When was it exactly that rock stars claimed to be more than overgrown children?

Isn't this kind of...dog bites man?

Now man bites dog would be if a man who claimed to be President said this:

[Links deleted. I believe they were broken. Sorry. Comments Editor]

"If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier. Just as long as I'm the dictator."
--Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect


That would be remarkable.

When a guy in a Rage Against the Machine shirt burns an American flag...

[Links deleted. I believe they were broken. Sorry. Comments Editor]


...it isn't really news.

That's what guys in Rage Against the Machine shirts do.

They burn flags.


[Links deleted. I believe they were broken. Sorry. Comments Editor]

But when a man who claims to be president says...

[Links deleted. I believe they were broken. Sorry. Comments Editor]

"The fundamental question is: 'Will I be a successful president when it comes to foreign policy?' I will be, but until I'm the president, it's going to be hard for me to verify that I think I'll be more effective."
--New York Times, 7/28/99

"The reason we start a war is to fight a war, win a war, thereby causing no more war!"
--The first Presidential debate

"You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test."
--February 21, 2001 - President Bush at Townsend Elementary School, touting his education reform plans.

"If you're sick and tired of the politics of cynicism and polls and principles, come and join this campaign."
--Hilton Head, S.C., Feb. 16, 2000


...well, that would deserve a headline like,

George W. Bush, thoughtful statesman

Yes, yes, Brian, your relentless undying unthinking knee jerk hatred of President Bush is duly noted. If George Bush even thought it for a second, it was wrong and stupid and illegitimate. George Bush = BAD. Got it.

And also irrelevant to the topic at hand, and making the page take longer to load for the sake of irrelevant pictures of irrelevant jackasses.

Eddie, I agree but destroying a picture of the President is hardly a critical observation. 2 out of 10.

[Link deleted. I believe it was broken. Sorry. Comments Editor]

"...irrelevant pictures of irrelevant jackasses."

You said it, Al, not me.

So, am I to assume that renaming french fries and french toast are "thoughtful" and "mature"? How about boycotting people and organizations that just might dare to have an opinion slightly different than yours?

I see the "Bush didn't win the election" crowd is out early today. And I like how we get totally irrevelevant and out-of-context-but-fitting-to-the-argument quotes. Effective!

Ron: Bush had nothing to do with renaming fries and toast. How about you contact House Administration Committee Chairman Bob Ney and Rep. Walter Jones, who came up with the idea, about your feelings on this issue?

For some perspective, please read David Niewert who has been documenting pro-war tactics:

Last week here at Yale, several male students, armed with a 2×4 in the middle of the night, broke into the suite of another female student and activist, because she had an American flag hanging upside-down (a symbol of distress, dissent with the government) out the window of her room. Fortunately, they were unsuccessful in breaking down the door to her bedroom, but they left a violent and intimidating note including such inspiring quotes as “as [sic] muslims must die.”

marin, are you really sure you want to butress your argument with a quote by Trent Lott?

Sean: Hmm... I don't think anyone could be faulted for quoting Nixon on foreign policy.

Hey InMarin! Thanks for the OxBlog link!

When it comes to all this discussion, I can't believe everyone is concerned about politics.

How we can let Al get away with saying that "the band only ever had one decent song and their recording career is long dead." Now that's offensive!

Eddie's antics are sort of sophomoric, but think about how many great musicians and rockstars we'd have to write off if we objected to their politics!

Oh yeah. I forgot about the greatest example of pro-war maturity I have yet encountered:

PEACENIK: "Why are you so gung-ho for this war?"

WARMONGER: "Because you're a fucking faggot!"

Tom,

"Bush had nothing to do with renaming fries and toast. How about you contact House Administration Committee Chairman Bob Ney and Rep. Walter Jones, who came up with the idea, about your feelings on this issue?"


Ron didn't mention Bush at all. I think he was making the same point I was--that criticizing a rock star for acting childish is like criticizing a fish for swimming. It's what they're supposed to do. Rock stars don't claim to be statesmen.

However, conservative legislators Ney and Jones do claim to be statesmen, or at least one expects them to be "thoughtful," given their positions of power in our federal government.

The irony here, in case you missed it, is that Al found an example of childish behavior by a rock star, while one could go on and on citing childish behavior by Republican politicians.

Whose childish behavior should be of more concern?

"Whose childish behavior should be of more concern?"

It's rhetorical question, but for anyone in a quandary over it, the answer is: The behavior of the people who actually run the country is of much greater concern than people who comment upon those people. You can take or leave Eddie Vedder, but our executive administration and legislators are a bit harder to ignore.

Ronbailey says:

So, am I to assume that renaming french fries and french toast are "thoughtful" and "mature"? How about boycotting people and organizations that just might dare to have an opinion slightly different than yours?

I assume then that the rest of us will neeehhhver be faced with our friends on the left engaging in boycotts of various companies because they take various positions with which they disagree. I'll be sure to tell my friends at Nike and Coors that the respective boycotts have been canceled.

You kids kill me - Al, you have responded very well to our conversation, this is the kind of thing I was talking about.

A "Texas leaguer" is "a fly ball that drops between an infielder and an outfielder for a hit." I can see how that applies to Bush. It looks like he's going to be out but he manages to get on base anyhow. On the other hand, any president is going to be "beleagured." It goes with the job.

Weak, Al. Weak.

Vedder is a rock singer. He stomped a mask.

Picasso's 'Guernica' shows people getting bombed. But Picasso didn't even paint them correctly, they were all Cubist. Silly Picasso, very immature.

Dali had a bunch of anti-war paintings too, but that guy also painted cheese and ants. What a baby.

Bob Dylan wrote lots of protest songs, "Masters of War', for example. But he's a grouch, and sometimes wears wigs and fake beards (!).

South Park, a cartoon, criticized the war during an episode where the US decided that Heaven was developing WMD. So they almost blew the hell out of it. But South Park is a cartoon.

Clearly, theatrics and humour and style, however crude and simple, have no place in your idea of political debate. Unless, of course, you are a blogger. Then you can use sarcasm and hyperbole to get your point across. Cause that's mature. When you write it down. But on a stage? Hardly.

Jesus, here I come! I see the light!

1. "If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier. Just as long as I'm the dictator."
--Washington, DC, Dec 18, 2000, during his first trip to Washington as President-Elect

Am I the only one who see the Twain wit in this statement?

2. Someone always has to bring up the "Bush don't talk good," thing as an argument.

3. Last week here at Yale, several male students, armed with a 2×4 in the middle of the night, broke into the suite of another female student and activist, because she had an American flag hanging upside-down (a symbol of distress, dissent with the government) out the window of her room. Fortunately, they were unsuccessful in breaking down the door to her bedroom, but they left a violent and intimidating note including such inspiring quotes as "as [sic] muslims must die."

How is this different from anti-war folks attacking Jews?

4. "Why are you anti-war?"
"Because you're a facist!"

I'd be careful about saying that the epsiode of South Park you're referring to is purely anti-war... After all, everything that Bush accused Saddam of in his speech was true within the context of the show, even if the UN just laughed at him. Not to mention that the end of the show revealed that Saddam *was* actually building WMD in Heaven.

I don't recall saying it was "purely anti-war". I seem to recall writing that it "criticized the war." Which it did.

Look, Eric- I CAN work and play well with others! Even if they're all BIG DOO-DOO HEADS!

Sorry.

Woland seems to think that I would automatically regard any anti-war sentiments as childish, which is certainly not the case. It's Eddie Vedder's particular petulant behavior, not simply that he's anti-war. I would have thought nearly as badly of someone behaving similarly with a picture of Clinton, even though I have thoroughgoing contempt for WJC.

And you needn't think you're getting ahead of me in the line of South Park fans. The show is specifically about children, and delights in childish bathroom humor and "bad" language, which are harmless. It is, however, the most actively un-childish show on television. It does more than any other show on the tube to carefully analyze and offer alternatives to destructive and dysfunctional childish selfishness and petulance- the worst of which is usually committed by the supposed adults. Notice how the children often end up acting in a more mature and responsible manner than their parents.

Eddie Vedder destroyed a picture of the president. Harmless, but merely petulant- lacking in artistic substance.

