Lou Reed and the art of being bad

Whenever a popular culture icon dies, we're all supposed to stop and take notice. Even if the popular culture icon was not very popular.

Lou Reed died last Sunday, and so now the people who we have given the job of telling us who is popular are telling us that Lou Reed was popular even though he demonstrably wasn't.

Lou Reed was never popular, however much the idea of Lou Reed was.

Lou Reed, in case you didn't know, was a rock 'n roll star. His most famous song was "Take a Walk on the Wild Side." It was also his best song, as measured in relative terms by all his other songs, most of which were much worse.

He started out his musical career with the band the Velvet Underground, a cult band whose popularity defied, ... well, their popularity. The people who have heard of the Velvet Underground far exceeds the people who have actually heard the Velvet Underground, which for these latter people is (probably unbeknownst to them) a good thing. Its members wore black leather, played long interminable songs about sex and drugs, and generally made a cultural nuisance of themselves.

Reed himself played guitar only passably, and sang mostly off key. He said he learned to play the guitar from listening to the radio. I think we can safely assume the the radio from which her learned to sing and play didn't have very good reception.

Since he was not very good, his mourners have had to resort to saying things like, "He was prophetic," although exactly why he was prophetic or what he was prophetic of remains a mystery.

Reed's publicist Bill Bentley claims that the reason no major label would sign the Velvet Underground was because their songs were seven minutes long, rather than three. Maybe. On the other hand, maybe they couldn't get signed because they stunk--not that I would have complained if we could have subtracted four minutes of bad music from the world.

Lou Reed was a musician we were all supposed to like. Which accounts for all of the Twitter eulogies coming from celebrities, most of whom probably never heard more than a song or two from him, if that, but know that it's just one of the things you're expected to say to be thought fashionable in the world they inhabit--a world that, unfortunately inhabits many of us.

I mean, Miley Cyrus (who tweeted, on Reed's death, "noooooooooo notttttttttt LOU REED")? Really? She probably thinks her music is good too.

Reed once said of his album Metal Machine Music, which even his admirers admitted was really bad, "No one is supposed to be able to do a thing like that and survive." But he underestimated the bad taste of his admirers and the depths to which they would descend in order to retain their avante garde cultural status.

Oh, and, by the way, in case you did't notice, he didn't survive after all. That's why we're talking about him right now.

Or maybe it wasn't just bad taste. No. He was one of those cultural heroes who gets more popular the worse he is. Badness is a quality greatly valued by those who those who don't have any real aesthetic standards think have them. They can't do it themselves quite as well and admire anyone who can. If you can sing badly, write bad songs, flaunt your homosexuality (at a time when it is not celebrated like it is now), take drugs and write songs about how good it is and get away with it all, then you can take the final step to pop cultural apotheosis and insult the people who admire you for doing it.

That's what really throws them into an ecstatic frenzy. Just look at the life of J. D. Salinger.

Terry Gross, host of NPR's "Fresh Air" did an adulatory show on Reed earlier this week. She admitted that she had no past recordings of Reed on her show because the one time he was scheduled to be her guest, he walked off after several minutes because he didn't like her questions. Gross said the incident did not detract from her admiration for his music, but you've got to know it probably only increased it (something other than the music itself just has to account for anyone's admiration of it). Such is the masochistic tendency of those R. Emmett Tyrrell once termed the "chi chi intelligentsia."

Ah, yes. Masochism. Did I mention that the title of Lou Reed's biography was Please Kill Me?

Lou Reed wasn't nice to people and said and did a bunch of bad things, including being rude and selfish, walking out of interviews, and once held a gun to his military superior's head (for which he got kicked out of ROTC at Syracuse University).

But, said one of his cultural entourage, that was "just Lou."

Here is an excerpt from Terry Gross' interview with Mary Woronov, who did the "whip dance" in the "Exploding Plastic Inevitable," a series of multimedia musical performances thought up by Andy Warhol, featuring the Velvet Underground in the late 1960s (And, by the way, were the 1960s really necessary?):

There was tremendous antagonism between New York and L.A. L. A. was, you know, um, full of color, full of acid, full of hippies, and we were not like that.

No way. They (Mary Woronov and her friends) had, you know, standards. They were, um ...

... dressed in black and white, uh, we did not like free love, we liked, uh, S&M, real, uh, restraint, uh, perversion too, um, we took amphetamines. We took LSD, They were, you know, sort of loving and happy, and, uh, we weren't, uh, really evil, we were more intellectual, more about art.

Mmhmm. Intellectual. About art. I think I see the problem now.

