Wednesday, July 22, 2009

Memories associated with a record store.

There was a record store in the Mid-Western town in which I grew up that would never open until 12:00 or 1:00 pm. It was different pretty much every day. I don't remember if the hours were actually posted on the door. If they were, then they were to be taken with a grain of salt. On the occasional unpredictable day, without notice or acknowledgment, it wouldn't open at all. God, it was a cool place. The guy who worked behind the desk was a huge asshole. Nobody knew whether he was the owner or an employee, although either way, he was the only person who was ever seen working there.

When I set about recapturing the guy's physical appearance, I think: tall, late 20s/early 30s; dark brown hair and eyes that were just a tad bloodshot; scuffed-up, tight brown corduroys and a ratty, hooded sweater of muted blue, casually baggy on his once-skinny frame. Maybe he had tattoos somewhere; somewhere his girlfriends could see. Did girls like tattoos?

To customers, particularly to we awkward teenagers, he spoke rarely and in brief statements and always disinterestedly. He didn't want -- it seems -- to be bothered. This made a certain amount of sense, considering that he was constantly on the phone, having the lewdest, most shockingly frank conversations with someone -- was it always the same person? -- about sex and drinking.

"Yeah, so I met up with fucking what's-her-name, and she fucking -- her fucking tits were just all like, fucking...there. And I'm like... So, we fucking did some shit, and we... And I fucked her. Yeah so, but anyway."

Was he talking about drugs, too? We didn't really know, because we didn't hear any references to the conventions and accoutrements of drug-use familiar to our brand of well-adjusted-if-disaffected near-north-suburban teenagedom. I mean, was he talking about...like...heroin or something? The mind would race at the mere mention: imagining the apparatus, the hardware; aren't stoves and blowtorches involved? Were the etiquettes of its commerce and consumption the same as in pot culture, except with the shady characters shadier and the music better and you get to do it to art school girls in short hair and tights?

We didn't understand the references in half the things he was saying, and for some reason this not only made him seem scarier, but it also made him seem infinitely cooler. He was an ogre-aesthete.

I remember the small store, square-shaped and high ceilinged, on a tucked-away corner of two tucked-away streets, the building's spartan front steps of cracked concrete, jutting out, diagonal and rectangular, its windows taped up with xeroxed posters and darkened halfway down by venetian blinds at three-quarters tilt. It was always summer there; sometimes, it was autumn.

It was completely intimidating to file through the massive collection of used LPs in his presence, because one of my friends got yelled at once for handling one of them incorrectly. It was a weathered old gatefold copy of Trespass, a very early album by Genesis -- the original, Gabriel-fronted version, of course. My friend learned on this occasion that this lush, atmospheric study in languid 12-string acoustic guitars and simmering Hammond organs -- somehow, simultaneously gentle and apocalyptic -- was the owner's/employee's favorite album of all time.

On a later occasion, in reference to this encounter and the unexpected revelation it produced, the same friend of mine asked the owner/employee whether he was a fan of so-called progressive rock in general. The owner/employee, caught off-guard in an interval between dirty phone conversations, and immediately regretting having opened the door to this little cretin and his chummy, credulous small-talk, said: No.

Whereupon, if I recall correctly, my friend pressed him further. What kind of stuff do you like? he wanted to know. With my friend's sally of impertinence already well underway, the owner/employee endeavored to staunch the hemorrhaging of his authority by producing the most ponderous answer he could muster. According to my friend, it may or may not have included references to free jazz, New York punk, Zappa, John Addams, Sibelius. (I don't remember.)

It seemed like he was an inhabitant of the same parallel universe from which came the spectral, silent white-skinned girls in zig-zag clothes and costume jewelry that always seemed to blink into my focus during the half-waking middle sections of parties. Who were those girls? I wanted to know that universe's impossible, aching melancholia, that menace and that violence. The power to obliterate oneself.

Friday, July 3, 2009

The point about Sarah Palin is that she's amoral.

News about Sarah Palin: apparently she's blah blah blah blah blah.

Sarah Palin: theories as to why she apparently arouses hatred. I probably do hate her, and insofar as I do, I hate that I hate her. To inspire the hatred of others is to wield a peculiar kind of power. There's also a part of me that is in a sense unfazed by her personally, that sees in her a representation of many of contemporary America's most morally objectionable tendencies. It is these tendencies that I oppose with all my might, whether she's there to embody them or not. Right? ...

But, Sarah Palin: she's got to be a symptom of something rather than the other way around, right? Because what symptom could possibly be CAUSED by a Sarah Palin? No. She must be the symptom. The side effect.

Sarah Palin: a side effect. Like television commercials for various god-knows-what prescription medications marketed to Baby-Boomers, so that they don't have to poop at inopportune moments, or whatever it is. SIDE EFFECTS MAY INCLUDE SARAH PALIN. Sometimes these advertisements -- the funniest of them, to be sure -- devote, like, over half of their running-time to the announcer guy reading out laundry lists of scary-ass side effects, which MAY INCLUDE MUCUS, SEIZURE, BLOOD CLOT, LOSS OF HEARING, OR -- IN RARE CASES -- SARAH PALIN...

I don't hate Palin so much as I fear the consolidation of political power among those who love her.

Sarah Palin -- to paraphrase the Sex Pistols -- She ain't no human being!, but a constellation of images, allusions and gestures.

The mediated phenomenon "Sara Palin" evokes nostalgia among a large number of Americans -- although, as far as I can tell, not a majority of them -- for a past that does not exist/that never existed.

I am reminded of accounts I have read of what it was like to witness the ascendancy of National Socialism in the tempestuous final days of the Weimar Republic: the celebration of ignorance, of seething, unfocused resentments.

The final revenge of style over content.

Sarah Palin makes George W. Bush look like a civil libertarian. She makes Ronald Reagan look pro-education. Sarah Palin is worse than these men because, whereas their moral precepts were delusional, hers are non-existent.

She's amoral: she represents indifference toward morality, indifference toward the Constitution, indifference toward the quality of life -- and livelihoods -- of present and future generations, indifference toward science, indifference toward representative democracy, indifference toward the separation of the branches of government, indifference toward education, indifference toward art, toward culture, toward freedom, toward poverty, toward the pursuit of happiness, indifference toward the principles espoused by the Founding Fathers, indifference toward religion in its meaningful sense, indifference toward history, indifference toward ideas, and indifference toward suffering.

The only thing toward which she is not indifferent is Sarah Palin. She doesn't care about the people who celebrate her. The people who celebrate her do so in the sense that they live vicariously through her. She embodies a collective, incoherent and self-contradictory dream. This dream pines for the destruction of all things unfamiliar in the interest of preserving the self as the self construes itself.

We really should be explaining the Left objection to her in moral terms: Sarah Palin is amoral.