Bob Dylan wrote "Masters of War," a great classic song. That's doing something. I wonder what the author of "Neighborhood Bully" thinks of our current conflict.

I have had something of a revelation. There are basically two camps trading salvos these days here on the site: those who are more or less for or against the war. That's to be expected, this is an emotional time.

BUT, it would be much more edifying if we would stick to the specifics of the post in question - at least to begin with - rather than plunge into the fundamentals of the war/anti-war position without much discussing the actual matter at hand.

This would have the effect of not chasing away those who come here primarily for popular culture news and reviews, and we would get farther into the actual matters at hand, which usually are much more subtle than war/anti-war.

I believe in this case Al was addressing a specific action by a rock star and deeming it unworthy.

If we calibrate our rhetoric to the immediate task at hand we can accomplish much and piss each other off less.

Carry on

Yes, Vedder smacked around a Bush mask, I'm not sure where a 'picture' came from. Done alone, out of context, I'd agree with you. It would be a childish act. That's a picture you've painted, in a way.

However, the mask came with a song, came with a speech(es). The song, at the very least, despite your simplistic criticism, is an artistic statement. Artistic substance. Add the mask, you have a visual aid. Crude? Sure. Childish. I'd think of it as effective, myself.

And that puts Vedder's actions in the same category as the art I mentioned earlier. So if you'd like to discredit his actions, then there must be some sort of distinction you aren't sharing.

Eric,

I don't see it. I would agree with you that hijacking a post that has nothing to do with the war and dragging it there would be unnecessary.

But the evolution of this particular conversation seems natural to me, and it DID start with an item that was very much about politics and war. Once an original post criticizes an anti-war statement (no matter who does it, or what the criticism is), it's virtually impossible to keep the conversation veering into war-related subjects.

Further, for the most part this discussion has remained focussed on a rather narrow subject: Expressions of political opinion, and how to judge whether they are appropriate or inappropriate, significant or insignificant. Al, did, after all, post an item that asserted (to put it mildly) that Vedder's choice of expression was inappropriate, and Al deemed it significant as well (by virtue of posting an item about it). I don't think this discussion veered terribly far afield for the most part.

Again--I do agree that it's not necessary to turn NON-war-related items into war debates. But this was decidedly not a non-war-related item.

By way of pulling this thread back on topic, let's go back to Mr. Flemmings' earlier offenses against proper geometry and philosophy back in the first comment assault of the confederacy of dunces.

When was it exactly that rock stars claimed to be more than overgrown children?

When was it decided that they were supposed to act like petulant babies? Granted Pearl Jam made their name with "Jeremy." However, Mick and Keef were MEN, not boys. So were Elvis and Chuck Berry, and Led Zeppelin. OK, there WAS Jim Morrison, but fortunately he got himself dead in a quick hurry.

Much of the infantilization of rock musicians seems to date from the late '70s punk rock movement. The purposeful self-abuse, the safety pins and such were real children's level acting out. Sid Vicious was a little boy lost, not like the real men of earlier generations.

In any case, saying that musicians are SUPPOSED to act like petulant children does not impress me. If they are turning out exceptional art, I might somewhat more suffer their indulgences [ie Axl Rose 15 years ago, but NOT TODAY].

Even if Pearl Jam were actually any good though, I'd still mock Eddie Vedder for his ridiculous behavior. He's frickin' begging for it.

You are too, it seems.

Get an argument and stick with it. Lame.

Woland-

I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what am I?
I know you are, but what am I?

Simply using the word "lame" doesn't add to the sum of human knowledge. It does not prove me wrong, nor offer a superior alternative vision.

What exactly did I say that was incorrect, and in what way was it incorrect? Are you trying to argue that Vedder really was making a valid, significant artistic statement? Does he have some actual insight here that I have thus far missed. Does he actually have something to say other than that he hates Bush?

First of all, it's a mask, not a picture. And I doubt that he destroyed anything.

I saw Pearl Jam last night, and Eddie Vedder made an explicit reference to the "controversy." It was as violent as putting a hat on a hat rack. Here's what he did:

In their first encore, Eddie Vedder came out on stage alone with a miniature guitar and a Bill Gates mask. He said (I'm reconstructing from memory), "Let me show you how to impale a mask in a bizarre ritualistic fashion. First, you wear the mask. (Vedder pulls on a full rubber mask that covers his head like a helmet.) You put on the mask and do a little dance. Then you take it off and- here's the sick part- are you ready? (Vedder removes the mask and lowers it onto an adjacent microphone stand, like putting a hat on a hat stand.) Total fucking impalement. And then you sing to it. This is a bizarre, violent ritual that I made up, because I'm a sick fuck. And a celebrity." (He proceeds to sing a song to the floating Bill Gates head next to him.)

I don't know what he did with the Bush mask the other night in Denver. But if the "impalement" was anything like what he did last night, there was nothing violent about it.

Dear Al,

I seem to have made several posts already that argue your post and suggest that, yes, Vedder was making an artistic statment. I feel repetitive going on and on, but of course my 'lame' was referring to your inability to back up your argument with anything but fluff. I'm not too familiar with these site, but it seems that your argument is...wait for it...weak.

If you want to know my argument, I posted and posted and posted already. It's all there.

And thanks for suggesting that I am childish for pointing out your ineffectiveness. Quite the retort. Nevermind any of my longer posts.

Way to go, champ.

Simply using the word "lame" doesn't add to the sum of human knowledge.


Really?

HARK !! I hear the sound of a distant horse slowly being flogged to death.

I think we've lost sight of the original argument here. Actually, I dont feel like the real issue was ever addressed by anyone. The whole thing about Ed displaying his disgust with the president it completely his right. And who are we to critique him on how he does it??? You make it seem like EV is is expecting his audience to immediately change their minds about Bush and follow in his footsteps after he simply rips up a picture of the President. That's what your ENTIRE post is about! But you're wasting your time! That wasn't what he was doing at all! He's exercising his right of free speech and just freedom in general. He's demonstrating to his audience that it's ok to express your feelings although you might be criticized by narrow minded people who don't understand the meaning of democracy. He's saying that expressing himself means more to him than his record sales. So, if you're 100% behind our president, say that, don't bash someone for being bold enough to express their controversial opinion in front of thousands of people who may or may not agree.

Oh God Ellie, it's going to be a gusher!!!
who are we to critique him on how he does it???
We're BLOGCRITICS. Criticism is what we do.

The free speech stuff is pretty frickin' lame as an excuse at this point. These dumbass childish antics SHOULD be free- they're worthless. Problem is, people paid actual money for the privilege of watching Veder jack himself off.

Again, if he had a real song, or even a significantly developed clever skit, I'd be all about it.

If on the other hand, your best argument is to stomp around the stage and threaten to hold your breath till your face turns blue, which sounds like pretty much what Veder was doing, then you're just an idiot.

Of course, I support Veder's right to act like an idiot for all the world to see.

Eddie tears up a picture Dubya tears up the lives of 20,000 people in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Adam- Unlike Mr. Veder, Dubya has the responsibility for actually dealing with the bad guys who want to kill us. The big majority of those killed by the US so far appear to be, in fact, really bad people who badly needed killed- though you might reasonably argue over how direct a threat specifically to America some of them have been.

We have in fact obviously gone to great lengths to avoid killing innocents as much as humanly possible, but the terrorists and their enablers have to be stopped. If innocent people get killed because their cowardly evil brethren are hiding behind mom's skirt tails, then the blood is on THEIR hands.

George Bush has to protect 300,000,000 Americans. On top of which, we now have the temporary responsibility for the security of Iraq and Afghanistan. Should and will the president of the US just sit back and let the country be destroyed with impunity, or should and will he defend the security of the nation by any means necessary?

Or perhaps we could let Eddie Veder handle the likes of Hussein. Screw an army, we'll just have Eddie come desecrate a mask of Saddam- I bet he would have gotten the picture then. Yup, that'd stop him in his tracks. No more mass graves, rape rooms, payoffs and training grounds for terrorists. Yes, Eddie will take care of business.

Such an immature thing to do, Eddie. You should have waited until you played the Vatican, then ritually destroyed a picture of the Pope. Then you would be respected, rather than ridiculed, like Lauryn Hill.