In his interview with Terry Gross, Bentley says that Reed was "tortured." She could have pointed out that, if you want to talk about being tortured, you should try to listen to Reed's music. But it apparently didn't occur to her.

But being tortured is also a good thing to be if you aspire to occupy a spot in the pop cultural pantheon. They said this about Johnny Cash too--who, if he hadn't been a "tortured soul," would have been way too Christian to have gotten any attention from those who tell us who we should give attention to. Of course Cash was, by his own account, tortured by the Devil. Reed didn't need the Devil to torture him: He had himself.

I hope he found some kind of peace in the end. Death isn't the kind of place you want to be walking on the wild side of.

Obamacare website Hell

A lady describes her experience signing up online:

...I tried again, was able to get on and was then told that I needed to authenticate my identity.  I was asked several questions such as “What town did you live in when you lived on Pinewood?”  Three of the four questions, while going back 18 years ago, were reasonable and I was able to answer.  Then we came to a fourth question – “In the past you purchased veterinary insurance for your pet…What was the name of the pet?”  I answered “none of the above” because I NEVER purchased health insurance for my pet(s).  Since I answered “none of the above” I was given another question…”What was your former telephone number?”  All the answers were for area code 803.  I never lived in area code 803 and had to look it up on the internet.  I never lived in the state.  So…I could go no further.  I called the Center and they told me that they were having systems issues and to try back.

Read the rest here.

Jake Payne, Constitutional scholar

Jake Payne at Page One, Kentucky criticized U. S. Senate candidate Matt Bevin today for not knowing "the difference between the Bill of Rights and the Constitution."

Huh?

The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. It consists of the first ten amendments to it. The amendments to a document are part of the document. Otherwise, what are they amending?

Jake says Bevin "was clearly educated in one of Kentucky’s unfortunate school districts." It would be interesting to know which school Jake went to that taught him that the Bill of Rights was not part of the Constitution.

PRESS RELEASE: United Way of the Bluegrass pulls support from Boy Scouts

LEXINGTON, KY—The Family Foundation today said the United Way of the Bluegrass should be engaging in charity, not politics. The group responded to reports that the United Way was pulling funding of the local chapter of the Boys Scouts because of the organization's policy against hiring gay scoutmasters.

"This is the first time to our knowledge that the United Way of the Bluegrass has targeted a group for persecution because it didn't hold a particular political position," said Martin Cothran, spokesman for The Family Foundation.

The group said it was trying to find out if the action was taken unilaterally by United Way's president, Bill Farmer, or whether the United Way board voted on the action. "If this was a board decision, we would like to know which of the local banks and insurance agencies and computer companies who are represented on their board want the Boy Scouts de-funded." Cothran said his group will try to determine how the decision was made and by whom.

"The United Way should be a politically non-partisan organization," said Cothran. "Now it seems to be moving in a more political direction. Instead of trying to intimidate the nonprofit organizations it supports into following its increasingly liberal political agenda, it should be trying to help its member groups. This is a disservice to the community and we think it hurts United Way's credibility."

Cothran said his group is urging United Way donors to send the money they would otherwise give the United Way to the local chapter of the Boy Scouts of America instead. "That way it will go to help children, not support liberal political causes."

###

Bureau for Better Atheists issues advisory on Jerry Coyne

Once again, we here at the Bureau for Better Atheists (BBA) are having to set aside our other important work (such as trying to find Richard Dawkins a competent barber) to deal with Jerry Coyne.

As we have mentioned before, the BBA is devoted to improving the quality of atheists by dealing with a problem that is reaching crisis proportions: the increasing intellectual deterioration of atheists. An increasing number of atheists are questioning basic historical facts and setting out in the apparently unfamiliar terrain of philosophy.

Our file on Coyne, a prominent evolutionary biologist, now occupies a whole cabinet. In fact, we are thinking of hiring a full-time staff member devoted solely to Coyniana. It is atheists like Coyne who make opposition to atheism that much more tedious and unchallenging.

Anyway, Coyne is now contesting the idea that religion had a prominent role in the rise and development of science. This is just one of the eccentric views being promulgated by modern atheists who either a) don't know the history of science; b) have issues with truth generally; or c) are functionally illiterate.

Coyne says:

All progress in science, whether ancient or modern, came from ignoring or rejecting the idea of divine intervention. Even if theories were inspired by thoughts of God, they were substantiated or disproven by tacitly assuming a godless universe—that is, by employing methodological naturalism. 

