some of you are high on the douchebag meter. it was just a fucking question. not a statement on the band's wealth and what they should do with it. I don't give a fuck. I was asking for a logical interpretation of the song, which some were able to provide, others felt the need to lash out at the supposed stupidity of the question.
go troll somewhere else if you can't answer a question without being snide about it.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
sorry. Just thought it was painfully obvisou in a song called Bushleguer he is talking about those in power not making policy to help the actual people they are supposed to represent.
seems you were trying to stir it up with such a thread.
sorry. Just thought it was painfully obvisou in a song called Bushleguer he is talking about those in power not making policy to help the actual people they are supposed to represent.
.
Exactly! Like Obama not giving money to OWS folks. Good point.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
sorry. Just thought it was painfully obvisou in a song called Bushleguer he is talking about those in power not making policy to help the actual people they are supposed to represent.
seems you were trying to stir it up with such a thread.
it is obvious he was talking about Bush. My question was how could he write a lyric such as he did, using such a broad term which can also be associated with them. very simple question. I guess I was going a bit deep with it.
I don't try to stir anything up here. I was asking a legit question. it has been answered.
done.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
sorry. Just thought it was painfully obvisou in a song called Bushleguer he is talking about those in power not making policy to help the actual people they are supposed to represent.
.
Exactly! Like Obama not giving money to OWS folks. Good point.
Adelaide 17/11/2009, Melbourne 20/11/2009, Sydney 22/11/2009, Melbourne (Big Day Out Festival) 24/01/2014
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,431
Phew- Just watched the P.J. 20 DVD for the first time. Both sides of this argument could be culled from this film. I'm still thinking it's ok for PJ to be in the 1%. Look what they gave us and what's it worth. Security and privacy and the ability to keep doing it for them, all that good vibe for everyone. I'm in.
"Pretty cookies, heart squares all around, yeah!" -Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
sorry. Just thought it was painfully obvisou in a song called Bushleguer he is talking about those in power not making policy to help the actual people they are supposed to represent.
seems you were trying to stir it up with such a thread.
it is obvious he was talking about Bush. My question was how could he write a lyric such as he did, using such a broad term which can also be associated with them. very simple question. I guess I was going a bit deep with it.
I don't try to stir anything up here. I was asking a legit question. it has been answered.
done.
The song is just a simple shot at GW. Nothing more; nothing less. Is there an element of hypocrisy in a group of extremely rich individuals criticizing the rich? Of course there is. Is Bu$hleaguer rife with generalizations? I believe so. Does it dilute the song's message? Only if you didn't believe in the message to begin with.
This kind of debate has always looked a bit like a strawman argument. It's easier to attack the messenger than it is to argue with the idea. If we discredit the messenger we don't even need to deconstruct the message. I suppose the thinking goes; "a hypocrite has no credibility so the message is automatically discredited". You see this sort of thing all the time on the train. Read any Obama thread, or any thread on any of the Republican candidates and most of the posts focus on discrediting/insulting the individual rather than looking at their policies or platforms. The same can be said of many prominent political writers. Everybody is so partisan that any attempt real dialogue is pointless. Those posters will just be ignored.
to be honest, I wasn't sure if I was misinterpreting the lyrics, as a good portion of the lyrics in the song don't make a lick of sense to me.
this line: "This is such a happening tailpipe of a party."
honestly, this whole flippin' verse makes my head spin:
"A think tank of aloof multiplication
A nicotine wish and a columbus decanter
Retrenchment and hoggishness
The aristocrat choir sings
"What's the ruckus?"
The haves have not a clue
The immenseness of suffering
And the odd negotiation, a rarity
With onionskin plausibility of life,
And a keyboard reaffirmation"
firstly, many "haves" who have way more than ed would agree with him ... secondly, i think if you take some time ... this verse should be pretty straightforward ...
i was warm to the song originally but it's one of my favourites of the pj 20 soundtrack ...
Ed is a "have". It is not uncommon to criticize a group that you belong to. Americans criticize america, democrats criticize the democratic party, etc. Ed is criticizing his economic peer group.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win ."
