July 2005 +x

Rest in Peace, Mr. Dahlquist

Do you listen to Silkworm? Really, you should. They've long been one of my favorite bands, all the way back to my most formative year of music - my sophomore year of high school (1995? egads.) Since that time, many of my favorite bands either broke up or just stopped giving me compelling reasons to listen to their music. But not Silkworm - even with the albums of theirs that weren't favorites of mine, I knew it was either a matter of time before I came around and realized how great the album was (Developer, when it first came out, was not immediately recognizable to me as the masterpiece I now know it to be, for example), or else it was still something worth hearing multiple times.

This is truly rare - I can think of maybe one other band from this formative period of my music life that this applies to. My personal love for this band and their music would be reason enough for me to be so greatly saddened to hear that Silkworm's drummer, the inimitable Mr. Michael Dahlquist, was just killed in a completely senseless car wreck.

But also from a few personal experiences, I can say that the world, both of music and at large, has lost a great, great man, far too soon.

A few quick tidbits of history: Joel RL Phelps was initially a member of Silkworm, alongside Michael Dahlquist, Tim Midgett, and Andy Cohen. Phelps left the band after their second album to pursue a solo career. In 1997, Phelps rejoined Silkworm for a one-off show, at a venue called the Sit 'N' Spin. At this time, I was 18; the venue was 21 and over, only.

Seattle is notoriously lousy with regulations for all-ages venues. Unlike Los Angeles, clubs that serve alcohol are unable to allow minors in at all - no wristband systems, no triple checking IDs - if you serve alcohol, no minors, period. If a band playing your venue has a minor, said minor has to wait outside until the band plays, and then leave immediately thereafter.

I was distressed that I wasn't going to get to see Silkworm, especially with this special reunion line-up. I wrote an email to Michael, asking if there was any chance they'd find an all-ages venue to play the show again. It, sadly, was not in the cards, but he asked me for my address, and said he'd send me something to make up for it.

About a week after the show, two cassette tapes (pre-widespread CD-R recording, after all) arrived in my mailbox, accompanied with a short letter in Michael's chicken-scrawl, relaying his hope that the tapes of the show might be a small substitute for my inability to actually be there. As you can imagine, this was far beyond any obligation a musician might have to a fan, and it delighted me to no end.

It wasn't until I moved to Los Angeles that I finally got to see Silkworm. I've seen them three times now, making sure to catch them every time they passed through. Siana was never a big fan of Silkworm until she saw them live, and this was primarily due to Michael's drumming (not to take anything away from Andy and Tim, the band's two singers and guitar player and bass player, respectively, as the band's chemistry certainly cast its spell upon her, too). Apart from being an amazing drummer, Michael was always an absolute joy to watch, because he pounded away on his drums like a big kid, with an incredible, infectious enthusiasm. Between songs, he'd pop up to have quick conversations with the audience, which usually resulted in unintelligible responses from a half-drunken audience. Even when the crowd was not amused, Michael clearly was. His exuberance always seemed unshakeable.

The band has always been extremely accessible in person at shows, and via their website and its message board. They've always been a grateful, generous presence on stage and in print (online and off), truly appreciative of their devoted fanbase. I'd spoken briefly to both Michael and Tim at the last few shows I saw them at, at the Knitting Factory in Los Angeles, and they were never anything less than kind, and always obliged my requests for songs, no matter how old or obscure(ish).

Though there's really no such thing as a sensible accidental death or murder, Michael Dahlquist was killed in a particularly senseless manner. According to all news reports, Michael and two of his co-workers were sitting at a red light, returning from a lunch break, when some 23 year-old girl, upset after a conversation with her mom, decided she was going to "end it all" by running three red lights before eventually crashing into their car at 70 mph. Michael and his co-workers were killed on impact; the woman who hit them had only minor injuries, and now faces three charges of first-degree murder.

Tim has said that Michael is irreplaceable, and that Silkworm doesn't exist without him. He is, and it doesn't.

Though I did not know him besides his gift to me, our brief e-mailed correspondences and a couple of words at shows, I will miss him. And my condolences go out to his family and friends, including the network of fellow Silkworm fans.

Update: Joe Sepi has posted a tribute featuring a wealth of information about the 3 friends lost in the car wreck.

July 20, 2005 at 2:12 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

The Wedding Present

My friends Brad and Amaranth are getting married today. For their wedding gift, I ventured down to Tijuana and commissioned this fine velvet painting, based on my photographs of them.

To obtain this sweet item, my uncle had to take two trips across the border in addition to the two that him and I took together, and I had to wait a month - a long month, with zero communication with the intermediary who was hiring the painter down in Tijuana, as he gave me a wrong number, thereby causing me to worry that the first half of my payment might have dissipated into thin air - but, boy howdy, was it worth it.