Ah, methodological naturalism. Does he mean the methodological naturalism that originated in the 12th century with Adelard of Bath, who believed that reason did not in any way conflict with Christian faith? That methodological naturalism? If you want to maintain the discredited theory of the inherent conflict between religion and science, it's probably not a good idea to use an idea developed by someone who completely disagreed with that theory.

Coyne continues:

Religion has of course also repressed the search for knowledge. Not only do we have the cases of Galileo and Bruno, but also the active discouragement of the use of reason by many church fathers, especially Martin Luther, who made statements like this: “Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has; it never comes to the aid of spiritual things, but more frequently than not struggles against the divine Word, treating with contempt all that emanates from God.” And freethinkers like Spinoza were regularly persecuted by religion (Judaism in his case.)

Yes, and governments have repressed knowledge. Is government, then, inherently anti-science? And what about males? Most of those who have repressed science have been males. What is it about these males that makes them so anti-science? In fact, now that I think about it, human beings seem to be the culprits. Have you ever noticed how many of the people who have hampered the progress of science are human beings?

And since when is Martin Luther a "church father"? I don't know anyone, including Luther fans, who call him a "church father." "Protestant reformer" yes, but no one even remotely familiar with history calls Luther a "church father."

In addition, Coyne apparently forget (or never knew) that both Galileo and Bruno were Christians. And why is the Church how tried to hold Galileo to the standards of proof a bad guy? Galileo didn't have adequate proof of his theory (which wasn't completely correct anyway, since it presumed the circular orbit of planets, which Kepler had already shown to be false, among other things). The Church (which Galileo was a voluntarily member of) didn't allow Galileo to assert that his theory was true because he hadn't proved it. The Church had no problem with the propagation of Copernicus' theory as a possible explanation of the data and, in fact, most of the Church was accepting of some heliocentric view.

He goes on:

The major achievements of science, including relativity, evolution, and modern molecular biology, were achieved by non-theists.

I have only one thing to say: Gregor Mendel (Augustinian friar. Mendelian genetics named after. Salvaged evolutionary theory from sole reliance on natural selection. Check it out.)

Joseph Pearce coming to Louisville this weekend

One of the best Catholic writers now writing is coming to Louisville for a conference this weekend at Immaculata Academy. Here are the specs from Immaculata:

Please join us for an upcoming conference with guest speaker Joseph Pearce! Mr. Pearce is an world-renown author and speaker on Catholicism, literature, education, and other related topics. He will speak on Education and Catholic Culture at our first Immaculata Conference on Friday evening, October 25th and Saturday evening, on the 26th.

The title of the conference is, "Reclaiming Catholic Culture: A Focus on the Family and Education." As part of an ongoing service to the wider community, this free event is hosted and sponsred by Immaculata Classical Academy and WLCR 1040AM Holy Family Radio.

The conference begins on Friday, October 25th from 7:00 — 8:30 pm with an opening talk entitled: "Reclaiming Catholic Culture: The Battle Begins in the Home." The conference continues on Saturday morning, October 26th from 9:00—12:00 pm with two talks entitled, "The Catholic Cultural Revival: Teaching our Children their Cultural Hertitage"; "A Matter of Life and Death: The Battle for True Education."

I will be on "Pure Politics" tonight at 7:00 p.m.

I will be on CN2's "Pure Politics" tonight at 7:00 p.m. and again at 11:30 p.m. The panel discussion/debate is on the issue of religion and politics. Guests are me, State Sen. and Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Whitney Westerfield, and Edwin Kagan, representing American Athiests.

Everything you know about prohibition is wrong. Well, almost

Anthony Esolen on prohibition:

In October, 1919, a heavily “progressive” Congress passed the Volstead Act enforcing the Eighteenth Amendment, prohibiting, for almost all purposes, the production, sale, and distribution of alcoholic beverages. There are two things everybody has learned from Prohibition. First, it is wrong to try to legislate morality. Second, you cannot do it, for Prohibition failed. But neither of these things is true, and the real lessons of Prohibition go unheeded.

Read the rest here.

KY track attorneys go both ways on Instant Racing

I am quoted in a Louisville Courier-Journal story today about attorneys for Kentucky Downs, a horse-racing track, who can't seem to decide whether Instant Racing is legal or not. Or at least the

FRANKLIN, KY. — In a high-profile case before the Kentucky Supreme Court, Kentucky Downs — the state’s first track to offer the Instant Racing game that looks like a slot machine — has argued that it is the same as a bet on a live horse race, and just as legal. 

But a month later, Kentucky Downs argued in a different case in Simpson Circuit Court that Instant Racing is alternative gambling — a phrase used to describe slots and other casino games that are currently illegal in Kentucky.

Maybe it comes down to money. Just speculating here. Read the rest here.

