Jukebox Throwdown: The Deftones "One Weak" from the album "Adrenaline"

It seems as though many posts lately have been born from conversations between Shannon and The Dead Guy, and this one is no exception. Over the course of the past few weeks, we have been tossing around the idea of writing posts which are based on our interpretation and impressions of song lyrics. We decided to go ahead and try it after our facebook pals told us they liked the idea, so here it is. With no further ado, we give you Jukebox Throwdown. Let us know what you think.

One Weak

by: the Deftones

Nerve - Here I born, feeding on his lung
Verve - Is his curse, because he wanted to meet Christ alone
Bitch - you're no good, we could be so flown
Misunderstood - we could be your God
There in my bones, we could be so flown
Misunderstood - because he wanted to meet Christ alone
But you will...

Ah you'll never find me - breach unborn
Never, come here watch me burn
Never, bitch cause your scars show
Never, will I burn

Under, beneath the floor
Before, his face 'cause your no good
We could have been like one
Fuck it!

Bitch, you feel sore, we could be so flown
Misunderstood - because he wanted to meet Christ alone
But you will...

Ah you'll never find me - breach unborn
Never, sit and watch me burn
Never, bitch cause your scars show
Never, will I burn, will I burn, will I burn, will I burn

Try won't you'll never, Beg don't (3x)
Even waste your time!!!

The song “One Weak” by the Deftones is a song that has always resonated with me personally. One of the great thing about the Deftones is Chino's ability to write song that are lyrically ambiguous but saliently powerful when personally interpreted, much like a Rorschach test. To me this song is about a creative person, such as a poet or painter, and their view of the spiritual trappings of organized religion. Verve, simply means, “enthusiasm or vigor, as in literary or artistic work”. So the line, “Verve- is his curse” could be expressing how some artists, like myself, see their inspiration as something that originates from within but is trans-personal, and maybe afford a deeper understanding of this energy, which dogmatic religions personify as God. The lyrics also suggest that organized religion has attempted to fill the void, a residual effect of a child losing their innocence which once connected them to this energy, by becoming God to it followers, “Misunderstood - we could be your God.”.

In this song the word “bitch” seems to delineating organized religion or specifically the Catholic Church. The lyrics “Bitch - you're no good, we could be so flown”, may refer to the feeling that if religious leaders and artists worked together humanity could be taken to new heights. Just look at Renaissance art, and think of the possibilities if those artists where given full artistic freedom. If that was the case, the Renaissance could have been the ultimate paradigm shift in human consciousness and unity, “We could have been like one... Fuck it!”. Chino proceeds to write, “Ah you'll never find me - breach unborn. Never, sit and watch me burn. Never, bitch cause your scars show?”, this seems to refer to religious fervor, for example when it comes to a topic like abortion, or as he ambiguously refers to it the “breach” of the “unborn”. It sheds light on the tenancy of the pious to criticize others decisions, and suggests that this is not a divine path toward this energy that the holier-than-thou call God. The line, “your scare show.” may also refer to the hideous acts of violence and ignorance perpetrated by an institution that presents itself as infallibly righteous.

You could make the argument that the title of the song, “One Weak”, refers to an idea that a spiritual path of one, may appear “weak” to the pious follower, even though mentally the artists may have a leg up on the establishment. The problem may lie with the masses of public life, who when confronted by an artist, might fail to see beyond the ideal of just an individual that creates aesthetically pleasing images, “Misunderstood - because he wanted to meet Christ alone”. It is the artists who attempts to bring to the surface the inner worlds of suppressed turmoil as something to learn form, not to feel guilty about. As Alan Watts once said, “Christianity has made guilt into a virtue.” The artists experiments with, communes, and channels the unconditional love of the universe out toward humanity on an attempt to guide toward a more spiritually connected toward all the energies of the universe. It may be interesting to point out that the album was originally titled “Communion” before it was change to Adrenaline, and that the cover art uses a baby aspirator, a device used to remove mucus and other and other “obstructions” from the respiratory system.

-DG

While I do not directly disagree with DG’s interpretation of this song as a commentary on religion, I would like to offer another interpretation. If we take the lyrics as they come, we can see a certain personal anguish which I believe is working in conjunction with the religious imagery to obscure itself.

The theme of betrayal and loss of love is fairly apparent to me as in the lyrics “We could have been as one.” And “Don’t try, you’ll never beg, don’t even waste your time.”

