What's interesting about the world of punk is that the very thing that makes it good is the thing that makes it bad. It's very Shakespearean in that way. I'm fascinated by the fact that it's greatest strength and it's worst weakness are the exact same thing. And that is, that anyone can do it.
The fact that anyone can do it, and there are no prerequisites whatsoever to starting a punk band, not least of which ever included possessing any musical ability, was good, in a way, because it leveled the playing field. Now all you needed were some friends willing to give it a try.
Unfortunately, this bred far too much mediocrity and just plain awful music. This is only natural, because, strictly speaking in odds, if something is turned loose on the general public, it will become mediocre and watered-down. That's just what happens. Think back to anything in the past to see an example.
Thankfully, the punk movement produced The Ramones. The Ramones have always been an extraordinary band, and a very special one at that. If the punk movement had not produced this flagship band, I think a lot of people would be scratching their heads, thinking, "what was it all about?"
However, I submit to you that the Ramones are the first and LAST true punk band. They are the only real punk band to ever have existed. Everything else is just a bunch of lies. Importantly, the Ramones were unpretentious in the extreme, almost to the point of parody, and had no image to live up to, at least at first, and no standards to live up to. They just looked at all the popular musical trends that came before them in the sixties and attempted in their own inimitable way to do what they did. And thank goodness for everyone, they were wildly successful.
All the post-Ramones bands that call themselves punk are not so. Utter, unmitigated crap like The Casualties, Aus-Rotten, Crass and all the "spikey-haired" crew may be something, but in my view it's not PUNK. It's a distortion of the original meaning. What the spikey-haired crew is -- and here's a cold, hard fact for them -- are hippies wearing different clothes. But they are hippies 2.0, because they've added (faux) anger to their noxious stew.
I know of what I speak, because I was involved in the punk world for many years. I came to realize it is NOT a good or kind world. It is a selfish, dumb, spoiled, talentless, repetitive, redundant, boring, abject, gutter-level group that self-oppresses. They choose to stay in the basement when they could live in the penthouse. This is contrary to all logic. But most importantly, they are a CLOSED-MINDED group. This is important because they pride themselves on being open minded. They never, ever stop beating that drum of "open minded". I see now that is because they are severely insecure of their own closed-mindedness.
Here's a quick example. If you were to show up to a punk show wearing a Kiss T-shirt, you would be openly mocked and ridiculed, and probably even confronted by total strangers. And this is just a T-shirt. That is not the open-mindedness I've heard them talk so much about. Just the contrary, they only want you listening to punk rock. If you dare listen to all the myriad other types of music in this world, you're not "true" , you're not "punk", you're not "core" or whatever the terminology of the minute is. You're just a worthless traitor in their eyes. They WANT you to stay in the "basement" I spoke of earlier. They WANT you stuck on an endless hit parade of songs about how life sucks, beer, and "police brutality" (a popular punk subject that the "songwriters" have absolutely zero experience with.)They don't want anyone to excel in life. Probably because none of THEM has excelled in life. That's not just ignorant and lazy, it's actually unhealthy. That's one form of the self-oppression I spoke of earlier. (many punk songs are about how they are VICTIMS of oppression). They prefer to stay in the dark when there's a lightswitch right there. How could I continue to be involved in such a group?
The bottom line is, you mustn't break the orthodoxy. What's fascinating about punk rockers (and liberals, which is really what punks are), is that they have a hatred for religion (and this is exemplified in countless songs on punk albums and in any punk literature, if that isn't an oxymoron). (Side note, Oxymoron is the name of a punk band)....So despite their avowed hatred for religion, what they don't realize, because they're blinded by their own hypocrisy, is that liberalism/punk IS a religion, with its own dogmas, orthodoxies and rules. So once again, there is a set of rules for them, and a set of rules for everyone else.
Once that hypocrisy dawned on me, and saw that the punk rockers were not kind, they were self-absorbed, suddenly those repetitive same chords endlessly repeated on the guitar seemed boring and empty. Their philosophies, such as they were, were all lies and hypocrisy. And these are the ones that had no interest in just drinking beer and fighting. I'm talking about the pseudo-intellectual contingent of the scene. But you can be pretty dumb and still be an intellectual in the punk scene. Talk about a big fish in a small pond. And I've been selling my punk records ever since. If you are after any, feel free to contact me!
