To Anonymous: A risky message

First of all, I feel really silly posting this right now, but it's happening:

I would like to address a group called Anonymous. Bravo.

I don't know who you are, nor do I wish to. This message is only a result of my bored curiosity of Scientology jokes. Any YouTube search, the name Anonymous pops up.

Here's an example to give people an idea of what I'm talking about. Not only the impact of Anonymous, but Anonymous's gripes against Scientology.






Now, I'm sure that there are a lot of kids out there doing a lot of stupid shit like pirating kids credit cards and putting up Nazi shit on websites (at least so they've been accused of a la wikipedia, so I can't claim if any of this shit is true).

Even if it is true there is an important lesson that the war against Scientology is an important statement of why people want control of the internet for the rest of our significant future. The internet is such a power tool that we, nor they, have really grasped it's power. Our generation and the one behind ours, is just a little a head of the curb to understanding what it can do. Anonymous, while doesn't harbor the tool, is it's greatest protector.

At it's current state the internet is still an amoeba. Unfiltered speech. Free videos. Instant companionship. Information (real and fake). Created by us humans as a way for us to know ourselves at all times. The internet still needs to time to grow. One of the reasons war was declared by Anonymous was the Scientology's attempt to censor or put out false information.




What I love about Anonymous is the idea of Anonymous, its that there is no Anonymous. When you have a group that doesn't exist, any one can join, but only if the whole approves. They make it easy for anyone to fake, but everyone to participate. They've harnessed the energy and the power of the internet by remaining functionless. No real way to communicate. No real way to notice. But more power than any silly cult can stop or understand. There's no point in trying to stop them or try to join them. Because there is no them. It's a true democratic movement that makes any teabagger movement seen pathetic.

A lack of command.

At least it can. The fact that people showed up at these Scientology protests is important. That means there is indeed an Anonymous. Who they are isn't important. It's simply THAT they are. It keeps the internet in it's current form but asks it to evolve beyond it's digital restraints. Making the internet a far more powerful force than simply information recollection, but now we can see that it can have a conscious and not even be aware of it.


So if Anonymous is really watching the internet and I have message for Anonymous:

Watch yourselves. Keep going. People can't have the internet yet. It doesn't have to be owned or controlled, but move by natural courses of time. I don't know how much you power you have or if you have the power that you claim you have, but whatever power you have remember responsibility. Keep fighting I guess. You might end up a paradoy of yourself, or a shell of the former self of whatever the hell the "collective" is. But whats important that you remain an idea. An idea is the only thing that they can't touch. Whatever target you chose, the idea is your saving grace. Blameless, relentless, and anonymous. Remember there are common enemies that everyone has, just make sure you get the right target. Your motives are pure, but power corrupts.

Have fun. Someone will always be watching I guess. Myself included. I just hope knowledge of your existence isn't the cause of your destruction or misuse.


Command Image: War Commands

Why did you resign?

Okay. I will be very very brief. So AMC remade the Prisoner.

Normally, I'm in huge defender of updates and remakes. I generally see nothing wrong with old ideas being reformed for contemporary times as long as it remains true to the original ideas and captures the nature of it's predecessor. Especially with an old show like The Prisoner, which is hard show to watch.



The Prisoner, the original, is about a secret agent (Patrick McGoohan, the brain behind the show) who resigns from his job and then wakes up in a strange place called the Village where is called No. 6. The Village is run by No. 2 who tries to find new ways of getting information out of No. 6, particularly the reason why No. 6 resigned. No. 6 tries to escape and uncover the the mysteries of The Village such as, who do they work for and who is No. 1.

I won't go into how much I love the 1967 show.

The new Prisoner misses. It completely misses of why No. 6 is in the Village. It seems the whole point of the show was just to have No. 6 accept the Village. They never explain why he's a prisoner.

It doesn't bother asking who is No. 1. Nor does it give No. 2 any reason for keeping No. 6 in the Village. There is too much revealed to the audience about No. 2 which is a mistake because No. 2 isn't really supposed to be a person. I was okay with only having one No. 2 (because in the original No. 2 changes every episode). No. 2 is supposed significant and powerful...but not all powerful and certainly not very human. The only aspect of No. 2's humanity should come from his job as No. 2 which is to break No. 6 and the frustrations of No. 2's failure to do so.

