Pearl Jam At Soldier Field, 1995 Part 1

[An innocuous comment at my Super Bowl party spawned a trip down memory lane. Through a series of posts I'll tell the story of seeing Pearl Jam live in 1995 at Soldier Field, Chicago.]

The Return of Good Music

I was in high school when Pearl Jam released their first album, Ten. I remember seeing them perform Alive, from the album, on Saturday Night Live. I was blown away by the energy and the attitude- and most importantly, the music. It was so much better than what was on the radio at the time.

It was 1992 and I thought to myself, "Good music has returned." I'd developed some sense of music history over the last few years. I had become a huge Led Zeppelin fan. I was into the Stones. I liked the boogie blues albums ZZ Top did in the Seventies. I loved the Sixties music of my parents' generation. I could not find much to like in the Eighties.

I was beginning to delve into the music of Metallica- all of it from the Eighties. Among pop groups, I think INXS managed to make some good music. Beyond that? ... a real void. I felt that musicians in the Eighties had become mesmerized by new computer technology and fell victim to the "just because you can doesn't mean you should" vice of too much overdubbing, synthesizer keyboards, and electronic drumbeats.

Then Pearl Jam came along with their long hair, grunge clothes, "pissed at the world" teenage rage, layered and loud guitars, and supurb front-man Eddie Vedder, who wrote intelligent lyrics and could actually sing them. The whole band had a presence about them that made you stop what you were doing and listen or watch.

The radio stations insisted on calling their music "Alternative" - an alternative, I suppose, to the candy pop and androgynous disco music of the Eighties. But really, it was just fucking good rock 'n roll!

     

An article by Erik 1 Comment

The Connection Between Thought, Speech, And Problem-Solving Ability

[An e-mail exchange between my sister J and I shortly after Barack Obama was elected President. We discuss the connection between thought, speech, and problem-solving ability. It began with an article by political satirist Andy Borowitz.]

J writes: Thought you might get a kick out of this...seems like an Onion article, but not sure it is... whatever, it's funny! 

I respond: So funny! And yet so sad. Neither Bush nor Palin can articulate their thoughts worth a damn. One is our current President and the other aspires to the office. The public is supposed to find this charming or cute, rather than frightening and disqualifying.

Though I deal with computer languages and not spoken languages, my job is to put thoughts into written words. That’s what programming is. All day, every day I hear from users of our software, “I thought it would work this way.” “I want it to do this for me.” “Yeah, it’s supposed to that, but in my case here it should really do this.” “Last week I did A and B and got C. This week I got D. What gives? (Completely ignoring X, Y, and Z.) Etc… Lots of isolated descriptions of how they thought the system would behave, or how they’d like the system to behave, with little regard for the conflicting demands of other users.

It is my job to extract the common patterns, reconcile the discrepancies, and codify a written set of instructions that solve the problem for all users and all business cases with satisfactory performance. The ability to think analytically is very important. But so is the ability to communicate verbally and in writing. Verbal and written communication is absolutely essential to understanding the business problem you’re asked to solve. Solving the wrong problem is no good, right? Neither is it any use to the business if I understand the problem perfectly but fail to write a coherent set of instructions to achieve a solution.

I’ve done this long enough that I can have a short conversation with a programmer and know within a few minutes how capable they are. Their skill with verbal communication is highly predictive of their ability to synthesize complex business and computer problems into functioning code. If you can’t think straight you won’t speak straight. If you can’t speak straight, you won’t code straight. As simple as that.

Is the President somehow exempt from this correlation between thought, speech, and problem-solving ability?

When George W. Bush was running for president back in 1999 there were very many talking heads telling the general population not to be concerned with the man’s stammering rhetoric. “Don’t worry, he’ll surround himself with good people. He’ll be the MBA president. He knows how to assemble a team of advisors.” I remember telling Dad

how utterly unconvinced I was when one experienced hand after another was quoted in the paper saying “He’s much different in private. He asks good questions. He communicates well.” Bullshit, I thought. Seems awfully suspicious that the man is coherent only when no one is watching. Muddled speech is indicative of a muddled mind. If you are smart, and have thought deeply about a topic, and organized your thoughts, you will find a way to express them. Through written words, speaking extemporaneously, through music or visual imagery- one way or another you will find a way to express your thoughts clearly. This has little to do with formal education. I’ve listened to many old school blues musicians who grew up in the Jim Crow South, were denied an education, and yet can paint a vibrant picture with words that indicates their eyes were open the whole time. They didn’t miss a thing and are able to convey their impression to the audience. Synthesizing experience into words and melody takes brains.

If a person isn’t able to express himself clearly in any forum, that indicates he hasn’t been paying attention or isn’t able or interested in understanding what is happening around him. And yet very many supposedly smart people told the nation eight years ago that George W. Bush was exempt from this rule. Fucking morons! These are the same people who now, having seen the destruction wrought by our President, express their disappointment in the man. Well call me an elitist, but I am very disappointed in them for their terrible judgment when evaluating the candidate.