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Friday, March 13, 2009
DVD Review I Wrote For the Hartford Examiner
Here is an review I just wrote for the Hartford Examiner. I am "simulcasting" it if you will, here on my blog. I may start doing that periodically. Here it is:
Exodus is a band from the Bay Area of California. They formed in the early eighties, and by the time of the mid-eighties, a new subgenre of heavy metal was born: it was called thrash. A scene sprang up in the Bay Area (among other places), and with bands such as Exodus, Testament, Forbidden, Vio-lence, Death Angel, and yes, even Metallica, who claims they were "kicked out of L.A." and found their spiritual home in San Francisco.
In 1985, Exodus released their debut album on Torrid records, entitled "Bonded by Blood". Taking all the pre-existing elements of the heavy metal genre, and amping them up to the next level, the album featured fast, pounding drums, lightning fast guitar riffs, and the maniacal screams of the legendary (and now sadly deceased) Paul Baloff. This was an exciting time for the metal genre as fans and critics alike flocked to this new sound.
With the current resurgence of interest in the thrash metal of days past, enter the new DVD released by Zaentz records, "Exodus: Double Live Dynamo". While the title and font recall Ted Nugent, this is somewhat puzzling because the Motor City Madman is nowhere to be found. The DVD is set up as two concerts: the first in 1985 at the Dynamo club, and the second from 1997 at the Dynamo open air festival, both in Eindhoven, Holland. This is identical in structure to fellow metallers Toxik's DVD "Dynamo open air 1988" (and who doesn't have that one? Just kidding).
The first concert, the club date, is excellent. While not TOO dissimilar to what, in years past, would have passed as a bootleg, the mid-eighties camcorder footage, rather than decrease enjoyment, adds that dewy layer of nostalgia and charm. The crowd is going crazy (European fans tend to appreciate American metal bands visiting their countries), and the band performs a tight, energetic and highly entertaining set. Also of interest are the performance of two songs not released on any album, "Hell's Breath" and "Deathrow", making, by default, this DVD an essential purchase for completists due to that alone. Add to that some pre-show soundcheck footage and a great time is had by all.
Sadly, the second concert doesn't quite live up to the first. From 1997, a low year for metal generally speaking, I applaud Exodus for soldiering on and keeping the flame alive. But on that big stage there is no immediate connection to the audience like in the club gig. Plus its hard to tell if the fans are truly appreciating them or on an "ironic" level only. Additionally, the sound is a bit weird. We cannot hear Rick Hunolt's guitar at all. We see he is playing but we hear no sound. Maybe the live audience did, but the home audience cannot. Add to that his receding hairline and bad, super-baggy 90's pants, and a pretty picture is not painted. While we can hear Gary Holt's guitar loud and clear, unfortunately, the signature Exodus "crunch" is SO low and distorted it just sounds squelchy and is hard to listen to at times. Plus his short, California-dude hair is more suited to pop-punk than pure Metal. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt because it is said they had just returned to the stage with this lineup after just practicing with it. And it's not terrible, but in comparison with the previous concert, it's just somewhat sad to see how times have changed.
In conclusion, first concert = awesome. second concert = pass. But with the new interest in all things 80's and all things metal, I'm sure we can expect to see more DVD's like this in the future. Besides the fact that my wallet will take a beating, I say, go forth and thrash!
As you can see, I wrote the above article for those who know little to nothing about the band Exodus or Metal in general, especially thrash. I kept it pretty simple. I'm not sure the audience of the Examiner so I just assumed their knowledge base about Bay Area Thrash was minimal. This is at the risk of insulting their intelligence and seeming like a knowitall. We shall see?
Exodus is a band from the Bay Area of California. They formed in the early eighties, and by the time of the mid-eighties, a new subgenre of heavy metal was born: it was called thrash. A scene sprang up in the Bay Area (among other places), and with bands such as Exodus, Testament, Forbidden, Vio-lence, Death Angel, and yes, even Metallica, who claims they were "kicked out of L.A." and found their spiritual home in San Francisco.
In 1985, Exodus released their debut album on Torrid records, entitled "Bonded by Blood". Taking all the pre-existing elements of the heavy metal genre, and amping them up to the next level, the album featured fast, pounding drums, lightning fast guitar riffs, and the maniacal screams of the legendary (and now sadly deceased) Paul Baloff. This was an exciting time for the metal genre as fans and critics alike flocked to this new sound.
