The opening reception for the Vexing show at the Claremont Museum of Art took place last night and there was a terrific turnout. Over 600 people were in attendance and the room got really hot, really fast. The gallery show was amazing, with more to look at than I can describe here. If you didn't make it last night, it is well worth a drive out to Claremont to experience it. If you are considering going, you might want to time your visit to coincide with one of their panel discussions or live performances, so check out their website.
A special thank you to my bandmates: Lysa Flores, Gaby Godhead, David Jones and Judy Cocuzza. It was an honor to be included in this show with so many talented artists. Another thank you to all of my old friends who made the long drive to one or both of the shows (we had a warm-up show the night before in Boyle Heights at Eastside Luv). It was great seeing you and even though I can't name you all, I'm sorry about the sweaty hugs and garlic and tequila kisses. Thank you to the Claremont Museum of Art team, who went out of their way to make us feel welcome and fed us garlicky hummus just before the show. And one more very important thank you to Diane Gamboa, who picked me up at the train station, drove me all over town and saved my ass on the air during a live interview at KPFK.
I read through the exhibit catalog today and there are lots of big words in there. It helped me to better understand the history of the East LA scene, though I still have lots of questions. I definitely have a greater appreciation for everything that went into it, came out of it and is still happening in relation to it. Maybe it's not such a bad thing that not all of my questions were answered, because this is a story that's still being written and my curiosity has been piqued.
Here's a clip from last night's performance, courtesy of MikaMakeout. Thank you to MikaMakeout for posting this on YouTube.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Tuesday, May 13, 2008
Vexing Questions
This coming weekend, the Claremont Museum of Art will be holding an opening reception for a new exhibition called Vexing: Female Voices from East L.A. Punk. I am excited about having been invited to participate in the show because I'll have the honor of being in the company of some very talented artists, but that's not why I'm writing this entry. In the process of promoting this show, doing interviews and talking to people, I have encountered some confusion not only about the show, but about the East L.A. (ELA) punk scene itself and its relationship to the early L.A. punk scene, which I was a part of. I get asked all the time about the ELA punk scene and all I can say is, "Sorry, I wasn't part of that." So it's valid to ask why someone who only played the Vex once (as part of Castration Squad, not the Bags) is a featured artist in this exhibition. And yet, I have had young Chicanas tell me that just by being Latina and doing what I did, I am a part of the ELA punk scene. I understand that, but just as a disclaimer I want to say that I still do not consider myself part of the early 80's Vex scene.
Because of this confusion, I set about on my own to interview several people who were, in fact, part of the ELA scene to get their take on several of the assumptions that have arisen around the Vex and the ELA scene in general. I also spoke with one of the Vexing organizers to try to understand the aim of the show. I myself was interviewed for the LA Times and because that interview has now raised some questions about my own perspective, I feel compelled to explain my quotes. The interview in question ran for almost one and a half hours. From that, a few sentences were culled and used in a piece which condensed a three to four year timeline in the LA music scene into a short article. As I will discuss below, having accurate chronology is critical to any real understanding of the LA punk scene. It's important to note that I spoke at length with the interviewer and told him that my own experience in the early scene (1976-1979) was not one of exclusion or racism, but that other people who were part of the later scene (1980 and beyond) may have encountered racism and closed doors (and let's be honest in saying that there was a growing skinhead contingent in the early 1980's punk scene) and if that perception forced them to create their own scene to overcome this obstacle, then that was a blessing.
According to Colin Gunckel, who is curating the Vexing show along with Pilar Tompkins, the exhibition is meant to show the ELA punk scene as it intersects race, time, gender and location. "I didn't want the show to be based on ethnicity, because it didn't happen in a bubble" says Gunckel. He's right about that. Most of the people whom I've spoken to who were actually part of the ELA scene were going to Hollywood to see punk bands even before the Vex existed.
In order to understand the ELA scene in a broader sense, we have to have some sort of timeline to sharpen our perspective. In the Fall of 1977, The Masque opened its doors in Hollywood as a alternative cabaret. Although it was not the first venue for punks, it became the epicenter of the budding Hollywood scene. It was a place where creativity was nurtured and differences were accepted. Years later, in the Spring of 1980, The Vex would open its doors to a similar group of young artists. Like the Masque, it was not the first place to feature punk talent but it fulfilled a very special role. Like The Masque, it was a place that nurtured its artists and the ELA punk scene coalesced around it.
Here's a quote from an interview I completed in 2007:
"When punk came along, it was just the perfect vehicle for me to express who I was an individual. It was new enough and open enough to allow itself to be defined by people like me. Just a couple of years later, that would change and people would have to fit into preconceived notions of what punk rock was or wasn’t. The early scene had no such limitations because we were the ones creating and defining it. If you had been at the Masque in 1977, you would have seen very eclectic shows, ranging from the Screamers to Arthur J. and the Goldcups, from Geza X and the Mommymen to The Controllers. There was no clearly defined punk sound, no dress code and all you had to do was show up and make your presence known. The movement was one of individuals and individual expression, each of us bringing our heritage and formative experiences with us in an organic and in my case, unplanned way."
