Pearl Jam supports the troops

Just shut the **** up and entertain me. That is all I ask.

I wonder if someone could clarify this blind support of the troops that seems to be compulsory in America. It seems to me that there is some kind of expectation there that once the shooting starts everyone has to wave flags and shut up, but I'm not sure why that is. I'm not trying to flamebait here either, it's just something that doesn't exist in my culture. I don't see anything wrong with standing on effigies of a president; mine or anyone else's as part of an artistic performance or as a political statement. I would have thought that the US, as a liberal democracy wouldn't have a problem with this sort of thing either, but it seems that the flag, the president and the US army are untouchables over there.

I might understand the "we gotta support our troops" thing if they were conscripted. Then you'd be saying, poor guys, they don't have a choice, let's criticise the government but not the boys in uniform. But the US army is professional. Why the kid gloves? Why is it so frowned upon to say that you don't support people killing other people in your name? Are you just supporting the ones that were just too stupid or too poor to have a choice about joining?

As for Eddie, people who think you can divorce Pearl Jam's music from politics aren't listening!

Just to illustrate the point about Pearl Jam being political:

I don't see the logic in blind support at all.

Count me in too.

villa

I didn't see that there was also this thread about Pearl Jam.

I believe that you don't have to support the reasons for war or support the moron who put your country in that position in the first place just so that you can support the men and women of your country who have the courage to fight when the leaders don't. Sure, there are some benefits to this war, like the liberation of an oppressed people, but if you believe everything Bush is telling you, you must have blinders on to history. The troops shouldn't be there, but they took an oath to serve their country and you have to respect and support them for that.

Just to clarify something about CNN I said in another PJ thread.. CNN is biased and is totally sensationalizing the death and destruction going on across the world like it's a ****ing video game. Propoganda bullsh�t.

Also to clarify something about the song Masters of War. That is a Bob Dylan song, not a Pearl Jam song. They covered it once.

I agree. This is nothing knew to Eddie. He has been pretentiously spouting off political matters since the dawn of PJ. And he has been made fun of for doing so just as long.

Glad to see people walking out in disgust.

I'm not sure there is much logic to it, really. From what I can see, it is a throwback to Vietnam when protests were actually demoralizing the troops. Demoralized troops have a higher likelyhood of coming home in a bag. If there is logic to it, it is somewhere in there.

Zimphire, you have been pretentiously spouting off political (and religious) matters since the dawn of time. Pot calling the kettle black?

So what if 20 rednecks walked out of a show of over 12k people? They just don't know how to have a good time. I was at a PJ show in Boise during the 2000 election, and when Eddie mentioned Ralph Nader, he was booed. But even my most conservative friends could still enjoy the show. Read the sig man.

If Eddie wants to come in here and rant, I could care less. I don't charge people money to see me perform songs, only to rant and rave about how much I hate Bush. There is a difference.
I didn't see the amount that walked out, nor did they say they was rednecks. How presumptuous of you. Of course, they HAVE to be rednecks!!!

Point is, people don't want to pay to hear that crap. He is ripping off the people that comes to the show. They want to hear him play "Alive" 10x in a row.

Isn't that the last really big hit PJ had anyhow?

The Dixie Chicks getting political is a little wierd...

But nobody can tell me they didn't know that Pearl Jam was a political band. Seriously, go back to Ten - Evenflow was about homeless people, right? They've had songs about gun control. Parents caring more about material things than their kids. Incest.

It's not like they sing songs about happy little butterflies!

I am willing to guess, most of their fans don't know what their songs are about. I mean I have heard females just say "OMG Eddie is just sooooooooooooo cuuuuuaaaate!!" And guys attract to places nice looking groupies hang out at.
I am sure there are some die hard PJ fans that understand that lyrics, but they are few and far between. Ah, the life of the Rawwwk Staaaaaaaawr no one takes you seriously.

Zimphire strikes again!

