U2 has disappointed me? WTF?

OK, everyone knows I love U2. And many of you know U2 has recently collaborated with Green Day to create a benefit single raising money for Hurricane Katrina relief. This is a good thing, the kind of good thing U2 has done throughout their career. The song itself is OK (a little less Green Day and a little more U2 would make it better of course) and it's been the theme song of the New Orleans Saints astonishingly successful year in the NFL.

What do I think of Green Day? Not too much. Instrumentally, they bang the same three chords on their guitars as if they were percussion devices. The drumline is almost always the same, insipid beat. Billy Joe Armstrong sings from his heart, but his heart sounds as if it were located in his nasal cavity. I realize Green Day receives tolerance for all this because they are "punk" and in "punk" you're not supposed to care about what your music sounds like or something. So why is it that every legitimate "punk" I've met thinks Green Day is a group of pretentious sellout wannabes?

Furthermore, you have Green Day's politics, which they wear on their sleeve, which is fine. They obviously don't support the Iraq War or the Bush Administration, and this is OK--there are many good reasons against the war and many smart people who don't support it. But I don't think I've ever agreed with anyone as much as Brandon Flowers of The Killers who ballsily proclaimed that American Idiot (Green Day's supposed magnum opus) is predicated entirely on "calculated anti-Americanism" for their own financial benefit. (How "punk".) Flowers understands that, while there are many intelligient people in the anti-war crowd, there are just as many enthusiastic simpletons who will laugh at any anti-Bush joke, believe any cockamamey conspiracy theory, and buy any supposed protest album. Green Day is the musical equivalent of the hack guest on the Daily Show who understands that, as conversation with Stewart lags, easy applause and raucous cheering can be generated by the even the most unintelligent jab at the administration.

That said, when I heard that U2 was collaborating with Green Day on a song, I marvelled, once again, at the size of Bono's heart. His desire to help doesn't stop at the millions starving or suffering AIDS in Africa--he also seeks to help the musically untalented: Billy Joe and Green Day. So together the two bands wrote a semi-decent song about the sad and frustrating disaster that followed in the days and weeks following Hurricane Katrina's impact into New Orleans. And I was OK with that, because that's something worthy of frustration and definately worth remembering and learning from.

But then, the other day at Hard Rock Cafe in Osaka, I saw the video for this song. I was pissed. Anyway, I embed it here for your critical attention:



The first half of the video is OK, if slightly exploitative. The single, after all, is designed to raise money for Katrina relief, and people should be reminded of those images. But then, halfway into the video, asinine, grade school fantasy begins:

TROOPS REDEPLOYED FROM IRAQ TO NEW ORLEANS!

US military capital magically does wonderful things that cannot be done! Tanks go plowing through flooded streets! Two-Seat Apache Gunship helicopters are somehow rigged to collect the stranded from their rooftops! Harrier jumpjets somehow can precisely drop sandbags to patch up busted levies! And food drops are performed, inexplicably, by Stealth Bombers of all things! What a mystically retarded idea! At the very end, the video focuses on a sign: "NOT AS SEEN ON TV".

ZING! Take that, you warmongering Commander-in-Chief!

Did anyone who took part in making that video pay attention to the facts in the news, or were they too busy shitting their pants at the imagery on the TV sets to listen? For the record, state and local botched Katrina preparation, and state and federal botched response. The problem wasn't a lack of manpower (or fighter jets), as the video suggests, but rather a lack of coordination between various disaster relief groups and the national guard. While anarchy reigned at the superdome and while people starved on their rooftops, thousands of aid workers sat outside New Orleans, thumbs basically up asses, waiting to be told what to do by coordinators who didn't know what to do or which boss to respond to. It was a huge mess at the highest levels, and for that, Bush definately deserves a slice of blame--as do Governer Landrieu and Mayor Nagin and a slew of other executives. (Pop Quiz: Which among these people remains the only person big enough to publicly accept a share of blame and apologize?)