Here's a quote from an interview I completed in 2007:
"When punk came along, it was just the perfect vehicle for me to express who I was an individual. It was new enough and open enough to allow itself to be defined by people like me. Just a couple of years later, that would change and people would have to fit into preconceived notions of what punk rock was or wasn’t. The early scene had no such limitations because we were the ones creating and defining it. If you had been at the Masque in 1977, you would have seen very eclectic shows, ranging from the Screamers to Arthur J. and the Goldcups, from Geza X and the Mommymen to The Controllers. There was no clearly defined punk sound, no dress code and all you had to do was show up and make your presence known. The movement was one of individuals and individual expression, each of us bringing our heritage and formative experiences with us in an organic and in my case, unplanned way."
What happened between the Fall of 1977 and the Spring of 1980 is perhaps at the heart of some of the confusion about the points of intersection of these two scenes. My band, The Bags, played the Masque in September of 1977. As I have repeatedly written and said in interviews countless times over the years, my own experience of the original Hollywood scene was that it was open, egalitarian, limitless and creative. As the years passed, the scene changed. As the scene expanded, new members brought in new value systems. A scene that had once valued diversity and originality became a place where white males in uniform-like jeans, boots and leather jackets became the norm. It's no surprise to me then, that in late 1979 and early 1980, just months prior to The Vex's opening, some Latinos were feeling unwelcome in the Hollywood scene. Of course, the perception of racism differs, depending on who you ask. We all perceive these things differently and react to them differently. When I asked Tracy Lee of Thee Undertakers if he'd ever experienced any racism in Hollywood, he replied that he hadn't except for someone once throwing a screwdriver at him at The Whisky A Go-Go.
It's also true that not all Eastside bands felt unwelcome or closed off from the Westside, and even if they did, many of them played there before, during and after the existence of the Vex. Teresa Covarrubias recalls that it was very difficult for her band, The Brat, to get shows on the Westside until the Vex opened and they had established a measure of popularity, although as Brendan Mullen points out, "Bookers back then and to the present day are generally concerned with assessing whether the band mean any bodies in their club space.' Ironically, the club which Brendan is most associated with, The Masque, did not follow this commercial policy and thus helped to foster a vibrant and creative scene, perhaps in much the same way the Vex did in East L.A.
When the Vex finally did open, it welcomed bands and artists from all over. It wasn't unusual to see the likes of X, The Blasters and Social Distortion on the east side of the L.A. River. I think that maybe this was one of the intersections Gunckel refers to. I'm sure there were many intersections, but it takes some work to find them. One could easily go back to the Gronk/Dreva Art Meets Punk show in 1978 to find an early example of a Hollywood punk band crossing over to the ELA art audience. The Chicano art collective ASCO pre-dated punk, but could certainly be considered kindred spirits of the early punks. I also know that I am not speaking about the many other artists who were involved in creating poetry as well visual and performance art which coincided and collided with the punk scene. I don't really know how those scenes intersected or if they did, but perhaps this exhibition will help shed some light on those questions.
Perhaps most importantly, the Vexing exhibition will also showcase younger artists alongside the OG punks. The connections between our generations may not be obvious at first glance. It could be that those of us who time travel through our music, art or poetry and defy boundaries touch the younger generation in subtle ways that even we are unaware of, just as so many women before paved the way for us.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Sometimes Desert, Sometimes Sea
San Diego has been keeping me busy these past few months. It’s strange, going from the slow pace of Cave Creek, AZ to a faster city pace. Although San Diego isn’t as big as Los Angeles, the fun stuff is much closer together and you get that urban rush. So much of feeling like you’re part of a city depends on where you live. When I was in LA, I had a different lifestyle depending on which part of town I was living in. In Culver City, it was all about the multiple Trader Joe experience, bike rides on the beach and sitting in traffic. In Mount Washington, it was bohemian, artsy, city views and parties. In East Los, it was all about the thrift stores, the cemetaries and good, greasy Mexican food.
The North Phoenix/Cave Creek experience was a welcome change from LA. I learned to enjoy long walks in the unspoiled desert, I was insulated and isolated and had plenty of time for solitary pursuits. That’s how my crafting obsession started. With no musician friends around to engage in musical endeavors, I started to gravitate towards things I could make by myself, for myself. With music, I always find myself wanting to record and perform for an audience. I found my audience was more Tempe than Cave Creek, but I digress.
Sometimes Desert...North Phoenix/Cave Creek
Here in San Diego, I live right in the heart of the city and there’s always something happening. It took my 2 years in Phoenix to find friends I could relate to. It took me less than 2 months here. Of course, a lot has to do with my being proactive. I started a Meetup group called Destroyers of Mass Production. The group was meant to attract crafters who are committed to reducing their dependence on corporate goods by helping each other sharpen their creative skills to the point where they can construct the things they need. My online group has the same purpose and exchanges crafting, gardening and cooking tips as well as provocative ideas.
Sometimes sea...North Park at night
In San Diego, there’s so much going on that it’s hard to get the Zen feeling of crafting in isolation. There are pros and cons to this. Here, I often I feel like a Model T trying to do 80 on the highway. I’m getting a lot done, meeting lots of people, but I sometimes wonder if I'm leaving parts strewn on the road. I’ve even pushed myself to enter a group collage show at the local bar/gallery. My Destroyers group motivates me and keeps me striving for goals that I sometimes think are slightly beyond my reach. I guess that’s good, but my soul craves the long walks in the desert, the clear skies, beautiful sunsets and the simple joy of nothing to do, no place to be. But I guess the views are not too shabby here.
