The Fleabomb Blog

Apparently at some point in the mid-nineties, The Anniversary, Weezer, and Weird Al Yankovic got together in a massive three-way and produced this band. That’s really the best way I can think of to describe them. They are admitted members, if not leaders, of the “Nerd Core” movement, meaning that most of their songs have an edgy pop base with tongue-in-cheek lyrics, which while funny, kind of make you feel like you’re chuckling at the back of the band room in high school. They remind me of a, if this is possible, less-serious NOFX, as well. Longtime fans of this band should be very pleased, as Nerf Herder have come out with a strong release of guitar-driven, quirky, funny, pop songs with the slightest hint of a punk edge. Those new to Nerf Herder will probably find themselves a bit bewildered, wondering if this is all really a joke, and then coming slowly to the conclusion that the answer is yes, but it’s a serious, “this is what we really do” kinda joke. I mean, they have song about a manatee, and part of the chorus is “stand by your manatee.” That really says it all. If you are into bands with a punk vibe that will never be accused of taking themselves too seriously, check them out.
nerfherder.net

I can’t believe that the mainstream press has yet to make this analogy. The above scene is probably one of the best-known and most quoted scenes in history, and perfectly captures the mentality of the Hillary campaign.

After having her gains in Pennsylvania erased by Obama’s double-digit win in North Carolina, and barely eking out a 3% win in Indiana, Clinton claims victory, and once again, it’s full speed to the White House. Her complete separation from reality would be funny, I suppose, if it were not linked to such a painfully long primary. Before this Tuesday watching her campaign was like watching a nature show in which the slow Wildebeest was culled from the herd and eventually taken down by the pursuing pride, but now, well, I don’t know what this is like. But it’s something infinitely more sad, akin to King Lear’s descent into madness.At this point, Hillary needs an intervention. She needs friends, friends that will keep repeating to her that she isn’t going to get the nomination no matter how much money she spends or how many times she tries to recast herself as some blue-collar, up-from-the-bootstraps farm girl/mill worker/coal miner’s daughter.

At this point, it’s not Obama’s campaign or the Democrat ticket in November I am worried about, but Hillary’s legacy. I have always been open about my dislike for Hillary but I have always respected her in a grudging way, for her willingness to take on the dirtiest Republican attacks and calling them what they are. Love her or hate her, there are very few Democrats willing to call the Republicans on their dirty tricks like Hillary is, or at least like Hillary was.

Her legacy is not only in question because of her refusal to accept reality, but because of the complete metamorphosis she has undergone in the quest for votes. Somehow, a highly educated grad of Wellesley and Yale law is now stumping from the back of pick-up trucks, castigating academics and the “learned elite,” sitting down for interviews with Mellon Scaife (architect of the famed right-wing conspiracy), and generally appearing more and more like President Bush. Then again, she’s been voting like a good little Republican ever since she went into the Senate.

The basic point is that everyone except Hillary knows that she has lost the primary. And in doing so she has lost most of herself.

This five-song EP is musical crack. After playing it for the first time I played it over immediately afterward, and have probably listened to it about 25 times since I got it. Reminiscent of early-nineties alt-pop, the driving beats and richly-textured vocals surrounded me like a refreshing breeze from a musical past that departed too soon. Though I hate to compare a band this young to a band I consider great, I couldn’t listen to this album without thinking that The Red Romance are the American answer to Pulp, and I would be shocked to find that Pulp, and probably the Doves, were not big musical influences on the band. A five-piece out of NYC, this band is poised for a huge impact on the music scene. They got a write-up in Spin back in June of ‘07, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see them signed to a major label and doing the night show circuit by mid-summer. Hopefully they’ll break out of the city soon for an eastern seaboard tour soon and come our way. A great EP and a very, very promising band.