Just for the sake of argument, let's indulge the fantasies of the video's creators: First, Katrina hits New Orleans. Immediately, Bush violates hundreds of agreements with the Iraqi government, other allies in Iraq, the US Congress, and the United Nations, and orders the immediate withdrawal of all troops from the Persian Gulf to the Gulf of Mexico. The troops then join the already gigantic clusterfuck of relief personnel and National Guard troops to help create the largest clusterfuck in human history. The entire US military now sits in aircraft carriers, submarines, tanks, cockpits, and waits for coordinated orders to start magically rigging their vehicles to perform impossible feats. Of course the coordination at the top is only further overwhelmed by the addition of all the unneeeded resources.

And, while all this is happening, Shiites and Sunni begin the genocide competition in earnest, and, in the power vacuum created by America's moronic departure, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, and Iran sweep in to protect their favorite religious sects and seize oil fields along the way. Things get unimaginably worse in New Orleans, Iraq, and the entire world, and in a year Green Day and U2 collaborate on a video blaming the President for the reckless slaughter of millions of middle-easterners.

Right. And Bush is the idiot?

I still love U2, and I still think Bono is the greatest philanthropist alive. Because I owe U2 for all the wonderful music over the years, I'm gonna credit this "dookie" of a video to the morons in the Green Day camp. But please, U2 ... if you're reading this ... no more charity collaborations with stupid and horrible bands, OK?

SACRILEGE! (and on this very page, no less!)

I hate to end a 12-year-old friendship, but certain things cannot be tolerated. Such as releasing an ungrateful stream of piss on Saint Shanny.

Readers, trust me when I say that I was really looking forward to a time when my internet would be fixed enough to compose a thoughtful posting on how I've rediscovered my old fierce high school form, the nasty little kid who thought "rabid psychosis" was a character trait worth aspiring to. I've been waiting daily for my internet company to ratchet up my intermittent connection so blogging wouldn't be frought with risk of random post deletion. I thought I could wait it out, but then, out of sheer curiousity at work, I checked my page only to discover two steaming nuggets in the comment box.

Anyway, I'll respond line by line to the first posting, left by a certain Ryan Bossow who shall remain nameless:

Damn nice freakin debut cutler... way to be!!!

First, yes, I get your sarcasm and grant you this: Jay Cutler on his first day did not look like Peyton Manning during the best game of his career. He also didn't turn eliminate global poverty, cure AIDS, or convert Osama bin Laden to coolness through the power of rock. (Of course, why would he need to do those things when Bono's already got most of that stuff pretty much wrapped up?) So, because his debut didn't inspire any embarassing boners, then ... what? ... he sucks? ... we're supposed to be stunned? Angry?

Cutler's debut numbers: 10 of 21, 143 yards, 2 TDs, and 2 INTs. His second game's numbers: 17 of 30, 188 yards, 2 TDS, and 0 INTs. I'll be charitable here and ignore the fact that, unlike his predecessor, Cutler has thrown twice as many TDs as INTs--let's just leave those out of the picture. His completion percentage is about 53% and he averages about 166 yards a game.

Anemic? Yes.

Inspiring? Not really.

Remind you of another anemic and uninspiring quarterback? Well, shucks, now that you mention it, those numbers sound like typical Jake Plummer performances in 2006. My point is not that I'm ecstatic with Cutler thus far--my point is that, if your head weren't so far up your ass you'd notice that it's taken Cutler approximately two games to reach the same performance plateau it's taken Plummer 10 years to reach.

Here's an idea mikey, let plummer play out the year and see if you can get anything for him in to off season, rather than just cutting him, or letting him ride the pine.

Here's an even better idea, "Ryaney": realize that, with no running game, the Broncos will win zero playoff games (and certainly not a Super Bowl) without a semi-decent quarterback. Agreed: Plummer wasn't getting A+ help from his O-line, receivers, or backs, but the better QBs in the league can always elevate the weenies that surround him.

