While driving I've been enjoying an immense array of music I wouldn't have heard otherwise. Before I began driving, I didn't have large amounts of time to devote to the radio, and spent most of my music listening time with my mp3s and CDs. Anything someone would toss my way might make it into my rotation, but otherwise, I was adrift on a musical raft with only 50Gigs of music. That is until I purchased a car with no CD player, not even a tape deck. Road trip? I don't even own an iPod!
Imagine my surprise today when listening to a song I'd heard countless times in the last few months--the chorus to which is "Is there anyone out there, 'cause it's getting harder and harder to breathe?"--and I realize it's
not about global warming or pollution. Like most songs, it's about getting laid. Or punishing someone you used to lay for breaking up with you. Or something along those lines. I really have no idea what he's singing, actually, and the chorus makes no sense within the context of the rest of the song.
( Lyrics are here if you really want to know. )Damnit, I think.
Why can't there be any decent rock songs about politics, the environment, or social issues facing us? And what does "harder to breathe" have to do with the rest of the song? It doesn't help that just as I'm thinking this, a semi in front of me belches out a cloud of black smoke that wafts into my car's A/C and yes, it was getting harder to breathe.
But I still wonder, if Sting or Tracy Chapman don't write something, where are the rocking songs that have more substance than fucking, not fucking, wishing to fuck, not getting to fuck anymore, being fucked, or being a fuck-face? I mean really, do we really need to hear about Amy's petulant refusal to go to rehab and enjoying her Daddy's stares? (BTW, she's spending her honeymoon with "Daddy" in rehab. Cute, ain't it? What a story for the grandkids!) The only song out there that speaks to socio-political issues on the main stations that isn't a fucking song I mistook for something more, is one I take issue with. The song of which I speak? "Waiting on the World to Change" by John Mayer.
It seems a simple song. I started to like it before I really paid attention. It reminds me of the last several years where everyone
talked (and continues to talk) about what's wrong with the country, but
doesn't do a gods-damned thing to stop it. Much like the weak-willed Democrats that are cow-towing to Republican pressure.
( Waiting Lyrics here )Ah, thank you Little Red Hen for teaching me something long ago ...
In principle, I agree with Mayer. There are a lot of corrupt people in power. Many of us in this and younger generations don't have the resources or power to make major world shifts, especially when the world is currently run by multinational corporations who change laws to suit themselves. Now, we could argue for decades about what companies and members of the ruling class are doing to help the environment. The Bill & Linda Gates Foundation does its share, as do a variety of former politicians like Clinton & Gore. Ok, ok. I acknowledge this. But it's not a majority.
Most companies--most
monopolies--don't really work to improve the nation or the world. And while I'd like to think that waiting around for the people in power to age, become senile, and die, it doesn't seem like the best strategy, when you realize there are members of every generation willing to be and stay corrupt. People raised as "god warriors" to fight improvements on social and welfare services. People who were brought up to embody the "greed is good" motto. Waiting around for the people currently in power to kick the bucket will never allow those of us with a great desire to help the world ever become powerful ourselves.
If we don't find inventive ways (hopefully non-violent) to disempower those who keep the status quo, to put ourselves into positions that allow us to act in favor of supporting our world and its people, then the dominant paradigm will continue on its present course, only changing direction when others wish it.
I would like to believe that letter and leaflet campaigns work, but they usually only preach to the choir. I would like to believe that demonstrations and marches are recognized, but governments ignore such displays and the media won't cover them. I would like to believe we could blame just one president, one administration, or even a handful of companies, but we are ALL responsible for what happens to this country, to this planet, and to each other.
To quote a program on the Discovery Channel, "We are all China." We are all connected. What we do to one nation, we do to the world. When we cause a species to become extinct, an entire ecosystem falls. When we invade a country on false pretenses and against a national majority's better judgment and
stay there after continued, sane arguments against it, we create lasting impressions on the people of the world that will cast shame upon us for generations.
What can we do? What creativity can spark us? Where are our bards when we need them? We have no Dylan, Joplin, or Hendrix to kick start us into action. If every soldier in Iraq said, "this is madness," laid down their guns, and refused to fight, what could Bush do? If everyone in the nation agreed to stop buying X product until the company stopped doing Y, they could make change. The problem here is organization. We are so programmed to believe in the modern day that working on a long-term solution together for any significant length of time is too difficult and risks our daily life's security that we don't do anything at all. What do we do? We march and protest only to be ignored and have people walk off mid-way. We loosely collect, not having a shared focus or goal, and end up fizzling out. We send out emails stating that today we're not buying gas or oil, and even those who receive such emails and agree with them don't necessarily follow their terms.
If we could get a noticeable majority of the people to take any action of these kinds, to agree to an organized protest of such magnitude that it stops the way certain aspects of a company or a government functions,
then change will occur. And yes, we all must expect retaliation. As we've seen in countless examples of video footage over the last century, even peaceful protests, if successful in any monumental fashion, spark anger in those who wish the world to remain the same. To take on a task such as national or global change, we all must be ready for reactions and sacrifice.
Imagine if all of the U.S. troops in Iraq
did lay down their weapons, is it not likely that the Bush administration would use its larger number of mercenary forces to arrest the protesters? And how then would we react? I do not have the answer. But pushing is necessary, change is necessary. We must as a species evolve if we are to survive, and at the rate we're destroying our planet due to political and corporate interests, as well as simply existing in such vast numbers as we do, we may soon be extinct ourselves.
We are social, tool wielding creatures who have poorly handled what we have been given and what we since have fashioned for ourselves. If we do not evolve our social policies, we cannot make the advances we need to halt the long-term destruction awaiting us. To say one is separate from the other shows a lack of foresight. As the bumper sticker says, "if you're not outraged, you're not paying attention." And if you're just waiting for the world to change before taking action, you're not going to like the outcome.