With the current resurgence of interest in the thrash metal of days past, enter the new DVD released by Zaentz records, "Exodus: Double Live Dynamo". While the title and font recall Ted Nugent, this is somewhat puzzling because the Motor City Madman is nowhere to be found. The DVD is set up as two concerts: the first in 1985 at the Dynamo club, and the second from 1997 at the Dynamo open air festival, both in Eindhoven, Holland. This is identical in structure to fellow metallers Toxik's DVD "Dynamo open air 1988" (and who doesn't have that one? Just kidding).
The first concert, the club date, is excellent. While not TOO dissimilar to what, in years past, would have passed as a bootleg, the mid-eighties camcorder footage, rather than decrease enjoyment, adds that dewy layer of nostalgia and charm. The crowd is going crazy (European fans tend to appreciate American metal bands visiting their countries), and the band performs a tight, energetic and highly entertaining set. Also of interest are the performance of two songs not released on any album, "Hell's Breath" and "Deathrow", making, by default, this DVD an essential purchase for completists due to that alone. Add to that some pre-show soundcheck footage and a great time is had by all.
Sadly, the second concert doesn't quite live up to the first. From 1997, a low year for metal generally speaking, I applaud Exodus for soldiering on and keeping the flame alive. But on that big stage there is no immediate connection to the audience like in the club gig. Plus its hard to tell if the fans are truly appreciating them or on an "ironic" level only. Additionally, the sound is a bit weird. We cannot hear Rick Hunolt's guitar at all. We see he is playing but we hear no sound. Maybe the live audience did, but the home audience cannot. Add to that his receding hairline and bad, super-baggy 90's pants, and a pretty picture is not painted. While we can hear Gary Holt's guitar loud and clear, unfortunately, the signature Exodus "crunch" is SO low and distorted it just sounds squelchy and is hard to listen to at times. Plus his short, California-dude hair is more suited to pop-punk than pure Metal. But I will give them the benefit of the doubt because it is said they had just returned to the stage with this lineup after just practicing with it. And it's not terrible, but in comparison with the previous concert, it's just somewhat sad to see how times have changed.
In conclusion, first concert = awesome. second concert = pass. But with the new interest in all things 80's and all things metal, I'm sure we can expect to see more DVD's like this in the future. Besides the fact that my wallet will take a beating, I say, go forth and thrash!
As you can see, I wrote the above article for those who know little to nothing about the band Exodus or Metal in general, especially thrash. I kept it pretty simple. I'm not sure the audience of the Examiner so I just assumed their knowledge base about Bay Area Thrash was minimal. This is at the risk of insulting their intelligence and seeming like a knowitall. We shall see?
Sunday, March 8, 2009
A Partial List of Obama's Lies and Hypocrisy
-- It all started during the campaign when he vowed not to take public financing. He then went back on that promise.
-- He vowed in all earnestness that he would reject all earmarks. There are about 9000 earmarks in the current trillion-dollar projects going on right now.
-- He said there would be "transparency" in his administration. Anyone who dares to ask questions about the validity of some of the things he is doing, especially in reference to his "stimulus" bills, is shouted down in favor of the utter speed in which this must be passed NOW.
-- He said he would cut the deficit. He's doubled the deficit.
-- He promised "bipartisanship" - Most republicans are against his socialistic policies but he doesn't seem to care. He'd rather focus on demonizing Rush Limbaugh, who he must have just heard of even though he's been on the radio for 20+ years. How bipartisan.
-- He admonished America to "wear a sweater" when it gets cold to save on energy costs. According to reports, he cranks the heat in the oval office. When asked about it, a spokesman said "He's from Hawaii". Never mind he spent most of his adult life in New York and Chicago.
-- He claims to be "for the people". Meanwhile he's eating $100 a pound imported steak from Japan and Iranian caviar, and inviting Stevie Wonder and Earth Wind and Fire to play at the White House for his Wednesday parties. He also lives in a million-dollar house gotten in a crooked land deal with Tony Rezko.
Way to stay in touch with the "little people". The people he claims to be in favor of. I guess we see now where he really feels comfortable.
-- He vowed lobbyists "won't find a job in my white house"...well...at least some people in America have steady jobs now.
-- As far as gun control goes, he said he would "uphold the second amendment", but even in his first 50 days as president, with all the other problems at hand, he has made various gun bans a priority.
-- He chided John McCain when McCain said the economy might not be as bad as Obama is making it seem. Once the polling numbers came in, he then changed his tune to "the economy is not as bad as it seems".
-- He said now is "an end to childish things" - yet he and his snarky Clintonites are calling Republicans a bunch of "Limbaugh-lovers" like kids at differing lunchtables in elementary school.
