Mojo’s Cold Shot: John Lee Hooker, “Democrat Man”

Mojo Flucke January 3, 2008 12

mojologo.jpg In New Hampshire, we’ve been shot up good with presidential political shrapnel for more than a year. We get canvassed on our home and cell phones, we get out-of-state college students knocking at our doors to interrupt dinner with a smile and a plug, and (this was the worst) we get Ron Paul henchmen handing us fliers while sitting in traffic on I-93 during a snowstorm waiting for tow trucks to clear an accident up ahead.

In that case, just roll down the window and smile to accept the material, it’s the fastest way to get rid of them. Even though you might be tempted to mess with them and say “Your man Ron says he’s against something he calls ‘birthright citizenship,’ which I sense has something to do with the children of illegal immigrants born on U.S. soil, but my four-year-old in the back seat here is worried you are going to rip him out of our home and send him to Iceland if he gets elected so we refuse to vote for your man.” Just to show those goofy twits that you are paying attention to the race and are ashamed that they have bought into that candidate’s particular brand of jive.

This primary business can be overwhelming, but Jan. 8 is the end of it. We Granite State voters wield zero power nationally once our little popularity contest is over. The candidates won’t be back, ever, whether they win or lose the primary.

So our time is now, and we take our mission quite seriously: Thinning the candidate herd so that voters back in my home state of Ohio, for instance, don’t screw up any worse than they have in recent years.

We listen to debates. We read the papers. We can’t help but hear the spin of every broadcast pundit. Especially the loudest, crassest buffoons on the right: Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, and the jack-assiest of them all, Michael Savage — unholy triumvirs who cast a putrid stench on politics, squelch intelligent debate, and in general give so many people permission to feel good about being callous, uncaring, ugly Americans.

While I am proud, flag-waving liberal, I’m also tired of my side’s reasonable, measured responses to this garbage, as John Lee Hooker liked to refer to some of the people in his personal universe. I’m tired of our side meekly offering milquetoast, spineless ripostes to the right-wing TV clowns who focus on issues that completely don’t matter: Who cares about whether gay men and women can marry if the hospital’s about to foreclose on my house because I can’t pay my medical bills? Really? Who gives a flying freak?

It’s all too much. Besides my own self, I trust one other commentator. You want political Wisdom with a capital “W,” you go to John Lee Hooker. That’s why, before I vote, I’m ordering up “Democrat Man” (download), a cold shot from the box set called, simply, Hooker.

He played his guitar in the no-spin zone, where he ain’t got no shoes. Clearly, however, he’s no fool, and can see that he’s not the only one pissed off with the situation at hand, and we’re all gonna vote. Won’t be too long, he says, until election time, and the Democrats get back in again.

  • http://yahoo.com eric

    Well, since you asked, I care about homosexuals marrying — it's absurd. And I also care about health care costs — those are also absurd. The two aren't mutually exclusive. And if you want to talk about squelching intelligent debate, one need look no further than Al Gore. I could show you the part of the IPCC report that refutes that gasbag, but you probably don't want to see it. (It's on page 4 of the 2007 Summary for Policymakers — note how the scientific understanding of half the major drivers of radiative forcing is, by their own admission, “low.” Threfore, the certainty of any projections of future climate based on those estimates is, by definition, low. And John Lee Hooker doesn't know jack about that, man. Sorry.) Squelch that, buster.

    I live in Iowa, so I feel your pain at being inundated with politics. Take a pill, it'll all be over soon.

    Go Ron Paul!!!

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

  • http://www.popdose.com 1Py_Korry1

    Keep fighting the good fight Mojo! And just so you know, that Asshat known as Michael Savage (whose real name is Michael Weiner) is starting to tank in the ratings — at least according to some Arbitron ratings in top markets.

    And because so much of the gay marriage issue is best summed up by The Daily Show, here's a great exchange between Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert:

    JS: Stephen, why has same sex marriage created such a furor?

    SC: Jon, there's a simple fact here: marriage is a contract between a man and a woman. An often violated, easily broken, eminently disposable contract. Between a man and a woman. The minute we let gays and female gays…

    JS: That's uh, that's lesbians.

    SC: Them. The minute we let them get married, you're breaking down the last societal barrier between our world and their world.

    JS: But, I think that's the point. I think the point is that when you break down those barriers, that's a metaphor for something positive.

    SC: Look, Jon, he only reason my wife and I got married in the first place was because it was something gays couldn't do. Our wedding was conceived entirely as a giant homosexual taunt. But now, now the vows I made to my wife seem as shallow and empty as the vows I made to my three previous wives.

    JS: But I'm not still seeing, and again, I haven't studied it like you have. But how do two people who have nothing to do with you, how does their personal decision impact your commitment.

    SC: Well Jon, here's a for instancestance. [sic] My wife and I have been through a bit of a rough patch lately. Over the last few months, I've forgotten our anniversary, her birthday, on several occasions, her name. Now, I ask you Jon, is this because of some magic pattern of emotional neglect just dropped down from the sky to ruin my marriage? Isn't it the simpler answer that hundreds of gays were granted judicial permission to seek equal contributory benefits? Connect the dots, man.

    JS: But Stephen, …

    SC: Oh, and I banged her personal trainer.

    JS: [shocked pause]

    SC: I'm telling you, it's getting bad.

    JS: Well then, I guess, you know, you feel so strongly, you would probably support the constitutional amendment banning same-sex unions.

    SC: Absolutely, Jon. I know a constitutional amendment is a drastic step. But there's a societal trend out there I disagree with, so, what other choice is there? We have to defend the institution of marriage.

    JS: Well, to defend the institution then, would you also support a constitutional amendment against adultery? Because that's really…

    SC: Whoa. Whoa. Listen, comrade. Get your jack-booted thugs out of my bedroom. Or rather, one of several undisclosed bedrooms. And, one time behind the lat machine. That was awesome. She's really fit.

    JS: Alright, Steven. Stephen Colbert, we'll be right back…

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Nine times out of ten, Eric, I'm willing to chalk up our political differences to…well, political differences. But if you think you can come in here and label gay marriage “absurd” without being labeled as much of a bigot as any of the mouth-breathing rednecks who tried to keep the Little Rock Nine from going to school, then you're completely mistaken. I guess what I'm saying is: Absurd how, exactly? I've never heard a compelling defense for your position. I don't think one exists.

  • mojo

    Michael Weiner? So perfect. Pronounced “WEE-ner” or “WHINE-er?” I can't make up my mind which is better. Those dudes, Beck/Savage/Hannity, when my radio scans into them…my reaction is visceral, I want to tear the radio out of my car dashboard and smash it with a hammer.

  • http://yahoo.com eric

    I'm not concerned about being labelled. We Christian conservatives are used to the name-calling. It rolls off our backs like the proverbial water off a duck. But I do want to make a position clear, perhaps to shed some real light. We, as Christians, believe that the wisdom of the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures is timeless. We believe that those scriptures disapprove of homosexuality, adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality — in other words, they set a standard of sexual purity. We believe those standards are handed down from God, who created man and knows what is best for man (and woman). Why does God proscribe certain things? Because they are not in our best interests. In short, we believe homosexuality is unhealthy — physically, emotionally, and spiritually — as well as other forms of sexual immorality. Laws should not support, ratify, or endorse that which is unhealthy for individuals or society. Laws should support that which is best for human beings, individually and collectively.

    You may disagree. You may believe that it is perfectly healthy. Against evidence to the contrary. (What is the life expectancy of the average practicing homosexual, anyway?) But it is out of concern for people — all the people of our nation — that we object to sexual immorality, not simply a prejudice against that which is different. And that is a sincere belief, motivated by wanting people to suffer fewer problems and achieve greater peace and success in life. (Which is what we believe and perceive God wants.)

    Again, you may criticize the belief, and you may cite any evidence you wish, and claim we are wrong. But I think that if you attack motives by implying simple bigotry, you err. (Not to say that the motives of politicians who might use certain positions for their own gain are pure. That's another question entirely.)

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Eric, you know as well as I do that there are plenty of things in the Bible that not even the most fervent fundie would advocate. How do you decide which verses are timeless and which aren't? Forgive my cynicism, but I believe this has a lot more to do with folks thinking gays are icky than anything truly Christian.

  • mojo

    Heh, and does that mean because I am a democrat man that I'm not a Christian? Judge not and ye shall not be judged, bro. I am a corn-fed, card carrying Mennonite from smalltown Ohio. I resent it when people assume that Democrat = godless.

    Michael Savage and Glenn Beck did this to your brain. They program their minions to believe that if I think gay people deserve the same health insurance benefits through marriage as my spouse, that somehow means I couldn't possibly understand what conservative Protestants think, feel and live.

    I think Jesus would have us all treat our brothers and sisters more kindly than that. I think Jesus forgave everyone who sinned, down to the gent on the cross next to him. Adulteressess and thieves, he forgave them.

    And he said to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. That means if you're asking me to shun my fellow man because of sexual preference, you're asking me to violate the golden rule. That goes against what the gospels instruct us as Christians to do.

    Yet I will not judge you. I'll let you sort that out when you meet St. Peter. But I'm not going to follow your Glenn Beck-ish interpretation of the Bible, my brother. Peace. Out.

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Eric, you know as well as I do that there are plenty of things in the Bible that not even the most fervent fundie would advocate. How do you decide which verses are timeless and which aren't? Forgive my cynicism, but I believe this has a lot more to do with folks thinking gays are icky than anything truly Christian.

  • mojo

    Heh, and does that mean because I am a democrat man that I'm not a Christian? Judge not and ye shall not be judged, bro. I am a corn-fed, card carrying Mennonite from smalltown Ohio. I resent it when people assume that Democrat = godless.

    Michael Savage and Glenn Beck did this to your brain. They program their minions to believe that if I think gay people deserve the same health insurance benefits through marriage as my spouse, that somehow means I couldn't possibly understand what conservative Protestants think, feel and live.

    I think Jesus would have us all treat our brothers and sisters more kindly than that. I think Jesus forgave everyone who sinned, down to the gent on the cross next to him. Adulteressess and thieves, he forgave them.

    And he said to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. That means if you're asking me to shun my fellow man because of sexual preference, you're asking me to violate the golden rule. That goes against what the gospels instruct us as Christians to do.

    Yet I will not judge you. I'll let you sort that out when you meet St. Peter. But I'm not going to follow your Glenn Beck-ish interpretation of the Bible, my brother. Peace. Out.

  • http://yahoo.com eric

    I'm not concerned about being labelled. We Christian conservatives are used to the name-calling. It rolls off our backs like the proverbial water off a duck. But I do want to make a position clear, perhaps to shed some real light. We, as Christians, believe that the wisdom of the Hebrew and New Testament scriptures is timeless. We believe that those scriptures disapprove of homosexuality, adultery, fornication, incest, bestiality — in other words, they set a standard of sexual purity. We believe those standards are handed down from God, who created man and knows what is best for man (and woman). Why does God proscribe certain things? Because they are not in our best interests. In short, we believe homosexuality is unhealthy — physically, emotionally, and spiritually — as well as other forms of sexual immorality. Laws should not support, ratify, or endorse that which is unhealthy for individuals or society. Laws should support that which is best for human beings, individually and collectively.

    You may disagree. You may believe that it is perfectly healthy. Against evidence to the contrary. (What is the life expectancy of the average practicing homosexual, anyway?) But it is out of concern for people — all the people of our nation — that we object to sexual immorality, not simply a prejudice against that which is different. And that is a sincere belief, motivated by wanting people to suffer fewer problems and achieve greater peace and success in life. (Which is what we believe and perceive God wants.)

    Again, you may criticize the belief, and you may cite any evidence you wish, and claim we are wrong. But I think that if you attack motives by implying simple bigotry, you err. (Not to say that the motives of politicians who might use certain positions for their own gain are pure. That's another question entirely.)

  • http://www.popdose.com jefito

    Eric, you know as well as I do that there are plenty of things in the Bible that not even the most fervent fundie would advocate. How do you decide which verses are timeless and which aren't? Forgive my cynicism, but I believe this has a lot more to do with folks thinking gays are icky than anything truly Christian.

  • mojo

    Heh, and does that mean because I am a democrat man that I'm not a Christian? Judge not and ye shall not be judged, bro. I am a corn-fed, card carrying Mennonite from smalltown Ohio. I resent it when people assume that Democrat = godless.

    Michael Savage and Glenn Beck did this to your brain. They program their minions to believe that if I think gay people deserve the same health insurance benefits through marriage as my spouse, that somehow means I couldn't possibly understand what conservative Protestants think, feel and live.

    I think Jesus would have us all treat our brothers and sisters more kindly than that. I think Jesus forgave everyone who sinned, down to the gent on the cross next to him. Adulteressess and thieves, he forgave them.

    And he said to do unto others as you'd have them do unto you. That means if you're asking me to shun my fellow man because of sexual preference, you're asking me to violate the golden rule. That goes against what the gospels instruct us as Christians to do.

    Yet I will not judge you. I'll let you sort that out when you meet St. Peter. But I'm not going to follow your Glenn Beck-ish interpretation of the Bible, my brother. Peace. Out.