| - Greatest Hits HOLY SHIT! this is LONG!! are you kidding? did i right this shit?
so ive decided with my excess time to go back to some of my more punk-based roots... musically speaking, im not going to get a mohawk and a bomber jacket. anyway so i searched through all my old shit and i found mostly anti flag .. some old timey nofx.. dropkick murpheys shit like that... anyway so i decided to listen to this shit, an' i donno, its not bad stuff, i can still appreciate it. but it seems kind of overly repetitve shit . OH SHIT!! wait nevermind. back to this... i was saying that punk music just seems too repetive, but maybe thats just because i used to listen to this shit all the time so i know all of it, so it just seems repetative... oh right, this does have a point. (albumbs 1-3 of my past listned to).
nyway, so what i figured was that the ideologies of punk music those being mostly centered around destruction of the current establishment, and power to the people, that type of shit, seems to come from two dispositions. One of which is rudimentary; i finna do whatever the fuck i finna do. the other seems to be ummmm whats the word im looking for here? oh yeah: sincere care for the lives of people and the endangerment of their basic human rights. I can appreciate the fact that somewhere out there there's a group of people that care for the well being of humans. ( side-bar: album numberfour is being listned to, terror state, i didnt really like this one as much as i liked the other ones before, but i think im liking it more now)(so maybe i was just too familiar with the other albums).
So this seems like a good ideology, these punks think that the current people in power have too much power, and i can defintly see that. Since back in the day( that being a wednesday) the government's power and centralization has expanded tremendously. From a system in which each person's voice counts in deciding everything that the society deems nesecery(rudimentary, straight up democracy straight outta athens or something), our republican government has evolved into one in which people select people who they belive will best represent their interests. The problem with that is that that does not happen but those in power act as though their ideas are endorsed by all who vote for them, as such, the people's voice is not correctly represented. Escepecially nowadays, its extremely easy to be misled by a candidate through propaganda and such, it seems like no politicians have any stands on anything and through political buracreasies, lobbisits(?) and what not images of politicians are distorted, and people that should not be leading anything find themselves in positions of power... politics diverged from being led by those who have the strongest beliefs about certain things, and those who are indeed most apt to lead to people that really dont have any special reason for leading the nation ... this happened waaaaaay back in the day though, the transformation of politicians into something of a performer, more or less.( insert concluding statement here.)
what was i saying? i was going to say something before that rant... well let's say that the paragraph above ends in a conclusive statement. lets just modify that now..there. ok so let's move on. OK so the problem with straight up democracy is that at this point its RIDICULOUS as getting everyone to vote on every subject would not be feesable in the least. so representatives is pretty much what you have to do to try to keep things as democratic as possible. so the citizens are responisible for selecting their leaders and they are responsible for carrying out the will of the people. however, it becomes impossible for the government to give to the people all that they wish, as the people are driven by their innate greed, and the leaders are counteractively motivated by their greed, and the two wills can never completely coincide, and all we can hope for is something were one of the wills doesnt conflict too much with the other. Also, its completely impossible to give the people all that they will because such a thing isnt feesableas people will always want more and more until they've digressed to a situation which mirrors one where theres no governmetn.(can we agree that government is necessary? if you disagree, you fail at life.) so the government is necessary and due to the way which history unferreled it was pretty much inevitable for the us to be some sort of world power in an international body. so the point im making is that it seems like punks have a problem with the fact that people's freedoms must be limited in order for a functional state to exsist. of course keeping people's freedoms to a maximum while keeping social order in tact is what a government should aim for but sometimes its necessary for the government to limit freedoms, ecpecially in a time of crisis. (not to sound like an apologist for the bush administrations patriot act there... but i think that it should be realized that there is a mutal agreement between the people and the leaders, which limits freedoms of people such that the maximum number of people can experience the most protection of their freedoms.) OOOOH K. maybe ive stopped making any sence? hey cut me some slack, im tired, im listening to sublime(im done with excavatin the past for today), talking to some kidos, and watching extra or some shit, so cut me some slack for having the composure to finish writting this thing.
ok if you read all of this... ill owe you... lets say... a candy of your choice, or a sexy late night date. |