I agree that there is a sense of this song being about the loss of life, but I am not sure that it is a direct reference to abortion. It seems more likely to me that the image of a breach birth, which is a very difficult way to create a life, is being used metaphorically as a way to express the author’s anguish over someone giving up on something difficult such as a lover betraying him. This interpretation is further supported by the lyrics:

“Under, beneath the floor,

Before, his face 'cause you’re no good

We could have been like one,

Fuck it!

Bitch, you feel sore, we could be so flown.”

When looking at these lyrics, I think a case could be made that the author is lamenting having been abandoned by someone he loved. “Under”, “Beneath” and “Before his face, cause you’re no good” all seem to indicate that the subject of the lyrics, if we take it to be about a lover or ex-lover, has been sleeping with someone other than the author, and that the author is a great deal of pain over this.

Additionally, the author repeatedly makes reference to being unfindable to the subject, as though they are afraid that the subject will someday want to find them again. The references to showing scars could be taken as another metaphorical reference to lifting of a veil that occurs when one is so hurt by someone about whom they care that they then become able to see that person’s flaws in a way that they were unable to before.

Of course, this interpretation runs into a bit of trouble when we are faced with the line “he wanted to meet Christ alone”, but perhaps these words are not as troublesome as they appear. One could safely argue that, when taken within the context of the larger work, they may refer to the subject’s new lover leaving them to be alone, or even dying. This makes more sense when you consider that the rest of the song could be taken to indicate a desire to lose contact with an ex-lover.

Finally, to address the title, “One Weak”, that in and of itself is a play in words which could be taken to either delineate a period of time, or a personal weakness. Both possibilities can be made to work with my preceding interpretation. If we look at the title to be a length of time, it can be taken to measure the amount of time the author spent with the subject, the amount time they have been away from the subject, or the amount of time the subject spent betraying the author. If we take it to indicate personal weakness, it can be taken as a statement about either the subject or author’s state of being. Perhaps the author sees the subject as being weak when they once appeared strong or perhaps the author sees themselves as being weak in the face of betrayal.

-Shannon

Barbie's Rock Bottom Playset #2

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Tea Party Movement: Republicans were Libertarians for Halloween This Year

I don't vote, but I have been following politics since high school, back when Craig Killborn was still hosting the Daily Show. A lot of people in this country get their information from the fevered egos of pundits, politicians, and pastors, which litter the 24-hour cable new cycle of insanity and stupidity. I, on the other hand, who consider myself to be an evolved being, who only concerns himself with the truth, tends to trust the comical satirists that have never steered me wrong: from the likes of George Carlin and Bill Hicks all the way to the new bearers of the torch of truth with the likes of David Cross and Jon Stewart.

Now I understand that many people are frustrated, not so much where the country is going, but like children in the back seat we just want to know, “Are we there yet!”. Let's not forget that a man who claimed to be our “President” in 2000, who I will refer to as Governor Bush, whether he likes it or not, drove this entire republic toward the Bible Belt in a Hummer that ran on the tears of military families, the American Dream, and the largest budget surplus in American History.

Like I said earlier I don't vote, so I did not participate in electing Obama, who seemed like nothing more than just another demagogue disguised as a populist. The difference is that I'm not upset with what Obama has done, but the order in which he has done it. I think that Health Care is important, but also the most polarizing agenda of this administration. Now granted since many Democrats have become unemployed since November 4th with the rest of the country, in retrospect Healthcare may be a small victory, if, and only if, it is reformed and refined until the country is happy with it.

As a result, this chaos and confusion has made it easier for even sane people, like me, to see a part of the Tea Party agenda, which has quickly been diminished due to the nut jobs and lunatics, reflected in myself. The problems with the Tea Party become evident when one can, as Bill Hick put it, “squeegee your third eye.” of perception and call bullshit when you see it. As a result, I see the Tea Party as nothing more than a Libertarians grassroots movement which has been high jacked, not by fiscal conservatives, like Ron Paul, but by loud mouthed social conservatives like Sarah Palin and Christine O'Donnell, who are using a fiscal libertarian front to conceal their hideous social agendas. I think all of the sane Americans out there will feel a deep emotional resonance when I say... FUCK THESE ASSHOLES.

These fevered egos on steroids respond to hot topics in the news cycle like a couple of 16 year olds in a chat room, too busy arguing over which Jonas brother is the cutest instead of discussing topics of substance. Perhaps this would be more evident to the general public if we actually presented our news to the public discourse in a rational atmosphere, instead of our overly sensational, and intentionally frightening, new cycle, which I believe Jon Stewart referred to as, “The country’s 24 hour political pundit perpetual panic conflictinator.”