Seriously tho Zim, there are probably more big-time Pearl Jam fans (like myself) than nonchalant fans. Okay I gotta go to work. They are not "few and far between" Zim.. Usually the whole floor of an arena is dedicated to fan club members, hardcore members, and there are over 250, 000.. Rock on!

Yeah you are right, what was I thinking. Back in 91-93 when they was popular and actually mattered it was like that. Now the only ones that go to the concerts are the die hard fans. Just like Def Leppard's last tour.

And even THESE die harders are leaving in disgust.

Agreed. And that goes for you, too, Bono.

Pearl Jam like Jeneanne Garofolo are relics of the early 90's. I don't think the general public has really grabbed onto a PJ album since Vs. I'm not sure if it's the music or just the sensibilities but they just don't matter anymore. Vedder's antics appear to be nothing more on him trying to cash in on whatever anti-war sentiment there is. Unfortunately, he like most leftists feel the need to dumb down their message for the general populace. Wearing a George Bush mask and then smashing it carries the same weight as a Palestinian burning an American flag to most people. It assaults and insults us. If I were a PJ fan and paid the $35 or whatever it is to see them (I see they lost the battle against Ticketmaster) I would be turned off. It's self-destructing behavior. Also why would someone be so presumptuous to assume that just because you are one of Pearl Jam's number one fans that you have to agree with their politics? Can't the artists just let the music speak for itself?

Also isn't confidence synonymous with man?
Maybe Eddie just has low self-esteem.

$35?

I remember I saw a Jane's Addiction/Rollins Band concert, I payed $17. I think I got a better deal.


Yeah Perry rants too, but at least he doesn't dumb it down.

It's not compulsory. IF I'M ASKING FOR ANYTHING, it's intellectual honesty. If you disagree with the war, have the BALLS to stand up and admit that you don't support the troops. After all, you clearly don't agree with their assessment of the current situation, and you clearly don't share their values (the ones that they are ACTING UPON).

I'm not saying that it's wrong to protest the war (it's not, it's your free speech rights), I just expect consistency of position. Agreement between one's behaviors and opinions. Saying "we support the troops" while marching aren't consistent acts, but it's real easy to march and then cover by saying that.

I wasn't asking for anything, except perhaps some intellectual honesty. Or an explanation that made sense logically. That's all.

Ok finboy, I guess I'm only allowed to say that beause I don't support the war I want every American service man and woman to be slaughtered mercilessly. That seems to be the only position I'm allowed to have in your binary universe.

Feel better?

And what's wrong with doing that?

If you don't like what he has to say then don't buy tickets to his concert and go. He's not forcing people to go and see him.

People who went to the concert and did not expect this made a mistake, just by looking at the lyrics quoted in an earlier post in this thread it is easy to see that some of this guy's music is politically motivated.

You know I've tried to tell that to every girl I have dated and it has yet to work.

Anyway, Pearl Jam has about as much power to influence the public as L'imp does. They are not even going to get real press out of this. The only people who should care are those who bought tickets.

Resorting to extremes? Someone said that Leftists never have to rely on that kind of argument.

Makes a cute comeback though. How about actually answering the question?

You indicated that I could only claim the mantle of "intellectual honesty" if I admitted that I cannot oppose the war and "support the troops" at the same time.

I suppose I assumed that "supporting" the troops means wishing they return home safe and sound. Does it mean something else?

You could not be more wrong, dude. I am 100% against this war - there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that it is a mistake that will haunt us for years to come. On the other hand, my heart goes out to each and every American serviceman/woman on the battlefield - I wish them the best and I certainly wish them no harm. I hope that they return safely and soon. In my opinion, that's supporting our troops.

Who? Are you ever going to stop shooting at straw men and make something resembling an actual argument?

Do you really believe it's impossible to have disagreed with the causus belli, but support the troops now that war is under way?

