Love Songs...or not: A response to the retro housewife

After reading the retro housewife’s discussion of creepy love song lyrics, I was thrown into a fit of procrastination. So, here’s my contribution:

Natural Woman, Aretha Franklin
“When my soul was in the lost-and-found
You came along to claim it”

-What is the deal with all of this soul swapping? 1 soul per person people. Unless you make your friends refer to you as the Prince of Darkness, or you only answer to Beelzebub, Lucifer, or Angel of the Bottomless Pit of Revelation, KNOCK IT OFF! How many souls can one person use? It’s like owning multiple cars. You can only drive one at a time. Let’s look at this from a conservationist angle…

Ok, so a quick review of songs about souls:

12 Stones “Soulfire” -Does it burn when you pee? This is what happens when your slutty soul gets around.

2Pac “Lost Souls” -Lost? Someone needs to go question Jessie McCartney in this matter…

Abyssos “Worthless Soul for Sale?” -I know someone who’s in the market…

Accept “Don’t Go Stealing My Soul Away” -A warning to Jessie McCartney

Afu-ra “Soul Assassination” -What happens when you won’t give Jessie McCartney your soul

Agathocles “Save Your Soul” -(From Jessie McCartney)

Alchemist “Soul Return” -The Ballad of a Break-up with Jessie McCartney

All Together Separate “Camouflage Soul” -To hide it from Jessie McCartney

Anacrusis “My soul’s affliction” -aka. Jessie McCartney

Angie Stone “Soul Insurance” -Does this cover encounters with Jessie McCartney?

And as far as this In Your Eyes bullshit, the only thing I want in my eyes is my contacts. How can you possibly say this is a great love song?? Sure, it sounds sweet, but really, let’s take a closer at the lyrics:

“I want to touch the light
the heat I see in your eyes”

- If your finger even comes remotely close to my eye, we’re gonna step. As far as the heat in my eyes, it’s a balmy 37 degrees Celsius, just like yours. Poke out your own eye. If you want to tell me you love me, be a real man, ball up, and say the words. What is it with men and the “L word”? You can’t tell me you love me so instead, you write a song about poking me in the eye????

Wanna see what a real love song is like?

“I wanna get you in the back seat windows up
That's the way you like to fuck, clogged up fog alert
Rip the pants and rip the shirt, ruff sex make it hurt”

-Nothing says true love like violence against women under the guise of sex. I like it rough just as much as the next person, but there’s a difference between rug burn and a bruised cervix (or a knife wound). You get my point. And what’s with the ripped pants? Do you know how much these jeans cost? AND the shirt? What the hell am I going to wear after sex when we stop at a gas station for some post-coital Krispy Kremes (aka. more condoms) and I buy you an Icee because you forgot your wallet?

-e

Love Songs...or Not

Ah, love songs. We all know them when we hear them. Some are good (Peter Gabriel’s In Your Eyes comes to mind), some are bad (any song by any American Idol® winner - that's right, I'm talking to you Clarkson - comes to mind), and then some are just plain frightening. May I suggest, as the forerunner in this final category, Jesse McCartney’s Beautiful Soul? Ignore the angelic, pre-pubescent vocals and big-eyed, Precious Moments® style appearance of the singer, for just one moment, and focus on the actual lyrics of this pop music gem:

I don't want another pretty face
I don't want just anyone to hold
I don't want my love to go to waste
I want you and your beautiful soul

I know that you are something special
To you I'd be always faithful
I want to be what you always needed
Then I hope you'll see the heart in me

[Chorus:]
I don't want another pretty face
I don't want just anyone to hold
I don't want my love to go to waste
I want you and your beautiful soul
You're the one I wanna chase
You're the one I wanna hold
I wont let another minute go to waste
I want you and your beautiful soul

You might need time to think it over
But I'm just fine moving forward
I'll ease your mind
If you give me the chance
I will never make you cry c`mon let's try

[Chorus]

Am I crazy for wanting you?
Maybe do you think you could want me too?
I don't wanna waste your time
Do you see things the way I do?
I just wanna know that you feel it too
There is nothing left to hide

[Chorus 2x]

Ooooooo
Beautiful Soul, yeah
Oooooo, yeah
Your beautiful soul
Yeah

What kind of pseudo-vampiristic, mentally disturbed, Antichrist-wannabe came up with these lyrics? Remove the word “beautiful” from the chorus and you are left with an effeminate, Aryan, boybander reject crying out for the souls of tweenage fangirls everywhere. What, does he store them in jars somewhere? Does he have some kind of voodoo side-gig going just in case the whole pop stardom thing fails?

