Censorship Ought Not Be Celebrated

As the divide continues along political lines in this country as well as the world, it seems more and more that people are calling for censorship. What they're basically saying is they don't like the opinion of the person they want to censor, so they should be silenced. They have no problem celebrating when people are censored.

Lately, it's been mostly conservative and truther oriented people who question the narrative being put out there by the mainstream media. They are being deplatformed off of places like Twitter, Facebook and those sites. They're also having their ability to engage in internet commerce via places like PayPal taken away from them. And people cheer for this.

People ought to be troubled by this trend. The reason is obvious. It might be somebody they don't like being censored first, but as this movement gains hold, people you agree with will be censored. Maybe you will be next? You have to look at this and see the bigger picture developing. People still don't believe there's a movement buy the elite of the world to take control, tear down borders and implement their New World Order. This is something too complicated to discuss here, but you can certainly find that evidence relatively easily to decide for yourself.

What is happening here is no less than biblical. It's part of Bible prophecy. When this is pointed out, non-Christians and non-religious people roll their eyes and say it's fantasy. However, when you read these prophecies and look at the world and see them coming to pass, you cannot ignore them. It's been said that it doesn't matter whether you believe it or not. If they believe it and are working on making it happen, you should be concerned.

With the censorship happening on the internet and the fact that people are losing their ability to buy and sell on the internet, something very dangerous is happening. The trend is only going to get worse. People will be scored in the new technocracy, and if their reputation is low enough, they too could lose their ability to buy and sell and engage in the conversation on the internet.

One of the arguments people use in favor of censoring people is that platforms such as Facebook and Twitter are privately owned. You don't have a right to free speech there. If they decide to remove you from those platforms, it's their property and their right. It's not mentioned in the Constitution under your right to free speech. Again, since the censorship is happening to people that are unpopular with others, some people will turn a blind eye and let it happen.

But when the Constitution was formed, they had no concept of what an internet would be. You're free speech at the time was getting up on a soapbox in the public square and saying what was on your mind. People could come and go and listen if they wanted, but you had the right to be out there to be heard by those who would listen.

With the internet, these types of conversations are happening there instead. The founding fathers had no idea that this would be the case. More and more, we are plugged into the internet via our smartphones. They are with us constantly as we keep updated on the latest happenings. When we're not allowed to engage in the conversation there, our free speech is indeed being violated. the internet has become an extension of the public square soapbox.

The reason they want to shut everybody down is because they don't want dissenting opinions. They don't want conversation with differing views that allow us to arrive at a consensus. They want us to pick sides and divide us while they push an agenda through that may not be in people's best interest.

What is happening is much bigger than left versus right or Republican versus Democrat. The sides are just being used against each other while the agenda pushes through. When they call for censorship against opposing views, thereby allowing negative opinion to represent somebody without them being able to defend themselves, we are entering very dangerous territory. censorship of opinions, however unpopular, is not a good thing. It's certainly not what is done in a free society.

A Rock Band Is A Business

We tend to think of our favorite rock bands as the people who recorded the soundtrack to our lives. They do that, but they are also building up their brand. A rock band is a business. We don't think about that as much when these bands are in their heyday recording the new hits. Years later, when the radio station isn't playing their new music, the bands rely on the old hits. They rely on the brand name that they created

One of the shrewdest business men in music is probably Gene Simmons. Gene realized early on that not only was his band Kiss recording music that the youth of the day was enjoying, he also knew that he could market the brand and make even more money. Gene and fellow band member Paul Stanley never lost sight of that, and they've made very good money through the years. Some might say these guys we're corporate sellouts or overdid it or whatever, but really it's just good business.

As the years go on, our bands change personnel, and sometimes it's not a pleasant situation. Key members of bands are sometimes kicked out. Sometimes they want to be a part of what's happening today, and their bandmates won't let them. To the hardcore fan of whatever band, that can be difficult to accept sometimes. To the casual fan, when they see the name of the band that they loved in their youth still playing, they just go and see them. Personal doesn't matter as much as the songs they love being performed at a reasonable level.