How can you claim to support the troops if you disagree with what they're doing? They're risking their lives for a cause, in an action, that you disagree with. They're going to relive combat the rest of their lives for something that you don't agree with. Some of their friends will die for something that you don't agree with.

Yes, it means something else. It goes beyond wanting them home safe and sound. It means respecting and trusting in their judgement and understanding and commitment, OR NOT. It means supporting a strong, proactive defense even when we aren't at war. It means not supporting leaders who use war for political purposes, because the troops, like most normal folks, don't respect that either. It means calling bullsh*t on the major media for trying to steer popular opinion to get ratings or boost a particular political agenda. It means increasing military pay and prestige to make their sacrifices in the service of our country less of a burden. It means telling the "no war for oil" and the "Bush out now" bunch to take a freaking hike, because that's what the troops will have to do when they get back. It means being consistent in your message and your behavior.

Being honest about it is the most important thing. If you don't really support the troops, just say so. I can't agree with you, but I'll respect your honesty.

an explanation that made sense logically:

Why I'm against the war: (here's one reason among many) I don't think this war was based on sound long-term view of global consequences. We'll be repairing diplomatic bridges burned for decades to come. That's going to be difficult whether republicans or democrats are in office. Its an uphill battle to regain trust once people lose it.
Criteria/parameters of that reason: world diplomacy, and our function (or disfunction within it). If the stated goal was to end terrorism, this will have the complete opposite effect long term (even short term). Therefore, it is a policy that, while it might be perceived as "standing strong" to some, instead accomplishes the antithesis and makes us weaker in both our ethical standing, our ability to form coalitions in the future, our ability to create and enforce treaties, our ability to influence through non-military diplomacy. For this reason, I view this action as an abysmal failue of diplomacy for future endeavors, regardless of whether its successful as a military operation.

Why I'm for the troops: simple. I have two nephews. I have friends, and I have acquaitances who are all military. They are wonderful people and I pray for their continued safety. I pray for the safety of the troops I do not know personally. I pray against WAR but not against people.

If the owner of Weny's decided to start using macdonald's quality frozen beef patties instead of what they use now, I could simultaneously:
--think it was a bad business decision that might have long term consequences
-- Lament that I no longer liked the new product vs. the old one
-- protest through whatever means available to try to change that decision.
HOWEVER I would not hold any of the wendy's employees responsible, I would not hate wendy's employees, and I would not hope for the wendy's employees to get run over in the drive-thru lane. That would illogical and pointless.

I would NOT have to hate Wendy's employees to disagree with a decision made by the Wendy's owner.

the problem is, YOU require me to say I hate the employees before I'm allowed to say I disagree with the strategic wisdom of the decisions of the CEO. You insist that I'm intellectually dishonest UNLESS I go along with your bizarre qualification.

there is a reasonable, logical answer to your request. I'll wait and see how you receive it.

I like analogies. Your Wendy's example is a good one.

Suppose, say, 70% of those polled prefer the new patties. They say, "They taste better!" Yet, those few who despise the new meat gather at local Wendy's restaurants across America and protest outside the restaurant, some with signs taunting Wendy's management. (Some, in fact, laying down through the drive thru!) The employees inside can see the crowds chanting outside the restaurant.

I'm not questioning your logic. It actually makes sense. But how do you think the Wendy's employees feel when they see all the protests? Likewise, how do you think our troops feel?

But if you have a strong belief about a policy of your nation, and you feel you must suppress that belief because it's contrary to a policy aimed at bringing that same right to another nation, what ultimately is the point of bringing that same right to do so to another nation?

Ya know, I read this over and over...I still don't understand.

Simplify?

Fair enough. (Must not drink and post.) What I mean is: Say what you think. Make it known to everybody. If we're going to bring that right to Iraqis, it makes sense to practice it ourselves.

Our soldiers are big boys. They can live with the knowledge that there are people back home who disagree.

OK, if I understand your point, then you are saying, in essence, that since we are bringing freedom to Iraqis that we should be allowed to excersize our freedom here at home to protest.