OK, I feel better now.

J responds: When I replied to my boss I said the same thing: so funny. although, kinda sad it's so funny...

I couldn't agree with you more. You have no problem communicating your thoughts through words, written or spoken. In fact, you do it at such an exemplary level that I had to look up a word. Pffff! Can you guess which word?

But seriously, W has been a disaster of a president and an embarrassment to the nation. I don't think we could have elected a bigger idiot to represent us, let along "lead" us. I still think about that ridiculous "deal breaker" type question during the election 4 years ago: Who would you rather have a beer with? Bush or Kerry? Ummmm, I'm sorry what! This is the question you're basing your vote on? Can I vote you off the island or something? We're not electing our 5th grade student council president! This is for real. Like a real job, and an extremely important one for that matter! Talk about fucking morons!

     

An article by Erik No Comments

The Wall Street Bailout

[From March 2009: An e-mail to a colleague with strong but borrowed political opinions. Years ago he sniffed out my politics. Now he sends me links to articles he finds on leftist and conspiracy-theory websites. Often I can't figure out what these articles say other than "Bad Things Are Happening!" and "The Mainstream Press Isn't Reporting It." What these bad things are and how they came to be are never explained. Anyhow, I took my colleague's mention of AIG as an excuse to say something about the Wall Street bailout.]

Colleague writes: And you thought that AIG was something. http://www.truthout.org/033109J

I respond: The real problem is not the bonuses. Though I’m as pissed as the next guy about them. Have you seen Matt Taibbi’s rant? He writes for Rolling Stone and a few websites. Completely agree with him here and love the tone.

But it’s easy to call for blood at such shameless greed and lack of responsibility. It’s much more difficult to push the ideologues aside, cut through the hysteria, and have an informed conversation about the policy mistakes that led to the collapse and the bailout and set the stage for the undeserved bonuses funded by the American taxpayer. Where are the adults in the room? Where is the American public when it comes time to discuss policy? We’re so easily cowed by the word “socialism” that we’re apt to believe any government oversight interferes with the smooth operation of the capitalist machinery. It’s the lack of oversight that allowed the AIG financial services division to invent black boxes full of liabilities and make them appear to be golden, AAA-rated investments.

The bonuses are a distraction. Classic political sleight of hand. Invent an enemy- the AIG employees receiving bonuses. Get in front of a camera and pantomime your best false indignation. Hold hearings and publicly condemn these people as scumbags who ruined the economy. Portray them as the cause of the whole problem. Publicly humiliate them, trump up some charges for a show trial, garnish their wages or modify the tax laws to retroactively collect the bonus money (like that will ever pass), and deliver some ready-made-for-TV justice.

And keep your seat in Congress. I’m not indicting every congressman and senator. And I do feel the Republicans deserve more of the blame for their ideological belief that any government scrutiny of business is unwarranted. I’m just saying the public better wise up to how it’s being duped into believing that punishing those who paid or took bonus money is somehow going to solve the problems affecting the economy.

Phil Gramm and the Republican Congress passed legislation explicitly deregulating credit default swaps in the year 2000- and President Clinton signed it. That’s the outrage! Not the bonuses. A $70 trillion market in credit default swaps sprang up overnight with no regulatory agency to force financial companies to prove they had the assets to cover their liabilities. Risk and profit were calculated to the nth degree by ambitious Wall Street traders looking to get ahead of their peers. The new financial instruments were reliable- the computer models proved it- and would make everyone in on the deal immensely rich. Where was the American public then when this bill of goods was being sold?

The Democrats need to stop acting like they are totally innocent and share no liability for this mess. They take plenty of money from the financial sector too- especially the ones on the East Coast. And the Republicans need to stop using the word “socialism” pejoratively, as if conjuring up a bogie man is going to solve this problem. And the American voter better wise up to the fact that poor policy decisions can backfire in his face, no matter if it appeals to his sense of American superiority or party loyalty.

That’s my two cents.

     

An article by Erik 1 Comment

Give Me One Of Those Vanilla Bullshit Drinks

[This story is from a few years ago. My sister J and I were in an airport, waiting at our gate to catch a flight back home after visiting our sister in California. I was tired and needed some caffeine. I asked J if she wanted anything to drink. She said no so I took off down the terminal in search of coffee.]

I found a Starbucks and queued up in line. After a few minutes I get to the front of the line. The customer in front of me steps aside and I step forward ready to place my order and get on with my life. No one behind the counter greets me. Two employees are busy squabbling over some personal issue, work grievance, God knows what. Their conversation is not discreet. They seem unconcerned that I can hear them argue.