National merit scholars at Highlands Latin School

This just in ...

Three out of thirteen Highlands Latin seniors were recognized as National Merit Scholars. Maggie Collum and John Sweeney were recognized as National Merit Semi-Finalists and Jackson Walter was recognized as a National Merit Commended student. 

Nationally, less than one and one half percent of college bound seniors are recognized as National Merit Scholars.  At Highlands Latin, 23% of seniors and 20% of all HLS graduates since 2005 have been National Merit Scholars, the highest percentage of any school in Louisville. 

Highlands Latin offers a classical, Christian education for students in K-12 in a unique 4-day schedule.  Find out why HLS students achieve such great academic success our our Open House on Sunday, November 10th.

Read more about Highlands Latin School here.

Richard Day: Opposition to science standards a plot by coal companies

I posted a comment on the most recent silliness coming from Richard Day's blog, where anti-religious conspiracy theories take the place of rational arguments. Richard's most recent fantasy involves The Family Foundation taking coal money to advocate against climate change.

Seriously.

Maybe, as I point out my response, which I have included below, that is why I have publicly opposed mountain-top removal.

These are the people who are going to be teaching your children "critical thinking skills."

I'm not sure quite what Richard means when he says that I will "go with whatever argument gets [me] movement." Is he saying that I try to use the best arguments for my position? If so, I'm fail to understand what the problem with that is. Is he implying that I use arguments that I don't believe in myself? If so, he's questioning my motives. 

When you start questioning people's motives, it usually means you don't have much in the way of arguments. You owe it to your opponent in an argument to refute his best arguments, not his worst motives. 

The problem with Richard and some of his readers is that they can't seem to answer the main argument I presented, which is that the standards are weak on content knowledge (which they are). Instead, they launch off into speculation about my being a closet creationist (which I'm not) and go off into spinning conspiracy theories about me wanting to foist my religion on everyone. 

Richard and his followers don't have a shred of evidence for this, so they have to manufacture things. 

For example: that The Family Foundation of Kentucky's "new interest" in the climate change issue (the only comment in regard to which I can even remember being the two or three paragraphs in that one op ed) is due to "donations from pro-coal interests." 

This is absolutely false. In fact, it's pretty close to a smear. But that was conspiracy theorists do: they charge their opponents with things that they don't have a shred of proof for that make them feel comfortable in their own ignorance. Charges like this are not only reckless, they are ethically questionable and they don't belong in a civilized exchange of beliefs. 

And besides, how does this charge square with my publicly-stated opposition to mountain-top removal? 

One thing you can say for Richard, he can pack a lot of falsehoods into one pretty brief comment. He claims that I "roused up church folks to go testify." I presume he means at the recent Administrative Regulations Review Subcommittee meeting in which the science standards were rejected.  

In fact, although The Family Foundation urged people to call legislators (because of the content issue), no one in that organization, including myself, ever asked anyone to go to the meeting to testify. In fact, when the chairman asked for the seventeen people who had signed up to testify against the regulation to decide among themselves which one would speak for them, Richard Innes of the Bluegrass Institute and I went to the table and told the chairman that we had no idea who the other 15 people even were, so it was hard for us to "decide." It was then he allowed both of us to speak briefly--in a smaller space of time than the advocates got to give their case. 

But even if it were true we were "rousing up church folks" to testify at the meeting, how would that act be "specifically anti-evolution"? 

I think the real answer is for Richard and his friends to get out more. Maybe actually acquainting himself with religious people would help him realize that they don't go around thinking anti-evolution thoughts all day. It also might diminish the necessity of him having to lay awake nights worrying that someone, somewhere might be thinking creationist thoughts if he realized that not all people who take their religion seriously are creationists. 

But the best thing to do is to stop trying to discern people's private thoughts just because they can't answer their public arguments.

You can read more about the secret plot by Christians to foist a knowledge of nature on poor, helpless school children here.

Justice Scalia scandalizes NY magazine interviewer by belief in the Devil

U. S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia scandalizes a New York magazine interviewer by telling her he believes what most Americans believe:

... When I’m dead and gone, I’ll either be sublimely happy or terribly unhappy.  

You believe in heaven and hell?Oh, of course I do. Don’t you believe in heaven and hell?  

No.
Oh, my.  

Does that mean I’m not going?[Laughing.] Unfortunately not!

Interviewer Jennifer Senior must have imagined horns growing on Scalia's head as the interview was in progress.

How could a Catholic Supreme Court justice be a ... a ... Catholic?!!! It's just too much to stomach. In the name of Tolerance and Diversity, something must be done.