In fairness Duane, I'm not sure if Ms. Hill's display was exactly the right thing to do, but it was not in a league of stupidity with Vedder's.

She didn't destroy a picture of the pope, but specifically rebuked people who were RIGHT THERE in front of her who surely need rebuking.

Fair enough, Al. I mention this only in passing.

Listen to me. FOr all you morons and buffoons who think you have the right to criticize eddie vedder, well think again. It is the penis faces like you who have no respect for a great musician that ruin this country. See here. Eddie vedder is the greatest musician on the face of the earth. He has had a profound inpact on my life since the end of 1991. He is a great musician and when it comes to politics, no one knows more. Mr. Vedder is a one of a kind person. His music is unmathced. Cd after Cd Pearl Jam and eddie prove to not only be the greatest band of the 90's, but the greatest band of all times. So screw you if you think he ha no right to put George Bush in his place. Eddie, you are the man!

Look Bunghole, beyond anything else you have shown yourself to lack any knowledge or taste in music. The wad Pete Townshend leaves in his hankie after blowing his nose has forgotten more about music than this miserable little whiny boy pretending to be a rock star- your precious little Eddie- will ever know.

Pearl Jam the greatest band ever? Lord Rand in heaven, have you never heard the Who or Led Zeppelin? Christ Jebus, even Black Sabbath starts sounding good compared these boring schmucks. At least Ozzy has some personality.

eddie is god. period.

oh yeah once again eddie vedder is my messiah.

are you related?

What a wussie excuse for a God. Your world view must be extremely limited to pick this little wiener for such a position.

Besides, everyone knows that Ray Charles is God.

whatever the fuck all of you fuckers outthere say something bad about eddie, are nothing but jealous of this great human being. Like he said once you people are "NOTHINMAN".

HEY AL BUGGER GET A DAMM LIFE BROTHER!

Ray IS God!!! This "I'll Believe to My
Soul".....................

Mr. Saxton obviously has a deep spiritual bent.

Al,What'd I Say!!!........

Pearl Jam is the greatest band of all time and congrats to that person for standing up and saying it. And as someone who has heard every Who and Pearl Jam song recorded, the comment about the Who being leagues ahead is obviously wrong. Come on! Your childhood is gone. Quadrophenia is a masterpiece, yes, but so is No Code. And LEd Zeppelin are a hunk of crap. Most overrate music ever. SO anyway, enjoy your Ozzie buddy.
and for the fanatic who wrote this column about an imaginary picture and then responds personally to all criticism:
"When tommorrow hits, it'll hit you hard"

EDDIE IS THE BEST. I REST MY CASE.

Rene, merely declaring someone to be "the best" does not constitute having made any kind of case TO rest. You'll have to be more specific. Perhaps an analysis of some specific Pearl Jam song, breaking down what it is exactly that shows it to be THE BEST.

Otherwise, you risk leaving the undoubtedly mistaken impression that Pearl Jam fans are simply musical illiterates who wouldn't know a real song if it bit them in the ass.

Look people I hate to return to this message board but unfortunately I must. Eddie Vedder is hot shit and so is his band pearl jam. All other musicians are insignificant compared to him and his ultimate supremacy. I rest my case that PJ is the greatest band of all times and do not reply to my message because simply i am right, and you are wrong if you disagree with me. and the who being the greatest band of all times??? hey asshole fuckface moron get a fucking hearing aid or mental help you dumb fuck. Eddie Vedder is the savior of gen X. so kiss off you fuckers.

Bunghole- I must concede the blinding pure light of reason flowing from your pen. What was I even thinking? Out Quadrophenia, trusty Tommy! For me, it's PJ only from now on.

Thank you, Bunghole, for showing me the way.

It may take all the fun out of it but at some point people should realize that theses are all bright people who don't come to their opinions lightly. The chances of changing someones mind here are pretty negligible. It would be nice to agree to disagree without re-hashing the same material over and over.

That said, I'd like to add:
If you're not a democrat when you're young then you have no heart.
If you're a republican when you're old, what happened to that heart?

It seems that as we age we tend to accumulate more material goods and this makes us greedy. We want more and more and we want to keep a bigger percentage of what we earn.

IMO republicans are more pragmatic, concerned with real-world problems and how to solve them while democrats are more interested in ideas. We need them both.

Was this comment, perhaps, meant for another post?

Negative. Just tired of seeing the same people argue the same points over and over. Wishing the blogcritics would appreciate and respect each other a little more.

Well okay then - I agree and salute thee!

Antfreeze, you are simply wrong when you say "It may take all the fun out of it but at some point people should realize that theses are all bright people who don't come to their opinions lightly."

Some people do consider their opinions in a serious manner, and those people sometimes can change their opinions, or at least add a bit of nuance because they are thinking about them. I myself sometimes do that here, and I know Eric does.

However, silly Bunghole people will of course not change their minds, as they obviously don't have such things. I'm not particularly interested in changing his mind. I'm just funning with him.

Your stuff about the Republicans and Democrats is rather perverse. What you're saying about Democrats being interested in "ideas" is sort of correct, but totally backwards.

Conservatives to libertarians (let's leave the useless GOP out of this) take interest in ideas- and how they actually work in the real world.

Liberal democrat types take an interest in Candyland ideas- whatever kind of silly crap feels good. They generally manage to be remarkably undeterred by how completely their "ideas" fail in the real world, or how much misery this causes. This kind of "thinking" rapidly becomes worse than worthless.

And that is to the extent that you give them credit for ideals, rather than recognizing them as merely interest groups wanting handouts. How is it noble and idealistic for people to seek free crap from the government to be seized from taxpayers, yet it is "greedy" to want to keep your own money and simply not have your pocket picked?

Of course, I'm sure Eddie Vedder will put on a pretty little boy pout and do an interpretive dance about mean old daddy that will show us all the light.

Your implication is that only poor people are liberals. What reason would there be for someone who's comfortably well-off to seek assistance for those less fortunate? Compassion perhaps? A trait I find in inverse proportion to age. I'm pretty crusty myself but I'm fighting it.

"Somewhat correct but totally backwards."
hehe. The correct part must've been pretty hard to find. I appreciate your civility.

Poor people don't have any lobbyists in Washington. Who'd pay the scum-suckers?

"What's so funny 'bout peace love and understanding?"

Conservative republican types take an interest in Candyland ideas- whatever kind of silly crap feels good. They generally manage to be remarkably undeterred by how completely their "ideas" fail in the real world, or how much misery this causes. This kind of "thinking" rapidly becomes worse than worthless.

ah...it rolls ever so trippingly off the tongue.

Yes Mark, it rolls trippingly off the tongue, but it's just lacking in saying something true that way. Not that some conservatives aren't obstinate or prejudiced in different areas, but they are generally just not ideologically pre-destined to ignore empirical reality as are liberal utopian types.

Antfreeze, I saw correctness in your point of liberals being interested in "ideas." I'm just questioning the value of many of the ideas in which they are interested.

"Compassion," for example, is overrated as an idea. Why would a mere declaration of compassion trump the property rights of someone who has worked out a paycheck?

And I'm Mr. Civility. Of course, I may have to take an occasional swat at those foolish enough to disagree with me, but I try to do so with loving compassion for those beneath me on the intellectual food chain. :)

Not that their intentions matter that much in the face of the real results, but there are plenty of reasons for rich people to be liberals. Particularly in the practical political scene, trial lawyers. They exploit the liberal sentimentality for great personal gain- and are only too happy to be the biggest money men of the Democrat Party to keep the badly needed reforms of tort laws at bay. That's one example for that.

And there are certainly PLENTY of lobbyists representing the supposed positions of "poor people" - starting with the trial lawyers, and every damned liberal interest group up in the place. There's certainly no lack of people to bitch if there's less than a major increase in funding for every conceivable social welfare program every year- and no lack of such bitching even with Dubya and the Republicans in fact hugely jacking up the social spending.

Conservative republican types take an interest in Candyland ideas-

Family values

whatever kind of silly crap feels good.

"Hey, I don't like to pay taxes, so I shouldn't have to."