Part of the problem is the purpose of No. 6's incarceration and the need for No. 2 to interrogate him. "Why did you resign?"

The new show deals with the metaphor of No. 6's resistance to conformity but doesn't. No. 6 really doesn't struggle with it. What I mean is that, No. 6 represents the epitome of individuality and all of it's flaws and the Village is the crippling comfort of conformity. The new No. 6 doesn't resist, nor toy with the system. He barely tries to escape. In the mini-series, he seems to just do what he is told.

Perhaps it is the way James Caviezel performance felt a little too melancholy and not determined. McGoohan was far from a brilliant actor, but he had a stoic presence that was captivating and charismatic. Caviezel just looked like he was bummed about the whole thing.

All in all, in my opinion, the Village is supposed to make you feel trapped. Not isolated.

While I applaud AMC for it's bravery for giving this a shot, they should have studied the 1967 show and tried to actually update it, rather than try and make the show a gimmick.

My advice. Stick with the 1967 show...if you want. It's a hard enough show to like without watching the remake.

Be seeing you.


Command Image: The Prisoner Commands

In Defense of...Hockey.

We here at Lack of Command are proud debut a new series to our chronicles of insanity entitled "In Defense of..."


Whenever the notion strikes us, we will take an aspect or issue that at best doesn't get the respect it deserves. We will present our subjective love for such things in the most unbiased way possible, dissecting the reasons against, while presenting reasons for. We will also invite you to add your two cents, feel free to comment on this blog or elsewhere, and we just may revisit the defense. Who knows, you might change our minds.


Our inaugural induction will be the defense of America's fourth sport, hockey.


HOCKEY



What’s wrong with hockey, America? Seriously? The other night I watched a game while at the gym (yeah, I go to the gym.) I was quite excited to watch the Washington Capitals vs. Philadelphia Flyers. A game I have no vested interest in seeing other than to watch some damn good hockey. What inspired me to take up the cause of hockey is that I had to ask the guy to change the channel to hockey.


Now, being in New York in the middle of the World Series, if baseball was on I wouldn’t bother. It is my opinion that early season games of one sport take a back seat to the post season of another, I think any sports fan agrees with this. I wouldn’t like it if someone wanted to switch from the Stanley Cup Playoffs to a pre-season Mets game.


However, what they were playing on ESPN? Poker. Seriously, ESPN was airing a game where the audience watches other people win money in a card game. This got me thinking, why doesn’t hockey get any love here in the states?


I’m not saying that hockey is somehow superior to other sports, I am saying that for my money, hockey is just as good as the other three. In terms of popularity or notoriety in the states, the big four are (in order) football, baseball, basketball and hockey. While I was on the treadmill, hating the fact that I was on a treadmill I asked myself, what about hockey doesn’t resonate with America? Here are a few reasons why Americans might be reluctant to embrace hockey:


1) Hockey isn’t an American sport.

The crux of the issue is that hockey A) was not invented by Americans or B) isn't dominated by American players. I would buy this point if the opposite were true for the other big three, but sadly it is not.


Football is based out of rugby which is about as American as Monty Python. Baseball’s roots have been traced back to England as well. In fact Basketball is the only sport with it’s official origin in America and was developed by a Canadian. Hockey is no less an invention of America than hamburgers and french fries.


In terms of Americans’ dominance of the sport, I truly don’t know where this misconception comes from, since a Canadian team hasn’t won the championship since 1993. For such a Canadian sport, there are only 6 teams out of 30 that call the Great White North home. What’s that? Oh it’s the players that aren’t American, like Yao Ming or David Ortiz right?


Sure the ratio to non-American hockey player to American hockey players is ridiculously in favor of non-American players, but is that legitimate reason to not watch a sport? Is it easier to cheer for a guy named Troy Polamalu over a guy named Sidney Crosby because the latter is not American? A fairly dubious argument.

A side note: With the Olympics coming up this year, Team USA is going to be one of the most exciting things to happen in the 2010 Olympics. It's a young team with a lot of heart and talent. They have the possibility of being the true underdogs of the Olympics. I encourage you all to tune into that.

