Pages

Friday, October 6, 2017

Music minus fun.

There's that funny music again. And the really strange thing is, every time I hear it, there's someone at the front door. What's that? A door bell? Oh ... okay. Never mind.

Well, I thought I was on to something important there; maybe a new scientific principle born of some random observation, like noticing a minor irregularity in the orbit of Mercury. No such luck, my friends - looks like the Nobel Prize for Physics will be going to someone else this year ... again. (Don't know how many of these disappointments I can stand.) I understand that our mad science advisor, Mitch Macaphee, has been nominated for the Ignobel Prize in making things blow sky high. That's a tough one to win - it's a little hard to guess how high sky high is.

Lord only knows, we don't do what we do here at Big Green for the love of prizes and little metal statuettes. Neither do we do it for the money. (The simple fact is that there IS no money in what we do.) Nay, we just do it for the simple joy of music .... that omnipresent mellifluous force that lifts our spirits up on high. That unseen power that unites us with the choir invisible. That ... I don't know .... ear worm that drives you out of your skull for three days; thanks an effing bunch, Matt! YOU AND YOUR CATCHY TUNES!

Not MY master's voice.Honestly, if we relied on positive feedback, like all of our coaches and half of our therapists suggested, we would have left this "business" years ago. I've known enterprising individuals who consider push-back a strong indication that you're doing the right thing. That sounds good to me, but frankly ... we don't even get a lot of negative feedback. We're like the band in the bubble. We're music minus fun.

Hey, maybe we're on to something, right? Matt wrote a song years ago called "Motivation X" which celebrated the sentiment: use your motivation to restrain yourself. That's the revolution, right? Go easy on the world. Start a collective and make music because that's what you do, not because you want to rip the world a new asshole and burn through a lot of money, a lot of trees, a lot of water, a lot of gas, etc. Make your revolutionary act the act of not succeeding.

Wait .... there's that funny music again! Mailman, perhaps?

Arms control.

Let's have some fun with semantics, shall we? Start with the word "gun". What is a gun and when does it stop being a gun and become, say, a bazooka or a howitzer? Though I suppose you can say that a howitzer is a kind of gun - big guns, as in "Bring out the big guns!" How about a staple gun or a glue gun? So a "gun" just a device for expelling something, right? That's why it also serves as one of umpteen English euphemisms for penis, among other applications. Well, fortunately for you 2nd Amendment purists out there, this very confusing word "gun" does not appear anywhere in the text of your favorite founding document of the Republic. The Constitutional scholars over at the local NRA gathering simply assume the word "arms", which is used in the amendment, means every manner of gun from the .38 special to the Kalashnikov. Why they stop there I have no idea. Given the vague wording of the 2nd Amendment, our founders seem to leave the door open to an inalienable right to brandish a bazooka, or a howitzer, or a tactical nuclear missile for that matter. "Arms" is a far more general term than "gun", so obviously we draw the line somewhere.

Constitutional right to ALL of them?Based on the evident facts of the massacre in Las Vegas, it's way past time to move that line a bit south from where it's been over the past couple of decades. I know my gun enthusiast friends bristle at the thought of restricting "assault rifles", largely on the basis of the fact that the term is not sufficiently defined and, like all terms, highly subject to interpretation. Fair enough. But it seems to me we are in need of restrictions on the actual firepower represented by these weapons (particularly when modified, as the Las Vegas shooter's rifles were, to operate as automatic weapons) rather than the specific design. Nine rounds a second seems kind of excessive, for instance. Is there any earthly reason why someone using a gun for self-defense, hunting, or other varieties of personal amusement would need to shoot more than a round or two per second?

I know, I know ... I'm trying to spoil people's fun. There are something like 200,00 legally registered automatic weapons out there, millions more semi-automatics, and people just love, love, love to shoot them at target ranges, etc. Great. But weight your right to do something fun against the right of others to be protected against the massive trauma and death caused by such weapons on a regular basis. If you can have your normal old .30-30 hunting rifle, your handgun, your shotgun, and your Bowie knife, but NOT the modified assault rifle, has your right to keep and bear arms been violated? You still have guns, right? Just not every kind of gun you want to have.

I guess our little semantics game should end on "rights." Are "rights" about what we should be able to do or are they about being able to do every little thing our heart desires ... like owning that modified AR-15? I guess it's up to us to answer that question.

luv u,

jp