Fair enough.

But, since what protesters are opposing is the war, thus Iraqi liberation, that freedom would not be brought to Iraqis. Basically, if protesters had their way, Iraqis wouldn't be getting freedom within the next few days.

So, it sounds like your argument is self-defeating...unless I misunderstood.



I know, I know. But, I just can't help but think it's gotta affect some of them...I dunno, I hope not.

why don't you ask them instead of assuming and making that judgement for them?

No, I just think we're all arguing differernt points.
First, finboy said it was impossible to disapprove of the war as a concept and still support the troops as people. That to do so was being dishonest.
I gave an analogy how I view the subject, explaining how I felt those two concepts are not mutually exclusive.
THEN you changed the argument to something else;that to excercise the right to protest was unfair to the wendy's employees or made them feel bad, which brings up the additional point of whether we need to suppress our own freedoms. THEN it became how the iraqis need to be liberated.....yadda yadda yadda.
Just because you make a separate point does not invalidate my point.

I disagree that I have to blindly support the appointed president and his actions in order to support the troops...for one thing, I think this is a dangerous road he is traveling, one which will, in the end, mean a great many of our own soldiers dead, and in increasing numbers as we decide to preventively invade country after country.
If that happens, what you are supporting right now, is, in my opinion, the absolute worst thing that can happen to our troops (remember I have family and friends in the service), I think I should retain my right to object to the decisions being made by the commander in chief. I don't think I should abdicate that right in wartime or else it isn't a right but a flimsy promise to be rescinded whenever the administration or the people feels its ok to.

You will not understand this, but to act as if we should restrict freedom in an act of patriotism...to ME, this makes you a traitor to the ideals this country was based on.

But I realize you view it exactly the opposite. BUT I respect your right to think so.

Even though I disagree with protesters, I am glad they can speak their mind. Only when they are breaking laws are when they need to be taken downtown.

I have to keep in mind that if I am ever in the minority I don't want my rights to speak up trampled on. And that's the belief I've held all along.

You will acknowledge that troops seeing protests back home don't give them much inspiration, right? That's all I'm saying.

The only problem I have with this type of recruiting is. Teens and young adults will come home frome said concert, and be anti-war nd anti-bush, not because that is how they really feel, not because they came to a educated conclusion, but because Eddie Vedder said so, and he is their idol. No, not everyone that goes to these shows will be like this. But I don't know how many kids I have ran into that has adopted the outlook of their Rawk Staaw idols because they practically worship them. Marylin Manson and RATM is a good example of bands that do this. Good thing is, once the band if forgotten, so are most of their ideals gone from said persons mind. It's all what is HIP at the moment.

I understand what you're saying, but I don't see it that way. I see dissent in general as an essential element in building consensus. Because we can think and say about any damn thing we want, we gain exposure to bewildering number of points of view, which we can examine, adopt, or dimiss as we see fit. Dissent makes for the kind of lively debate that builds the foundation for consensus.

That's probably more convoluted than what I wrote earlier than when I was drunk (sorry). Let me give you an example: I have this friend, very conservative, very much in disagreement with me on a number of issues. He worked in Ashcroft's office when Ashcroft was state attorney general. And he HATES the war, virulently. He goes on and on in the most extreme terms about Bush usurping the constitutional process and what not. I listen to him and think, "Huh, that's interesting, but I'm not quite with you."

I have this other friend who is on the other end of the spectrum. She is a tree-hugger and a whale-saver, or maybe a tree-saver and a whale-hugger, and I usually can predict what's going to come out of her mouth. But she's absolutely for the war. Thinks it's a long time overdue, thinks the USA has failed to use its muscle to bring better conditions to benighted peoples, and sees the war as us finally doing something about repression in Iraq.

They all think what they believe is in the best interests of the country, solider and civilian alike.

