A close friend of mine, Patrick Castagna, wrote this guide to concert behavior. I found it to be not only informative, but fucking hilarious. Please, read on:
Through my years of rock concert-going, I have compiled a list of stupid things that are much too common among "rockers." they don't happen at every concert, but the bigger the show, the more things on this list there will be:
1) Slam dancing.
You may think that making your 110 pound adolescent body convulse in an epileptic manner makes you a cool punk rocker, but really your lanky, flailing arms and retarded leg gyrations are succeeding only in proving your lameness beyond a shadow of a doubt. What really baffles me is that people see others doing this and decide they want to partake in it. How can this ridiculous sight not immediately turn you off from slam-dancing altogether? Those of us who love rock music usually can't dance. That does not mean that we should make up a shitty, stupid looking dance and call it something other than shitty.
2) Moshing.
I respect the choice of some concert-goers to partake in a physical expression of music-induced adrenaline in a mosh pit. However, your lame excuse for a circle pit, which involves little more than pushing your emo friends around during an Anberlin performance is basically painting a vagina on your undersized women's jeans. Save your efforts for legitimate hardcore bands that merit throwing your weight around.
3) Water Bottle Throwing.
For some reason people think it is cool to throw a full, loosely-capped 5 dollar bottle of water into a crowd or at the performing artist. Unfortunately for you, this is not only a waste of money, but also a musical game of Russian Roulette involving my fist and your face if one of these bottles ever hits me. If you do this, I hope the person it hits finds you and rips your throat out.
4) Headphone Coercion.
I'm not sure what it is that makes people think that walking up to me with an iPod and asking me to listen to their shitty band (which isn't even at the concert, in fact they don't even have a tent) will get a positive response. I would also love to know why people think, in the year 2008, that this is an effective way to get fans. However, I can assure you that my response to this request will be something along the lines of "get a fucking Myspace."
5) Outlandish attire.
It's safe to say that if you are one of those guys who is wearing a pink tank top with baby blue shorts that are so short that they are hugging your junk, you are adding to the the concert's douche count. Things could be worse though. You could sport this very outfit, but top it off with white socks pulled most of the way up to your knees and a yellow sweatband on your forehead with a free sample Trojan Magnum condom stuck in it behind your ear. As a 5'4" tall white dude, everyone knows that condom will do little more than fall off if you try to wear it, so unless that Magnum is for your boyfriend's massive penis, please rethink your wardrobe.
6) Excessive Crowd Surfing
Crowd surfing is fine, except that it tends to pull people in who don't want to partake. For example, when I'm standing a fair distance from the stage and you come crawling over my back because you're going to break the world record for farthest crowd surf, starting 50 yards from the stage, I tend to not want to help you out. Not to mention that your insatiable need to have people grab your ass sends you awkwardly across the crowd, kicking the faces of the people holding you up. IF you chose to crowd surf, do it in moderation, and not in a group of 8.
7) Literature Dispersal
I can safely assume, if you are reading this blog, that you do not like Scientologists or their stands at the mall. Therefore, I know that you will agree that it makes no sense for people to go to a big concert with their bullshit books about Enlightenment and Transcendence as a part of their stupid fucking cult. If you walk up to me with no shirt on, dirt all over your body, and try to hand me a book from a tattered sack that looks like you brought it back from the Korean War, why would you ever be surprised that I say the first thing that comes to my mind? "That looks like a stupid fucking book."
8) Guitar Hero/ Rock Band all stars
Most people will agree that both Guitar Hero and Rock Band are enjoyable video games. Furthermore, most people who aren't total losers will tell you that it is never cool to pay money to go to a concert and hang out in the Guitar Hero tent all day trying to show everyone how much time of your life you have wasted strumming a fake guitar with 5 plastic buttons on it. No one cares what level you can play the fake drums or guitar at, because we are watching real bands just yards way from you.
9) Groupies/ Wannabe Roadies.
Here you go girls, the first thing on this list that is dominated by the female sex. These are the girls (though sometimes guys) who have seen one particular band at this show 10 or more times. They will say, without batting an eye, at 15 years of age, that this trendy one-hit wonder is the greatest band of all time. They will go to great lengths to memorize the names and ages of all the band members (and tell them to everyone). Then they will get to know one of them, and make sure everyone they see at the show knows that they know that person and got to go back stage once and watch the band walk from the stage to their bus. Don't be this person. If you are going to be a groupie, don't go telling people lame stories about you and the band. Your roundabout tall tale might be interesting to you, but all I hear is "I slept with the bassist."
10) Drunken heckling
We all know that it is too much to ask for every band in a line-up to be phenomenal. If this was the case, tickets would be much harder to get. Still, this is no reason for you, drunk off 80 dollars worth of concert beer, to go yell "you suck" at a hard-working group of musicians. Yes, I know I previously talked about a shitty band who couldn't land a spot in the line up pushing their music on me via iPod, but that is completely different. It's not that his band sucked, it's that that dude wanted me to listen to a crappy band on his iPod instead of a good band that I paid to see. You should never go taunting a band in mid-set, nor should you chant the name of the headliner in an attempt to get them off the stage early. If you do this, you can eat shit.