So the "Un-American" argument doesn’t hold much water, unless you want to hold those same standards to ALL of the Big Four, which I sincerely doubt anybody would. So let’s move on, huh?


2) It’s a low scoring game.

Compared to what? How much different are baseball scores compared to hockey scores? Football has a lot of points sure, but imagine if every touchdown, conversion and field goal was worth one point. I suspect that, unless you’re watching Tom Brady take his frustrations out on the Tennessee Titans, the scores would look quite similar.


Basketball is the only acceptation, but when you think about it, the reason for that is simply because you’re not allowed to touch any player at any time. They call fouls for looking at a guy the wrong way. If that’s your idea of a good sport where a fast moving game screeches to halt because Lebron accidentally face palms Kobe, that’s your right.


3) It’s a game you actually have to pay attention to.

This is a point that hasn’t been presented to me, rather a theory that I conjured up, and it’s one of the reasons why I think that soccer (that’s right, I’m calling it soccer) and hockey are sort of in the same vein in terms of American “watchability.”


Think about watching football and baseball, it’s something you can easily watch at a bar or at a party. They are social sports. You can be engaged in a deep philosophical discussion during a baseball game and you won’t miss any action. You can be at a party playing beer pong, and still catch the big passes of the Superbowl.


In hockey, the big plays happen instantly. Blink and you’ll miss the great goal, the sick pass, or the nasty hip check. Play does not stop very often, certainly not as often as baseball, and when it does the stops are certainly not as long as football. This doesn’t really lend itself to drinking games or involved discussions during play. I seriously doubt however, that any sports fan would take this a knock against the sport.


So now that I’ve shaken you’re initial reluctance to the sport of hockey against your favorite sport, allow me to share with you the reasons why hockey may not deserve your fanatical devotion, but at the very least your respect.



Keep in mind that compilation is just from this past week in the early 2009-10 hockey season. You want finesse goals? Dramatic saves? Dynamic team plays? Brutal checks? Hockey as a sport, has it all.

Do yourself a favor and tune in January 1st for the Winter Classic in Boston. The NHL goes all out for this event as they pick a city to host an outdoor hockey game. The venue is usually something identifiable to the city, last year was at Wrigley Field, with the Chicago Blackhawks taking on Detroit Red Wings. This year, the Boston Bruins will take on the Philadelphia Flyers at Fenway Park. Should be some "old time hockey." What do I mean by "Old Time Hockey?"





So I propose a question to you, loyal follower(s), what does football/baseball/basketball have that hockey doesn't? If you're a sports fan, why not watch hockey?


Command Image: Missile Command

The beginning and the end: A random rant about albums.

I don't know how most people judge a music album when they first plug it in. I know that there are many variables to consider, such as how much do you liked the previous album, if this is their debut, who recommended it, etc... I think what makes people's musical taste differ is expectations. Those expectations are usually drawn from either what you know already or what you have been told. For example, if I were to recommend to a Brian Eno fan the new Sunn O))) album simply because it is "ambient like Eno," someone is going to be surprised (By the way, any Eno fans...check out the new Sunn O))) album). Meaning that, what I told the Eno fan wasn't a lie, it just wasn't the whole truth.

I, on the other hand, do take people's word for it a lot of times because I trust their music tastes, or rather I trust their knowledge of my own tastes. But, when I'm searching alone, and by alone I mean flying blindly into an album because it was on some internet Top Ten list, I always feel a little anxious but I think I've discovered my criteria in whether or not I like an album. It's either the first track or the last track.

Now, this standard applies with most albums that I consider to be my all-time favorite. From Pink Floyd to Earth. From Neurosis to Blackalicious. Usually my favorite of those favorite are the albums that connect the beginning from the end (Pink Floyd - Animals, Earth - Pentastar: in the style of demons, Leftover Crack - Fuck World Trade or any Frank Zappa album to name a few). But I wonder if my philosophy is flawed. How many albums have I discarded because the first song didn't do it for me? Note: I'm not including the 30 second intro track that a lot of good albums have.

Not to say that albums with solid beginnings and endings are the only good songs on the album. But I find when I'm new to a band or an album, I typically judge it by the first and last tracks. Harvey Milk, The Arcade Fire and Sonic Youth are good indicators of that.