But back to the matter at hand; how is this horrific mockery of misplaced sentiment a love song? Scratch that, how does this even pass for music? You want me and my soul? I’m sorry, that’s part of a package deal. Frankly, you aren’t getting anywhere near either of us.


~the retro housewife

Drinking From a Fire Hose: The Brainwashing of America’s Youth

DISCLAIMER: Ok, this one's kinda long, but by now,
we should be used to e's angry rambling, right?
Their grandparents fought in World War II and traveled with the USO; this generation fights aliens with X-Box controllers. Their parents fought in Vietnam or staged sit-ins to protest a cause; this generations’ version of a “sit-in” is a Real World marathon. Their older brothers and sisters went to concerts in the ‘90s to free Tibet; this generation tuned into Live 8 online because Bono was cool. For the past 200 years, America’s social development has been moved forward by the efforts of 10 generations. We are now standing at a crossroads, waiting for the present generation of youth to make their decision: whether to help out or chill out.

It can be argued that this generation of American youth is in danger of leaving a legacy of minimal contribution to society. I am fully aware of the counter-arguments that can be presented in contrast to my position. I’ll take a minute to indulge White (1957):

A noted commentator was speaking. His intent audience nodded their heads in assent as he made on point after another that struck home. “Our youth,” he said, “now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority. They show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise. They contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up their food and tyrannize their teachers.”

The impassioned speaker was not a Dr. Wertham frightening the wits out of the Parent-Teachers Association of Scarsdale with his oversimplified message that comic books are turning American children into psychological cripples. Although the speaker’s words were as timely as many of the criticisms of mass culture in America, he had never visited this country. In fact, he never left his native Greece. For our speaker, as you now may have guessed, was Socrates, and the period was the Fifth Century, B.C.”

Ok, I understand. It’s a social convention to bitch about how the current generation will be responsible for the degradation of society. But hear me out here; the extent of social activism among this generation is the Lance Armstrong bracelet. And what could be a better use of a dollar than letting everyone know you’re trendy because you contributed to charity? Fortunately for charity, it has become fashionable to be a humanitarian. Everyone from celebrities to college sororities has a philanthropic cause. Unfortunately, the depth of actual concern for society among current youth is questionable. Community service has evolved into a résumé builder for law school, and civic duty is equated with a conscious effort not to wear spandex in public. Thankfully, social activism isn’t completely dead among this generation; just ask any group of teens how they feel about the fate of peer-to-peer file sharing. Young people everywhere are engaging in their own form of civil disobedience with the assistance of illegal file sharing programs. They apparently believe that, like speech, music should be free. Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear that America’s youth has shirked personal accountability and any responsibility to society in favor of catching the latest episode of My Super Sweet Sixteen.

Shunning individualism, today’s youth have joined a socially accepted cult that worships at the “10-spot” on MTV. The ultimate goal is to reach “group actualization” by eliminating personal idiosyncrasies in order to fit one of the archetypes represented by their favorite Real World character (militant black man, flamboyant homosexual, innocent-but-eventually-slutty Southern girl…). One cannot completely undervalue the contributions to society that the MTV generation has made; they have created an over-exposed icon out of an heiress with a homemade sex flick and have fully explored the possibilities of reality television to the point of beating a dead genre. The role models of the MTV generation are not great scholars, revolutionaries or leaders; they are television characters. Pick up the latest edition of Cosmo Girl and you will find it filled with opportunities to take quizzes to discern which Friend or character on Sex and the City you most resemble. Never mind that the target readership for such magazines is not old enough to smoke cigarettes or buy alcohol, much less compete with the bedpost notches of the fictional Samantha Jones. Even when actual people serve as role models for our youth, the messages they convey are questionable. With serial bride Jenny from the Block as an idol for young women everywhere, it’s remarkable that certain contingents think legalizing gay matrimony would jeopardize the institution of marriage.