Switzer Canyon, San Diego...where I walk my dog
This weekend, there’s a big craft fair hosted by the North Park Craft Mafia which I have to go to, there’s the San Diego Indie Music Fair and the South Park Walkabout, all of which are walking distance from my house and all are fun things that I want to do. Some of my new crafty friends will be there and the events are all family friendly, so what’s a girl to do?
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Women In L.A. Punk - Part XXV - Connie Clarksville
Some of the women who lived in the Canterbury Apartments in Hollywood back in the late 1970's identified themselves as (or through association, became known as) either Pyranas or Poodles. My roommate Shannon and I both belonged to the Pyranas, a group of young women who tended to be a bit more sexually aggressive and confrontational than the norm. Whatever the Pyranas had in tough, man-eating mystique, the Poodles had in style. The Poodles included Connie Clarksville in their ranks and I believe that Belinda Carlisle of the Go-Go's must have been operating as a double-agent between the Pyranas and Poodles.
The Masque Presents Black Randy and the Metrosquad with Arthur J and the Goldcups at the Whisky. Sheila Edwards, Trudie, Trixie, Connie, Spaz Attack, Alice Bag, Nickey Beat, Exene sitting on KK’s (Screamers) lap. Whisky, March 5, 1978.
Courtesy of Jenny Lens.
I remember Connie Clarksville as one of the first punks to marry the hard-edged punk look with fifties' pin-up glamour. Her rockabilly hairdos and fashion easily set her apart from the crowd. She had a place on the first floor of the Canterbury where, on any given day, she might just as easily be hosting a raucous party as cropping a punk 'do or styling a DA. Compared to the rest of us, Connie seemed to have her shit together. She served food and wine at her parties while the rest of us were sharing half pints of rum and Dr Pepper and a bag of chips. As a fellow Blackette with Black Randy & The Metro Squad, Connie showed us all that she was a multi- talented Glamazon. She danced and sang along with me, Trudie Arguelles, Exene Cervenka, Sheila Edwards and Belinda Carlisle.
Looking at her current pictures, it's hard to say whether she isn't even cooler now than she was in the late 70's. She's still ahead of the curve, still stylish and still looks like she can kick your ass if you don't mind your manners! Click on the thumbnail to read her interview.
The Masque Presents Black Randy and the Metrosquad with Arthur J and the Goldcups at the Whisky. Sheila Edwards, Trudie, Trixie, Connie, Spaz Attack, Alice Bag, Nickey Beat, Exene sitting on KK’s (Screamers) lap. Whisky, March 5, 1978.
Courtesy of Jenny Lens.
I remember Connie Clarksville as one of the first punks to marry the hard-edged punk look with fifties' pin-up glamour. Her rockabilly hairdos and fashion easily set her apart from the crowd. She had a place on the first floor of the Canterbury where, on any given day, she might just as easily be hosting a raucous party as cropping a punk 'do or styling a DA. Compared to the rest of us, Connie seemed to have her shit together. She served food and wine at her parties while the rest of us were sharing half pints of rum and Dr Pepper and a bag of chips. As a fellow Blackette with Black Randy & The Metro Squad, Connie showed us all that she was a multi- talented Glamazon. She danced and sang along with me, Trudie Arguelles, Exene Cervenka, Sheila Edwards and Belinda Carlisle.
Looking at her current pictures, it's hard to say whether she isn't even cooler now than she was in the late 70's. She's still ahead of the curve, still stylish and still looks like she can kick your ass if you don't mind your manners! Click on the thumbnail to read her interview.
Sunday, February 17, 2008
Waiting For The Other Shoe To Drop
The “Women On Top” music video that my family and I created for the Hillary Clinton campaign has been getting an increased amount of views on YouTube this week, thanks to one of the bloggers on Daily Kos who liked it. I’m pleased that it is getting people to talk about the historical struggle for women’s rights and to do some research on women like Victoria Woodhull and Wilma Mankiller. The whole purpose of the video was to show Hillary’s bid for the White House in historical context and it seems that purpose was achieved. It’s especially exciting to see the involvement of so many young people in the political process, and I suspect that has much to do with the charisma and appeal of Senator Obama. For that, we can all be grateful.
I find myself much more attuned to this year’s campaign than in previous years. Though I’ve been politically active since I was old enough to vote, I’ve been following the cable news coverage of the campaigns more closely over the past month and I’ve seen a curious trend emerge. Why is it that the major media outlets who have been the virtual lapdogs of the Bush administration and neo-conservative oligarchy for the past 7 years are suddenly throwing their unabashed support to Barack Obama? I’d like to pose this as an open question to anyone reading this, but before I do, I need to provide you with my own historical context.
Back when I was part of the punk scene in the late seventies, I was about as politically naïve as they come. I had grown up believing in the notion of an impartial press. I was convinced that the newspapers and television news shows were unbiased and only presented facts and that it was up to the observer to interpret those facts in order to arrive at informed decisions. It was only as I became involved in activist events and causes that I realized that it wasn’t necessary to lie in order for the press to distort the truth or influence public opinion. They could do it by either focusing on or withholding their attention from an event or subject. I personally witnessed several of these instances of disinformation. I recall one especially large march and rally I attended with thousands of people in the streets of Downtown Los Angeles, protesting US intervention in Central America. We expected we’d be on the evening news and in the L.A. Times but the evening news came and went as did the next day’s paper, without even a mention of the massive rally. It was like the event never happened and those of us who participated were invisible. And that’s when I realized that the job of the mainstream media is not to inform the masses, but rather to help form and manipulate the opinions of the masses. Check out this link to Adbuster's Media Carta if you want to learn more: Media Carta.