Music is really the only medium that allows for these kind of lazy techniques. Movies and books can sure be tainted be a shitty beginning or end, but I'm still willing to take the journey with a little more vigor if they don't open strong than with a music album.


Now what so important about the beginning of an album to me is not necessarily to "wow" me. But to set me up for whats to come. Either buckle up or chill. The problem some albums run into is that the albums are too front heavy. I can get half-way through Choking Victims - No Gods, No Managers, and not be bothered with the rest of the album.

The point I want to make is the construction of an album is a delicate art that I don't understand. All I know is if I like the beginning I'm sold. If I don't, you better knock me out with that last track.

Command Image: Pushing command!

Killing of Mailmen

So what I wanted to do is write about sitcoms or the new Shrinebuilder track. But instead I'm going vomit this at you, dear public. I simply can't help it.

Take a look at this video.




Your politics towards health care is not really relevant to me, but what this video shows is that the people who say inspiring words such as: "Abolish all health care" or "expand medicare rather than Obamacare," it makes it difficult for me to take you guys seriously. I wonder, where are you getting all of this? Where in the world is this coming from?

Notice how this name keeps popping up. Glenn Beck.

Okay. You know the guy. Unfortunately if you are a quasi-rational person, you would absolutely know that this guy is a journalist in the same way that I'm a journalist. A guy who reads whatever crazy shit he finds on the internet and present it as fact.

No, he's far worse than your average lazy blogger. He delivers it as more than fact but as warnings. He brings an apocalyptic doom in his rants and demands that people do something about it. He often compares himself as a modern day Howard Beale (our unofficial and *cough* unlicensed mascot here at Lack of Command). He makes this comparison due to his "mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore" attitude towards the news Glenn Beck has clearly never seen the whole movie nor clearly has he ever read the full monologue. Beale says things need to change, where as Beck seems to only say things need to stop.

What I don't think he realizes is that a call for things to stop, for some people means a call to go backwards. So he uses the same tactics as McCarthy, getting Czars fired, protests started, and people's fears (whether legitimate or not) to shift to blind anger.

AP posted today that a man in Kentucky was lynched. He was a census worker and according to the report: the word "Fed" was sketched on his body.

So we're back to this are we? I understand the anger, I can even understand the hatred. Lord knows, I called for the head of George W. Bush and Ronald Reagan. With some degree of seriousness as well. Not in the sense where I really wanted to see them in the gallows, but I definitely wanted justice. Now, just because I felt anger and hatred, I didn't kill the fucking mail man!

A message to Republicans: to whoever wants to be the leading canidate in the 2012 presidential election needs to stand up now and demonize this kind of behavior. Honestly too. But you won't will you? After all, when George Tiller was killed this summer (in CHURCH of all places), what did you do? You all pretty much said: murder is wrong, but there's a special place in hell for him anyway. Or how about Joe Wilson? Shouting at a joint session of Congress at the President and than touting that line as a battle cry. You allowed it.

This is what happens when hatred meets stupid.

What happened? Where are the smart people on the right? The problem is the religious right has taken over. The only problem is we didn't see this coming but we should have. They've bullied and muscled there way on to the school boards, on to the library boards and community chairs. They did it quietly in some places. So they get to advance and give suction to those who were beneath them and agree with them on "moral standpoints." And used a media system and a "scorched earth" political tactic. Filling people with the idea of: it's us or them.

That mentality has carried over into the nut house.

This is may just be an isolated incident. I hope so. But this one incident to me is one too many. I desperately want there to be "have you decency, sir?" within the Republican party to oust these guys away from the megaphone, like in the McCarthy era. Here's the thing, I don't want it to get to that point. I don't want there to be another McCarthy era. Or another blacklist. Nor another Civil War.

Is it racism? Probably. Is it an irrational fear and anger towards the federal government? Probably. Is it people being poor and not having anyone to blame for that fact? Probably.

I don't know how to fix this. I wish I did. I thought that if someone could only show them that they are incorrect in their conclusions but welcome to the process, we would be done with all of this. All I know is that we as a society have to move past this. We have to grow beyond these all too familiar cycles. We have to be able to trust ourselves and each other. After something like this happens, it damages that trust I have for people and almost destroys any sort of hope I have for a better country or a better human race.

