Christkillah’s Consumer Guide

posted by Gatemouth
Wed, 08/30/2006 - 8:37am

DUD OF THE MONTH

Chris Owens: Love Is The Way (Loser Single ’06). This is clearly aimed at a crossover market which may not exist. The rap elements lack serious street cred, leading to charges of fakin’ da funk (which is admittedly better than fakin’ da diploma), while the reggae elements might seem more at home on a Belafonte record. The Kansas/Styx type organ clearly makes one wonder if the man has any understanding of the white crossover elements he seeks to attract. Still, the boy can sing and he sings his heart out. Says Azi: "he's probably the best singing politician since...Gifford Miller and Joseph Crowley (Sorry Patrick Jenkins.)", begging the question, "what about John Hall?" Well, having attended Hall's recent concert at Town Hall, I'd give the nod to Owens. As to the message, it’s all in the title. The solution to all the world’s problems is “Love”. One wonders if Mr. Owens has ever visited the matrimonial part of Brooklyn Supreme Court. Maybe he should ask his dad. And, even if one restricts the prescription purely to matter of foreign policy, it seems a mite simplistic. As the Israelis might query concerning Hezbollah, “what if my love is unrequited?” But Chris Owens is not where one goes for nuance. He is clearly a Quaker who's feeling his oats; he will not settle for the troops coming home tomorrow; only today will do. Me, I’d settle for sometime next week. B-

A NOTE TO READERS: An "anonymous coward" on Daily Gotham did first make the observation about the organ; acknowledging this non-existent person while staying in character as "the Dean of Rock Critics" proved far more difficult than the trouble it was worth, and the joke which resulted from the observation seemed so choice, that I finally just gave up and hoped folks who noticed the lift would take it as part of the same inside joke this entire post comprises. Mea culpa, mea culpa maxima!

AFTERTHOUGHTS: CHRIS OWENS AND THE MORAL BANKRUPCY OF PACIFISM

I've dedicated an awful lot of prose to the "Peter Beinart Democrat" stuff. Chris Owens usually gets a passing mention in these pieces, but, my real interest lies elsewhere. I certainly didn't spend all this time talking about the soul of the Democratic Party merely as a means of going after Chris Owens. I really believe this stuff, and being serious about it, I've put my principles into practice, and, being a Brooklyn guy who believes in thinking globally and acting locally, that means going after Owens.

Although I find many of Chris' opinions on domestic issues muddleheaded (his proposal for "reform" of the Democratic Party, his support of 45 different amendments to the US constitution) and sometimes even mildly offensive (his good cop/bad cop race bait game with his daddy), my main problem with Owens is his worldview. If he's not a pacifist, then let him come out and say so; I think he is because there's seemingly no other way to interpret either his song or his statements about foreign policy and defense. Unlike many other pols, I think Owens deserves the presumption that he actually believes the stuff he says.

Is Owens being a Quaker relevant to this discussion? There should be no religious test for public office, just an issues test. As I've stated in the past, I believe that all pacifists are morally unfit to hold a seat in Congress (the State Legislature or City Council would not bother me in the least) for their views on war and peace would prevent us from fighting in all wars, whether unjust or just. Surely extremism in the fight against genocide is no vice, and acquiesance to such evil is no virtue. And anyone who disagrees with me is welcome to step outside. It's not necessarily morally inconsistent to support certain military actions and oppose others. Pacifists can be consistent; for those of us who are not pacifists, nuance is the only alternative to moral reprehensibility. I supported Clinton's commitment of military force in Bosnia and Kosovo; I support Bush's commitment of force in Afghanistan. I oppose the war in Iraq. I would like to postpone to a later date making a decision concerning where I stand on Iran (preferably forever). One may disagree with all, none or several of my stances, but I am not fence straddling by making distinctions. Do I need to support all military actions to support any? I dare say, that would make me a monster.

But, not every pacifist is a Quaker, and not every Quaker is a pacifist; Richard Nixon was a Quaker, but no pacifist (although he was, for different reasons, morally unfit for public office). But, sad to say, if someone professes to embrace a religion which is pacifistic, it is legitimate to ask them if their political beliefs are affected by the doctrines of their religion. No one objects when Orthodox Jews are asked to clarify their opinions on sexual orientation anti-discrimination efforts, freedom of choice or tuition tax credits; I certainly make sure to ask them such questions

I've been asking for months on this blog for Chris Owens to answer whether he'd ever support the use of force for any reason. So far he's not answered in print. Seemingly, however, he has answered in song. With most politicians, I worry that they'll betray their principles, or, sometimes, that they have no principles to betray. I do not have this problem with Chris Owens on foreign policy (elsewhere, he is sometimes capable of duplicity, but no worse than what is the acceptable norm). It's just that his worldview makes for wonderful summer camp sing-alongs, but in the real world, is usually idiocy when dealing with genocidal maniacs and terrorists.