Ask yourself what's more important:

1) allowing Plummer six more games in which to suck, hoping it might somehow increase his value.

2) giving valuable regular-season experience to a quarterback many feel was the best picked in the draft because you realize the season is spiraling anyway.

And make no mistake, the awesome defense that helped us get us the record we began with got so tired and banged up, there was no way it would carry us through the playoffs. The 2006 Broncos were tanking and in desperate need of a miraculous offensive spark. Just because Cutler wasn't that miraculous spark doesn't mean he was a dumb choice, or that Shanny was stupid to try.

I hate to say it fellow bronco fans, but my grip on the mike shannahan bandwagon is starting to slip.

Then let go, turncoat! Go on--leave you ungrateful wretch! Seek solace suckling at the puckered teat of Wade Phillips or Dan Reeves. I hear they like it if you bite a little. But leave behind any fond memories of 97 & 98 because there's no fucking way either of those Super Bowls would've happened without the innovative Shanahan Regime, which was sent by the football gods to govern mankind.

And if you think I'm living in the past, examine this season. Remember how I said the defense "helped" us get to a great start? The other main factor was Shanahan's kindergarten gameplans, sadly neutered by design due to Plummer's inability to play big and bold without turning it over 20 times a game. When you actually have to gameplan in order to minimize the role of your quarterback, you know it's long passed time to make a switch.

Finally Ryan, before I formally end our storied friendship, I'll tell you what: I understand you've moved to Florida recently, and it's possible you've yet to unpack your brains, balls, and loyalty. Maybe they got lost on the moving truck. Perhaps they were stolen. Either way, they're gone, and, because you recommended Supernatural which is a pretty good show, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that the tragic loss of your manhood wasn't your fault. If you truly wish to preserve the friendship, you must travel to faraway Japan. Once here, I will remove a glove, and then you must kiss the red signet ring on my hideously gnarled, blistered, and leprous hand (ala my favorite part in Kingdom of Heaven). Do that, endure a few vicious swats from my royal riding crop, and everything's back to normal. We'll get some KFC or yakitori or shabu-shabu or something.

Otherwise ...

IT'S OVER!

Now, on to Zach Thaxton, the other anonymous comment-box-stinker-upper. Zach's crime wasn't brazen sedition (although he did say Shanny's starting to "slip ... ever so slightly") but his efforts to be diplomatic led him to say some startlingly nonsensical and repugnant things. In the often-repulsive annals of historical revisionism, you hear vile, despicable lies like "Bush and his oil cronies were behind 9/11" or "the holocaust didn't kill that many Jews" and, possibly the most offensive, "Ol' bowlegs was downright dumb in about 40% of his games."

Now I get to be Jerry Seinfeld to Zach's Michael Richards:

I've known Zach for many years, and, frankly, this is so out of character for him I had a hard time believing that he'd written it. Me? Of course I'm disappointed in him. I'm saddened. I truly am. But more than that, I understand that these remarks were borne of extreme frustration and thoughtlessness.

The remarks aren't representative of the Zach I know--the Zach I know keeps a statue of John Elway in his condom box. The Zach I know has two John Elway jerseys, one he wears for home games, and one for away games. The Zach I know doesn't hate black people--he works with them, eats with them, loves them--hell, he's probably even made love to a few of them.

Please forgive his remarks. I'm sure that by "Ol' bowlegs", he was referring to another pidgeon-toed quarterback. If not, then while writing that Elway was "downright dumb", perhaps he made a typo and intended to write that Elway was "downright misunderstood in about 40% if his games." That would've made more sense and been more reflective of Zach's ordinarily thoughtful and non-hateful intellect.

It has been said that if an infinite number of monkeys were given an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, they would eventually produce the collective works of Shakespeare. Suffice to say, Zach's comment was a four-monkey, seven minute job.



OKey dokey. I'm gonna go to bed now.