They generally manage to be remarkably undeterred by how completely their "ideas" fail in the real world,

WMDs, job creation

or how much misery this causes.

Budget deficits, environmental degradation

This kind of "thinking" rapidly becomes worse than worthless.

"We don't do 'nuance'"

they are generally just not ideologically pre-destined to ignore empirical reality as are liberal utopian types

the disagreement here is with the term 'reality'. your statement presupposes that there is one 'correct' way of looking at situations.

Not that some conservatives aren't obstinate or prejudiced in different areas, but they are generally just not ideologically pre-destined to ignore empirical reality as are liberal utopian types.

Climate change, evolution

JR, I'm howling. Nicely done!

Dude, I agree with Eddie Vedder.
He's right that war doesn't solve anything, well...It determines who has more dead soldiers and innocent people.
If you watch the news the only reason there are so many dead people in iraq, afganistan and all those other countries is because george w. bush, in his infinite wisdom, thought we had go in there and have our men and women kill and be killed. Thanks a lot for everything bush.

Al, why do u speak as if u kno music? Your talking about Townshend and The Who... yet the Townshend has had nothing but great words about Eddie Vedder.. The Who has actually performed with Eddie! Many of the great band have been influences and later have spoke about Pearl Jam calling them one of the greats... now maybe u should learn something be4 u talk about music.. Read the lyrics listen 2 the music.. ohhh poor Al "Nothing man!"

Eddie Vedder's a rambling pothead, but he's always sort of been on the right track and he means well. Pearl Jam's fascinating because they sort of self-exiled (some may say self-destructed) from being maybe the biggest band in the world to being nothing within 5 years, from releasing massive albums with mega-hits to weird quasi-underground bootlegs, from playing huge arenas to fighting Ticketmaster, from getting constant airplay to trying to do their own pirate radio broadcasts.

For the love of Rand, Senator Barger, did you vote for George W Bush in 2004?

Yes or No?

Be honest and have some courage. Come clean.

That is all.

For a pretty much past-history rocker trashing a mask on stage this thread really carried a loooooong way!
I was a Pearl Jam fan. I thought Eddie was HOT! Did I think he was smart? In the know? Someone I'd put any kind of political or intellectual faith into? Only if I was smokin' crack.
I really enjoyed Al Barger and Eric's comments. You guys are mentally HOT!

Jewels, thank you so much for your kind comments.

Re-capping for the latecomers, my point here is not political. It's not whether the Iraq war was a good idea or not. I note also that I have never, ever voted for anyone named Bush.

The point is the ridiculously childish nature of Veder's display.

AC, when Prince writes things in that fake hip mashed up spelling I overlook it cause he wrote "Purple Rain" and all. When YOU write stuff like "u should learn something be4 u talk" you merely look silly.

Pete Townshend might have taken an interest in Eddie for reasons other than because his music is so great. Perhaps he looked at Veder as one of them "Rough Boys" that he likes so well.

wow great explaination Al!.. i guess u kno more than Townshend after hes just one of the most creative/smartest people in music.. whats he kno.. he like "rough boys"..

For starters, "Rough Boys" is one of his best songs. I wouldn't trade it to the entire Pearl Jam catalogue.

Beyond that, what, I have to make sure my opinions all jibe with those of all exalted musicians? That'd be hard, cause they're all liable to have different opinions. Or should I just clear my opinions with you, AC?

You're making no argument whatsoever for Veder here other than a cheap appeal to authority.

Also, do you really think the dumb spelling schtick adds credibility to your "argument"?

The Who had a sense of humor (check out 'Tattoo' on 'The Who Sells Out')
or Townsend ragging on every guy in the band in some of the interviews.

EV, RAM, and SOaD get so much mileage out of their politics because what they do is essentially the lefty version of what the pundits on FOX news do.
Same level of intelect and maturity.
Same gut level inductive logic.
Al, I think you're just pissed because EV's still got more fans than Bill O'Reilly

SS, you've got me all figured out there. I pick what bands and shows I like based on their politics. If they express knee jerk right wing views, then they're great. Otherwise, screw them. Yup, that's just how I judge music.

However, you're pretty much just wrong to say that Veder's still got more fans that Bill O'Reilly. Not that O'Reilly's views are anything like mine, but he is the king of cable news. He's got millions of people tuning in every day. It's been at least a decade since Pearl Jam could make any such claim. Purely on a numbers basis, he's a lot bigger deal in the entertainment business now than Pearl Jam.

Now if only your EV, RAM, and SOaD could come up with a decent song between them, other than the one, very first Pearl Jam album from lo those many years ago, then I might overlook their ignorant politics.

Al,

Bill O'Reilly may have millions of viewers tuning in every night, but do you think he could sell out 10,000 (or more) seat venues nightly for people to listen to his idiotic political views for three hours at $60 a pop? I think not. We're talking about two different audiences. Vedder (two D's by the way) and PJ definitely don't care about Reilly's, who are largely ignorant idiots. When he tears up a picture of GWB on stage it's simply an effective way to get his message across at a rock show, where people paid to hear music, not a long political speech.

PJ and EV have never been about fame and fortune, and have never tried to break into mainstream music (for example, they've only ever released two videos). They just don't care about it, and think most of it sucks (which it does). They're just getting their message out to their fans.

As an aside, I'd like to mention that Pearl Jam is the finest band to ever grace this earth. They've got longevity (if you think they're unpopular now, note that their N.A. tour is sold out), meaningful lyrics, and rockin' songs. If they want to make a political statement, that's their prerogative. I'm pretty sure they could care less about your opinion on it.

Aday, fair enough. Note though that I'm not opposed to musicians making political statements. I just wish for them to make INTELLIGENT statements rather than silly tantrums, and preferably in an artistic context. Write a hot song about how evil Dubya is, and I'll give it a listen.

Just wanted to reiterate that Pearl Jam is still the best band on the planet. FUCK YOU if you dont think so asshole. Eat shit and FUCK YOU! let me say it again FUCK YOU! ahahahahahaha yeah.

Yes indeed, spoken like a true Bunghole.

Al Barger,

I just have some information for you. First of all we need to acknowledge [edited]. Ok. Great. Moving on, we can now acknowledge everything I say, [edited]. First off Pearl Jam is the best band on the planet. Second, George Bush is a moron. Third, Eddie Vedder is politically correct no matter what you or anyone else says. [edited]

Al Barger,

Now you listen to me. Let me tell you something. You dont know nothing about anything. You are a complete moron. Ok First You are a complete moran. Secon you arent good at anything. Fourth you are stupid. Fifth, everything yopu say is wrong, and I am right no matter what. Sixthly, just shut up already, Eddie Vedder knows a lot of stuff. Screw you. Idiot

You guys are so hellbent on one-upmanship that you've completely lost the point.

Personally, I have no opinion on Bush and the war - although I do feel that the loss of innocent life is horrific no matter what the cause. I do feel that if someone has an opinion they should be able to express it without being subjected to criticism.

As well, some of you guys need to cut the dosage on whatever you're taking - Bunghole I'm talking to you. You can express your opinion without having to tell someone who disagrees with you that they're an asshole, penis face et, etc.

Don't get me wrong, I am a Pearl Jam fan and think that Eddie Vedder can pen a good tune. I appreciate the fact that they aren't overtly commercial but let's be real - they wouldn't be doing this if they weren't making some serios profit from it. It is afterall, their profession.

Masoman,
Let me tell you something. You are a [Deleted in line with Comments Policy.] First of all you know nothing about music. Secondly I dont care about your opinion of Eddie Vedder or the war. Fourth, you are a [Deleted in line with Comments Policy.]. Know that I am not taking anything, except control of this message and what you or al barger says is a bunch of horseshit anways. So [Deleted in line with Comments Policy.]

Eloquently put Bunghole.

You need to calm yourself. The whole purpose of this blog is for people to voice their opinions, regardless of whether or not you agree with them. Grow up.

Masaman, if your definition of grown up refers to wearing a perm in the seventies, or having a mullet in the 80's, then no I am not an old fogey like you. But let me tell you something, this is a blog. I have the right to say what I want, and find it childish if you must, however the fact is that my sayings are right and yours and Als are wrong, [Deleted] Eddie Vedder has the right to express his opinions and insult the president if he is making bad decisions, and if you dont like it bite me. Thats all Im saying!!! Oh yeah, [Deleted]

[Doctor, please respect the BC Comments Policy. Thanks. Comments Editor]

Bunghole, I'm maybe slightly curious what it is you think you're accomplishing here. You show up to cuss me on this particular two year old comment thread every few days.