-- He never stops talking about the value of public education and how teachers and schools need (of course) more money! Yet he sends his daughters to a private school.
-- His intended aim is to raise taxes to create some kind of utopia, but everyone in his cabinet is a tax cheat. But they are the almighty politicians, our great and wise leaders. They don't have to pay taxes. Only we do. But I guess now it seems we're picking up their slack. There's nothing so sublime as getting a lecture on how important it is to pay taxes by people who don't pay theirs. My question is, if these people weren't nominated to be in Obama's cabinet, how would we know about their tax problems? Perhaps every American, one after the other, could be "vetted" for his cabinet, thereby getting all the unpaid taxes, and that would stimulate the economy. But then again most Americans actually pay their taxes, something the Obama team finds confusing.
-- His big catchphrase was "hope and change". His version of this phrase apparently means hiring all the old Clintonite hacks. But more importantly, with the way the economy is right now, people are increasingly hopeless and all they're left with is a few cents in change.
His condescending, pedantic and unbelievably arrogant tone apparently doesn't bother most people. They just accept it because he is our messiah. His word is the law. Literally! He knows how to spend our money better than we do. Just HOW he knows this is not clear. Unmindful of the political cesspools in which he was politically reared, mainly due to a sympathetic media (whose "fair and balanced" approach venerated our golden god and savaged Sarah Palin at every possible chance), He was elected into office and now leads our country and our world.
Forget the fact that there literally isn't enough money in the world to support his pie-in-the-sky liberal dream projects. HE doesn't suffer through recessions. He only suffers when he can't get his liberal policies passed. The so-called "evil rich people"(i.e. Hollywood celebrities and others that helped get him elected) that create jobs and make 250,000 or more will now, out of fear of paying even MORE taxes under Obama, will try to spend 249,000 or less, thereby reducing productivity and jobs. This stunts the economy. But our almighty messiah is always right and he knows what will and what won't stimulate our economy. Spending money was the problem, so, frighteningly true to his diehard liberal beliefs, obviously throwing more money at it will solve the problem.
I know I'm leaving out a lot of contradictions, hypocrisies and outright lies, so feel free to write in if you think of any others. Also, even though liberals claim to be for free speech, they only like it when it supports their cause. They support the so-called "fairness" doctrine because they cannot compete in the marketplace of talk radio, so, naturally, they whine to their mommy, the government, "That's not fair!!!" (hence the name of their beloved doctrine). So even thought the people and the market has decided, they reject that view and think there should be government-mandated "fairness". So do write in if you have any other suggestions for the above list, before this blog magically disappears.
-- He vowed in all earnestness that he would reject all earmarks. There are about 9000 earmarks in the current trillion-dollar projects going on right now.
-- He said there would be "transparency" in his administration. Anyone who dares to ask questions about the validity of some of the things he is doing, especially in reference to his "stimulus" bills, is shouted down in favor of the utter speed in which this must be passed NOW.
-- He said he would cut the deficit. He's doubled the deficit.
-- He promised "bipartisanship" - Most republicans are against his socialistic policies but he doesn't seem to care. He'd rather focus on demonizing Rush Limbaugh, who he must have just heard of even though he's been on the radio for 20+ years. How bipartisan.
-- He admonished America to "wear a sweater" when it gets cold to save on energy costs. According to reports, he cranks the heat in the oval office. When asked about it, a spokesman said "He's from Hawaii". Never mind he spent most of his adult life in New York and Chicago.
-- He claims to be "for the people". Meanwhile he's eating $100 a pound imported steak from Japan and Iranian caviar, and inviting Stevie Wonder and Earth Wind and Fire to play at the White House for his Wednesday parties. He also lives in a million-dollar house gotten in a crooked land deal with Tony Rezko.
Way to stay in touch with the "little people". The people he claims to be in favor of. I guess we see now where he really feels comfortable.
-- He vowed lobbyists "won't find a job in my white house"...well...at least some people in America have steady jobs now.
-- As far as gun control goes, he said he would "uphold the second amendment", but even in his first 50 days as president, with all the other problems at hand, he has made various gun bans a priority.
-- He chided John McCain when McCain said the economy might not be as bad as Obama is making it seem. Once the polling numbers came in, he then changed his tune to "the economy is not as bad as it seems".
-- He said now is "an end to childish things" - yet he and his snarky Clintonites are calling Republicans a bunch of "Limbaugh-lovers" like kids at differing lunchtables in elementary school.