Alternate Title:

Submitted by Gate (not verified) on Wed, 08/30/2006 - 9:19am.

Chris-killah's Consumer Guide

reply | email this comment

Christkillah’s Consumer

Submitted by Advocate (not verified) on Wed, 08/30/2006 - 11:31am.

Forgive me, Gatey, but I don't understand why you are so passionately against Chris Owens. Even if you are offended by his comments regarding Israel, Hezballah, and Lebanon, they are certainly within the parameters of discussion on this issue currently going on in Israel. You also disagree with his position on withdrawal of our troops in Iraq. On both of these issues, I would take a different approach than Owens. There are many other important issues. Is your beef personal?

reply | email this comment

Christkillah’s Consumer

Submitted by Advocate (not verified) on Wed, 08/30/2006 - 11:31am.

reply | email this comment

Christkillah’s Consumer

Submitted by Gate (not verified) on Wed, 08/30/2006 - 11:54am.

Sorry, the target was just too tempting. But, since you asked, if any of his opponents had the balls to record a song, I'd review it too (and probably give it a lower grade).

reply | email this comment

Christkillah’s Consumer

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 08/30/2006 - 5:06pm.

Gate - plagarizing the comment of an anonymous coward on the daily gotham? Next we'll have to ask to see your degree...

FROM DAILY GOTHAM:

Great comment above -- I

Submitted by Anonymous Coward (not verified) on Tue, 2006-08-29 18:11.

Great comment above -- I agree. He has heart and has no fear. If he could just tone down that Kansas/Styx sounding organ the tune would rock a little more. I liked it just the same. He's got my vote.

reply | email this comment | quote

reply | email this comment

Busted

Submitted by Gate (not verified) on Wed, 08/30/2006 - 6:04pm.

Prob should have given credit (if there was credit to give), but like so much else in this post, it was a cute inside reference for those who would get it. It's not like I didn't think folks wouldn't see the lift; the same six people visit both sites.

reply | email this comment

Christkillah’s Consumer

Submitted by Gate (not verified) on Wed, 08/30/2006 - 6:05pm.

And, you will notice that I did credit Azi

reply | email this comment

Christkillah’s Consumer

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Wed, 08/30/2006 - 7:43pm.

"It's not like I didn't think folks wouldn't see the lift; the same six people visit both sites."

Point taken :-).

reply | email this comment

Wha?

Submitted by Bouldin (not verified) on Thu, 08/31/2006 - 3:30pm.

Do you just hate the black people who have the poor taste to run against Jews, Gatemouth, or is there something else going on here other than that Chris is an uppity Shvartzer?

A part of me thinks that your obvious Chris-focused pathology stems from resentment of his mother's conversion from Judaism - not least because you've mentioned her in several posts (for example, in the one in which you alleged that Chris was smearing Yassky with 'blood libel') and now allude to his parents' divorce, and throw in the man's religion for good measure.

I don't know; is your motive an unspoken belief that the child of a convert has some innate animosity to the Jewish state and Jewish interests? Are you visiting the punishment you seem to feel the mother deserves on her son? Is that what this months-long smear campaign - "Christkillah" indeed - is all about?

And what would the reaction be if anyone pontificated on David's marriage and religious beliefs, especially in this charged contest? Even bloggers deeply hostile to him have stayed away from both subjects, and rightly so - isn't it time you showed the same simple good taste? Or how much longer will this hate-fueled vendetta continue?

I'm sorry, but your feud with Chris Owens has all the markings of something twisted and dark. There is simply no logical reason for any of this - as the commenter above notes - so I am beginning to believe that the roots lie deeper, in something of a reversed, projected Oedipus complex, where you hate another man's mother.

Deeply, deeply disturbing, that.

reply | email this comment

Christkillah’s Consumer

Submitted by Gate (not verified) on Thu, 08/31/2006 - 4:13pm.

"Christgau's" Consumer Guide is a well known column of Rock criticism; this was a parody, written in a close approximation of his style. I could understand your vehement reaction to some earlier pieces, but this one was pretty goofy, and not particularly harsh. I really couldn't care less whether Chris is a Jew or not, and don't hold family conversion against him anymore than I did against John Kerry (who I supported in both the primary and general) or Madeline Alllbright. I do care that Owens is a pacifist, because I think any pacifist is morally unfit to serve in the congress of our country where he will voting on matters of war and peace. Pacifism as foriegn policy would have doomed millions of Bonians and Kossovars to genocidal slaughter. Chris's answer is love is the way. Well, sometimes it ain't. Sorry that's too fuckin harsh for you.

reply | email this comment

Yaaaah right

Submitted by Bouldin (not verified) on Thu, 08/31/2006 - 7:53pm.

I am so not buying it.