Only time time will tell how this will play out but we've seen this happen before. We need to change it before it gets that bad again. The killing of mailmen just because they are mailmen is the type of hatred that lacks all logic.

Anyway. We now return to our regulary scheduled program. Just pay attention. And remember, keeping your moral high ground is the most important when the stupid and the crazy lose theirs.




Command image: Mailman Command

Doom and Drone, Sludge and Stone Part 4: Stone

The Stone

Josh Homme, guitarist for Queens of the Stone Age and stoner icon band Kyuss, once said that he hates the term Stoner Rock. Admittedly, I’m not a huge fan of the term because I feel it very much pigeon holes the music into only singing about wizards and harsh pipe hits. However, I think the term “Stoner Rock” should stick because the term was created by the bands and the fans. You see, once a “music scene” begins to turn into some sort of fucking fashion function, or ends up being exploited by greedy artists and even greedier record companies: the control is no longer honest. It’s either you got to stay hip or, for lack of a better term, staying the course on what made you money. Music scenes, especially music scenes that start regionally, are always ripe for the taking. From punk to hip-hop to grunge to indie. They are then usually marketed in the corporate friendly, non-judgemental and non-exclusive term of “alternative.” Alternative. Remember Alternative Rock? College friendly love songs or misguided teenage angst that usually just led to keg-stands and one-night-date-rape-parties. Now, alternative has found another feast for the platter. It’s called “indie.” Indie rock is the new Alternative. And so the cycle continues.

Which is why I find it necessary to maintain the term “Stoner Metal.” It really has nothing to do with the actual act of smoking weed. I mean, it’s part of it I guess, but the idea that you need to do drugs to listen to and enjoy music is absurd. It has more of the fact that this is a style of music that its roots are born from 1990’s (going further back than that I know, relax music historians, but go with me.) In the 1990’s we saw the destruction of crappy hair/opera/cock/butt metal by the hands of grunge sound coming out of Seattle. Meanwhile, a few hundred miles south in various parts of California we had the likes of Kyuss and Sleep. The two bands that many would dispute are the ones that re-defined (due to lack of a better term) Stoner Rock. Or at the very least introduced a new way to play rock and roll. The new way was simple: try the old way again.

Riffs. Cymbals. Low bass. High distortion. Sing (or scream) like you mean it.

So, stoner metal fans should feel fortunate that it has a term that wasn’t “given” to us. It was term that we all created and continue to perpetuate. Because if we can keep our name, we won’ t be fooled again. Until they at least de-criminalize marijuana, there is no really long term way to market stoner metal. So if you can’t market it, you leave it alone. Our name is the last defense. They should have just called punk rock, shit rock; or maybe called hip-hop fuck-hop. Keep it dirty. Keep it off the grid. This way we can stay our own community and we can control our own destiny.

Now, onto the lesson….




Remember these guys from our first lesson? Sleep. No stoner fan is complete without hear every track from "Sleep's Holy Mountain" at least ten times. The album was called the album Black Sabbath never made. Sure the lyrics are goofy, but what Sleep demonstrates is the absolute touchstone of the Stoner Metal Genre, the riff. Stoner, Sludge, Doom and Drone all have that in common. The celebration of the riff. While most metal bands are trying to cram a thousand riffs into a 5 minute song , this genre will take 7 minutes to play 2 or 3.

Or in the case of their hallmark stoner masterpiece, "Dopesmoker," where Sleep took an hour to play 3-4 riffs. It's a head rattling journey into heavy. It was later renamed "Jerusalem" and split into tracks, causing the eventual demise of the band. The members of the band have become stoner metal icons, Al Cisneros, Chris Haikus and the mighty Matt Pike. Like I said with Wino, Matt Pike is one of the most overlooked guitarists in all of metal. See: High on Fire.



It's like Elmore James learned how to play metal.

Now we can't talk about stoner metal without talking about their California counterparts, Kyuss.