I want to preface this review by my opinion that the Dexateens‘ preceding album, Hardwire Healing, is the best album of 2007. So when I criticize this album, I am only doing so because of the extremely high expectations that Hardwire raised in me as a reviewer. Lost and Found is a typical “tweener” album—it came out very quickly on the heels of its predecessor, has nine songs, just making the cut for a full-length release, and is a really good, almost great, album. Musically, it is everything we have come to expect from this deeply southern rock band, saturated with the primal, essential sounds and instruments of Dixie. In terms of songwriting, it falls a bit short of the brooding, introversion of the last album, though songs “Out on Your Own” and “You’re Gonna Love Me” reach those levels, and “Altar Blues” showcases the bucolic satire that frontman Eliot McPherson is capable of. As I said earlier, this is a good album, and a great purchase for anyone looking for a true rock album that is an intellectual cut above without losing visceral appeal. Also, and this is the best part—it’s free. Well, not really, but it is available for a free download, though the band asks that people who download the album donate $5 to help pay for the album. I really hope that people chip in their $5, because this is something that all music fans should encourage, as it is the first step in removing the incredibly corrupt and backward thinking music industry establishment (think RIAA)  from the process of playing, and hearing, music.

I’ll keep this short as I turned off the debate about halfway through. Basically, nothing was said that hasn’t already been said about 10 billion times thus far in the primary season. The questions, directed at nothing but the most recent scandals to afflict the two candidates, revealed nothing but the soundbite defenses the candidates had rehearsed before they came on the stage. Hillary was asked by a voter about her Tuzla lies, which, to her credit, she fielded without trying to make anyone beleive that they were a result of a faulty memory. Obama was blasted on everything from his small-town comments (which really were dumb) to Reverend Wright to not wearing a flag pin to being connected to a former radical in the sixties. This paragraph from today’s Times article sums it up well:

The result was arguably one of Mr. Obama’s weakest debate performances. He at times appeared annoyed as he sought to answer questions about his former pastor, his reluctance to wear an American flag pin on his lapel and his association in Chicago with former members of the Weather Underground, a radical group that carried out bombings in the 1960s that were intended to incite the overthrow of the government.

I didn’t expect to get anything out of this debate as we know these two candidates so well by now I could probably map their DNA from memory, but this thing about the Weather Underground was pretty cool. I hadn’t heard of this completely inconsequential bit of information before, but to me, Obama’s association with a radical sixties group intent on overthrowing the government finally adds that missing piece that has kept me from being a full-blown Obama supporter. I’ve always been a fan of true maverick politicians, and in general, the crazier and angrier the better. As a kid in high school I liked Ross Perot, and I fully supported Jesse “The Mind” Ventura in his gubernatorial run (BTW, has anyone seen this guy lately? I think he has mentally transformed into his character from Predator).

Point being that since I saw Obama speak here in Birmingham, he’s been morphing into a politician that isn’t all that distinguishable from many others. He’s doing all the regular crap that politicians do: all the stupid photo-ops, the communing with the common man, the bowling, the chocolate shop, etc., and it’s really been making me bored with the whole election. I realize politicians feel they have to do these things, but why? I know they’re trying to capture the blue-collar vote and connect with the people of Pennsylvania, but does anyone really care about someone’s ability to bowl, or drink beers, or operate heavy machinery (though all three at once would be more impressive)? His attempts to do these things have only served to make him more a of a normal candidate in my mind, which is the last thing I want as a voter.

But this Weather Underground thing is a breath of fresh air, though likely disastrous to his campaign. But I for one embrace candidates with crazy ideas and controversial opinions and connections. I like the idea of a young Obama meeting in some cramped apartment in Chicago, talking about taking down the man. We need more of that in America.

If you missed the debate, count yourself lucky. It was a snoozer and didn’t deal with a single topic worth talking about. Charles Gibson and George Stephanopolous should be ashamed of  lowering themselves to the standards of a “E! Behind the Music” interview, but whatever. It’s not the first time. Hopefully, however, this will be the last Democratic primary debate, lest we have to change the maxim to “If you don’t have anything interesting to say, don’t say anything at all.”