As I’ve grown older, I am much more likely to question what the news media is selling on any given day. I already know who it benefits and it’s not the public interest. It’s the same with many crimes; follow the money and you’ll see who’s running the show and whose interests are being served. The appearance of impartiality wears a very flimsy frock these days. It seems that the taste makers are not just content to tell us what to buy, how to look and what to eat, they also have mastered a way to synthesize our values, add some slick packaging and sell them right back to us. Often, these values are sold to us through celebrities who are either held up as the embodiment of our values or as the antithesis of them. The celebrity making media machine cranks out pop stars to sell us everything from clothing to national policy. And that brings me back to my initial question: why is Obama their new darling? Has the media suddenly become liberal? Do they favor him because they want to change the status quo? Would a change in the status quo benefit the media or the owners of the newspapers and TV stations in the United States? Would it benefit their sponsors? Or is there some other reason?
I encourage you to write in, anonymously or otherwise, and I look forward to reading your thoughts on this subject.
I find myself much more attuned to this year’s campaign than in previous years. Though I’ve been politically active since I was old enough to vote, I’ve been following the cable news coverage of the campaigns more closely over the past month and I’ve seen a curious trend emerge. Why is it that the major media outlets who have been the virtual lapdogs of the Bush administration and neo-conservative oligarchy for the past 7 years are suddenly throwing their unabashed support to Barack Obama? I’d like to pose this as an open question to anyone reading this, but before I do, I need to provide you with my own historical context.
Back when I was part of the punk scene in the late seventies, I was about as politically naïve as they come. I had grown up believing in the notion of an impartial press. I was convinced that the newspapers and television news shows were unbiased and only presented facts and that it was up to the observer to interpret those facts in order to arrive at informed decisions. It was only as I became involved in activist events and causes that I realized that it wasn’t necessary to lie in order for the press to distort the truth or influence public opinion. They could do it by either focusing on or withholding their attention from an event or subject. I personally witnessed several of these instances of disinformation. I recall one especially large march and rally I attended with thousands of people in the streets of Downtown Los Angeles, protesting US intervention in Central America. We expected we’d be on the evening news and in the L.A. Times but the evening news came and went as did the next day’s paper, without even a mention of the massive rally. It was like the event never happened and those of us who participated were invisible. And that’s when I realized that the job of the mainstream media is not to inform the masses, but rather to help form and manipulate the opinions of the masses. Check out this link to Adbuster's Media Carta if you want to learn more: Media Carta.
As I’ve grown older, I am much more likely to question what the news media is selling on any given day. I already know who it benefits and it’s not the public interest. It’s the same with many crimes; follow the money and you’ll see who’s running the show and whose interests are being served. The appearance of impartiality wears a very flimsy frock these days. It seems that the taste makers are not just content to tell us what to buy, how to look and what to eat, they also have mastered a way to synthesize our values, add some slick packaging and sell them right back to us. Often, these values are sold to us through celebrities who are either held up as the embodiment of our values or as the antithesis of them. The celebrity making media machine cranks out pop stars to sell us everything from clothing to national policy. And that brings me back to my initial question: why is Obama their new darling? Has the media suddenly become liberal? Do they favor him because they want to change the status quo? Would a change in the status quo benefit the media or the owners of the newspapers and TV stations in the United States? Would it benefit their sponsors? Or is there some other reason?
I encourage you to write in, anonymously or otherwise, and I look forward to reading your thoughts on this subject.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Give 'Em Hell, Hillary!
Following the posting of my “Women On Top” campaign video for Hillary Clinton, my husband (who reads the internet and various blogs much more than I) remarked to me that he was shocked at some of the vitriolic and outright sexist comments directed towards Hillary Clinton. “Since when is it acceptable to call a woman a ‘cunt’ just because you disagree with her politics?” he asked. “Doesn’t the fact that the mainstream media can pretty much call Hillary a ‘bitch’ on prime time television belie the notion that we are a post-feminist society?” I guess I’m used to it, because none of this misogyny surprises me, but what really gets to me is that it goes unchecked.
When I wrote “Women On Top” a few years ago, I had in mind that I was trying to reach younger females who hadn’t grown up during the struggle for equal rights, as I did. I realized that there was a whole generation of women who took it for granted that they had the right to vote, the right to control over their own bodies (Roe v. Wade, 1973 – I was born in 1958), the right to work outside of the home and earn as much a male…well, we’re still fighting that one, aren’t we? The point I’m trying to make is that yes, we’ve come a long way, but there is still much further to go. And this year, we’ve seen what happens when a strong, intelligent and brave female dares to challenge the male dominated political hierarchy. In Pakistan, they just assassinate you outright. In the USA, we assassinate your character in the media.