The thoughts of America’s youth are about as profound as a toaster strudel, but then, can you blame them? We’ve got 13-year-old “Cosmo Girls” running around in mascara and micro-minis, and sixth-grade boys doing more than simply fantasizing about sleeping with their teachers. Who has time to adopt a cause when they are busy trying to be a sex symbol? With the help of historical role models, it seems that previous generations of youths have found a cause for which to take a stand – civil rights, women’s rights, gay rights, environmental rights – yet the current generation of young adults is content to be consumed with “celebreality.” Just walk into a Starbucks and you will find teenage discussion centering on the latest TomKat gossip, information on Jen’s recovery from Brad, and inside tips on how to achieve the weight class of your favorite Olsen twin. Celebrity gossip is the new form of “current events,” facilitated by an array of tabloids and fashion magazines. If they take an interest in “real” current events at all, The Daily Show, a news satire, serves as this generation’s primary news source.

It is far too simple to blame your local young person for the degradation of society. Every effect has a cause. I find that the Spice Girls make a convenient target. With the rise in success of the Spice Girls came the concept of “Grrrl Power,” which subsequently evolved into the new accepted brand of feminism. With this new feminism came the right to create your own spice title, consisting of “Something Spice,” and the ability to demand that if someone wanted to be your lover, they had to get with your friends. How is it possible that this isn’t responsible for the destruction of subsequent generations? A female Menudo-esque group, the post-Milli Vanilli success of the Spice Girls influenced and motivated successive generations of no-talent musical artists, such as the Backstreet Boys, N*Sync, Britney Spears and Jessica Simpson. Without these five “Spice-y” women recruited by a casting call in Great Britain, our American culture might have missed the opportunity to make cultural icons out of people like Kevin Federline.

The true reality is that over a century’s worth of momentum from the Industrial Revolution through the civil rights movement has stalled with the MTV generation. It would seem the media proliferation that occurred at the end of the twentieth century would have only encouraged the spread of ideas, rather than promote the spread of one mindset. Therein lies the biggest problem. As amusing as it may be to point out the vapid nature of the young adult demographic, a fair amount of their thought processes have been shaped by their constant exposure to the media. The producers of MTV and FOX News have decided what the priorities of this generation should be, and no one has stepped out of android mode to question the dominant ideology. Whether critics want to label Madonna, the Spice Girls or Paris Hilton as deviant forces within society, the fact is, they’ve all been made cultural icons by our media. This generation has immediate access to knowledge like no other generation has had, and the ability to utilize technology in a way their parents don’t understand.

In terms of information, teens today are virtually drinking from a fire hose. Thanks to the promulgation of technology, young adults are perpetually bombarded by media messages, especially those encouraging behaviors unsuitable for their age group. The portrayal of teenagers on television is never age-appropriate; alcohol consumption is glorified and characters are often shown engaging in sexual activity at an age when their hormones haven’t even kicked in. Childish innocence is disdainful and many adults recognize that kids are “growing up faster than they used to.” Naïveté is associated with prudish ignorance and young people are trying to be “sophisticated” and “mature.”

Teenagers gauge acceptable behavior by the reality they construct from the popular culture messages they receive. All of their peers may not be drinking and having sex, but their exposure to the media makes it seem that way. Little girls want to bare their midriffs and emulate Christina Aguilera, without any understanding of the message they are communicating. While a hiked-up T-shirt and low-slug pants pose no imminent threat to society, it symbolizes the reality that no one actively questions concepts that are being passed as conventionally accepted standards.