Your problem is with the pacifism you claim Chris embraces? Is that why you've said for months that he's a Jew-hating anti-Semite who wants Israel destroyed? Is that why this post is oh-so-subtly-parodically titled "Christkillah"? A months-long orgy of dishonest vindictiveness is predicated on your dislike of a philosophy you assume someone embraces, even if you know that as little as I do? And are you trying to say that Quakers need to be barred from public office? If so, how is that not rank religious bigotry? Sure, let's oppress religious minorities that we claim are harmful to national security - starting with Jonathan Pollard, the traitor.

Bullshit. I'll believe that when I hear you say a peep about Jessica Flagg. Or Jonathan Tasini. Here's a fun quote from Jessica: "...Right now my life is taken up by politics and how to manifest the spiritual values of an enlightened civilization so that we don't destroy each other and the planet through our excessive materialism...". She's even running against a pro-war, pro-Israel Jewish hawk, Eliot Engel - but not a word.

Sorry, but I'm not convinced this is anything more than an attempt to stop the shvartz offpring of a recusant. And if it is, this is the first time I've seen this express argument amidst a flood of attacks.

reply | email this comment

Yaaa Right

Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 08/31/2006 - 9:47pm.

Yes, Gatey, your bias is quite aparent. You can't write objectively about Chris Owens even if you tried. You need to drop the topic.

About a year ago, I received a telephone call from someone who identified himself as having some time of (employment?) relationship with a Brooklyn elected official (I don't remember which one). For some reason, he wanted me to help him to publicize his church. Since his last name was Yassky, I asked if he was related to David. He reluctantly replied that he was.

Would you hold this against David Yassky? If not, why not, considering that you're going after Chris Owens? Or do you agree with me that the issue should be irrelevant?

reply | email this comment

Christkillah’s Consumer

Submitted by Gate (not verified) on Thu, 08/31/2006 - 9:49pm.

Woah, Michael. I have written about Tasini, and it wasn't all that kind. I haven't written about Flagg, because she barely registers on my radar screen; I am, after all, a Brooklyn guy, and frankly, she'd barely register if I lived in Rivedale. Plus, both Tasini and Flagg don't even have a theorectical chance of winning. I've admired your work on Tasini, and have echoed your points that his race is a waste of blood and treasure. Flagg isn't even worth that effort, although today, while perusing a list of races to see if there was anything worth writing about which I'd missed, I made a note to myself to give Engel a favorable plug in service to the cause of vanquishing Michael Morre Democrats wherever they raise their heads (unless they are our nominees in November, or are pretty certain of being our nominees in November).

As to your accusations. You know very well I'm no Likudnik. You also know I'll lose no sleep if Joanthan Pollard dies in prison. You are further aware that I've dedcated an awful lot of prose to the "Peter Beinart Democrat" stuff. Chris usually gets a passing mention, but, my real interest lies elsewhere. I certainly didn't spend all this time talking about the soul of the Democratic Party merely as a means of going after Chris Owens. I really believe this stuff, and you know it, and, being serious about it, I've put my principles into practice, and, being a Brooklyn guy who believes in thinking globally and acting locally, that means going after Owens. Although I find many of Chris' opinions on domestic issues muddleheaded (his proposal for "reform" of the Democratic Party, his support of 45 different amendments to the US constitution) and sometimes even mildly offensive (his good cop/bad cop race bait game with his daddy), my main problem with Owens is his worldview. If he's not a pacifist, then let him come out and say so; I think he is because there's seeemingly no other way to interpret either his song or his statements about foriegn policy and defense. Unlike many other pols, I think Owens deserves the presumption that he actually believes the stuff he says.

And you're right, there should be no religious test for public office. Just an issues test. As I've stated I believe that all pacifists are morally unfit to hold a seat in Congress (the State Legislature or City Council would not bother me in the least); not every pacifist is a Quaker, and not every Quaker is a pacifist; Richard Nixon was a Quaker, but no pacifist (although he was, for different reason morally unfit for public office). And, sorry Michael, but if someone professes to embrace a religion which is pacifistic, it is legitmate to ask if one's political beliefs are affected by that. No one objects when Orthodox Jews are asked to clarify their opinion of sexual orientation anti-discrimination efforts; I certainly make sure to ask them such questions. I've been asking for months on this blog for Chris Owens to answer whether he'd ever support the use of force for any reason. So far he's not answered in print. Seemingly, however, he has answered in song.

With most politicians, I worry that they'll betray their principles, or, sometiimes, that they have no principles to betray. I do not have this problem with Chris Owens on foriegn policy (elsewhere, he is sometimes capable of duplicity, but no worse than what is the accepatable norm). It's just that his worldview makes for wonderful summer camp sing-alongs, but in the real world, is usual idiocy for genocidal maniacs and terrorists.

reply | email this comment

bally bingo

Submitted by asheville bingo games (not verified) on Fri, 03/21/2008 - 6:40pm.