A rock duo from the west coast, Leopold and His Fiction have a blues-based sound with pop aspirations. This debut album is a strong effort and definitely pleases the rock fan in me, but I can’t help but wonder how they get by with such a distinctly southern sound  in sunny Cal. It feels right at home here, and combines bluesy, beer-hall strumming with modern vocals reminiscent of the Strokes and, dare I say it, Jack White. Though I have trouble believing that’s purely coincidental. The drummer, listed on the site only as Ben, is from Kentucky, so perhaps the strong southern roots stem from there, as I just have a hard time believing that a guitarist can come out of Detroit wanting to sound like Gatemouth Brown. This disc is simple: it’s enjoyable rock ‘n’ roll without a whole lot of deep thought or gimmicks, and it works. The hooks are fairly memorable and the guitars are twangy, at times deep and driving, work really well with the vocals. I don’t hear anything in this disc that tells me that this band is going to set the world on fire, as they’re not yet doing anything groundbreaking or new, but they are doing something good that will resonate with rock fans from just about anywhere. A very solid first effort.

13 Ghost’s follow-up to Cicada, Strangest Colored Lights, is a pensive collection of throwback songs about wars, trains, and death, couched in a hybrid Spanish-bluegrass style that makes the listener feel about 1,000 years old. Like Cicada, this album isn’t easily comparable to any other I’ve heard, as 13 Ghosts is one of those rare bands that really doesn’t sound like any band that has come before them or since. Colored Lights—with a few notable exceptions like “Beyond the Door” and “Go to Sleep”—is a further departure from the rock sounds of Your Window is Burning, carrying the listener further into the dark sides of song writers Buzz Russell and Brad Armstrong, journeys into alternately personal and collective pasts. “Bury Me” is an excellent example of what this album is all about—completely organic sounds, steeped in bluegrass and the Southern tradition of songwriting, a song of a soldier’s lonely death. Images of rain and earth, batted about by steely banjo and heavy drums. Modern by virtue of the rock element that 13 Ghosts can’t seem to exorcise from their background. While I admit to being disappointed at first that this album lacks an emotional powerhouse like “The Storm,” this is a more complete work of art than Cicada is, despite, or perhaps because of, lacking a true “single.” The songs flow seamlessly into one another, and it’s easy to miss the transitions, so I’m not sure a single would have really worked in this album anyway. I think the album is a significant achievement, and the band should be congratulated for following their natural direction and not attempting to directly recreate the success they had with their last album. By not doing so, they have achieved a higher level, as Colored Lights is in many ways the album that Cicada tries to be. A very well-conceived and well-executed dark journey into a past most of us have never known.

13 Ghosts are on Skybucket and will be playing at Bottletree April 12.

Ok, I promise my next post will be a review of 13 Ghosts’ new album The Strangest Colored Lights, but the good folks at Hillary’s Campaign decided to breathe new life into the Tuzla story, and I can’t help but respond to a few things stated in the column. The women authors, who apparently are both incapable of individually stringing together 500 words of drivel, are two of Hillary’s campaign managers, and both were employed by Hillary when she was first lady. So, no need to mine their past to see if they might be partial on this issue.

Lissa Muscatine and Melanie Verveer, authors of the hilariously titled “Straight Shooting from Tuzla” were present during the trip, and seek to “explain” to the rest of us idiots why the video shows an incomplete picture, and repeat claims that Hillary didn’t blatantly and intentionally lie about the trip.

Video footage clearly shows that Mrs. Clinton’s assertions that she landed “under fire” and that the arrival ceremony was canceled were wrong. She said so herself last week.

Sweeties, lemme splain somethin to you. You don’t make “assertions” about your own memories. You make assertions about things that you are not completely sure of, yet have plenty of reason to think must be so. For instance, one could look at the current economy and make the assertion that we are either heading into or are already in a recession. This would be based on plenty of easily discernible and agreed upon factors, such as negative growth, but still allows for a certain amount uncertainty, since there is room for disagreement. If I state “I went to my parents house last night,” this is not an assertion, because in my mind, there is no uncertainty to be dealt with. It is simply a statement of fact, and one based on my recollection of facts, which is quickly borne out by a call to my parents, who would verify the facts. When you are remembering and relating your past, you are not making an assertion, you are, or at least should be, making a statement of fact. Otherwise, you are doing something that you shouldn’t do: lying. Yes, that’s still a word in the English language and American lexicon, even if it has been carefully extricated from the D.C. dialect by people like Muscatine and Verveer.