I’m not suggesting a direct-media-effects theory, where watching one episode of Law & Order causes violent tendencies, but there is no denying that ideas continually reinforced in several media will have an eventual impact on the receivers of the messages. Today’s youth is being willingly brainwashed by the dominant media agenda. While society awaits this generation’s decision on their preferred level of social activism, it is interesting to consider which prospect might be worse: the idea that America’s youth might screw things up, or the possibility that they can be willed to not care.

-e

The Tragedy Behind the Tragedy

Last week's massacre at Virgina Tech was truly a tragedy. More than thirty people lost their lives, and those who knew them lost friends, sons, daughters, siblings, cousins and students, among others. There is no doubt that the events of that sad day have impacted a large number of people across the country. There is, however, another unfortunate tragedy that is occurring in our country as a result of this event: the tragedy of exploitation.

People love attention. People not only love attention, but they will often stop at nothing to get this attention. Unfortunately, most people are too lazy to use their own merits and skills to earn recognition and would rather obtain it in less trying ways.

How do they do this? Simple, exploit a tragedy.

There are multiple ways in which people use tragedy for their own ends. Let's look at a few of these.

1. Six Degrees of Exploitation
Immediately after a tragedy occurs, people start to find ways to connect themselves to it. If they don't know someone personally involved, they will find someone who knows someone. If that doesn't work, they will find someone who knows someone who knows someone. They will continue on this path until they have found some connection to the events. That way, they can pretend to be both knowledgeable about the incident and personally affected by it, which gains them the much sought-after attention.

"My third cousin twice removed has a friend whose brother knows a guy that worked at Target with a girl who graduated from there six years ago! I need a hug!"

Hey, guess what? Nobody cares!

This sort of behavior is disgusting. Believe it or not, the world doesn't revolve around you. Get over yourself.

2. "My Ribbon is Bigger than Your Ribbon"
In the days that followed the shooting, people started sporting remembrance ribbons as well as maroon and orange clothing in loving memory of those who died. The sad thing is that there appears to be a silent competition among these "mourners" to see who can show the most support for the victims. Immediately after a tragedy, people sport faces of concern. In my opinion, this should be plenty. In the days following such an event, ribbons magically materialize out of thin air and people parade around in those. In the case of Virgina Tech, maroon and orange garb followed the ribbons. It's as if people are in some sort of unannounced contest so see who can best demonstrate that they care. What's next, people strutting around in full Hokie costumes? Don't wear the ribbons or the colors unless you personally feel some sort of bond with or pride in the university. For that matter, don't try to be the one to wear your ribbon the longest either. It isn't about you.

3. All About the Benjamins
If there is one thing sadder than people exploiting a tragedy for attention, it is people exploiting a tragedy for money. After any type of incident such as the Virginia Tech massacre, there is generally an outpouring of money from charities that goes to benefit the school and the families of the victims. Inevitably, scholarship funds will be established in honor of those who died. This outpouring of support is not only uplifting to the families, but the money goes to support some very good causes. The problem arises when people exploit this tragedy for personal monetary gain. Sadly, there are people in this country who have created fake charities in an effort to pad their wallets. This selfishness is astounding. Can these people not think of a better way to make money than to take advantage of innocent people affected by a tragedy? Here's a thought: GET A JOB.

This sort of exploitative behavior is absolutely disgusting. I don't understand why people can never seem to stop thinking about themselves for more than two seconds.

The moral of the story?

GET OVER YOURSELF!

- Hessie

This Month’s Headline: “Paris Hilton Wins Nobel Prize for Economic Greatness"

Vanity Fair has recently run several articles on the state of America’s youth and the decline in social activism. Digging through some of my back issues of VF, I found a Fall 2005 issue where they featured Paris Hilton on their front cover. The article accompanying Hilton’s spread in VF, speaks very highly of her, praising her for qualities like her compassion, new-found domesticity, and above all, her intelligence. Defenders of Paris Hilton proclaim that she is not merely famous for being famous, “she has a fragrance, too.”