Don’t get me wrong - I expect character assassination from the right; it’s one of their standard operating procedures. So when a McCain supporter refers to Hillary as “the bitch” or Rush Limbaugh calls her the “original Femi-Nazi,” I understand it. Republicans like to play hardball and they have never pretended to be the party of equal rights for women. But when bloggers on the so-called liberal site Daily Kos refer to Hillary Clinton as “Billary” or Obama supporters write in comments on YouTube stating that Hillary Clinton is a “whore” or a “cunt,” or when MSNBC anchor David Shuster states that the Clinton campaign “seems to be pimping out Chelsea” because she has chosen to support her mother’s candidacy by making public appearances (no one dared accuse W of pimping out his daughters when they did the same thing in 2004), I have to speak up. People (many of them claiming to be liberals and progressives) are taking a lot of liberty throwing around words like “cunt,” “bitch,” “whore” and speaking of pimping out one’s daughters, without anyone crying foul. Would we overlook racist, derogatory terms if they were becoming part of the political discussion? I don’t think so, but for some reason, we’ve decided it’s ok to use misogynistic words to describe women and particularly Hillary Clinton. I see this as part of a bigger problem we seem to have with how we define feminism and what images of femininity we are comfortable with.
One of the complaints about Hillary is that she is “too comfortable” in the male dominated arena of national politics (try to frame that as a disadvantage in a male context – bear in mind that Ms. Clinton has been a U.S. Senator for less than 8 years whereas the Republican frontrunner, John McCain has been a national representative for over 25 years – and if you don’t think McCain will play his experience for all its worth against Obama’s lack thereof, you have a hard lesson coming.) I found this commentary by Susan J. Douglas, professor of Communications at the University of Michigan, particularly telling: “Hillary, by contrast, seems to want to be more like a man in her demeanor and politics, makes few concessions to the social demands of femininity, and yet seems to be only a partial feminist. She seems above us, exempting herself from compromises women have to make every day, while, at the same time, leaving some of the basic tenets of feminism in the dust. We are sold out on both counts. In other words, she seems like patriarchy in sheep’s clothing.” By that logic, pioneering female aviator Amelia Earhart would have kept her feet firmly on the ground and early suffragette and abolitionist Lucy Stone would have just shut up and sat down. No truly great women have ever stopped to worry about “making concessions to the social demands of femininity,” let alone the “basic tenets of feminism” which, in my opinion can be boiled down to the maxim that women are the equals of men. By my standards, Hillary Clinton has never betrayed her femininity or feminism.
The Republicans and the Fox News clones have done such a great hatchet job since the whole Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal broke that many people now regard the entire Clinton administration as a dark age for our country, when nothing could be further from the truth. Younger voters may not remember that Bill Clinton turned the largest federal debt in history into the largest budget surplus in history during his two terms in office and presided over the longest peace-time period of economic expansion in American history. When he left office, he had the highest voter approval rating for an outgoing President since FDR: 65%. This, despite being impeached by a Republican controlled House of Representatives. So when someone tells you, “eight years of one Clinton was enough,” remember that those were eight relatively great years for this country.
It’s important for me to note that I have no animosity towards Barack Obama, who seems to be a very decent and earnest individual. It’s just that I much prefer Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons, chief of which is that Hillary is a fighter and has been battle tested. She’s hated by the Republicans for a reason - she is not afraid to take them on and fight them in hand to hand combat. If anyone still believes that the neo-conservative stranglehold on this country can be wished away by pretty speeches and a lot of people holding “HOPE” signs, I say it’s time to think again. I for one am absolutely fed up with the Republican party and what they have done to our country, our economy and our rights over the past eight years and I am not in the mood to “unite” with most of them. I am fairly certain that the feeling is mutual, so I don’t buy the unification slogan. I want a President who can kick some ass in D.C. and get things done, the Democratic way. I want Dirty Harriett – no, make that Dirty Hillary!
Give ‘em hell, Hillary!
When I wrote “Women On Top” a few years ago, I had in mind that I was trying to reach younger females who hadn’t grown up during the struggle for equal rights, as I did. I realized that there was a whole generation of women who took it for granted that they had the right to vote, the right to control over their own bodies (Roe v. Wade, 1973 – I was born in 1958), the right to work outside of the home and earn as much a male…well, we’re still fighting that one, aren’t we? The point I’m trying to make is that yes, we’ve come a long way, but there is still much further to go. And this year, we’ve seen what happens when a strong, intelligent and brave female dares to challenge the male dominated political hierarchy. In Pakistan, they just assassinate you outright. In the USA, we assassinate your character in the media.
Don’t get me wrong - I expect character assassination from the right; it’s one of their standard operating procedures. So when a McCain supporter refers to Hillary as “the bitch” or Rush Limbaugh calls her the “original Femi-Nazi,” I understand it. Republicans like to play hardball and they have never pretended to be the party of equal rights for women. But when bloggers on the so-called liberal site Daily Kos refer to Hillary Clinton as “Billary” or Obama supporters write in comments on YouTube stating that Hillary Clinton is a “whore” or a “cunt,” or when MSNBC anchor David Shuster states that the Clinton campaign “seems to be pimping out Chelsea” because she has chosen to support her mother’s candidacy by making public appearances (no one dared accuse W of pimping out his daughters when they did the same thing in 2004), I have to speak up. People (many of them claiming to be liberals and progressives) are taking a lot of liberty throwing around words like “cunt,” “bitch,” “whore” and speaking of pimping out one’s daughters, without anyone crying foul. Would we overlook racist, derogatory terms if they were becoming part of the political discussion? I don’t think so, but for some reason, we’ve decided it’s ok to use misogynistic words to describe women and particularly Hillary Clinton. I see this as part of a bigger problem we seem to have with how we define feminism and what images of femininity we are comfortable with.