They continue:

Yet even since she acknowledged her mistake, the commentary has continued unabated.

Am I wrong for wanting to bludgeon these women to death? And why in my fantasy am I doing so with an eighteenth-century musket? Again, there seems to be a major vocabulary problem with these two women. A mistake is usually something unintentional. This can take the form of remembering something incorrectly, but this is usually something like “Oh, my mistake, I guess we did park on the orange level,” or “I guess that song was first recorded by Cheap Trick.” When you get into “Oh, I guess that little girl singing to me wasn’t actually a high-caliber round of sniper fire,” it’s no longer a mistake. It’s just not believable. It’s a LIE. And that makes Hillary Clinton a bald-faced LIAR, which is kinda the whole issue behind the whole controversy. See, people don’t really give a shit why she was in Bosnia in the first place. Hell, it was so long ago that Sinbad was relevant. And no one gives a crap about whether Hillary or anyone else was told whether it was dangerous. I’m sure it was. I drove through Croatia in 2000 and it scared the crap out of me.

The authors issue this line in the closing paragraph, and I can’t help but imagine the smile of faint triumph that stretched across their faces as they read it aloud:

The video of her arrival on the tarmac in Bosnia may be great theater and easy fodder for commentators, but it shouldn’t be allowed to obscure what else was happening on this important trip when the cameras weren’t rolling.

Again, I am imagining their deaths under my musket. Just in case these women ever find themselves on another “mission” for the U.S.A. and need help gauging its importance, here’s a fail-safe test: Is Sinbad on the plane? If so, not important.

People care about this for several reasons, and none of them have to do with post-war Bosnia. For one, it proves that Hillary will lie about anything to get elected. Second, it shows how completely hollow her argument about being more experienced in foreign policy is, since she obviously felt that she needed to lie about this trip to make us beleive that she is experienced enough. Lastly, the people of this country are getting mighty tired of having their intelligence insulted by pieces of crap like you two. How fucking stupid do you think we are? Do you think you can write some snooty editorial to the New York Times, telling us how we’ve all got it wrong, and cleverly (at least according to yourselves) replace words like lie with “assertion,” “mistake,” and “remember?” Do you honestly think we are so stupid that we will beleive that Hillary did not intentionally lie about this trip to try and paint herself as some rugged traveler of worldly warzones?

Hillary hasn’t acknowledged a mistake, she has attempted, poorly, to cover up a blatant lie she was caught in. But that’s what liars do. They cover up old lies with new ones.

The truth is, it’s not the American people who are stupid, or naive, but people like the women who wrote this article, and the woman they work for. They are too stupid to know which way the wind blows, and that we are not such simps that you can dismiss a blatant lie as faulty memory and have us beleive it like obedient sycophants. The information age has provided the average consumer of politics the weapons to shoot down your lies, and the ones you attempt to use to cover them up, instantly. It is not the video or the trip itself that is of interest. What is of interest is that Hillary doesn’t seem able to learn anything, that she seems completely lost in the monumental sea change in politics that the Bush/Rove era has ushered in, and that people have wised up to the standard tricks and double-speak. The voices of your campaign managers are drowned in a heavy din of blogs, and videos, and all other forms of information that are now at the hands of the people. No amount of lying or Op-Ed writing will make the original lie go away, or the ultimate truth it reveals about Hillary and the person she is.

Ok, I really wanted to leave Hillary alone. I did. Promise.

But unfortunately, her supporters seem intent on blasting the heat lamps onto the carcase of her campaign, making its rot and stench all the more palatable to vultures like me. About a week ago, Nancy Pelosi, monumental failure that she is, managed to grow a bit of backbone and suggested that Democratic super-delegates should follow the will of the voters and support the candidate with the most delegates. Not a completely unreasonable position, especially for a party who had the 2000 election stolen from them despite winning the popular vote.