No. I’m sorry, succeeding in a capitalistic economy does not a smart girl make. Call her powerful, call her fortunate, call her destined for fame; none of these equates with “smart.” Yes, Hilton has succeeded in hocking some perfume and some books; let’s not give her the title of the modern-day Andrew Carnegie just yet.

It is indeed true that the icon of Paris Hilton is merely a product of our society. Hilton cannot be blamed for the degradation of American youth. Do you know who can? Vanity Fair. Vanity Fair and every other credible medium; the kind that would attack US Weekly on one page while touting a cover story similar to “Jen tells all!” In the spirit of journalistic genius, my favorite quote defending Hilton’s intellect in the VF article reads as such: “I was like, Wow. Here’s a girl at her perfume launch party, there’s all these people here, and she was on.”

Then I was like, Dude. And she was like, Way. And I was like, Yeah. Give me a break.

Vanity Fair even included a quotation from noted postmodern feminist author Namoi Wolf, to add some "legitimacy" to their claims. "She's like, as semiotics would say, an empty signifier, so you can project absolutely anything onto her, which is the perfect situation for branding." Oh, shut the hell up, Naomi. You don't even know what you are talking about. Besides your ridiculous use of a Communication Theory in an article for the popular press in an attempt to sound academic, even the most pedestrian individual (Nicky Hilton?) would disagree with you. Paris Hilton, is in no way, an empty signifier. Her signified meaning is sex and sexuality. Sex sells. That's why she's "perfect for branding," you dipshit.

Side note: In an edition of The New Yorker that came out the same month as her Vanity Fair comment, Wolf espouses her anti-porn sentiments. How can you then, turn around and commend Paris Hilton in Vanity Fair? Someone's a publicity whore...At least stick to the same story for one month before you change your mind. Some activist. I'm glad she's not championing any of my causes.

(Plus, the only thing empty about Paris Hilton is most likely her head.)

Enough about Paris though. What this boils down to is a dominant ideology being perpetuated by a mainstream medium that runs Louis Vuitton ads and claims to target a readership of above average sophistication.

Here are just a few sample stories titles from recent Vanity Fair covers:

“The Bitter Battle over the Jimmy Choo Shoe Empire” - okay, not only is this a completely ridiculous use of alliteration that sounds all too eerily like Dr. Seuss, it’s about FUCKING SHOES! Don’t pretend like we’re discussing something even slightly more relevant like the Waltons and the fate of a company that employs a large majority of lower-income workers world-wide, this is shoes! No economical impact whatsoever!

“How Elle Macpherson went from Bikini Queen to Lingerie Mogul!” - note the exclamation point, added by Vanity Fair. Is this supposed to denote surprise? Excitement? Amazement? I feel none of those things when I read that title. It’s Elle Macpherson! Write about how Rosie O'Donnell has people clamoring over her new successful line of lingerie, and then we’ll talk.

"Has Tom Cruise Lost his Marbles?" - in a word, "Yes." Let's move on.

“Can the King of Silicon Valley find Happiness on the World’s Longest Yacht?” – do I even have to go there on this one? This headline just makes me angry and gives me the urge to shout “WHY THE HELL DO I CARE?!”

“The Battle for Harry’s Bar” – what the hell is the deal with all these battles? First Jimmy Choo and now Harry’s Bar? Are they hoping that as readers skim their cover, they will come away with the impression that Vanity Fair has a reporter writing from Iraq? At least they did away with the alliteration this time. Somebody probably got fired.

Vanity Fair, before you attempt to look upon society from your ivory tower with disdain and the desire to point fingers for its’ degradation, maybe you should take a good, long look at what you are contributing to the mess.