Even when it comes to the news topics we do get, which honestly, garner no real air time, like for instance, whether or not a pastor in Florida should be allowed to burn a Quran on September 11^th, It is evident that political hacks, such as Sarah Palin, fail the litmus test when they respond with, “People have a constitutional right to burn a Quran if they want to, but doing so is intensive and unnecessary – much like building a mosque a ground zero.” Oh Sarah, you were so close! That almost sounded like a thought out, rational political statement. But as usual y'all act like fucking children. These are not the kind of people I want running my country. Hey Sarah, Iran is threatening Israel with a nuclear strike! What are you going to do? “Well...I'm going to delete them from my facebook, shortly after I sling some verbal diarrhea.”

Furthermore, being a rational person who considers himself, politically, to be an independent moderate, who is seemingly surrounded by a sea of chaotic, irrational, conspiratorial lunatics on both sides of the political spectrum, I'd have to say that I don't really have much faith in my country or fellow Americans anymore, except of course, for the 215,000 rational, hard working citizens that showed up for sanity in Washington D.C. on October 30^th. These are the “real” Americans, or at least the ones that make living in this country worthwhile. The Americans that Sarah Palin referred to as the “real” Americans are exactly the people I avoid entirely and wouldn't even invite into my home.

Also, I'm so sick of hearing about how the Republicans and Tea party support the “little guy”, and how the republicans “won” the mid-term. First of all, the idea that ANY political candidate could represent any of us is a logical fallacy. Both parties are filled with rich cocksuckers who couldn’t be bothered to give two shits about you or me. In fact, the only difference between Republicans and Democrats, besides their social stances, which I could give two shits about, is the means in which they acquire their wealth. Democrats are usually self starters who work hard to acquire their wealth, while the Republicans have amassed the largest silver spoon collection in the history of the world. Secondly, the Republicans didn't win, as much as the Democrats lost. What I mean by that is more people were voting against the Democrats then for the Republicans. And the Tea party candidates only won because they ran as... Republicans! Let's see how many of these pricks would have won if they had ran as Independents, probably none.

One of the problems, which arose from the “Historic” election in 2008, was the idea that it was more historic than superficial. More people in this country responded favorably to the political candidate that was either “younger” or “experienced” depending on their demographic, or had the same skin color or genitalia as them. Also, to all of the women out there who got excited about a female in the White House, let it be known that Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin are the worst role models for woman since Kate Moss and Martha Stewart. Whoever thinks that these are “strong women” needs to seriously have their head examined. Both of these “things” bear no resemblance to the everyday working class women and mothers of America. They don't empower other women, but continually perpetuate the idea that to compete with men you have to act like them.

This past mid- term was no exception. If anything it shows how much America is in dire need of a credible third party, and I don't believe it is the Tea Party, since it can't stand on its own without the GOP. The current system belittles the independent voter throughout the entire primary process, since it does not allow them to participate, and values them only in the final weeks and months running up to the actual election. If we want to do anything to restore this republic we need to seriously think about the topic of campaign finance reform, and must pass tougher laws. Attempts at campaign reform in recent years have been at best sparse and a worst a joke.

For instance, In 2002 the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that was sponsor by Senators Russell Feingold (D-WI) and John McCain (R-AZ), which was intended to combat corruption, restricted the quantity and regulated the content and timing of political speech, which did nothing but help incumbents like McCain and Fiengold, since they had other outlets for self promotion. They also added a Millionaires Amendment, which punished wealthy, self promoting candidates who could finance their campaigns without the aid of soft money from special interest groups.

The Tea party started out as a good idea, but as time has passed it has become a caricature of itself, which has lost focus. I agree that we should begin to vote out any and all incumbents, especially those that are holding the political process hostage. The only difference is that I believe if we want any real change we should start giving third party candidates and independents a chance to prove themselves instead of this insane political pendulum where we keep swinging from one extreme to the other once we get tired of a party.

-The Dead Guy

Enjoy the First installment of Pillow Talk with Shannon and the Dead Guy!

This Week, we discuss the blogosphere's reaction to a 5 year old dressed as Daphne from Scooby Do
....enjoy!

Remember That Time We All Blew Up Over a Kid's Costume and Got It All Wrong?

For many children, and some adults, Halloween is a time of fantasy and freedom. It’s the one night of the year when anyone can decide to be anything, even if that means pushing beyond the limits of reality. We frequently see children dressed as witches, fairies, serial killers, action heroes, ninjas and pirates, not to mention a whole host of inanimate objects. One of the things that has seemed so magical about Halloween to me is that it is the one night out of the year when the whole country seems to live by “kid rules”. What I mean by “kid rules” is simply this: when you are a child, you are free to be imaginative and open without the burden of an adult understanding of the world. A 6 year old who dresses up as Superman or a princess in the course of imaginative play may have an awareness of the fact that they are not likely to develop the ability to fly or to kiss a frog and get a prince, but they are also not concerned about such things. They are simply enjoying the act of imagining. On Halloween, I’ve always felt that we all get that freedom, regardless of how old we are. I think that, if we polled many adults and asked them if they agreed with this assessment, they would say yes.

