if it wasn't for the substance of the music. The music is awful, playing to the lowest common denominator (the lyrics read like a Dr Suess book for adult morons). The band is a joke, and not the good, clever kind of joke like Steel Panther, but the bad kind that gives you VD and makes you question your life choices. In comparison, this band makes Nickelback look good.


The 1980s:

I've established many times how much I hate 80's music. If the entire decade can be summed up as having one good genre (punk rock), and also 6 or 7 actually good bands that are not that genre, the decade is probably trash. But the worst of the worst has got to be....

Poison.

Boy George called... he wants it all back, fellas

The '80s was a time when rock was littered with Van Halen wannabes like Ratt, Wasp, Motley Crue, and other similar Alice Cooper/KISS inspired shows that seemed more devoted to how much glitter they could shove down their skintight pants than their song writing. The bright spot for this era of rock is the creation of my favorite joke of all time:

Q: What has 9 arms and sucks?

A: Def Leppard.

But of all the terrible terribleness of the 80s, Poison rises through it all (or sinks like a brick?). They embody all that makes the genre of glam/hair metal so bad, while also being slandered by their own peers. Nikki Sixx from Motley Crue thinks they suck. Guns n Roses hated them. That's like all the other clowns from the circus looking down on the same dude for making the worst balloon animals. I think the reason I cant stand them, aside from the fact that the music is not good, is the motivations for becoming a band to start with. According to the band, they wanted to "get chicks". And while sex is an awesome perk of being a rockstar, making music should probably be the top priority. Even Nickelback puts music first.


The 1970s:

I want to put the Eagles on this throne. But after some reflection, there are better candidates. Ted Nugent comes to mind. I had a single "ah ha!" moment, and figured out exactly which band belongs here.

KISS.

There is too much WTF going on in this picture

If you had no idea what KISS were, and just happened to stumble upon some of their unending line of merchandise, it would be easy to assume they are anything but a band that plays actual music. The monochrome facepaint and goth/sci-fi costumes fit better in crazy 80's children's television programming, or a setting from a Robert E Howard book. They look like a young wrestling fan's fever dream, and yet they sell out stadiums.

That's the part that seems unimaginable. How does this visual trainwreck sell out stadiums, while other bands in the same time period doing similar crazy onstage stuff, like Alice Cooper, and the New York Dolls, struggled? It took Twisted Sister 10 years to even secure a record contract. True, they do set things on fire, and blow things up, and spit blood, but then so does Iggy and the Stooges (only its not an act).

To sum up, this review from 1974 by Patrick MacDonald says all that needs to be said: "the music is strictly on the moron level, being made up of simple cords any child could learn and lyrics that are there because they rhyme". This isn't enough, though for me to declare them "worst of the '70s". If simple cord progressions were the only criteria every American Hardcore band would be on this list, but Black Flag is awesome.

MacDonald also points out they are "a very flashy glitter band that tries to make up in theatrics what it lacks musically". And that is what connects all of these terrible bands on this terrible list. But these guys did it first, and influenced all the Poisons and Nickelbacks, and garbage formulaic pop songs, and man eating plant puppets, and flame throwing codpieces, and every single Spinal Tap-esque moment in rock music history.

Speaking of Spinal Tap... if comic geniuses create a parody act about you and your very serious music career, you're probably a colossal joke. KISS is the real life Spinal Tap. Gene Simmons is far more interested in selling his brand, making money off an icon. And while this is great for Gene Simmons, the PT Barnum of Rock, it makes me question the intelligence of the KISS Army that continues to buy stupid things.

Racists Ruin Everything

This post may get whiny real quick. But, it is something I've been thinking about for a while, and watching unfold in real time. White Nationalism/Supremacy and Neo-Nazis are co-opting whatever cultural heritage I have, and it sucks.

Growing up, for lack of better information, I thought I was half German, and equal remaining parts Irish, Scottish and English. Turns out, I'm mostly German, maybe a bit Polish, and also smaller equal bits Irish, Scottish and English. So, really, from the start, this confrontation with the bad sides of my cultural make-up should have been foreseen.

seems like a natural friendship

What exactly am I talking about? White Supremacy, obviously, and specifically, all the crazy propaganda and symbolism. Hate groups, specifically white racist hate groups, love symbolism. They fly them on flags, and get them tattooed. Most of the iconography these groups use are linked directly to the Third Reich, or are specific to the Klan, which can easily be avoided. But they also like to co-opt a narrow set of culturally specific iconography, most of which just happens to also be mine.