-e

Jesus Christ

So, my initial observation regarding the American obsession with God (Jesus Christ, in particular) comes after an indirect reminder about the Christmas season, when once again, the “Holiday Tree v. Christmas Tree” debate rages and FOX News airs its 20,000 segments on “The Liberal Attack on Christmas” (Can I qualify the rest of this article by stating that prior to graduate school, I was a Capitalist Christian Republican Princess?). So, I’m vaguely aware, thanks to Bill O’Reilly, that someone (liberals), somewhere (everywhere, apparently), is trying to keep me from wishing “Merry Christmas” to the cashier at the grocery store. Interestingly enough, I’ve never had a crazy liberal come slap me in the face while I’m standing in line at Winn Dixie, but according to O’Reilly, it could happen. Thanks to O’Reilly and my grandmother, I am fully aware of the war on Christmas.

(My grandmother recently learned how to use email. The only email I ever get from my grandmother, however, comes in the form of “Fwd:Fwd:Fwd: God Loves You, Forward this to 20 people in the next 10 minutes or you hate God.” So yes, my grandmother has also informed me that liberals are waging a war on Christmas.)

So, I’ve been looking for evidence of “The War on Christmas” (is that like “The War on Terror”? There’s an opportunity for digression…). This past Christmas, TBS played the movie “A Christmas Story” for 24 hours straight. Radio stations started playing Christmas songs on Thanksgiving Day. And like every year, the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade ended with Santa Claus, to kick off the Christmas season. Wow, it must be tough to live in a society that is so hostile when it comes to celebrating the birth of Jesus!

It seems like it’s not so much Jesus that we are concerned about liberals attacking, it’s our beloved commercialization of the holiday to which we’ve become so attached. We have draped our enthusiasm for acquiring things with the veil of “Santa Claus.” So, we line our children up in malls to sit on a stranger’s lap and demand things they don’t need, so on Christmas morning they can be ungrateful brats because they didn’t get what they asked for? And, this relates to our Lord Jesus because…? – Hey, you’re attacking CHRISTMAS when you ask such questions! Liberal bastard!

-e

In Loving Memory (What exactly?)

There are many traditions that degrade the deceased; plastic flowers, cheesy, trite eulogies, pre-gaming the funeral, lusting the mourners, Elton John sunglasses, etc. But, I dare say none is worse than the infamous “in loving memory sticker”.
Ask yourself this : when is the last time you saw an in loving memory sticker on or around anything that should be associated with honoring the dead? I’m imaging gothic fonts, the kind that unimaginative bikers get on their arms or on pleather jackets that say “road warrior” on the back windows of 86’ Celebrities with trashbags for windows…I’m seeing rednecks on spring break with their recently deceased pal who died in a trailer fire sparked by grilling indoors commemorated next to their “Ain’t skeerd”, or “[Insert small town mechanic’s last name here] racing team”. This is a new cultural fad- common transportation as a memorial. You think cowboys ever branded “in loving memory” on the asses of their horses? Hell no, because the statement “in loving memory” begs a return question…WHAT!? The cowboys understood that “my horse shitting” was not a reasonable answer to that question.(I guess that was before you could buy regality in the form of a dashboard crown- so now the equivalent of shitting into the ozone, but doing it with elegance and bad air fresheners).
So maybe these people are doing other things “in loving memory”: asking for tits that will reverberate to their dead friend, who is living vicariously through their debauchery; listening to ludacris while chewing tobacco; having unprotected sex with minors, revving their engines incessantly at red lights….I’m just saying I would like a more descriptive statement like “ I am only doing 95 in a 45 drunk in loving memory…I am not also transporting crystal meth”. Or maybe “I’ll tell you what I’m NOT doing in loving memory- my sister.”
Have you ever seen an “in loving memory” sticker committed to any national figure?? Imagine instead of the JFK memorial a sticker on every Buick that says “in loving memory JFK, ‘the guy who banged Marilyn Monroe & Dale Earndhardt ‘the intimidator’; ‘only the good die young’-Tracey morgan.” (next to this sticker is one of a little kid pissing on Richard Nixon). I’m just trying to give the socioeconomic implications of such stickers to say “don’t do that to people for the love of God!”
If I do die and anyone considers such measures just put “G-money requests you distribute chicken shit on his grave ‘in loving memory’ because that would please him much more than to have you (or your car) live as a personal memorial for him.”