In conclusion, I encourage everyone to go to concerts and enjoy themselves. Jump around, sing along, cheer, cut your sleeves off, maybe even mosh a little bit when appropriate. Go ahead, fuck shit up. Just please use a little common sense and moderation to avoid making yourself look like a bigger idiot than most of the people around you. (After all, it would be too much to assume you aren't one to begin with)
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
What Does The Bible Really Say About Same-Sex Marriage?
In November, Californians will have the opportunity to vote on Proposition 8. If passed, Proposition 8 would add a new section (7.5) to Article I of the State Constitution (ironically placed right between the Equal Protection and Nondiscrimination clauses) that reads: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” This amendment would undo the California Supreme Court’s May 15, 2008 decision that effectively legalized same-sex marriage in the state.
I personally oppose the proposed amendment.
Some opponents of the Court’s decision, including dissenting Justice Carol Corrigan, say that the Court acted outside of its capacity, and that it is not the Judicial Branch’s duty to legislate. However, the Court did not create any new laws. It was ruled (in a 4-3 vote) that marriage is a fundamental right under article 7 of the State Constitution; therefore, any laws restricting that right to homosexual couples were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote in the majority decision that “the right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people,” including homosexuals.
(On a side note, Republican governors nominated all seven justices of the California Supreme Court. So, despite what many in the Religious-Right want you to believe, liberal activists did not make this decision.)
Of the 220 endorsements for Proposition 8 from organizations and public officials, 125 of them are from Churches and Ministries and many of the others are from Christian schools and other faith-based associations. Well over 55% of the proposition’s public supporters are religious groups, which confirms that significant (if not primary) motivation for banning gay marriage is based in religious beliefs, specifically Christianity.
I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school for fourteen years, and even attended a fundamentalist Christian church for a few of those years. So, I think it’s pretty safe to say that I have a pretty solid understanding of the Bible and Christian teachings. Using this knowledge, and some research, I hope to convincingly explain that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality and that religion is not a valid justification for this discrimination.
The most commonly quoted Bible passage used to argue that homosexuality is a sin is Leviticus 18:22, which says, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Fundamentalists take this to mean “Men shall not have sex with men.” However a more literal interpretation of this text would actually ban homosexual sex between heterosexual men. For someone to “lie as he does with a woman,” would he not have to regularly “lie” with women? If he is gay, he doesn’t sleep with women, therefore he wouldn’t be laying with men as he does with women.
Even if we are to accept the fundamentalist interpretation of this passage, Christianity teaches that the coming of Christ overwrites Old Testament teachings. Christ never speaks about homosexuality or gay sex (It is, however, mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. Be patient; I’ll get there). But for fun, let’s just pretend that this isn’t the case, and that the rules of Leviticus still apply in their full glory. Examples of other things forbidden in Leviticus include: eating pork or shellfish (11:7-12), playing with the skin of a pig-that means no football (11:8), shaving or getting a haircut (19:27), getting tattoos (19:28), and wearing polyester (19:19). These are all real examples. Look them up. Should we also amend the constitution to ban these actions as well? After all, it is in the Bible.
Another commonly quoted piece of scripture (and the definite favorite from the New Testament) is Romans 1:21-27. This passage reads:
“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
“Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Read that carefully. Christians will often quote only the last paragraph, which says that the people gave up natural heterosexual relationships in favor of unnatural homosexual ones. A closer look into the entire passage will reveal a much different story. The truth is, the people in the story created a false idol and, as part of their ritualistic worship of the idol, began having heterosexual orgies. This angered God, who intervened and made them have homosexual orgies. God didn’t punish any gay people for having gay sex; he punished straight people by making them have gay sex. Seriously.
Other passages in the Bible will mention various homosexual acts, but never in the context of a loving monogamous relationship. You may find condemnation of gay rape, gay orgies, pedophilic gay relationships, but never any mention of a committed gay couple.
It is important to remember that I only advocate one interpretation of these pieces of scripture. My interpretation is obviously different than that of a religious conservative. Though different people will interpret Biblical writings in their own way, one simple fact remains true: regardless of how one interprets religious teachings, said interpretations remain irrelevant in the context of the law. America’s founding fathers established a clear, non-negotiable wall of separation between church and state. Laws are not to be made based on religious belief.
Because of this, I encourage all of you to vote "No" on Proposition 8 this November.
Sources: The Bible (NIV Translation), ProtectMarriage.com, text of In re Marriage Cases, Years of Catholic education
I personally oppose the proposed amendment.
Some opponents of the Court’s decision, including dissenting Justice Carol Corrigan, say that the Court acted outside of its capacity, and that it is not the Judicial Branch’s duty to legislate. However, the Court did not create any new laws. It was ruled (in a 4-3 vote) that marriage is a fundamental right under article 7 of the State Constitution; therefore, any laws restricting that right to homosexual couples were unconstitutional. Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote in the majority decision that “the right to marry is not properly viewed simply as a benefit or privilege that a government may establish or abolish as it sees fit, but rather that the right constitutes a basic civil or human right of all people,” including homosexuals.