Pretty obviously, anything German, or Germanic related has already been discovered, and reimagined by supremacy groups, mostly by Hitler's Nazis. White Supremacists are fond of Norse and Germanic runic symbols, and Crusader-era crosses. I am not Scandinavian, but a lot of the Norse imagery used by these groups is shared by Germanic people. Anyone would be hard-pressed to find anything Germanic that hasn't been used or utilized in one way or another by one or more hate groups. Even the part of me that may be Polish isn't immune. There are Polish Nationalist groups out there, and Poles and Germans do share ancient history, and a fascination with eagle logos. The Anti-Defamation League has a long annotated list of Hate Symbols here.

even this unofficial football logo is suspect

Speaking of Germanic/Norse imagery, there is nothing White Supremacy loves to do more than pine for the good old days when Europeans lived like kings in "racially pure" times. The times when waging wars against the evil Muslims in the Holy Land was a cultural past time, and everyone north  and west of the Mediterranean needed lots of sunblock. The Middle Ages is right in the white supremacy wheelhouse. There are plenty of articles out there about the struggles Medieval Studies is having with white supremacy, like this one from The Chronicle of Higher Education. But, they also like to go even further back... before Christianity gobbled up Europe and consolidated the cultures. Before Christians and Crusades, before the Romans even, there were Celts.

The Celts, if you hadn't ever taken a European history class, are this Iron Age (800-450 BC) cultural group that spanned Europe from the Urals (Russia) to the Iberian Pennisula (Spain). By the first century AD, the Celts were absorbed by, or pushed further west by Romans and Germanic tribes. The last remnants of this culture that used to span Europe exist within Irish, Scottish, Welsh, and Brittanic culture groups, and even then it barely lives on through language.

However, White Supremacy groups view the Celts as the mythical Aryan master race, which was a theory highly prized by Hitler's Nazi party, and therefore by all descendant Neo-Nazi ideologues. Aryan, a word used for other culture groups from the Indian sub-continent, had been used by Freidrich Max Muller, and later Arthur Gobineau, and Charles Morris. But this "Aryan" race probably never existed, and are early terms created to explain ancient culture shifts. Modern and contemporary Archaeology names early proto-cultures very differently.

Regardless of historical truth, these racist groups use Celtic imagery also. In addition to all of the other stuff, Celtic knots and Irish crosses also have been taken by the White Supremacists.
Sierra Lumota at the University of Pennsylvania wrote about her experiences with the National Policy Institute here, which includes a bit about a tattoo artist specializing in Celtic imagery.

So... here I am, a white dude in the United States, a country with its own history of racist icons, Nazi sympathizers, and White Nationalist fervor, unable to enjoy, or display any cool cultural symbolism without worrying that I may be confused for these other hate groups.

I just want to be Knotty

I have no desire to belong to or be associated with these die hard ideologues that believe in half-truths, mythologized histories, and hate-filled rhetoric. I wish they'd picked someone else's cultural groups when cherry picking their iconography.

One by One, Change will Come

Up until recently, the State of Maine had one remaining high school with an American Indian mascot. Skohegan is the county seat of Somerset County, the Skowhegan Regional school district services 5 other neighboring communities. The Press Herald published the following story earlier this week about a press release from Maine's Department of Education. The link is below.

The history of Maine and tribal relations revolves around a series of wars with the Wabanaki Confederacy. By 1725, the 4th Anglo-Abenaki War ended with the native population of the Somerset area either pushed out or massacred. This history, like most American relationships with local tribes, makes using the mascot far more uncomfortable.

Later in the week, Skowhegan held a meeting to discuss the mascot. Apparently, the meeting concluded with a resolution to discontinue the name. The story is below, reported by the local ABC affiliate. The State of Maine no longer has American Indian mascots in their schools.

Utilitarianism: A Primer

Sometimes I am accused of being, or lumped into a box called The Left. While it may be true that I am Left leaning on the political spectrum, I think it is important to distinguish how, like the Right, there are many different philosophical groups within the Left.

I like to think of myself as a Utilitarian mostly because A: for it's flaws, it mostly makes sense to me as a broad plan to make decisions B: the over arching theme spells a death for individual exceptionalism. No one is special. C: It's basics are echoed by many other Leftist philosophies. So what is it exactly?