Ed is a "have". It is not uncommon to criticize a group that you belong to. Americans criticize america, democrats criticize the democratic party, etc. Ed is criticizing his economic peer group.
Ed and the rest are haves from sharing their collective talents and were made haves by us. the consumer.
What the song partially refers to IMO is those born into "have" thinking they earned it. A song like this needs to be viewed in its entirety to have the message fully heard.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
For me the line "Born on third, thinks he got a triple" answers this one. While Pearl Jam may have had the fortune of amassing a huge amount of wealth over their careers, they certainly didn't start in the so-called 1%. I'm pretty sure that Jeff or Ed have first hand knowledge of what it's like to be broke. There are a lot of people who can't speak to that experience who don't know or care about the millions of people who are suffering in poverty.
Now perhaps if PJ actually have their assets in a tax haven to avoid paying taxes like U2 I could see the hypocrisy a bit more clearly .
Exactly, I think the "Haves" that he is referring to are those who have always had everything, but never had to earn it, never saw the other side of the fence, never dealt with hardships or struggles.
"Born on third" -- he didn't get there by earning it, he didn't get a triple.
EV Solo Boston 6/16/11
East Troy 9/3/11
East Troy 9/4/11
Amsterdam 6/26/12
Amsterdam 6/27/12
Wrigley Field 7/19-20/13
Worcester, MA 10/15/13
Worcester, MA 10/16/13
Hartford, CT 10/25/13
Seattle, WA 12/06/13
Denver, CO 10/22/14 Fenway 2016 #1
Fenway 2016 #2 Fenway 2018 #1 Fenway 2018 #2
i've heard or read w/ my own two eyes that ed drives or did drive his old toyota from back in his gas pumping days. this is great and i find it hilarious.
take mr. neil young for example, the man has been making music and touring as long as we are old or longer than the rest are young. :?
the man is a pillar in this world. i (do) would trust neil more than anyone i'm sure of that. while wearing blue jeans with holes and a flannel shirt...there he goes, there he is. (and willie nelson. i trust that man)
these people give away more than what is seen. low-key without flash and the i,i,i,i, look at me signs.
they have created jobs and lives for a great number of people behind the scences, man. of course these are only my opinions i know nothing from first hand experience.
as I said, this is being disected more than I intended. it was not a shot at ed, or shooting the messenger as someone else said. my hypocrisy was a strong word, but there's only so much you can put in a thread title to embody the message of said thread.
It was answered simply as "yes he's a have, but he wasn't always".
I think it had more to do with a clever play on words than anything else, now that I think about it.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
to be honest, I wasn't sure if I was misinterpreting the lyrics, as a good portion of the lyrics in the song don't make a lick of sense to me.
this line: "This is such a happening tailpipe of a party."
honestly, this whole flippin' verse makes my head spin:
"A think tank of aloof multiplication
A nicotine wish and a columbus decanter
Retrenchment and hoggishness
The aristocrat choir sings
"What's the ruckus?"
The haves have not a clue
The immenseness of suffering
And the odd negotiation, a rarity
With onionskin plausibility of life,
And a keyboard reaffirmation"
secondly, i think if you take some time ... this verse should be pretty straightforward.
really? well I guess I'm dense! I have no idea what "aloof multiplication" or "nicotine wish" or "columbus decanter" or "keyboard reaffirmation" mean whatsoever.
But I'm also not that well-versed in the political.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
This kind of debate has always looked a bit like a strawman argument. It's easier to attack the messenger than it is to argue with the idea. If we discredit the messenger we don't even need to deconstruct the message. I suppose the thinking goes; "a hypocrite has no credibility so the message is automatically discredited". You see this sort of thing all the time on the train. Read any Obama thread, or any thread on any of the Republican candidates and most of the posts focus on discrediting/insulting the individual rather than looking at their policies or platforms. The same can be said of many prominent political writers. Everybody is so partisan that any attempt real dialogue is pointless. Those posters will just be ignored.
it was a question, not trying to stir anything up or start any heated debate. I was attacking nothing.