If "Sleep's Holy Mountain" was the album that Black Sabbath never made, Kyuss is like Alice Cooper's pissed off, pot smoking little brother. The emphasis is still on simple, fuzzy riffs, but this is not dragon slaying music. This is for getting in your car and driving down miles and miles of desolate desert road. The quartet of guitarist Josh Homme, drummer Brant Bjork, vocalist John Garcia and bassist Nick Oliveri only made two albums, but it was more than enough to make an impact.

To me, what stands out about Kyuss is it's cymbal heavy drumming which would eventually become another characteristic of the genre. Most metal bands are about the pounding double bass, but the emphasis on the cymbal adds to the characteristic fuzz of stoner metal.



Doors-esque tripped out guitar solos, Black Sabbathy riffs, and rough unpolished vocals. This my friends is why we so proudly listen to this style of metal. It's funky. It's bluesy. It's evil. It's trippy. It provides some serious rocking in bulk supply. And for stoner metal, you don't have to wander too far from the these California powerhouses. Enjoy!



Today's Command Image: Commander Riker (you knew it was coming)

Battlestar Galatica or the week of death

So here in moving, things are finally settling down and I would greatly like to apologize to my partner and brother for taking so long to post something here in our refuge called Lack of Command.

In settling here in NY, I've learned to harness the word swear words with eloquence in my daily speech. And while I'm not as comfortable enough to stretch my legs anywhere on the east coast yet, I hold on to the hope that I'll get there some day. But in any case, that's how I would describe my travels halfway around the world: cramped. My time, my energy, my mind and body are cramped.

So, on to Europe. Europe was pleasant enough I suppose. I spent most of the trip drinking or stabbing my notebook wildly with my pen writing out whatever came to my head. But seeing ancient civilizations fascinate me. The more I learn about history, the more I can see around the corner. Also, the heat and the little coffee's get on my nerves.

Back in Pueblo. The less said about the good and the bad there, the more sacred I feel that it will remain.

And back again to New York. Back to work with Richard.

So what a crazy week it has been ladies and gentlemen. The stars are certainly falling. Iran was in upheaval. A governor with a lot of, shall we say, frequent flyer miles. But celebrity deaths seem to hit people the hardest. The biggest of course is Michael Jackson. I won't say much on the subject, but what I will say is that when one is born into fame, one can feel trapped for the rest of his life. That dude could dance though. My jaw still drops when I see him moonwalk.

But what I really want to talk to you folks about is a little show that I've been trying to plow through called Battlestar Galatica. I've just made it to the third season, but I feel I've garnered enough of it to get a real feel for the show. But, before I begin, I was recommended this show by people who I trust and immdiately compared to the Wire.

That is not the case.

Battlestar Galatica is good. But only Sci-fi good. And while it does delve into issues that are more real than we might want to admit (politics, war, religion, etc), one still feels to be stifiled by it's own limitations. It's concept is absolutely addicting. It's execution is commendable (handheld space battles, Russell like). Edward James Olmos excels in his performance.

I have three complaints: The Frak. The Fuck. The Feel.

The Frak needs no explination. I hate it. So many great scenes are completely ruined by this nonsense replacement swearing. I understand it's a throwback to the old show, but out of all the things to old to from the old show, why that? It's so daycare of them. Russell's philosophy on swearing: do it or don't.

The Fuck. There is a lot of sex in this show. Like a whole lot. Now I understand that those who watch Battlestar Galatica (particularly males) could use the jerking material, but I think we should leave that to Star Trek: Deep Space Nine.

The Feel. Now what do I mean by that? I mean that I don't feel for any of the characters. I'm intrigued to what's going to happen, but none of the characters really grab you. They talk a lot about the struggle of humanity, but I don't get the sense that these characters get a chance to show theirs. I'm not saying it's missing entirely, but because of the complexity of the story, they rush the plot over the characters. Plot only enhances characters. Not the other way around, so when we find out that someone's a robot (in some cases with characters who we just met), I can really care less because I have to throw out anything I knew about them. All I'm saying is that they got it backwards. They flung us into this world and no one to really guide us through the process. It's a major problem. Even the most formulaic sitcoms force you to like the characters. But this show never gets there.

So bottom line. Good. Not great. But interesting enough. I might keep watching, but I might just wait for season 3 of Mad Men.

Okay. Finally got that out of my system.


Command Image: Mac Command (in celebration of Richards new computer)