I guess I'm curious what the rules of evidence and logic are to which you subscribe. Do you think that saying "You're stupid, FU" enough times will make it true, or convince someone else that it's true? I don't get it.

Pearl Jam was a fourth rate band to start with, and they went downhill from there. "Jeremy" was ok, but "Ice Ice Baby" probably rates a little higher.

On the other hand, you do say FU very frequently, so perhaps that's evidence that you know something about music.

I wasnt even talking to you this past time[Deleted]. Barger why dont you quit hiding behind a fake name as well.

Why is it that you think Al isn't using his real name?? I severely doubt your mother dubbed you "Dr. Bunghole", so don't play that card unless you're willing to do it yourself.

What exactly, by the way, makes you think that I'm any older than you are? The lack of profanity or multi syllabic sentences?

At any rate, you are correct that you can say whatever you want (that's fit to print) but that doesn't make you any less of foul mouthed child. I am however, impressed by the self restraint you showed by only saying fuck you once in your last retort and only calling Barger a jackass. Bravo.

Let me tell you something, masaman [Deleted].
First of all what makes me think you are older than me? You told me to grow up so obviously you are an old timer, or a twenty-somethings that has lost his sense of humor. I am 36.5 years old, and I dont need any shit from you. [Deleted] Let me tell you something [Deleted]. [Deleted]

OH yes, and I dont like you, [Deleted] So [Deleted], quit posting to this board, as I do not want you hear ever again. What are you going to say to that [Deleted]? (Answer to the previous question: Absolutely nothing, [because everyone who visits this board thinks your a [Deleted]])

[DR BUNGHOLE: It's time for you to consider the BC Comments Policy. SOON. Comments Editor]

Monsieur Bunghole, why do you hate yourself so badly as to be acting out in this shameful way?

Also, this is cute: "quit posting to this board, as I do not want you hear ever again."

Seriously there pal, you're acting all belligerant on MY story on ERIC OLSEN'S website. From where would you presume to even pretend to talk so silly?

Now anyone who reads this KNOWS that you're a Signifyin' Monkey hiding behind a pseudonym, because obviously you wouldn't have the stones to talk like that to someone in person. Here in Franklin County, Indiana, that kind of foolish talk would most certainly earn you a good, old-fashioned Hank Jr attitude adjustment.

On the other hand, I'm sure that your mentality is a good fair and balanced representation of Pearl Jam fans.

Al, what do you think about the music of the 1960s? What about freedom of speech and artistic expression? Neil Young wrote a song about Nixon does that mean he is an imbecile as well?

You are a very mature adult yourself. Noting that "beleaguered" and "leaguer" are not phonetically exact totally misses the point. Perhaps you were too busy trying to hear a rhyme you did not listen to the reason.

Eddie Vedder is a patriot. He is simply asking the Government to uphold the principles for which it is supposed to stand. In simple, dry terms you can understand: not starting war unless it is innevitably necessary.

Democracy requires active participation, not constant support.

Eddie Vedder, thoughtful statesman indeed.

P.S. The "my country right or wrong" attitude scares the humanity inside me.

Pearl Jam a fourth rate band? Subjective from the start, Al. Stop deterring active citizenship and start listening to good music. You will feel better about yourself, I promise.

Alex Leed: "Democracy requires active participation, not constant support."

These days "active parcipitation" requires "constant support".

Alex, as to Neil Young vs Pearl Jam, there are a couple of differences. In the first place, Neil Young wrote a song attacking Nixon, which is already a BIG step up from destroying a mask likeness of the president. Not only that, but Neil Young wrote a really GOOD song attacking Nixon.

This "freedom of expression" argument is SO moldy and purely D-U-M-B, if I may be frank. Of course Eddie has every right in the world to frankly express his juvenile idiocy, as I of course have the equal right to mock his dumb ass.

And OF COURSE this "my country right or wrong" argument that you wish to put into my mouth is totally bogus. I never said anything even the least bit like that. Give the president hell- but do it in a substantive manner.

As to how I feel about music from the 60s, you can start with this humble essay on Neil Young.

I note that "subjectivity" is typically the first card played by people who like lame-ass music that they can't articulate any defense for.

In short, if Pearl Jam is one of your top ideas of good music, then you need to get out more. Perhaps a couple of Prince and Elvis Costello albums might improve your constipated musical perspective.

[ALL Deleted. Dr Bunghole, I have had no internet access for 4 days, a raging headcold for a fortnight and a huge backlog of Comments to check. If I waas up tpo date and seeing this, you would be ascloseasthis to being banned. It better have stopped by the time I get up to date or you're gone. Comments Editor]

Bunghole, granted that it would be both fun and therapeutic to give an ignorant Pearl Jam fan the beatdown they so richly deserve. I'd seriously like to take a tire iron upside Jeremy's whining pussy head.

Still, you're delusional if you think your dumb ass would be worth the bother or gas money to drive to Chicago.

I'll make you a compromise offer far in excess of your worth: You drive your pseudonymous Bunghole down to Indy, and I'll come into town to give you the attitude adjustment that you so obviously crave.

I'm sorry, but I have to add my comment...
1rst I have to say that I am not an American, I am Portuguese and Idon't know how many of you know where Portugal is, but whatever...

It may not be a very mature thing for Eddie Vedder to do, but just take a look at the circumstances in which he did that! Do you even know what the world thinks about you have Bush as a President?!?! Everybody thinks that Americans are jackasses! How could anybody vote for a man who lies to his people about the reasons to enter a war and continues on that war, when thousands of Americans are diying for no particular reason!

Yes, Saddam was a dictator! And what is Bush? A saint?

I think Eddie Vedder is just tired of seeing a very stupid man leading his country... And that's not fair, because the USA is a great country with many brilliant minds!

Ana, you suggest that "Everybody thinks that Americans are jackasses!" That's not really true, but so what if it were? You think we should just sit back and let evil schmucks run over us and F up the whole world because some losers are going to be mad at us for stopping them?

As to being "tired of seeing a very stupid man leading his country," it takes one to know one. Every bit of evidence suggests that Eddie Vedder is a whiny, childish moron- as is evidenced, for example, by the outburst described in my original story.

There are plenty of thoughtful, intelligent adults who are not happy with W. Those people articulate there displeasure. They write letters to the editor, or if they're ambitious they write books, or make movies.

Bunghole - 36 going on 10 perhaps?? You really sound like a little boy trying to be tough by using alot of vulgar language.

I happen to be an avid PJ & EV fan so I don't need any shit from you either.

FYI, just because I don't generally use alot of profanity doesn't mean that I'm old or that I lack a sense of humor. I get a great laugh every time I check back here and see your response! To think that a 28 yr old woman can get such a rise from a 36 yr old man without telling him to "FUCK OFF" even once.

So go ahead, stomp and swear like the petulant little child that you are and get yourself banned form the Blog. I'm sure we'll all miss your witty banter.

Al:
Is your argument about Eddie's action on stage, the song he wrote, or whether Pearl Jam is good or not? If it's about the action on stage. Consider the context, consider passion. Blogs and letters to editors are "thoughtful" and "mature" but they do not compare to a rock star's infinite capabilities of affecting the mass following they have. You say Pearl Jam is a one hit wonder? They've sold over 60 million records, but it isn't about record sales to them or their fans. But to you it is. So there are the stats to prove that argument wrong.

Did you know that Neil Young asked Pearl Jam to record an album with him? They did it. It's called "Mirrorball." There are MANY good songs on it. They also toured with Neil Young.

I used your subjectivity to point out your bias and you blamed it on Pearl Jam's lack of talent. Check the statistics on their current following - the biggest fan club in rock, entire tours that sell out in minutes - all done without the blessings of the typical promotion outlets, such as music videos, mtv appearances, etc. For being overtly above-ground rock, they sure know how to stay away from the likes of people with closed-minds.