Why then, is the world so up in arms over this kid? For those of you who are unaware or don’t feel like looking at the link, a mom in Lee’s Summit, MO has written in her blog about her 5 year old son’s decision to dress as Daphne from Scooby Doo this Halloween, and the reaction to his costume from some of the other mothers at his preschool. According to the mom, whose name is Sarah, some of the other mothers were pretty disdainful toward her for allowing her son to dress like a female character. One even seemed to indicate that Sarah should have forbidden the costume in order to make sure that her son understood that he is not a girl. In short, these moms were acting like total dicks, but may be not in the way we think they were.

Many people have reacted to Sarah’s blog with a hearty “who cares if your son is gay?”

Others have reacted with the standard “OMG! You’re crazy. He’s going to now catch the gay!”

And now, we have on our hands the standard issue “Is it ok to be gay” debate, which leads to the even more annoying, ‘is it ok to encourage your kid to be gay” debate.

Neither of these debates are new, and neither of them are wrong, per say. However, neither of them should even apply here. While I think it is always a good idea to discuss issues of tolerance for those with different sexual orientations from our own and for those with different senses of identity from our own, I think it’s total bullshit that we are discussing this boy’s sexuality based on his Halloween costume. Furthermore, I think that, by doing this, we are ignoring several larger issues and actually continuing to damage the way our society approaches the gay and transgendered communities.

I know it may seem odd to say that people speaking out on behalf of a little boy’s seemingly homosexual tendencies is damaging to the gay and transgendered communities, but bear with me here. First of all, a five year old child’s desire to be a female cartoon character does not indicate that he will always and forever want to dress like a fem. Think about all the things that you played at as a child. If you can tell me honestly that you’ve grown up to be all these things, then I will grant you a pass on this one. You’re probably too busy being a firefighter/superhero/frog/teacher/astronaut to worry about the internet anyway. Since most of you are not in that category though, allow me to let you all in on a little secret: imaginative play does not always indicate anything other than imagination.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way, let’s focus on the bigger issue here. Not all transgendered people are gay. Many individuals who are transgendered are straight. This may seem like a bit of a statement of the obvious, but the fact that a little boy’s costume has caused so many people to come forward to discuss his potential homosexuality indicates that we are in drastic need of a whole lot more understanding here. So, let’s disregard the fact that his costume choice does not necessarily dictate that he is or will be transsexual or transgendered, and talk about the fact that gender identity and sexuality are not the same thing and when we view them as the same, we are damaging everyone by giving in to the same kind of limited and limiting thinking which has relegated both communities to the fringes of society for a very long time.

You see, the thing is that gender issues are not about sex. They are about identity. Identity, as anyone but the most vapid among us can demonstrate, is an extremely complex thing and sexuality is only one small part of that. When we view cross dressing as an indication of someone’s sexual preference, we are limiting that person and refusing to gain a real understanding of who they are. Likewise, when we view someone’s sexuality as the sole factor in their identity, we are limiting them without understanding them. Even if the intention behind it is to be helpful or supportive, which is certainly the case with most of the commenters on Sarah’s blog, the message is still a little bit wonky. What we are saying when we do this is that gay and transgendered people are different enough from what is normal to be placed into a flat two dimensional category which is relegated to the side and that one defining aspect is good enough for them.

It’s bad enough that we allow gender norms to dictate what is considered normal in our most superficial pursuits, but when we allow them to define an extremely diverse group of people as “others”, we are allowing them to dictate entire personalities. I wonder how any straight person who does not break gender norms in any way would feel if they were solely defined by one small factor of their personal identity. Let’s say, for instance, that Joe Blow is a straight male who likes to wear t-shirts. It would be wholly ridiculous if we looked at Joe over there and said “The fact that Joe wears T-shirts is the most important thing about him and dictates a variety of unrelated facts, therefore, when considering Joe, we need only consider his T-shirt.” Why then, do we do this to people who break gender norms? Are they suddenly not as complex and interesting as the rest of us? Or is it because somewhere, deep inside ourselves, we are terrified that we are not complex enough so we limit others as a defense? I suspect it is the latter, and that this mentality is exactly what is leading an entire country full of adults to go batshit insane over a 5 year old’s Halloween costume.

-Shannon