One of the complaints about Hillary is that she is “too comfortable” in the male dominated arena of national politics (try to frame that as a disadvantage in a male context – bear in mind that Ms. Clinton has been a U.S. Senator for less than 8 years whereas the Republican frontrunner, John McCain has been a national representative for over 25 years – and if you don’t think McCain will play his experience for all its worth against Obama’s lack thereof, you have a hard lesson coming.) I found this commentary by Susan J. Douglas, professor of Communications at the University of Michigan, particularly telling: “Hillary, by contrast, seems to want to be more like a man in her demeanor and politics, makes few concessions to the social demands of femininity, and yet seems to be only a partial feminist. She seems above us, exempting herself from compromises women have to make every day, while, at the same time, leaving some of the basic tenets of feminism in the dust. We are sold out on both counts. In other words, she seems like patriarchy in sheep’s clothing.” By that logic, pioneering female aviator Amelia Earhart would have kept her feet firmly on the ground and early suffragette and abolitionist Lucy Stone would have just shut up and sat down. No truly great women have ever stopped to worry about “making concessions to the social demands of femininity,” let alone the “basic tenets of feminism” which, in my opinion can be boiled down to the maxim that women are the equals of men. By my standards, Hillary Clinton has never betrayed her femininity or feminism.
The Republicans and the Fox News clones have done such a great hatchet job since the whole Bill Clinton/Monica Lewinsky scandal broke that many people now regard the entire Clinton administration as a dark age for our country, when nothing could be further from the truth. Younger voters may not remember that Bill Clinton turned the largest federal debt in history into the largest budget surplus in history during his two terms in office and presided over the longest peace-time period of economic expansion in American history. When he left office, he had the highest voter approval rating for an outgoing President since FDR: 65%. This, despite being impeached by a Republican controlled House of Representatives. So when someone tells you, “eight years of one Clinton was enough,” remember that those were eight relatively great years for this country.
It’s important for me to note that I have no animosity towards Barack Obama, who seems to be a very decent and earnest individual. It’s just that I much prefer Hillary Clinton for a number of reasons, chief of which is that Hillary is a fighter and has been battle tested. She’s hated by the Republicans for a reason - she is not afraid to take them on and fight them in hand to hand combat. If anyone still believes that the neo-conservative stranglehold on this country can be wished away by pretty speeches and a lot of people holding “HOPE” signs, I say it’s time to think again. I for one am absolutely fed up with the Republican party and what they have done to our country, our economy and our rights over the past eight years and I am not in the mood to “unite” with most of them. I am fairly certain that the feeling is mutual, so I don’t buy the unification slogan. I want a President who can kick some ass in D.C. and get things done, the Democratic way. I want Dirty Harriett – no, make that Dirty Hillary!
Give ‘em hell, Hillary!
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Hillary Clinton Music Video - Women On Top
In the spirit of home made crafting, my family just created this music video for the Hillary Clinton campaign. I used a demo recording of my old band, Stay At Home Bomb performing a song called "Women On Top," which seemed just perfect for the purpose. I should add the disclaimer that this is my song and it represents my choice for '08. I'm not speaking for anyone else in the band.
There is no limit to what you can do yourself with the right tools and the desire to learn. Hope you enjoy it!
Women On Top - Stay At Home Bomb
Add to My Profile | More Videos
There is no limit to what you can do yourself with the right tools and the desire to learn. Hope you enjoy it!
Women On Top - Stay At Home Bomb
Add to My Profile | More Videos
Saturday, January 26, 2008
The Future of Food
One of the participatory aspects of the online group that I belong to, Destroyers of Mass Production, is that any member can throw down a challenge to the other members. Some of the past challenges have included sewing blankets for the homeless and surreptitiously posting anti-war messages in public. A current challenge is to grow your own food.
I saw a very disturbing film last night that left me tossing and turning and that seems to relate to this topic if only because it has to do with growing your own food. It's called The Future of Food. It talks about the origins of genetically engineered food and what GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are doing to our food supply. Not only do these foods contain harmful chemicals, bacteria, and antibiotics but because they are corporate hybrids they can be patented. If the wind or a bird drops a seed that has been patented onto a farmer's field and it cross pollinates with that farmer's crops, the resulting strain of corn, for example, may contain the marker gene that is patented. That farmer can then be held liable for violating patent law. Incredible as it sounds, many farmers have been sued for this very reason. Farmers, our food suppliers, are being put in a position where they must buy these genetically engineered patented seeds each time they plant for fear of being sued. This affects us because it reduces the variety and quality of produce that is available to us. Seeds are being patented all the time, so eventually even small organic farmers may be affected.