The painting is nothing less than the Tijuana velvet versions of Brad and Amaranth, and I'm pretty pleased with it. You can see the originals of Amaranth and Brad for reference.

And to Brad and Amaranth, I couldn't be happier for the two of you. Congratulations.

July 16, 2005 at 9:51 AM | Comments (4) | TrackBack

Pseudo-Science, Part II

I may have let the three people reading this site down with my last Scientology post. Sure, now we know that L Ron Hubbard is generally a poor writer, prone to hyperbole and fits of bizarre homophobia. But that's just nuttiness, you say - where's the pseudo-science?

Well, reader (and other reader, and other reader), let me introduce you to one of the core concepts of Scientology: the engram.

To catch you up to speed, in the event that you don't already know, engrams are the manifestations of the lost souls of the intergalactic war of billions of years ago, caused when the galactic overlord Xenu took his prisoners to Teegeeack (now known simply as "Earth") and then blew them up in volcanoes with hydrogen bombs. Those lost souls now attach themselves to humans, and prevent us from reaching our full potential (by having a film debut at #2 at the box office when it was clearly destined for #1, not dating Katie Holmes, etc).

But, you ask, if one can become Clear by ridding oneself of engrams, this must mean we obtain engrams, right? Or are we just born with them?

It turns out, a little of both. You can open yourself up to engrams as early as while in the womb. The following passage from Dianetics (pp 370 - 371) explains how. (And again, I promise I'm not making any of this up).

Prosurvival Engram
This could be any engram which, by content only, not by any real aid to the individual containing it, pretended to assist survival. Let us take a coitus engram: Mother and Father are engaged in intercourse which, by pressure, is painful to the unborn child and which renders him "unconscious" (common occurence, like morning sickness, usually present in any engram bank). Mother is saying, "Oh , I can't live without it. It's wonderful. It's wonderful. Oh, how nice. Oh, do it again!" and Father is saying, "Come! Come! Oh, you're so good. You're so wonderful! Ahhhh!" Mother's orgasm puts the finishing touch on the "unconsciousness" in the child. Mother says, "It's beautiful." Father, finished now, says, "Get up," meaning she should take a douche (they do not know she is pregnant) and then begins to snore.

Obviously, this is a valuable incident because one "cannot live without it." Furthermore, "it's beautiful," also, "it's wonderful." But it is also extremely painful. It cannot be followed because it has first something which beckons part of the mind back, "Come!" and then, later, tells it to "Get up." Things that are "beautiful" and "wonderful" can cause our patient, not in therapy, to have an orgasm when she looks at beautiful and wonderful things, providing they have been so labeled.

So, what do we learn from this (apart from the fact that L Ron apparently grew up with an abusive dad whom he would try to deal with by peppering references to him all throughout Dianetics)?

We learn that a baby in the womb understands language pretty well (but not well enough to catch a double entendre, or a naughty word!), and is harmed by it in ways that will manifest itself in spontaneous orgasms that can only be cured by thousands and thousands of dollars and e-metering sessions.

Or something like that. I'm still spinning from that last non-sequitir. Pseudo-science!

July 14, 2005 at 3:18 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

It Came from 1986!

So, my parents recently moved into a new house they're buying, despite the crazy, insane, nuts, out-of-control robbery scheme that is the present Southern California real estate market.

In the process of the move, my parents unearthed a few of my first grade journals, as lovingly handwritten by me in my Go-Bots spiral notebook. I present the very first of these, unabridged and with all original spelling and typos. (And in case you were wondering, I was six at the time these were written.)

Jan. 14, 1986
One of my mom's friends liked to give me and my brother toys. Just about six weeks ago I had to go to the doctor I had to get a shot.

This first entry is special, because it establishes a few things right off the bat: I like toys, and I like non-sequitirs. Expect plenty more of both in future (or should I say past?) entries!

July 13, 2005 at 12:37 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Guns = 1, DC Talk = 0

So, according to Bob Jones University's Residence Hall Life page, students are not allowed any pop music, including "Contemporary Christian music" such as "Michael W. Smith, Stephen Curtis Chapman, WOW Worship, and so forth." Further, no TVs or VCRs/DVD players (including a note not to use your laptop's DVD drive to watch movies), no video games, no posters of movie or music stars, and, when in town visiting people, no going to movie theaters or watching films with higher than a G rating.

But your guns? That's cool. At the very bottom of the page, there's this note:

All weapons must be turned in for storage. Trigger locks are required for pistols.

And, oh, yeah, "fireworks are not permitted on campus." Presumably, not even if turned in for storage.

July 12, 2005 at 10:28 AM | Comments (2) | TrackBack

Links Why the Fantastic 4

A Clearer War

Did anyone else watch War of the Worlds yet? It's pretty good, but that ending's a little disappointing and far fetched. I mean, those aliens look pretty intent on killing, and yet Tom Cruise is able to convince all of them to sit down and be cleared during a super e-meter session?