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
This kind of debate has always looked a bit like a strawman argument. It's easier to attack the messenger than it is to argue with the idea. If we discredit the messenger we don't even need to deconstruct the message.......
Recognizing fallacies is one of my favorite past times.
You're right, "strawman" is a fallacy, but actually "strawman" technically references when a person's argument is distorted by the other party and that distorted argument (the strawman) is then attacked.
what you're referring to is the fallacy of "personal attack".
Look at the list a little bit down on the left.....so many ways to argue incorrectly....
I just wish the song wasn't so direct in its message. It has a good riff with a haunting overlay by McCready. But now it has become a dated political statement ... well at least until the Mexican version of George Bush decides to run someday.
Ed is a "have". It is not uncommon to criticize a group that you belong to. Americans criticize america, democrats criticize the democratic party, etc. Ed is criticizing his economic peer group.
exactly.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I always put this song and lyric to a higher order. Not some "rich" self made businessman, or actor, or even a rich politician as a singular entity, but more of the big, old money that actually runs everything.
Corporate money maybe, but really the power that has America in constant war, with men and woman dying all over the world because it is good for Haliburton, and the Military Industry.
Those politicians can be anyone, but they all represent the same thing. The same power structure that sends men to die for oil.
hoo-fucking-ray
well said
and as for the fans at nassau and denver that boooed the song
it was as if they didn't even know who they were going to see
it's pearl jam for fuck's sake
I'm sure this has been covered, but the line "the haves have not a clue" kind of strikes me as a bit odd. I mean, aren't the guys in Pearl Jam technically "haves"? They probably have more than a lot of politicians do.
Anyone?
I think more of "The Haves" of being born into soemthing. Not really earning it. For Example GW.
I'm sure this has been covered, but the line "the haves have not a clue" kind of strikes me as a bit odd. I mean, aren't the guys in Pearl Jam technically "haves"? They probably have more than a lot of politicians do.
Anyone?
I think more of "The Haves" of being born into soemthing. Not really earning it. For Example GW.
A challenge that the band's children will be faced with.
The Haves are now defined as anyone making over $200K or a couple making over $250K. That is who protesters claim have not been paying their fair share. They are the 1%.
But it seems we have conceptualized The Haves as "Fat Cat Wall Street C.E.O.s" while The Haves are also composed of rock stars, physicians, small business owners, etc.
as I said, this is being disected more than I intended. it was not a shot at ed, or shooting the messenger as someone else said. my hypocrisy was a strong word, but there's only so much you can put in a thread title to embody the message of said thread.
It was answered simply as "yes he's a have, but he wasn't always".
I think it had more to do with a clever play on words than anything else, now that I think about it.
not to mention he might not always be.. and i think thats where the haves have not a clue. they fail to see the privileged position they find themselves in(and in some cases how they got there) and how it can all be taken away.. yet they dont act that way. they act as if they will be privileged for the rest of their lives and therefore are blinded to those who for whatever reason arent so privileged.
hear my name
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
i will say that only a genius could have written this song. no one can write this kinda poetry w/out having the wonderful gift of creativity. i say it's badass and very complex. hopefully it will produce profit for many years to come. as well as open minds and inspire others and nail a few people...this being the most important.
Comments
Only if you don't like hearing different viewpoints. Very typical. Listen. Occassional we learn from stupidity.
go troll somewhere else if you can't answer a question without being snide about it.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
seems you were trying to stir it up with such a thread.
Exactly! Like Obama not giving money to OWS folks. Good point.
it is obvious he was talking about Bush. My question was how could he write a lyric such as he did, using such a broad term which can also be associated with them. very simple question. I guess I was going a bit deep with it.
I don't try to stir anything up here. I was asking a legit question. it has been answered.
done.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Why so threatened?