After a year of being vegetarian, I was feeling pretty happy every time I went to the grocery store and thought about how I wasn't eating meat that had chemicals and antibiotics. I went out of my way to look for cheese and dairy products that contain no rBST and I'm a label reader so my processed foods have to meet certain criteria. But where are the labels on our produce? Why shouldn't we know how our fruits and vegetables are being farmed? If I'm eating genetically modified food I want to know it. If my corn on the cob is classified as a pesticide because any insect that eats it dies, (yes, this is true) I want to know!
I saw a very disturbing film last night that left me tossing and turning and that seems to relate to this topic if only because it has to do with growing your own food. It's called The Future of Food. It talks about the origins of genetically engineered food and what GMOs (Genetically Modified Organisms) are doing to our food supply. Not only do these foods contain harmful chemicals, bacteria, and antibiotics but because they are corporate hybrids they can be patented. If the wind or a bird drops a seed that has been patented onto a farmer's field and it cross pollinates with that farmer's crops, the resulting strain of corn, for example, may contain the marker gene that is patented. That farmer can then be held liable for violating patent law. Incredible as it sounds, many farmers have been sued for this very reason. Farmers, our food suppliers, are being put in a position where they must buy these genetically engineered patented seeds each time they plant for fear of being sued. This affects us because it reduces the variety and quality of produce that is available to us. Seeds are being patented all the time, so eventually even small organic farmers may be affected.
After a year of being vegetarian, I was feeling pretty happy every time I went to the grocery store and thought about how I wasn't eating meat that had chemicals and antibiotics. I went out of my way to look for cheese and dairy products that contain no rBST and I'm a label reader so my processed foods have to meet certain criteria. But where are the labels on our produce? Why shouldn't we know how our fruits and vegetables are being farmed? If I'm eating genetically modified food I want to know it. If my corn on the cob is classified as a pesticide because any insect that eats it dies, (yes, this is true) I want to know!
Here is a summary of what crops, foods and food ingredients have been genetically modified as of July, 2007:
Currently Commercialized GM Crops in the U.S.:
(Number in parentheses represents the estimated percent that is genetically modified.)
Soy (89%)
Cotton (83%)
Canola (75%)
Corn (61%)
Hawaiian papaya (more than 50%)
Alfalfa, zucchini and yellow squash (small amount)
Tobacco (Quest® brand)
(source: Seedsofdeception.com)
Sunday, December 02, 2007
No Apologies
I have left this blog unattended for too long. Several of the comments that have been left within the last month deserve a response. I’d like to begin by responding to the comment below about Jenny Lens. I understand the reason for this comment, and yet I love a woman who can sing her own praises. I wholeheartedly support the practice. It doesn’t mean that I think that Jenny Lens single-handedly created the L.A. punk scene. The L.A. punk scene was made up of a bunch of highly creative, intelligent people. Many of us had been misfits in school and not just because we liked a different kind of music, but because many of us had social I.Q.s that were sub-par. Committing the social faux pas of announcing to the world that we’re happy with ourselves is a hallmark of that type of behavior, but is it really a bad thing? Most of us probably think we’re pretty cool, but are aware that spending too much time talking about our own achievements will create the impression that we’re self centered or conceited. I think it’s refreshing that Jenny thinks she’s all that and is willing to say it. Women in general should do a little more of that. Men have been doing it for years. Take a look at any of the male dominated cable news shows and you’ll see for yourself.
Another comment that made me think long and hard was from a woman defending her choice to wear the veil. It was not my intention to insult women who wear the veil and yet I find that what I’m saying may be interpreted as inherently insulting. I am saying that these women are being victimized by their religious beliefs and by the establishment that supports them. I could say that of many religions and in fact of any women who must function within a patriarchal establishment and play by its rules. There’s no nice way to say it. I think you’re being hoodwinked in the same way that Americans are made to feel unpatriotic if they disagree with the administration’s views. Religious leaders need to be questioned and their ideas need to be challenged now and then.
Although I cannot apologize for my position on the subject of the veil, you shouldn’t take my disagreeing with you as a personal insult. Being able to exchange ideas, to question your own beliefs, to respond and defend your views, all those things are necessary for spiritual growth. I know that religious belief is not something that most people debate intellectually. The religious experience is personal and unique to each individual. My intention is not to attempt to invalidate anyone’s beliefs, simply to voice my own. For me, it would be impossible to participate in any religion that does not put women on equal footing with men. If Jesus himself, or Mohammed, or Buddha, spoke to me personally and said that women are inferior to men, I would still reject that as false dogma because I know with every ounce of my being that this is not true. I do not practice blind faith. I like to examine my beliefs scrupulously, with my eyes wide open.
Friday, November 09, 2007
Delayed Gratification
I turned 49 a couple of days ago and I am in my happy place. There's change in the air and even though I can't attend, I'm excited about Brendan Mullen's show in Los Angeles this weekend. Brendan is promoting his latest book, Live At The Masque - Nightmare In Punk Alley and has managed to assemble an old codger contingent that makes me want to run out and grab my Depends. The show is this Veteran's Day at the Echo and Echoplex. Scheduled to appear are The Plugs, The Eyes, The Controllers, The Gears...It promises to be fun. I saw somewhere that Geza X will be joining the Deadbeats onstage. Not only is Geza an ex-Bags member, but he also had a band at the time who were called the Jerrys (after Jerry Lewis). I thought it might be fun if he had a new band called The Geris (after geriatrics). I would love to be in that band! So climb into the wormhole and click on the flyer for a journey back in time.
