Eddie Vedder's ritualistic destruction of a picture of the president onstage constitutes a thoughtful political statement from a mature adult whose ideas about politics deserve to be taken seriously.
Indeed he's changed my mind. I used to think that it was important to defend the country, and that taking out a dangerous thug might be an ugly but perhaps necessary thing.
Now, however, seeing that Eddie Vedder of Pearl Jam opposes the war can't help but impact my thinking. He makes a good argument when he destroys a picture of the president onstage with his mic stand. You can't very well argue with that.
Plus, check out the lyrics of their new "Bushleaguer" song: "A confidence man, but why so beleaguered? / He's not a leader, he's a Texas leaguer". "Beleaguered" and "leaguer" almost rhyme. How could anyone support Bush after that?
Indeed his whole ritualistic destruction of a picture of the president constitutes a bold and convincing artistic statement of the illegitimacy of the Bush regime. It's certainly more than an overgrown little boy acting out cheap Freudian schtick with his own daddy. No sirree, this shows thoughtful consideration of the world situation that we face today and the president's monumental responsibilities. I mean, look how sincere Eddie is when he does it. He must be right.
Plus, when this album doesn't sell any better than the last several, it won't be because the band only ever had one decent song and their recording career is long dead. No, it will be martyrdom, for bravely and at great personal risk speaking truth to power.
After all that, doesn't he deserve a nice warm bottle and a nap?
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Brian Flemming
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
2 - Al Barger
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.
3 - Anna Kissed
Eddie, I agree but destroying a picture of the President is hardly a critical observation. 2 out of 10.
4 - san
[Link deleted. I believe it was broken. Sorry. Comments Editor]
"...irrelevant pictures of irrelevant jackasses."
You said it, Al, not me.
5 - ronbailey
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?
6 - Tom Johnson
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?
7 - InMarin
For some perspective, please read David Niewert who has been documenting pro-war tactics:
This extreme behavior must be stopped.
Only Pro-war and pro-Bush people can stop this. If not, the only option the anti-war movement will have is to fight back using the same tactics. When that happens, this whole country is going to explode.
If this isn't stopped, someday soon Americans will kill Americans over this war.
"You can support the troops without supporting the president." - Trent Lott
8 - Sean Kirby
marin, are you really sure you want to butress your argument with a quote by Trent Lott?
9 - san
Sean: Hmm... I don't think anyone could be faulted for quoting Nixon on foreign policy.
10 - David Adesnik
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!
11 - Brian Flemming
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?
12 - san
"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.
13 - Bill
Ronbailey says:
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.
14 - Eric Olsen
You kids kill me - Al, you have responded very well to our conversation, this is the kind of thing I was talking about.
15 - Joanne Jacobs
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.
16 - Woland
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!
17 - Robert Louis Stevenson
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!"
18 - Kenneth Patterson
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.
19 - Woland
I don't recall saying it was "purely anti-war". I seem to recall writing that it "criticized the war." Which it did.
20 - Al Barger
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.
21 - Eric Olsen
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
22 - Woland
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.
23 - Brian Flemming
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.
24 - Al Barger
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.
25 - Woland
You are too, it seems.
Get an argument and stick with it. Lame.