I just didn't buy it.

July 2, 2005 at 11:57 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack

Pseudo-Scien(ce/tology)!

So, everybody knows now that Tom Cruise is crazy. (In case you don't know this, see: Tom call Matt Lauer "glib", tell Peter Overton to "put his manners back in", and, of course kill Oprah.)

I'm personally happy to see discussion about/around Scientology come out from such high profile forums, but I'm a little disappointed with how unprepared people like Matt Lauer are. Tom's debating skills these days are a little, shall we say, lackluster. He asserts something outrageous and loony ("Psychiatry is a pseudo-science," "There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance," etc) and backs it up with such persuasive facts as "You don't know" or "I've done the research."

Now, at the very least, Matt Lauer could point out, "Interesting to discover you think psychiatry is a pseudo-science, considering the controversy around Scientology, its origins, and its positions on different matters." Or, more to the point, he could say "Interesting to discover you think psychiatry is a pseudo-science, since your religion is batshit-crazy."

Let's take a look at some pseudo-science, shall we? Let's open one of my favorite books, Dianetics, and see just what it has to say. (And I promise, I'm not altering/spoofing the passage below - it's direct from the pages of "America's #1 Self-Help Bestseller")

Growing up in Southern California, I saw the Dianetics commercials on TV constantly. Packed as they were in between day-time talk shows, they came across in much the same way as any self-help books. At some point in my early teens, I started following Scientology, fascinated by its wackiness, but it wasn't until I was in high school that I finally picked up a copy of Dianetics, which I assumed was the key that suckered otherwise normal thinking people into the Church.

To make a gross generalization, I don't particularly care for the industry of self-help. Most of it seems to be a bit of common sense wrapped up in slogans, mantras, and/or anecdotal narratives, none of which particularly appeals to me. Nonetheless, I can see how some self-help appeals to and is effective for others. In that light, I sort of assumed this was the case with Dianetics - its readers, of a certain mindset, might read certain affirmations surrounding common sense, think "this totally relates to my life!", leading them to become curious about Scientology, and then - BAM! - they're dropping thousands of dollars on e-metering sessions to clear themselves of the dead souls from the intergalactic war.

Then I read Dianetics. And I now realize that anyone who reads it and thinks "this totally relates to my life!" is, more or less, a bad person. The following is a passage from the book, detailing the psychological trauma behind what it defines as "perversion" (the ellipses, I promise, do not change the context or the meaning of the content - just shortening a bit, as Mr. L-Ron was always a bit long-winded) :

Exhibit A: Pages 149 through 150

The sexual pervert (and by this term Dianetics, to be brief, includes ... homosexuality, lesbianism, sexual sadism, etc...) is actually quite ill physically...He is very far from culpable for his condition, but he is also so far from normal and so extremely dangerous to society that the tolerance of perversion is as thoroughly bad for society as punishment for it...A bit off the subject here, but it can be remarked about perversion that the best previous explanation for it was something about girls becoming envious of Papa's penis or boys becoming upset about that terrible thing, the vulva, which Mama was incautious enough to show one day. It takes a great deal more than this utter tripe to make a pervert. It is, rather, somthing on the order of kicking a baby's head in, running over him with a steamroller, cutting him in half with a rusty knife, boiling him in Lysol, and all the while with crazy people screaming the most horrifying and unprintable things at him.

If that's unclear at all, just substitute "perversion" with "homosexuality," and "pervert" with "gay." To summarize - homosexuality, and the "tolerance" thereof is "dangerous to society," even if those poor gay people can't help it. And, of course, psychology and society in general blame homosexuality on mom and dad issues (a dismissive, reductive view of Freudian psychoanalysis), but it's far worse than that. So much worse, that only bizarre, fucked-up hyperbole involving really outrageous McMartin-accusation-style child-abuse/mutilation/infanticide can even begin to describe how damaged someone has to be to be gay.

Again, if you read Dianetics and think that it makes sense, you're a bad person, or at the very least, completely homophobic. The Church, through its introductory volume, doesn't attempt to mask its paranoia, belligerent thinking and argumentation, nor its contempt for non-Scientologists and all that it considers deviant groups, including, as noted above, homosexuals. There's really no way that you can approach an acceptance of the church and this book as a thinking adult without being aware of these facts.

And people like Matt Lauer should be prepared to bring this pseudoscience up when Tom Cruise starts dismissing other thoroughly accepted and proven scientific concepts as pseudoscience.

I'll follow this up with my other favorite passage from Dianetics, regarding the "Prosurvival Engram," within the next few days.

July 2, 2005 at 12:10 AM | Comments (0) | TrackBack