Yes, Elvis Costello and Prince are good. So is Fugazi, you ever check them out? Did you ever hear of them?

Thanks for calling my statement D-U-M-B. Pretty thoughtful and mature.

Eddie Vedder is not a moron and he obviously cares a lot about America or he would sing about candy shops or something.

And to Dan: What? Do you mean that or were you being ironic? I honestly can't tell.

Hmm. It seems that Master Bunghole has left the room.

Now that it's just us adults here, and Mr Leed is actually trying to make reasonable arguments, I suppose that I should respond in kind.

In truth, I'm somewhat overstating my opposition to Pearl Jam. It's really not fair for me to call them a fourth rate band. By rights, they're at least third rate.

As a band, they're OK. They're minimally competent. They're not Nirvana- they can actually play their instruments. They're just particularly memorable in doing so. They lack much in the way of distinctive personality or style. Yngwie Malmsteen can play rings around any of these guys. I'd listen to him before I'd listen to these guys.

The songwriting is where they really fall down, though. "Jeremy" was a good song. I have their first album. It was OK- nothing special. I haven't heard a single song since then that I can remember.

I concede that they have a fan base. They can sell some product. So does Mariah Carey- and a lot more of it. I'd listen to Mimi before I'd bother with their boring albums.

I've got the Mirrorball album with Neil Young. Not memorable at all. It's just crap. Saying that Neil Young's approval makes them good is not an argument for their work, but merely an appeal to authority.

In short, I am a connisseur of popular music, and I'm familiar with Pearl Jam. My opinion is that they are lame. That is my opinion based on listening to their music. I don't care if they sold 10 records or 10 billion, they're just not that good. And Neil Young likes a mediocre band.

Al,
I have to agree... Let's get back to the subject at hand. In my personal opinion just because a group of people have been able to sell crap to millions doesn't give them credibilty as musicians. Nevermind the responsibility of an accurate political stance(I could use Hitler as an example but that would be a bit extreme)... To take Mr. Vedder seriously, even about his music, would be a mistake and if he has his fans on a string then maybe we should take a good listen to his current music for any kind of subliminal brain washing tactics because they obviously aren't listening to his crap for any real substance.

Ok, I think that everyone here is either Pro-Pearl Jam or Anti-Pear Jam and Pro or Anti Bush.

I didn't mean to argue that Pearl Jam is good because of record sales - that was just in reference to disproving the one hit wonder label. Done and done. That's over...

Just because someone does not like Pearl Jam does not make PJ lame. I find Pink Floyd to be particularly boring but I respect that they make good music. I find a lot of Punk to be simple and puerile, but I respect the ethics of the industry and most moral messages put forth in the songs.

But preference and respect of a band does not mean that the frontman has to wear a suit, write a novel, direct a movie, etc. to get his point across. The Who smashed equipment, Jimi set his on fire. That's rock. Bob Dylan wishes the "Masters of War" dead and that's classic political rock. But because Pearl Jam is "lame" and Eddie impaled a mask they are immature and thoughtless?!

On top of that, don't penalize PJ for being from the time period 1991 - 2005(+), because they are a true rock band. I feel like rock gets no respect today. Yes, there isn't much out there. But there is some, and Pearl Jam is definitely the most legitimate rock group recording albums and touring these days.

Nirvana I don't like. But I can understand people that do. They know how to play their instruments. It's not the notes - it's the energy.

I believe that Eddie's message about Bush is best examined through his lyrics and actions off-stage. Although one does not like his lyrics, it is very difficult to argue his poetic capabilities. Also, touring and donating profits to a political party is respectable. The mask thing got blown out of proportion. If you are there, it's funny. To see Eddie prancing around in a mask is not the whole of the political statement. It's part of the show and part of the message. The message he gives to his fans is primarily through songs (good or bad is a matter of opinion), speeches (usually rants, yes), and actions off-stage. On-stage is the concert.

Basically, Pearl Jam is respectable and so is Eddie Vedder. No, Eddie is certainly not JFK or Bush in the sense that he does not wear a tie or recite speeches written by professionals or say things for poll popularity. He's not even Bono in the activism realm of politics. But he is using his voice to encourage voting and political awareness whether one likes his approach or not. Rock 'n Roll always gets the least respect of all the art forms (today, it may be hip-hop) and Eddie getting chastised by the utltra-sensitive, politically correct crowd is clearly an example of this.

I'm glad you guys (Alex & Al)are back on point.

Eddie is constantly making polictical references/statements/antics when onstage, but when taken out of the arena and out of context they may not be as entertaining. Those of us who are PJ fans will ultimately enjoy pretty much anything he says or does. Those who aren't will not.

Eddie's political views and opinions are not only expressed in the USA. I took in the last PJ show here in Alberta (Canada) and he made a few jokes at Donald Rumsfeld's expense. I'm sure not all in attendance (over 16,000 by the way Al) cared or even knew to whom he was referring but they cheered all the same. Again, PJ fans will enjoy hearing Eddie rant about anything - abortion, ticketmaster, polictics, religion.

As for EV's songwriting ability, "Jeremy" was for sure a great tune, but certainly not the only one. Have you ever heard "Do the Evolution" Al?

Obviously nothing said by PJ fans is really going to make you (Al) change your views - either you like the band or you don't. You couldn't make me listen to rap music of any kind but that doesn't mean that I can't be big enough to give credit where credit is due. I can acknowledge the contributions of Tupac, Biggie, Eminem, but it doesn't mean that I have to really enjoy it. You seem to outright refuse to give PJ any credit for anything they've ever done. Critics have hailed them over the years for being one of the true pure rock bands and for their lyrical/musical abilities from the album Ten onward. Sure there have been some mis-steps over the years but name me one artist who has never made a questionable album or song in their time? Pearl Jam is still selling out arenas and getting rave reviews from most and they're not done yet.

I too can appreciate the quality of a lot of stuff that I don't particularly care for personally. Pink Floyd is an excellent example. They were quite accomplished artistically- just not hitting my sweet spot.

Pearl Jam, on the other hand, I just don't see. Leaving aside this silly mask thing and the general silly politics, I just totally do not see why they're such a BFD. They sound like the Who with lobotomies. Why would I ever, ever listen to Pearl Jam when I could just as easily be listening to Quadrophenia?

Now, I haven't heard EVERY Pearl Jam record. I thought I heard that "Do the Evolution" song, but it didn't make much impression on me. I could spit back a few song titles, but I couldn't sing you back a line of anything past that first album if my life depended on it.

If you're looking for some rock, get up on some White Stripes. Jack White knows how to write a song. I wouldn't trade "Dead Leaves and the Dirty Ground" for the whole Pearl Jam catalogue.

I also like the White Stripes. Jack White can definitely write a good song. The difference between the White Stripes and Pearl Jam is that one is a solid, united band and the other is an amazing guitar player/singer/songwriter and a whimpy drumer. I've seen the White Stripes in Philadelphia and I've seen Pearl Jam nine times - all over the East Coast. The energy in the room between the two bands is incomparable.

I am currently living in Rome, and Pearl Jam is the biggest rock band - apart from perhaps Nirvana - to come out of America in the past 15 years.

On another note, from living here I have learned that what Ana Antonio stated earlier is mostly true. Europe generally hates Bush and their motto is (after the second election), "stupid people deserve a stupid president."

From my experiences of traveling to other countries within Europe I have learned that Americans have a bad reputation and are not very well liked. But I am polite and try to disprove the stereotype. I learn the few necessary phrases in the language of the country I am visiting and say, "please" and "thank-you" of course. My friend here in Italy told me the most important sentence to say is "Bush is very bad." It works! I've never been so instantly admired by so many people for muttering a simple phrase before.

The moral of the story is that the world outside of the isolated American microcosm is not so concerned with political correctness and anything Anti-Bush is great. Yes, the mask thing alone without the song and speeches is ingenuous; however, I feel that America presently promotes an atmosphere where silence is golden and constant support for the president is the only way. But there is a war! Discussion is crucial. Actions must be made and Eddie was thoughtful and mature for expressing his opinion in an intelligent manner. Yes, intelligent manner.

I think I see your point Al. I wouldn't listen to the White Stripes if you dragged me over hot coals. I find them whiney and irritating and Jack a little bit of a freak - has he ever seen the sun? Because I never liked their sound from the get go, I've never really listened to their lyrics and therefore couldn't give you an informed opinion regarding their musical ability. I think this may be where you are with PJ as well.

As a Canadian I can confirm that the stereotype of an American is very unflattering. I have a friend who said an American once tried to buy his backpack that had a Canadian flag sewn on it in an effort to avoid the flack from Europeans for being from the USA. Canadians tend to be well received and have a reputation for being very friendly and hospitable - the Peacekeepers. Americans are viewed more unwelcoming. I find that some come off as rude and arrogant and this is where the stereotype stems from.

I think many believe the Americans to be the aggressors in all this. They don't see that the USA was struck first, they see the Americans as the ones who began it all.

RE: Everybody hates the US. I DON'T CARE. My outlook on right or wrong isn't based on a vote. The fact that a bunch of people don't like US doesn't mean that we're wrong.

I'd hate for the world to have good reason to hate US- but they don't. There are all kinds of different reasons why different folks are down on US. Some of them I know and understand, some I don't.

They're 99% wrong, though. Not that the US has never, ever been wrong on any count, but we're the good guys in the world. Also, we're doing some of the world's worst dirty work. Hussein badly needed dealt with. The rest of the world could stand to show a little gratitude.

"Actions must be made and Eddie was thoughtful and mature for expressing his opinion in an intelligent manner. Yes, intelligent manner."

What? Alex, how in the world do you get "intelligent manner" out of this mask nonsense? I don't necessarily insist on everyone being all George Will with the erudition and such, but this mask stunt is about on the level of a child threatening to hold his breath till his face turns blue.

Write me a good song, and we'll talk. Give me an "Ohio," and I'll give you credit even if I disagree with the politics.

But if you act like a child having a tantrum, I'm liable to mock you as per this column.

Mamasan, you seem like an intelligent person, but you're throwing me for a bit of a loop. Maybe I'm just not smart enough to keep up.

You are a PEARL JAM fan- but you dismiss Jack White as "whiny"? WTF? Their big signature song is "Jeremy" for chrissakes. That is THE whiner anthem of all frickin' time. Boo, hoo, they beat me up on the playground, so I'm a show up with a gun and blow my brains out in front of the class. See?

Where do you get "whiny" out of Jack White at all? I completely don't see that.

AL: "Jeremy" is a whining song; TWS is a whiny sound. Pearl Jam and The White Stripes are both lame, dull and their fans deserve each other. May you and Mamasan be locked in eternal debate for ever. Only upside, at least she's female!

Al, "Jeremy" is story telling not whining over a personal matter. It's based on actual events. Maybe try listening to "Present Tense" or considering that you dislike them as musicians, maybe try reading the lyrics instead and then discuss their songwriting abilities.

My description of Jack White and his band is personal. I don't like his voice (whiney) or their beats so I've never really "listened" to their music or lyrics. Outside of "Seven Nation Army" (not sure if that's the proper title) I'm not sure I can really name another of their tunes. As I choose not to be familiar with thier music, I'm not at all qualified to really dissect them as musicians.

Mamasan, Monsieur Rose- How do you in any way get "whiny" out of the White Stripes?

Whiny: "To utter a plaintive, high-pitched, protracted sound, as in pain, fear, supplication, or complaint. To complain or protest in a childish fashion."

That description certainly describes "Jeremy" or this mask incident. I don't see any part of the White Stripes that would be reasonably so described.

AL: firstly, knock it off with the m'sieur thing will ya, I can't stand French. If you don't like some variety of my first name, Mr or Señor will do!

Secondly, go fetch your funk lovin self and get him to beat your whiny self unconcious. I don't get how you can love the luscious juicyness of the funk and these lame dullards.

Guess there just ain't no accounting for taste, but in this case I'll just leave you and Alisha to enjoy this vanilla ice.

That's not the point, Al. Mamasan explained it quite articulately. You don't listen to or understand Pearl Jam so you can't make a reasonable judgement. Same thing as Dr. Bunghole or whoever that loon was to not like Led Zep. It's personal preference to listen to a band. It's common sense to truly know and understand a band to make a reasonable judgement.

Eddie's actions were intelligent because they invoked a reaction. People (you and me) are still discussing the matter years after the fact. Whether it was technically "mature" or "thoughtful" in the minds of politicians, journalists, or people that don't understand Pearl Jam doesn't matter. The fact is, there are many people that were in some way influenced by Eddie writing that song and incorporating a mask in the performance. That's what he set out to do and he accomplished it.

Other note: I am an American - in fact I'm a goddamn Eagle Scout! I love our country very much. It scares me that the consensus among many Americans is that they don't care about what the outside world thinks. To many non-Americans it's like we put ourselves on a pedastal and enact some Manifest Destiny and decide which regime is "evil" and which is our friend without international discussion or support. We as Americans need to look inward and solve our problems (like preparing for events like Hurricane Katrina), instead of finding some politician (bad, yes) that happens to have the world's second largest oil reserves and take the whole place over. Yet we do nothing of the sorts for Africa, as seen by many because they have no resources for us to someday exploit.

Back to intelligence... Bush was born into an extremely wealthy oil family. Vedder was born into a lower middle-class family without his father. Bush's dad owned oil companies, became head of the CIA, then the nation. Bush was sent to Ivy League schools and earned a "C" average. Vedder was kicked out of his home at 16 and was forced to live nomadically and dropped out of highschool (later receiving GED). Bush can barely speak coherently. Vedder is an amazing poet. Which one of these seems more capable of providing for himself, and therefore more competent and intelligent?

Alex, your last argument was based on the premise that I haven't listened to and don't understand Pearl Jam. That is incorrect. I've heard quite a bit of Pearl Jam. I own a copy of Ten. It's not that I haven't heard or don't "get" the band. I get what they're doing- and I reject it as artistically uninteresting and not very good.

This argument is particularly totally invalid: "Eddie's actions were intelligent because they invoked a reaction." A child having a screaming fit in the middle of the supermarket and throwing cans of peas at the shoppers will get a reaction- but that does not even begin to make the child or his actions intelligent or worthy.

Jack White often sounds like his manhood has been caught in a vice and as a result utters a "high-pitched, protracted sound". As I've stated before, I'm not referring to his lyrics - I couldn't recite them to you if you paid me.

Al, are you related to Jack White in some way? You seem to be almost offended that others don't share your views regarding this.

Again, "Jeremy" is a recount of actual events, not a complaint or protest and certainly not childish. With respect to the mask issue, fine, childish, immature, silly - call it whatever you want.

I'm a logical woman and I'm not about to try to get you to change your opinion about PJ or EV but I am voicing my own. You don't like PJ or EV that's fine. I don't like the White Stripes or Jack White. Asking me again and again as to why is not about to help the situation.

Mamasan, I appreciate you sharing your opinions with us here. Thank you.

Now, some of them make some sense, and some of them are less well founded. You are, of course, welcome to whatever opinions you want, but for them to have any validity you need something other than that it is your subjective opinon to back them up.

In what song does Jack White's manhood sound like it is "caught in a vice"? You might find him singing in a falsetto voice once in a while, but then you'd have to argue that Smokey Robinson's manhood is way tightened down in that vice.

I'm no Pearl Jam fanatic, but since this thread keeps reappearing I figure I'll chip in my thoughts on the issues raised.

On Eddie Vedder's mask incident:

In the article, it says "picture of the president", the comments have it as "mask", whatever. I think, with rare exception, bands avoid political statements for fear of alienating fans; in a sense, Vedder was just being what he always is: acutely unconcerned with conventional "image" (which, one could argue is his image, but that's a different topic). Not all of his ideas make him look so smart; the Ticketmaster fiasco hurt the band considerably, but it did bolster Vedder's "integrity" credentials, which he's always pretty much stuck to.

So he, feeling pissed off at Bush, took it out on a mask onstage. I get pretty pissed at Bush myself. I've never taken it out on a mask onstage, but then again, I am seldom on a stage. People express anger different ways, no harm was done to anyone, he was preaching mainly to the converts anyway, and he was probably being honest.

So overall, the incident strikes me as a neutral nothing, although it reinforces my thought that Vedder is a man of his word (comparatively, among rock stars), which is a positive.

He's never kept his political beliefs secret anyway; if Arnold Schwarzenegger called John Kerry a "twirp" it wouldn't exactly be a shock to anyone either.

On Pearl Jam's merits as a band:

Like I said, I'm no fanatic, but I am a fan. "Jeremy" isn't among my personal favorites (I'm a "Do The Evolution" "Elderly Woman Behind the Counter" "Better Man" man myself), but Ten is certainly among the best debut albums of the 1990's, and arguably of the rock era. Not just for sales, influence, defining its genre, introducing a very unique voice to rock, and helping to save rock as a viable concern in the 90's. But also because it's a really good album. They also improved with time. Vitalogy and Vs. and Yield and No Code are all better than the debut, in their own ways. They're one of the last bands of the dawn of the alternative rock era that remains viable and relevant; in some respects it wouldn't be crazy to call them the U2 of their generation.

They inherited the mantle that killed Nirvana, even though they didn't want it, and didn't embarrass themselves. Even the ticketmaster thing was noble.

Is Pearl Jam a good band, meaning "band"?

"Do the Evolution", man. Listen to those guitars. Listen to how this essentially 60's garage rocker is transformed subtly into almost avant-pop without sacrificing one bit of fuzz, forward momentum, or credibility. Listen to how Vedder's voice has to work upstream against the the band's descending chords on the chorus. Listen to the minor keys and resolutions. That band can play, and why not? McCready and Amant had a whole career before Pearl jam with Green River and Temple of the Dog.

On "Jeremy": itself

Like I said, it isn't one of my favorites, but it is pretty good for what it is -in some ways it is one of the first "emo" hits ever- and the lyrics have some thought behind them; I wouldn't call it "whiney". I'd call it a decent song that was fresh in its day musically, and doesn't embarass himself now. And the third-person Vedder uses on the choruses adds distance to the subject, and makes it more of a report than a whine.

A nice counter to it from the album is "Alive" on which Vedder sings perhaps the most personal and hurtful true lyrics of his life, a tormented story that shaped his own subsequent being. Its chorus of "I'm still alive" is affirmation (even while it is riddled with self doubt) in the face of what could have been a life ruining childhood. All without sounding sorry for himself.

On The White Stripes:

I don't get the devotion their fans have; I'm put off by their image, which seems kind of twerpy and nerdy, I don't dig their fashion sense, I don't see the "art". I don't dislike them; but the hype around them is pretty hard to cut through. I like rough ragged guitars, and Jack White has one. I can tolerate "whine" so I usually tolerate his voice, but his voice isn't the most likable in the world.

But we all dig what we dig, so if White Stripes is your bag, that's cool.

On liberals vs. democrats: their both so full of hot air and vitriol these days, there going to be butting heads bigtime for generations to come. The ones who interest me are the "neithers", which went for Bush last time, but according to the polls, are more likely to agree with Eddie Vedder these days.

Traditional typo disclaimer.

In that last paragraph, I managed to type "they're" twice without using the right one.

I know the difference, I just type like a dope.

:-D

Al: I simply don't like Jack's voice - at all. His falsetto grates on me and in no way compares to Smokey Robinson! Smokey's falsetto was flawless.

I do not listen to the White Stripes so as for the actual song title in which he sounds like he's caught in a vice - I really couldn't name it, I don't know their stuff. I know what I've briefly heard on the radio before changing the station - that's all. As for the White Stripes in general, they're too cartoonie for my taste.

You can argue that the White Stripes may have some great messages and Jack White may be a masterful story teller but I don't like the way it's put forth. I don't like his voice, I don't like their rhythm or their sound. To me they are dull and uninteresting. Maybe "whiney" wasn't the right term for that but grammer isn't really at the forefront here.

I still think that Alex and I are right in our assessment. You can't judge PJ on one album when they've been here for 13 yrs and counting. When you say that you've "heard quite a bit of Pearl Jam", have you really listened? Do you know the words to anything past "TEN"?

I must say that I really do enjoy this debate now that there seem to be only intelligent adults in the house.

Thanks Mamasan, I enjoy visiting with you here too.

Specifically as a vocal performer, I don't know that Jack White is the greatest thing since sliced bread. As a vocalist, he's obviously not in a league with Smokey. I don't know that I would do so, but I could see giving Eddie Vedder the edge as a singer over Jack. He has a strong voice.

It's the songwriting where Jack White is way past Pearl Jam. I've heard a lot more than just Ten. I just don't remember much about any of it. I could give you back a couple of song titles, but that's more from seeing them on the charts. I would think that a fair minded listener would have to grant that Jack White writes catchy, tuneful songs- whether or not they appeal to that particular listener's tastes.

I haven't particularly bothered to read or decipher Pearl Jam lyrics past the first album, because the songs didn't warrant the bother. Naturally, and like most people, I don't start out by reading a lyric sheet.

It's MUSIC. So, I'm listening for a tune, or guitar riffs or other things of a musical nature. It's only if there's something going on musically to get my interest that I will care what the words are.

I've heard probably most of Pearl Jam's albums, certainly most all of the featured tracks. Ten was halfway decent, and it went rapidly downhill from there. The rest of it all sounds about the same, and not especially catchy.

Bunghole is the type of American that gives the rest of you a bad reputation. An intellectually impotent man child has no place here.

Al, you and I will simply have to agree to disagree. I agree that Music is very subjective and you're normally drawn the the beat first and the narrative comes later. Based on that, I will probably never be one to give the White Stripes a good listen - they bore me. For me, PJ has more energy and grit and that draws me in.

Eddie's antics and whatnot are up for debate. I don't listen to his music for his political views or his stand on abortion but he's free to say whatever he wants, as we all are. Everything he says and does can't always be in good taste but I respect him for going against the grain most of the time and not conforming to what the record labels and society think that a rock star should be.

UAO, that song-by-song commentary in comment 117 is what I'm looking for. You're giving some specific musical accounting of what you're seeing in this band. That makes me at least think about wanting to give another listen to some their stuff.

I'll actually specifically give the band some significant credit for standing up to Ticketmaster on several counts. For one thing, this was something that they knew was going to cost them- they were really putting their career at risk there. Also, this was something real and direct to them.

I'm all in favor of capitalistic greed, but I can see why they would be thinking Ticketmaster was the devil. A major ticket selling artist like Pearl Jam is just exactly the one to call them out and look for some alternatives.

Mamasan, make ya a deal: You don't hold Bunghole against me as an American, and I won't hold him against you as a Pearl Jam fan.

Alright let me tell you all something. Everyone here, except me, is completely useless. America is right no matter what, and so is eddie vedder. Also now I tell you this, FUCK OFF.

First, Dr. Bunghole, could you verify your credentials? Seriously, you're going about this all the wrong way... Entertaining, perhaps. But you are making us PJ fans look bad.

Al, check out the album Yield for PJ's songwriting capabilities. It's the one with the infamous "Do the Evolution." Not only are the riffs amazing, but the lyrics throughout the entire album set the stage for things like "Bushleaguer" and the mask incident to make sense. Again, if one is well acquainted with PJ and EV's lyrics/beliefs, one can understand why he puts a mask on and impales it during the climax of a song.

"Don't criticize what you can't understand."

Agreed Al.

Bunghole is an embarrassment to us all, not just as Americans or PJ fans - humanity!

Alex, great suggestion on "Yield". I feel that "Do the Evolution" is so well put together. The strain of Eddie's voice over Stone & Mike's riff's depicting the "evolution" of mankind is amazing.

Y'all have been carrying on specifically about this "Do the Evolution" song. I do not remember it, so I'll definitely hunt it down to see what the hoopla's about.

Let me tell you all something. First you are all [Deleted in line with BlogCritics Comments Policy. Comments Editor] Second, do not insult me on this board again. Third, shut the f--k up. Let me tell you something else. [Deleted in line with BlogCritics Comments Policy. Comments Editor] Let me tell you something else. THis is nonsense. How dare you idiots disagree with me. Eddie vedder has the right to a freedom of speech, as do i so shove it up your bungholes. [Deleted in l