-Eddie Vedder, "Smile"
The song is just a simple shot at GW. Nothing more; nothing less. Is there an element of hypocrisy in a group of extremely rich individuals criticizing the rich? Of course there is. Is Bu$hleaguer rife with generalizations? I believe so. Does it dilute the song's message? Only if you didn't believe in the message to begin with.
This kind of debate has always looked a bit like a strawman argument. It's easier to attack the messenger than it is to argue with the idea. If we discredit the messenger we don't even need to deconstruct the message. I suppose the thinking goes; "a hypocrite has no credibility so the message is automatically discredited". You see this sort of thing all the time on the train. Read any Obama thread, or any thread on any of the Republican candidates and most of the posts focus on discrediting/insulting the individual rather than looking at their policies or platforms. The same can be said of many prominent political writers. Everybody is so partisan that any attempt real dialogue is pointless. Those posters will just be ignored.
firstly, many "haves" who have way more than ed would agree with him ... secondly, i think if you take some time ... this verse should be pretty straightforward ...
i was warm to the song originally but it's one of my favourites of the pj 20 soundtrack ...
"With our thoughts we make the world"
What the song partially refers to IMO is those born into "have" thinking they earned it. A song like this needs to be viewed in its entirety to have the message fully heard.
Its a direct shot at W and his cronies.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
Exactly, I think the "Haves" that he is referring to are those who have always had everything, but never had to earn it, never saw the other side of the fence, never dealt with hardships or struggles.
"Born on third" -- he didn't get there by earning it, he didn't get a triple.
East Troy 9/3/11
East Troy 9/4/11
Amsterdam 6/26/12
Amsterdam 6/27/12
Wrigley Field 7/19-20/13
Worcester, MA 10/15/13
Worcester, MA 10/16/13
Hartford, CT 10/25/13
Seattle, WA 12/06/13
Denver, CO 10/22/14
Fenway 2016 #1
Fenway 2016 #2
Fenway 2018 #1
Fenway 2018 #2
take mr. neil young for example, the man has been making music and touring as long as we are old or longer than the rest are young. :?
the man is a pillar in this world. i (do) would trust neil more than anyone i'm sure of that. while wearing blue jeans with holes and a flannel shirt...there he goes, there he is. (and willie nelson. i trust that man)
these people give away more than what is seen. low-key without flash and the i,i,i,i, look at me signs.
they have created jobs and lives for a great number of people behind the scences, man. of course these are only my opinions i know nothing from first hand experience.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
It was answered simply as "yes he's a have, but he wasn't always".
I think it had more to do with a clever play on words than anything else, now that I think about it.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
really? well I guess I'm dense!
But I'm also not that well-versed in the political.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
it was a question, not trying to stir anything up or start any heated debate. I was attacking nothing.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I'm sure that this 20 seconds brought it on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mn4daYJzyls
Recognizing fallacies is one of my favorite past times.
You're right, "strawman" is a fallacy, but actually "strawman" technically references when a person's argument is distorted by the other party and that distorted argument (the strawman) is then attacked.
what you're referring to is the fallacy of "personal attack".
Look at the list a little bit down on the left.....so many ways to argue incorrectly....
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adhomine.html
True!
What was this function he was speaking at?
Having been frequenting the AMT for the past five years, it doesn't really surprise me.
Though it is disappointing.
exactly.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
hoo-fucking-ray
well said
and as for the fans at nassau and denver that boooed the song
it was as if they didn't even know who they were going to see
it's pearl jam for fuck's sake
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
The Haves are now defined as anyone making over $200K or a couple making over $250K. That is who protesters claim have not been paying their fair share. They are the 1%.
But it seems we have conceptualized The Haves as "Fat Cat Wall Street C.E.O.s" while The Haves are also composed of rock stars, physicians, small business owners, etc.
not to mention he might not always be.. and i think thats where the haves have not a clue. they fail to see the privileged position they find themselves in(and in some cases how they got there) and how it can all be taken away.. yet they dont act that way. they act as if they will be privileged for the rest of their lives and therefore are blinded to those who for whatever reason arent so privileged.
take a good look
this could be the day
hold my hand
lie beside me
i just need to say
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce