So anyway, I says to Mabel, I says, "...
I'm going to once again rip into the holier-than-thou members of the music industry. A while back I heard some wanker going on about how rock and roll used to mean something, man. Back in the day, they were speaking out against war and injustice and were promoting peace and love. What a load! At its inception, rock and roll was about one thing and one thing only - sex. Hell, that's what the term "rock and roll" originally meant. Okay, in a broader sense, popular secular music has always primarily been about love. But when white folks started to discover "race music" in the fifties, it was the baser urges that defined the underlying the rhythms. Then along came the hippies in the 60's, who of course thought that everything revolved around them. Everything had to be a protest and rock and roll was a way to get their message across to the masses. Simple pleasing pop music suddenly had to have a lyrical social message wrapped inside a pleasant melody. If I want to hear the evening news, I'll listen to the evening news. If I want some dopey leftist baby-boomer's feelings about an issue in the world (and God why would I?), I'll watch CNN. In my opinion, pushing a political platform with pop is pure propaganda. (Oh, the alliteration!) It's always the leftists who put their overt messages in music. You never hear a song on the radio that espouses conservative ideals. Probably because most artists of all media are liberal. Conservatives and other regular people are working and providing and not dreaming and imagining. I'm not knocking dreams and imagination. When they are practical, that's how new inventions and technology are developed. But the artistic community dream about an unattainable utopia and other childish things. They are certainly free to do so, but they are so damned condescending about it.
And another thing ...
Now that the weather is turning warmer with the spring, I see some do-gooders feeding the animals most afternoons as I drive home. They don't want the animals to starve, so they set up in the abandoned parking lot of a closed hospital near downtown. And the animals know that they can get food here on the days when it does not rain, so they come instinctively for the meal. How nice, you may think, people taking care of birds and squirrels and other little fuzzy creatures. Oh, I forgot to tell you that the animals are people. Yes, these would be homeless people, or as I prefer to call them, bums, beggars and vagrants. I don't know who the people are who set up their trailer every afternoon to feed the bums, but I wonder if they realize they have created human pets. Just like the stray cat that you may put a bowl of milk out for. The cat will continue to come back as long as you feed it. Now it may be that the feeders are from a charity group, religious or secular, who are actually trying to get the bums to better their lives and rejoin proper society. If so, great. But I wonder how effective that would be. As far as I can tell, the "homeless" fall into three categories: the truly homeless people who as a result of circumstances have found themselves on the streets but want to get off, the people who choose to live outside and prefer to sleep under bridges and on park benches, and the mentally ill. The liberal homeless advocacy, many of whom are simply socialists in disguise, like to tell us all that we are just a paycheck away from being on the streets as well. Bollocks! True, there are far too many folks who live paycheck to paycheck with little savings, but with a proper family structure, religious institutions and nonprofit charities, no one should have to be on the street who does not want to be.
Okay, so after you get those who simply need a helping hand a lift up, that leaves the unemployed homeless-by-choice beggars and the mentally ill street corner annoyances. The mentally ill clearly should be institutionalized. To do otherwise is not compassionate. But as for the others, I'm sorry, but their situation is not my fault. One of my favorite musical artists, the late Kirsty MacColl had a song called "Walking Down Madison", in which she sings the following: "See you give 'em your nickels, your pennies and dimes, but you can't give 'em hope in these mercenary times, oh no. And you feel real guilty about the coat on your back and the sandwich you had, oh no." Besides this just being one of my least favorite Kirsty MacColl songs (what was I saying about political messages in pop music?), it's simply wrong. I don't feel guilty about the things I have. I worked for them. I have a job. I pay a mortgage. I can buy things. So can the bums, if they choose. But so many do not. Mercenary times? I beg to disagree. Human beings are both self-interested and generous entities. It is not wrong for a someone to want to acquire personal wealth. People want provide for themselves and their families. At the same time, people do not want to see others suffer. The touchy-feeley libs insist that the reason that others have little is because you have too much. They scoff when successful people try to show the less affluent how to achieve. "That's easy for you to say," they say. "Just give them your money. You have more than you need." Anytime someone tells you what you do and don't need should tip you off that he or she thinks socialism is a good idea. We have charities, church organizations and other private institutions that provide for the needy for the very reason I have already stated. We don't want to see other beings suffer. But if they walk the streets by choice as a result of their own doing, I have nothing to give them.
When I was on holiday in Canada in February (Canada in February? Are you crazy?), there was a hubbub about a Progressive Conservative candidate for office in Ontario who caught hell for saying that if he were elected he would make it illegal to sleep on the street. In Jim Flaherty's words, "There is nothing compassionate about allowing people to live on the streets. Compassion means helping those who live in appalling conditions get the assistance they need. And compassion means ensuring that communities and neighborhoods are safe environments in which to live and work. People are living on the streets for a variety of reasons... Regardless, these individuals pose a risk to themselves and the community and need our help." His opponents cried that he was inhumane and lacked compassion. Yeah, so leaving people to live on the street is much more humane and compassionate. One homeless advocacy extremist Cathy Crowe from the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee predictably said the following, "It’s fascist, it’s what happened in 1930’s Germany, certain people are made illegal and removed. We would fight it tooth and nail if it ever happened.” Typical. Amazing how anyone who disagrees with the interest groups of the left are branded fascists. What this dimwit does not understand that in a civilized society, homelessness is not a valid lifestyle choice. Forcing them off the street and getting help is compassionate. I was listening to a discussion on the radio in the days following Mr. Flaherty's statement in which a man said that he knew an intelligent, well-spoken homeless man very well who chose to live outside. The radio guy said he had a great deal of respect for this man and that he should not be forced to give up his lifestyle. Fine, let him have his lifestyle. If he drops dead from hunger or freezes to death on a curb, there won't be a pang of guilt in me. After all, it was his choice.