-- He never stops talking about the value of public education and how teachers and schools need (of course) more money! Yet he sends his daughters to a private school.
-- His intended aim is to raise taxes to create some kind of utopia, but everyone in his cabinet is a tax cheat. But they are the almighty politicians, our great and wise leaders. They don't have to pay taxes. Only we do. But I guess now it seems we're picking up their slack. There's nothing so sublime as getting a lecture on how important it is to pay taxes by people who don't pay theirs. My question is, if these people weren't nominated to be in Obama's cabinet, how would we know about their tax problems? Perhaps every American, one after the other, could be "vetted" for his cabinet, thereby getting all the unpaid taxes, and that would stimulate the economy. But then again most Americans actually pay their taxes, something the Obama team finds confusing.
-- His big catchphrase was "hope and change". His version of this phrase apparently means hiring all the old Clintonite hacks. But more importantly, with the way the economy is right now, people are increasingly hopeless and all they're left with is a few cents in change.
His condescending, pedantic and unbelievably arrogant tone apparently doesn't bother most people. They just accept it because he is our messiah. His word is the law. Literally! He knows how to spend our money better than we do. Just HOW he knows this is not clear. Unmindful of the political cesspools in which he was politically reared, mainly due to a sympathetic media (whose "fair and balanced" approach venerated our golden god and savaged Sarah Palin at every possible chance), He was elected into office and now leads our country and our world.
Forget the fact that there literally isn't enough money in the world to support his pie-in-the-sky liberal dream projects. HE doesn't suffer through recessions. He only suffers when he can't get his liberal policies passed. The so-called "evil rich people"(i.e. Hollywood celebrities and others that helped get him elected) that create jobs and make 250,000 or more will now, out of fear of paying even MORE taxes under Obama, will try to spend 249,000 or less, thereby reducing productivity and jobs. This stunts the economy. But our almighty messiah is always right and he knows what will and what won't stimulate our economy. Spending money was the problem, so, frighteningly true to his diehard liberal beliefs, obviously throwing more money at it will solve the problem.
I know I'm leaving out a lot of contradictions, hypocrisies and outright lies, so feel free to write in if you think of any others. Also, even though liberals claim to be for free speech, they only like it when it supports their cause. They support the so-called "fairness" doctrine because they cannot compete in the marketplace of talk radio, so, naturally, they whine to their mommy, the government, "That's not fair!!!" (hence the name of their beloved doctrine). So even thought the people and the market has decided, they reject that view and think there should be government-mandated "fairness". So do write in if you have any other suggestions for the above list, before this blog magically disappears.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
List of reasons why I am not a drug user
I don't do drugs. I never have. There are several reasons for this. One is, I never had any positive drug role models. What I mean by this is, I've never known anyone really cool, who I really respect, who is a regular drug user. If I ever did know anyone like that throughout the course of my life, who knows, I might be some sort of druggie now. But, perhaps luckily, I never met that person. But it seems some people choose drug taking as a worthwhile activity to the exclusion of all other things. You know this already, so I'll move on.
The second reason is I don't make enough money to be a drug taker. From what I'm told it gets pretty expensive. Plus I'd much rather buy something like a CD or DVD, which, if I'm lucky will last forever, rather than a temporary drugs experience. That is also the reason why I don't drink that much either. Disregarding any health risks for the moment, drinking and drugs are temporary, intangible diversions that you cannot keep. They disappear forever after it's over. That's not good value for money. Additionally there are sickening after effects to watch out for. Which brings me to reason number three...
Scare tactics! In generations past, such as pre-60's, there was no institutionalized way of scaring students against drugs. There was no need for that then, it wasn't a problem or even a thought. But as those baby boomers grew up and the revolutions of the 60's happened, a big curiosity was there and the drug/hippie culture blossomed for a while. It was only natural that this would occur. But, inevitably, a "bad trip" followed and we saw all the negative after-effects of drug taking. We've all seen the footage of scrawny, bedraggled, unshaven hippies lying in the gutters of San Francisco. How horrible. To think these are the children of The Greatest Generation. It boggles (or should I say "expands") the mind.
So by the time my generation came around and was going to school in the 80's and 90's, big programs were put in schools to have teachers recount horrifying stories, and show equally horrifying films with the whole end result being "just say no". In the 80's, Nancy Reagan pushed this theme strongly, appearing on the most powerful program in media, Diff'rent Strokes, to promote her message.