However, this raised the ire of Clinton’s biggest donors, perfect examples of the notorious “special interests” that we hear so much about, so much so that they sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi to air their grievances. In the letter they expressed disapproval at the notion that the brutal and bloody nomination fight should come to an end, in essence accusing her of disenfranchising the remaining voters who make up Hillary’s whopping five percent chance of winning the nomination (super-delegates included of course).

But this dynamic primary season is not at an end. Several states and millions of Democratic voters have not yet had a chance to cast their votes. We respect those voters and believe that they, like the voters in the states that have already participated, have a right to be heard. None of us should make declarative statements that diminish the importance of their voices and their votes.

Blah, blah, fucking blah. Is there anyone, seriously one freaking person, that beleives these people would be championing the rights of these voters if Hillary were ahead? Anyone? Ok, good, you all pass the test, because Pelosi made the same statement earlier in the campaign, when Hillary was leading in delegates. So, the facade of caring about the value of each vote in the primary process immediately comes crashing down. But if you read on in the letter, you wouldn’t need that piece of history to get what’s really going on here.

We have been strong supporters of the DCCC. We therefore urge you to clarify your position on super-delegates.

Translation: we gave you tons of money. Therefore, you work for us, and you do what we say. Hmm, sound familiar? Sound like something that both candidates have been railing about since day one of their campaign? Starts with an “S” and an “I”? Bueller? If you need help, here’s Hillary’s latest ad:

Ok, so first she lies (if that’s still a word we can use in connection with politicians, who all seem to have completely faulty memories all of a sudden) about getting shot at in Bosnia, then she attempts to distract the press by dredging up a non-issue that Obama has already put to rest, then she gets her big donors (aka Special Interests) to send a letter to the speaker of the house threatening her with withholding their funding (from the entire party mind you) on the same day that Hillary releases a new ad about how she’ll fight the very special interests funding her campaign, and doing her dirty work by trying to strong-arm Pelosi. There’s really not much I, or anyone else, can add to this. It’s so funny and absolutely ridiculous on face value that I challenge even Jon Stewart to make this funnier than it already is. And let’s just remember, all this just for a five percent chance of winning the nomination. Wow.

Dude. This is getting to a point where even I can’t beleive how much damage Hillary Clinton is doing to herself.

Yesterday, in his column “The Long Defeat,” David Brooks absolutely skewers her on the damage she is doing to her own party for what her aides claim is a five percent chance that she will ultimately win the Democratic nomination. My admitted schadenfreude aside, Brooks does a really good job of putting Hillary on the couch in his column, explaining why she would risk the 2008 election going to McCain for a chance as small as five percent.

For three more months, Clinton is likely to hurt Obama even more against McCain, without hurting him against herself. And all this is happening so she can preserve that 5 percent chance.

When you step back and think about it, she is amazing. She possesses the audacity of hopelessness.

Why does she go on like this? Does Clinton privately believe that Obama is so incompetent that only she can deliver the policies they both support? Is she simply selfish, and willing to put her party through agony for the sake of her slender chance? Are leading Democrats so narcissistic that they would create bitter stagnation even if they were granted one-party rule?

The better answer is that Clinton’s long rear-guard action is the logical extension of her relentlessly political life.

For nearly 20 years, she has been encased in the apparatus of political celebrity. Look at her schedule as first lady and ever since. Think of the thousands of staged events, the tens of thousands of times she has pretended to be delighted to see someone she doesn’t know, the hundreds of thousands times she has recited empty clichés and exhortatory banalities, the millions of photos she has posed for in which she is supposed to appear empathetic or tough, the billions of politically opportune half-truths that have bounced around her head.

In recent posts I have touched on this theme several times, but in a more humorous, less bludgeoning sort of way. When I wrote that Hillary would sacrifice a small child to win the nomination, it was meant to be humorous, even though I really beleive that to be true, and do not find child sacrifice to be a humorous subject.

Then, following Brooks’s lead as if in a tag-team WWE match, brutally punishing an opponent lying hapless on the mat, Maureen Dowd delivered a flying leg-drop from the top ropes, when she wondered in today’s column “Hillary or Nobody?” if the Hildabeast was actually trying to sabotage Obama’s campaign in 2008 to give her a better chance at winning in 2012.