Utilitarianism: 

A branch of Consequential Philosophy declaring that consequences of utility should be the basis for decision making. Basically, actions should produce the most utility for the largest group of people. Utility in this case means "good". Also, to clarify, the philosophy as a whole considers all human beings to be people and to be equal. There is no special determinations made for wealth, gender, or age. As Utilitarianism has evolved, it has merged with deontological ethics, bridging the two philosophies.

In 1780, Jeremy Bentham published the first ideas of utility as a basis for morality. As a consequentialist philosophy, Bentham argued that "the greatest happiness of the greatest number of people" is the measurement for morality, right and wrong. Instead of rules and laws laid down ahead of time that can be very black and white, consequentialism views the outcome as the indicator of morality, not the actions that lead to the outcome. In Utilitarianism, if the outcome benefits more people, than the actions are justified.

Bentham

Bentham was more interested in earlier Hedonism, popularized by Aristipuss and Epicuris, but Utilitarianism evolved under John Stuart Mill, who moved the definition of utility from "utility=pleasure" to "utility=well-being". Mill was pretty clear to separate Utilitarianism from Hedonism. Hastings Rashdall and G.E. Moore continued to separate the two ideas at the turn of the 20th century. Ideal Utilitarianism is a rejection of Bentham and focuses on promoting beneficial experiences, and relationships, and limiting pain, hatred and contempt.

One of the biggest challenges to early Utilitarianism was the rejection of rule/law. Mill wrestled with this, as did Richard Brandt and Brad Hooker. Act and Rule Utilitarianism attempts to mitigate the problems that arise from attempting to weigh consequences for each and every decision. The probability of choosing less than the best utility are high. So... Act Theory states that an act is right if it maximizes utility. Rule Theory maintains that an act is right if it adheres to a rule/law meant to maximize utility.

John Stuart Mill

Robert Merrihew Adams then took Act/Rule theory in 1976 and rolled it all into Motive Theory, which posits that Utilitarianism should be used to create motive and disposition which would then dictate choice of action and applied rules/laws. This allowed Utilitarianism to shed its Consequential Hedonist past and merge with Kantian ethics.

The biggest issue with Utilitarianism is the definition of utility. How do we quantify it? If we use the earliest, most vague notion of utility as happiness/pleasure, than this criticism has weight. Hedonistic happiness seems to be short term, individualist, and subjective. But, when the idea of utility changes to well-being, the ability to measure that on a grand scale becomes easier, and it evolves from a short-term consequence, into a longterm, more objective, more group-based happiness.

There are definitely parallels to Socialism here. Many Socialist ideals hinge on the greater good for the most number of people (the working class population far exceeds management/shareholders). However, Utilitarianism is not without casualties. The ideal is the "Greatest Good for Greatest Number" after all, not "Greatest good for Everyone". Realistically there will be losers, the plan is to minimize the losers, but still acknowledge that reducing that number to zero is not always possible.

There are plenty of ethical scenarios that play with this idea. Grim scenarios abound, like, "If you have to sacrifice one child to save the lives of millions, do you do it"? Utilitarianism would say yes, by the way, if that is the only, best option. This makes Utilitarianism out to look unfeeling, robotic in the way it weighs consequence, turning people/populations into equations rather than appealing to lives as more significant. I don't believe it does this at all. I think the fact that the end goal is to lift up majorities is enough to prove Utilitarianism does in fact value human life as significant, far more significant than any one single individual.

It seems to me that Democratic Socialism, or as they used to say, Democracy, as a form of government would be the best way to govern through Utilitarianism. If everyone has a voice and vote, it is an easy way to calculate what most of the society wants. At this point, it is pretty easy to study society and figure out best practices to be used to best defend our welfare, maximize social capital, and promote healthy lifestyles on a grande scale, without limiting liberty.

Utilitarianism does not place anyone's own personal ambitions above others, which is why it isn't really a Capitalist philosophy. If the consequence of the actions leaves one person rich, and many others scrambling to survive, that isn't maximizing group utility. If laws protect and serve only one groups' utility and undermine the utility of minority groups, than that doesn't fit into this philosophy.

By framing my thinking this way, like Adams said, I have changed my motivations, which has led to changing my opinions about many political issues. Utilitarianism, at its core, ignores systemic groupings like race, culture, religion, and class. It ignores the ambitions, and desires of the individual for the betterment of the welfare of the group. This appeals to me.