So, naturally, we were used as guinea pigs to see who could be SCARED out of taking drugs. Sure, it didn't work in all cases, but it did in many and I'm sure it was worth the millions of dollars spent. The same with sex ed, another 60's by-product. Thanks to "free love", we all had to see hideous close ups of the advanced stages of syphilis and gonnorhea in health class. You gotta give it to the teachers of America: no one does a ham-fisted scare tactic like 'em. Except perhaps the Government. So while people inexplicably seem to still be procreating, that apparently failed, but their drug equivalent might have swayed a few impressionable minds besides me.
Fourth reason: Have you ever met a person who used to take drugs "back in the day", and you can't talk to them because they are operating on some strange wavelength that most humans are not tuned in to? Communication is impossible with them because their brains are fried because of their past activities. They may not still be doing drugs (maybe they can't remember how?) but the effects are certainly there today to annoy, baffle, confuse and irritate us all here in the present day. These people are mocked and ridiculed behind their backs and seen as huge, annoying losers. I don't want that to ever be me. I don't want to be in my fifties and have the younger generation see me as the joke of the previous generation.
The fifth reason is surely genetic and environmental. No one in my family is an addict so it's not in my DNA. And my life is good so I don't have to hide from it. So these are the reasons I am not a drug user. And I don't smoke pot because I am already lazy enough. If I started doing that I might become crippled. And I don't need "the munchies." So that's pretty insidious: it seems harmless but it makes you fat and lazy. Clearly that was the Japanese plan when they invented video games: make Americans fat and lazy so they can take over the world economy. But that's another story for another day.
The second reason is I don't make enough money to be a drug taker. From what I'm told it gets pretty expensive. Plus I'd much rather buy something like a CD or DVD, which, if I'm lucky will last forever, rather than a temporary drugs experience. That is also the reason why I don't drink that much either. Disregarding any health risks for the moment, drinking and drugs are temporary, intangible diversions that you cannot keep. They disappear forever after it's over. That's not good value for money. Additionally there are sickening after effects to watch out for. Which brings me to reason number three...
Scare tactics! In generations past, such as pre-60's, there was no institutionalized way of scaring students against drugs. There was no need for that then, it wasn't a problem or even a thought. But as those baby boomers grew up and the revolutions of the 60's happened, a big curiosity was there and the drug/hippie culture blossomed for a while. It was only natural that this would occur. But, inevitably, a "bad trip" followed and we saw all the negative after-effects of drug taking. We've all seen the footage of scrawny, bedraggled, unshaven hippies lying in the gutters of San Francisco. How horrible. To think these are the children of The Greatest Generation. It boggles (or should I say "expands") the mind.
So by the time my generation came around and was going to school in the 80's and 90's, big programs were put in schools to have teachers recount horrifying stories, and show equally horrifying films with the whole end result being "just say no". In the 80's, Nancy Reagan pushed this theme strongly, appearing on the most powerful program in media, Diff'rent Strokes, to promote her message.
So, naturally, we were used as guinea pigs to see who could be SCARED out of taking drugs. Sure, it didn't work in all cases, but it did in many and I'm sure it was worth the millions of dollars spent. The same with sex ed, another 60's by-product. Thanks to "free love", we all had to see hideous close ups of the advanced stages of syphilis and gonnorhea in health class. You gotta give it to the teachers of America: no one does a ham-fisted scare tactic like 'em. Except perhaps the Government. So while people inexplicably seem to still be procreating, that apparently failed, but their drug equivalent might have swayed a few impressionable minds besides me.
Fourth reason: Have you ever met a person who used to take drugs "back in the day", and you can't talk to them because they are operating on some strange wavelength that most humans are not tuned in to? Communication is impossible with them because their brains are fried because of their past activities. They may not still be doing drugs (maybe they can't remember how?) but the effects are certainly there today to annoy, baffle, confuse and irritate us all here in the present day. These people are mocked and ridiculed behind their backs and seen as huge, annoying losers. I don't want that to ever be me. I don't want to be in my fifties and have the younger generation see me as the joke of the previous generation.
The fifth reason is surely genetic and environmental. No one in my family is an addict so it's not in my DNA. And my life is good so I don't have to hide from it. So these are the reasons I am not a drug user. And I don't smoke pot because I am already lazy enough. If I started doing that I might become crippled. And I don't need "the munchies." So that's pretty insidious: it seems harmless but it makes you fat and lazy. Clearly that was the Japanese plan when they invented video games: make Americans fat and lazy so they can take over the world economy. But that's another story for another day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)