Even some Clinton loyalists are wondering aloud if the win-at-all-costs strategy of Hillary and Bill — which continued Tuesday when Hillary tried to drag Rev. Wright back into the spotlight — is designed to rough up Obama so badly and leave the party so riven that Obama will lose in November to John McCain.

If McCain only served one term, Hillary would have one last shot. On Election Day in 2012, she’d be 65.

Why else would Hillary suggest that McCain would be a better commander in chief than Obama, and why else would Bill imply that Obama was less patriotic — and attended by more static — than McCain?

Is Clinton intentionally damaging her own party because it has rejected her? Undoubtedly. Anyone who cared about the health of the party and its chances to take back the White House would have withdrawn after Texas was split and the real possibility of winning closed. The five percent chance the Clinton aide cites would likely hinge on a huge (20 points or more) win in Pennsylvania. This is not a realistic possibility, and even then, that win would not be enough, because it would have to be accompanied by huge wins in every remaining state, and a huge surge of superdelegates to her side, something that seems less likely every day.

Yesterday, Clinton continued her sabotage techniques against the candidate she has not been able to beat by either straight campaigning, debating, or the Rove politics she employed with the 3:00 a.m. ad. Clinton stated yesterday that she would not have had Reverend Wright as her pastor. Little wonder, since Clinton’s steely, sour face would seem a little out of place in a raucous black church in Chicago. Obama may dream of healing racial divides, but some things just don’t fit.

Clinton did this for two reasons: one, to try and hurt Obama’s campaign, having no real hope of resurrecting her own. Two, to distract the public from a blatant lie she told about a visit to Bosnia when Bill was president. This deserves a look:

Wow. That sniper-fire looked pretty hellacious. What you can’t tell is that those women in the puffy jackets are actually ravenous man-gators intent on eating her and Chelsea alive. What’s really priceless is her reaction to being caught in a blatant lie, about the one bedrock on which she has rested her entire campaign: her limitless foreign policy expertise.

So, in one day she has done incredible damage to herself by needlessly lying about being “under fire” in Bosnia, which really wouldn’t give her any more experience to make her fit to be commander-in-chief than any PFC in Iraq, or embedded reporter for that matter, and then, in order to distract the media from focusing on the lie and subsequent shit-storm she brought on herself, she dredges up old charges about Obama not doing enough to throw his pastor under the bus.

The difference in the two candidates reaction to scandals tells us a lot about them as people and potential presidents. When Obama was confronted with round-the-clock replays of his pastor criticizing the United States (ooh, don’t do that!) he responded not with distractions, or cheap-shots at his opponent, but with a historic, and more importantly truthful, speech about race in this country and why his reverend, and many black people, feel the way they do about this country. Clinton, in reaction to getting caught in a lie that she told for no reason, brushes off and practically excuses her lie as simply the result of having to speak (she can’t be expected not to lie when she has to give so many speeches, right? RIGHT!?!?!) and instead of dealing with her own comments, not those of a campaign official or confidante, she attempts to sully the name of her opponent.

To call her pathetic, dastardly, desperate, selfish, would just be another flying elbow cross from the top ropes, or perhaps a conveniently available 10-foot step ladder. But the fact is that if the Democrats want a snowballs chance in hell of winning in November, she has to be stopped, because it is perfectly obvious that she will not be following Brooks’s advice and graciously withdrawing in North Carolina. Someone, perhaps Howard Dean, has to step up and deliver that final folding-chair blow to the back of her head as she claws for the ropes.

Editors Note: One day after this was published, the New York Times Op-Ed page brought on three more columns blasting Hillary: The Uncle Al Election, Obama, Clinton—and Echoes of Nader?, and Imagined Snipers, Real Challenges. Keep in mind this is the paper that officially endorsed her for the Democratic nomination. This is beginning to be like watching a nature show, where that one lame or small wildebeest starts slowly falling behind the rest of the herd, as the charging lionesses come slowly into camera view, charging.