The many photographers who contributed to the Masque book, along with Brendan Mullen and his co-editor are doing their part to preserve the legacy of punk rock. It's something I get asked about in almost every interview and I typically wrestle a bit with the answer. Truthfully, it's sometimes difficult for me to say which things have changed for the better (or worse) as a result of punk rock. But today, I saw some photos that gave me the answer I was looking for. More on that below.
Earlier this week, L.A. Record asked me to do an interview in conjunction with this event but because it was my birthday and I was out celebrating, I missed the deadline and only half my interview made it in on time. Click on the drawing to read the first part of the interview. I've included the missing second half below the drawing.
Drawing of me by Christine Hale
The many photographers who contributed to the Masque book, along with Brendan Mullen and his co-editor are doing their part to preserve the legacy of punk rock. It's something I get asked about in almost every interview and I typically wrestle a bit with the answer. Truthfully, it's sometimes difficult for me to say which things have changed for the better (or worse) as a result of punk rock. But today, I saw some photos that gave me the answer I was looking for. More on that below.
Earlier this week, L.A. Record asked me to do an interview in conjunction with this event but because it was my birthday and I was out celebrating, I missed the deadline and only half my interview made it in on time. Click on the drawing to read the first part of the interview. I've included the missing second half below the drawing.
Drawing of me by Christine Hale
"When Necessary, Annihilate" interview part II
Q: Being female and Latina, did that present any obstacles for you in the scene or was it an asset to be female and 'exotic' in the scene?
A: I never felt that I was treated as anything other than a human being by the people involved in the punk scene. Being female was not a liability as the large number of women who were involved in the early scene can attest. Neither was being a Latina. At a certain point my band got a bad reputation because of our aggressive behavior and unruly fans, but that was well deserved. I am nobody's victim. I very often confuse people who get in my face with punching bags. You can take a girl out of East LA, but you can't take East LA out of the girl.
Q: Can you recall specific events that, for you, sounded the end of LA Punk and signaled the shape of things to come?
A: Yes, I remember one particular show where I looked into the audience and I realized that it was made up of people who were not connected to me (or connecting with me) in any way. They were there to "make the scene," hang out, act tough, fight with each other, whatever but they were not there to hear The Bags. Up until then my performances were all about interacting with the audience. I never wanted to make background music. I think I knew then that there was a new breed of punk on the horizon and that I had to move on to something else.
Q: What are your thoughts on 'music' today; how it is made, what is being made, and the way we experience and consume our music now as opposed to then?
A: Music today is just as exciting and creative as it was in 1977 - if you know where to look for it. There are lots of young musicians making their own recordings, putting out their own merch, exploring with new sounds and instrumentation, planning their own tours. The internet has made it possible for us to hear small, unsigned bands from all over the world. That's a good thing but I still feel that the best way to experience rock or pretty much any kind of music is live, in a club setting.
Mainstream radio is just as bad or even worse than it was back in the seventies when punk started. The whole music industry has become slick, sophisticated and geared towards image driven pop stars who are as interchangeable and disposable as the products they sell, from sneakers to cell phones.
Q: How did the closing of the Masque affect the scene? I'm wondering if the bands were maturing and growing up and out of the Masque?
A: You know, I hear people talk about how there were other venues for punk rock other than the Masque and it's true that there were clubs who would book punk bands who could draw a drinking age crowd, but the Masque was more than a venue. It was almost a clubhouse. Brendan wasn't selling liquor, he wasn't making big bucks off admission fees. He was just doing what he wanted to do. He opened his doors to a bunch of strangers, welcomed us in and gave us a place to express ourselves and create. I think the fact that the L.A. Scene was so strong was because it was unified and interactive. We were living, working and creating in many of the same places like the Masque and the Canterbury. Those places were like little greenhouses for us. As those circumstances changed the scene changed. I'm not sure if the closing of the Masque affected the scene as much as the natural evolution of the scene itself and the influence of outsiders affected the closing of the Masque. The scene just grew beyond the Masque and the original, tight knit community unraveled around the same time.
Q: How do you want to be remembered at your passing?
A: Truthfully, if you want to remember me do it now. I won't give a shit when I'm dead.
Megan Brown shreds on the Alice Bag skateboard.
Finally, for those of you who asked about the Alice Bag skateboard deck, it's done. Gridlock Skateboards has produced a limited edition of Alice Bag skateboards and the last I heard, they were planning on selling a few at the show this weekend. All proceeds go to supporting a youth skateboarding mentor program organized by Michael Fox. The art for the boards was designed by Zeroxed in conjunction with Gridlock Skateboards. So if you've ever wanted to step on my face here's your chance.
Today, I saw some photos of a young female skater named Megan Brown riding my board on MySpace and I've posted a couple of them above. It's hard to describe the many feelings I get from these photos but I can tell you that I couldn't be more proud. Seeing a young girl riding a board with my face on it really brought home the "legacy of punk rock" idea for me. It's like the whole thing has come full circle. When I was a kid, girls didn't ride skateboards; if they did, they certainly didn't ride them aggressively like the boys did. Seeing this image of a young girl, empowered on a skateboard with my face on it, well...it's kind of the ultimate delayed gratification for me. It tells me that punk changed something about the way young women feel about themselves and the way society views young women.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)