Finally one of them steps up to the cash register. Makes no eye contact with me. Just stands there. I realize I'm expected to walk the employee through the order, rather than the other way around. I order my usual cup of coffee.

"What size?"

"Small."

The kid behind the counter mumbles something incoherent. He has refused to make eye contact with me and has not bothered to enunciate any of his words. Do you know how difficult it is to understand an unmotivated cashier who's mumbling at the ground?! I feel no obligation to ask him to pick the marbles out of his mouth and help the customer. Seriously, is it my job to ask him to look at me and speak clearly? No- that's a given. If the kid feels no need to make himself understood than I'm content not to understand.

"Your name?" I manage to hear.

"Erik," I respond. I see the total due on the cash register and voluntarily hand this to the kid behind the counter. I step to the side and join a group of discontented travelers staring blankly at the Starbucks counter, hoping for their beverages to appear.

I watch a Starbucks employee- not the cashier, a different employee, equally miserable and apathetic- place one, then two beverages on the counter without making eye contact with anyone in the crowd. She says not a word. I remember I was asked for my name when I ordered my beverage. The discontented, caffeine-deprived travelers exchange puzzled looks but make no inquiries. No one claims the beverages.

At this moment I decide I will take the next beverage placed on the counter. I don't care what it is; I don't care how long the other customers have been standing there, mute and timid; I'm taking the next drink. If this is Starbucks' system- to mumble incoherently, then ask a customer to say his name aloud only to place drinks anonymously on a counter- then this is what they get. I'm taking the next drink and walking away with a clear conscience.

A large beverage is placed silently on the counter. I step up, take the drink, and walk back to my gate.

My sister asks me what I ordered. I'm still steaming about the whole incident, mad at these Starbucks employees who fail to understand a very simple transaction: The customer hands over more money than a cup of coffee is worth for one reason: He expects service.

"What? Oh, I got a venti."

"A venti what?"

"What do you mean?"

"Venti is the size of the drink. What kind of drink did you order?"

"I don't remember. I just took the first drink they put on the counter."

I inspect the paper cup in my hands. I see a checkmark next to the word "Latte." I see the name "Andrew" written in red ink below the rim of the cup. "I guess I'm drinking Andrew's latte. Mmm, mmm, good."

[This story reminds me of a scene from Curb Your Enthusiasm.]

     

An article by Erik No Comments

Selling Out America

[My boss forwarded an e-mail to me today. It's titled "Selling Out America" and has a link to an editorial in a suburban newspaper. In the past we've discussed Islam with regards to 9/11. And we've discussed the financial crisis. So this is not our first foray into these topics.]

GE Has Big Interests In Islam

[Archived here in case link is broken.]

[My Response]

The problem with this essay is that the author paints with too broad of a brush. For example, his claim that Exxon “helped the German war effort to kill American soldiers.” I don’t think it’s that simple. My understanding is that Standard Oil (as Exxon was known then) had made investments in Germany between the wars. I think there was a big scandal in 1941 when an investigation revealed that Standard Oil still maintained contacts with Germany. The U.S. did not enter the war until the attack on Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7th, 1941. Assuming that Standard Oil’s ties with Germany were severed in 1941 (I don’t know- I’m not an expert on the subject) it’s not like Standard Oil was fueling Hitler’s tanks in the Battle of the Bulge. My point is that none of this is made clear by the author.

Another example is the author’s claim that G.E. actively promotes Shariah law. I agree in general that we need to think about where our money goes and what it supports. We’ve talked about how Islamic fundamentalism is dangerous because its hostility to free speech and scientific inquiry prevents its people from making progress economically. Without science a country can’t advance industrially or technologically and the gap between it and those countries that have embraced science widens- catching a country in a vicious spiral where stricter religious beliefs makes it more difficult to compete economically, which creates poverty, which makes fundamentalist beliefs more attractive to a desperate population, which hurts science, etc...

But this is a problem common to organized religion in general. Yes, today our primary concern is with Islamic fundamentalism. But the author is not making a point about fundamentalism. He’s indicting the entire Islamic world and G.E. along with it. I have a problem with that. For example, consider all those brave young people in the streets of Iran after Ahmadinejad stole the election a few months ago. They are Muslim. They were not demonstrating for Shariah law. They were arguing for free and open political discussion and a fair democratic vote. These are values supported by the West. More than just because we see them as “unalienable rights”, “endowed by [our] Creator.” We believe they have a tempering effect on the hatreds spawned by ignorance and fundamentalism.

The problem with maligning an entire religion or culture is that our own religion and culture is also vulnerable to such a charge. For example, should we all think carefully about our investments in Fortune 500 companies? Most of the directors of these companies are Christian. And the Christian holy book justifies some oppressive behavior.

I guess my point is that I don’t think the author knows who the enemy is. He’s satisfied to cast a wide net knowing it won’t catch any of his family or friends.

     

An article by Erik No Comments