I can't agree with either wholeheartedly, but it gets me thinking about where I land, politically. Too much of the debate in this country seems to be based on the assumption that we and all of our opinions can only fit into one of two little boxes, liberal/conservative, Bush/Gore, GOP/Democrat, red state/blue state. But what I see in everyday life tells me that our real strength is the multifaceted and often unpredictable nature of our political culture, and anti-war dissent fits right into that.

As, of course, so do you. I disagree with what you say, but respectfully.

(Sorry for the speech. Cue patriotic music. Fade out.)

(edited to fix typo)

finboy, it sounds to me like you have more of a problem with ignorant people than with "anti-war" people. I agree with your position, it would be nice if people did a little reading before they rant and had a stable, backed up with facts position. You're not going to find that on the internet very often.

You can mock Pearl Jam or Eddie Vedder all you want, but let me tell you this.. they have researched their opinions, they are informed and politically active. They aren't hypocrits and IMO supporting the troops and not supporting the cause they are fighting for is not inconsistent.. Like me and most people, Eddie wants to see the troops come home alive. Any peaceful person would. That is the support they need.

Pearl Jam has made a lot of music since Ten and Vs. which not a lot of people were exposed to or even interested in (thanks to Pearl Jam's anti-publicity stance) but that doesn't mean they suddenly turned to ****. In fact, their last 3 albums are, in my opinion, their best. They even based one of their albums (an entire album) on one of my favorite books (Ishmael by Daniel Quinn). The thing about music is this: the best music is personal.

Eddie at an anti-war rally.



To end, here's a fitting song from Pearl Jam's 6th album "Binaural".


Sorry to go on for so long, but I love talkin about PJ

All these "We must support the president and the troops and not protest" folks apparently do not know their American history.
There has NEVER been a US war that received universal support from the American people. That includes the Revolutionary War and World War II.
Why should things be any different during what is possibly the least moral war this nation has ever been involved in (although Viet Nam, the Mexican War and the Spanish-American War are also contenders).

Please, that is HIGHLY subjective. I think what we are doing is based on morals.

It seems to me that the most logical reason being put forward here and elsewhere for the blind support of US troops is the same as the one being put forward for why American networks should not show pictures of dead GI's, namely that it would undermine the war effort.

That's a novel idea because it implies that American civilians (corporations and individuals) are part of this war. The civilians need to help the troops by giving them the impression that they have support and the networks have to help keep up morale by censoring images and reports that might weaken morale. In that case, Americans should ask themselves what civilian casualties they've already suffered.

Many of the soldiers in Iraq don't agree with the war. THEY are going to die for something they don't agree with. How's THAT for a conflict?

But of course in your universe things are much simpler.

Good on Pearl Jam. My initial response was: Stupid idiots � Why lose sales unnecessarily?. But then I realised they don't care if they lose sales or support from the Right as long as they get their point across. What's the point of celebrity if you can't use it?

Meanwhile I'm trying to think of a Right-wing artist who has publicly come out in support of the war.

Or indeed, a Right-wing artist.

You sure that's not Adam Sandler?

I don't think the Right has to voice their opinions about the war (especially not any protests or dissention).. After all, their interests are being taken care of..

You shouldn't underestimate a good rock band..They've been known to make a difference, from time to time.

Ha, that reminds me of when Adam Sandler did his opera man skit about Pearl Jam..

See that guy in the background with the shades on? I think he won an Oscar, or something..

Ahhh the old, tired, black and white only; "You're either with us or against us" argument strikes again!!!

"Sarge, I don't feel like fighting today, but I still want to keep my free room and board, meals, benefits, tuition reimbursement and pay"

If you have a friend who plays football do you hate them also just because you don't like football?

MikeM

I wonder where Eddie was at when he was supporting Clinton, and Clinton bombed the crap out of Iraq.

Can you smell that? Yes, that is hypocricy.

Pedro Almodovar - well spotted!!

Can you spell that? Yes, that is hypocrisy.