(On a side note, Republican governors nominated all seven justices of the California Supreme Court. So, despite what many in the Religious-Right want you to believe, liberal activists did not make this decision.)
Of the 220 endorsements for Proposition 8 from organizations and public officials, 125 of them are from Churches and Ministries and many of the others are from Christian schools and other faith-based associations. Well over 55% of the proposition’s public supporters are religious groups, which confirms that significant (if not primary) motivation for banning gay marriage is based in religious beliefs, specifically Christianity.
I was raised Catholic, attended Catholic school for fourteen years, and even attended a fundamentalist Christian church for a few of those years. So, I think it’s pretty safe to say that I have a pretty solid understanding of the Bible and Christian teachings. Using this knowledge, and some research, I hope to convincingly explain that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality and that religion is not a valid justification for this discrimination.
The most commonly quoted Bible passage used to argue that homosexuality is a sin is Leviticus 18:22, which says, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” Fundamentalists take this to mean “Men shall not have sex with men.” However a more literal interpretation of this text would actually ban homosexual sex between heterosexual men. For someone to “lie as he does with a woman,” would he not have to regularly “lie” with women? If he is gay, he doesn’t sleep with women, therefore he wouldn’t be laying with men as he does with women.
Even if we are to accept the fundamentalist interpretation of this passage, Christianity teaches that the coming of Christ overwrites Old Testament teachings. Christ never speaks about homosexuality or gay sex (It is, however, mentioned elsewhere in the New Testament. Be patient; I’ll get there). But for fun, let’s just pretend that this isn’t the case, and that the rules of Leviticus still apply in their full glory. Examples of other things forbidden in Leviticus include: eating pork or shellfish (11:7-12), playing with the skin of a pig-that means no football (11:8), shaving or getting a haircut (19:27), getting tattoos (19:28), and wearing polyester (19:19). These are all real examples. Look them up. Should we also amend the constitution to ban these actions as well? After all, it is in the Bible.
Another commonly quoted piece of scripture (and the definite favorite from the New Testament) is Romans 1:21-27. This passage reads:
“For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
“Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”
Read that carefully. Christians will often quote only the last paragraph, which says that the people gave up natural heterosexual relationships in favor of unnatural homosexual ones. A closer look into the entire passage will reveal a much different story. The truth is, the people in the story created a false idol and, as part of their ritualistic worship of the idol, began having heterosexual orgies. This angered God, who intervened and made them have homosexual orgies. God didn’t punish any gay people for having gay sex; he punished straight people by making them have gay sex. Seriously.
Other passages in the Bible will mention various homosexual acts, but never in the context of a loving monogamous relationship. You may find condemnation of gay rape, gay orgies, pedophilic gay relationships, but never any mention of a committed gay couple.
It is important to remember that I only advocate one interpretation of these pieces of scripture. My interpretation is obviously different than that of a religious conservative. Though different people will interpret Biblical writings in their own way, one simple fact remains true: regardless of how one interprets religious teachings, said interpretations remain irrelevant in the context of the law. America’s founding fathers established a clear, non-negotiable wall of separation between church and state. Laws are not to be made based on religious belief.
Because of this, I encourage all of you to vote "No" on Proposition 8 this November.
Sources: The Bible (NIV Translation), ProtectMarriage.com, text of In re Marriage Cases, Years of Catholic education
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
I Want to Run Over Nancy Pelosi With a Large SUV
On Friday, Nancy Pelosi adjourned congress in the middle of a debate regarding gas prices and offshore drilling. While House Republicans were arguing their side of the issue, Pelosi cut their microphones, turned off the lights and shut down Congress for a five week vacation.
Pelosi's actions show her obvious disrespect for the democratic process. Since when was it okay for the Speaker of the House to refuse to hold a vote on an issue just because she disagrees with it? Is voting on controversial issues not Congresses sole purpose? If Pelosi is so sure that offshore drilling is not a way to ease consumer pain at the gas pump, she should argue her case to the rest of the House and allow them to vote on it. She should have enough confidence in her own ability to articulate a point that she would have no need to worry about the results of a vote. The House is controlled by Democrats; if they vote against her position, she is obviously misguided.
Regardless of your politics, or your position on offshore drilling, you should at least agree with me that refusing to allow debate and democracy in the United States House of Reprsentatives is repulsive.
Pelosi's actions show her obvious disrespect for the democratic process. Since when was it okay for the Speaker of the House to refuse to hold a vote on an issue just because she disagrees with it? Is voting on controversial issues not Congresses sole purpose? If Pelosi is so sure that offshore drilling is not a way to ease consumer pain at the gas pump, she should argue her case to the rest of the House and allow them to vote on it. She should have enough confidence in her own ability to articulate a point that she would have no need to worry about the results of a vote. The House is controlled by Democrats; if they vote against her position, she is obviously misguided.
Regardless of your politics, or your position on offshore drilling, you should at least agree with me that refusing to allow debate and democracy in the United States House of Reprsentatives is repulsive.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