We've watched the drama through the years regarding Van Halen. David Lee Roth left the band, there was a time when he might have rejoined and he upset the Van Halen brothers. Ultimately, David was welcomed back, but his replacement, Sammy Hagar, as well as longtime bassist Michael Anthony, seem to have been exiled. It's a business.

If you're a fan of Styx, you know who Dennis DeYoung is. He's the man who wrote a majority of the band's biggest hits. In fact, he wrote eight of their nine Top 10 hits. His voice is unmistakable, though he does not have the image of your typical rock star. Some people say he would look more at home on a Broadway stage. But when you listen to this guy sing he sounds like he did back in those glory days. He just turned 71 years old.

Rather than get into all of the particulars, about a year after the band's successful reunion tour, Return To Paradise Theater, things started to get shaky with the other bandmates. They felt Dennis was holding them up, and they ended up kicking him out of the band. Tommy Shaw and James Young, who were with the band through their most popular years, continue to rock with other people taking the other roles, along with the occasional appearance of founding member Chuck Panozzo.

This ended up in court. Dennis DeYoung did not go down without a fight, and he won the right to bill his concerts as Dennis DeYoung and The Music Of Styx. This was significant because, despite rumors that he didn't want to tour, Dennis has been touring at some level every year for nearly two decades. He surely wanted to continue to rock and perform the music of Styx. We can now say that it was a clash of personalities in the band. The thing is, people still want to hear the music of Styx performed live, and now they have two options. Will there ever be a reunion? Who's to say, but I doubt it.

Another band that has had some major controversy over the use of their name is the Australian based Little River Band. Pretty much a soft rock group with good harmonies, they recorded many hits in the late 70s. At some point, at the request of record executive Irving Azoff, the band was brought back together in the 80s. They signed an agreement that made them all equal partners in the corporation that owned the name The Little River Band. By then, they had recorded all of their relevant hits.

For whatever reason, lead singer Glenn Shorrock, vocalist and guitarist Beeb Birtles and vocalist and guitarist Graeham Goble all walked away. These were the three who wrote and sang almost all of their big hits. This left a man who did not record on any of the major hits, Stephen Housden, as the sole owner of The Little River Band trademark. Currently, Stephen doesn't even tour, but there is one singer from the tail end of the band's success, Wayne Nelson, still touring with them.

It has been messy in the years that have followed. Glenn Shorrock, Graeham Goble and Beeb Birtles attempted to tour as The Original Voices Of The Little River Band, only to be shut down by Stephen Housden. The Little River Band at the time attempted do some of the band's classics for a 40th Anniversary appearance on The Tonight Show, only to receive a cease and desist letter from the three founding members.

Legally, Steven Housden can do whatever he wants. Legally, he owns a name that he really did not have a hand in building up to the famous level that they had achieved. Is it fair that the people who clearly wanted to play the band's music live and tour were shut out? There are certainly differing opinions on the topic. Personally, I think it's a bit unfair that it has turned out this way, but life is sometimes unfair.

The bottom line to music is that while it is an art form and the musicians record songs that are dear to us, it is also a business. Years later, when your new music isn't being received to the level it once was, you can still tour on those big hits and make quite a bit of money. While a hardcore fan of The Little River Band knows that this band isn't what it once was, the casual fan remembers the hits. As long as the current band performs them in a respectable level, the casual fan isn't likely to care too much.

Dennis Rodman Goes To North Korea

Former NBA star Dennis Rodman went to North Korea, and the media here in America ripped him to shreds afterwards for not taking North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, to task for his government's polices.  Meanwhile, Google executive Eric Schmidt makes a trip there on business, and nobody seems to care.  Rodman dared to show the North Korean leader respect as he would any country's leader.  That was his first mistake, I guess.

At issue is Rodman's comments about the Korean leader being a great man and his father and grandfather being great men as well.  Rodman mentioned that Kim Jong Un suggested that President Obama give him a call so they can talk.  The flamboyant basketball Hall Of Famer even pointed out that the common interest both leaders share in basketball would be a good place to start a conversation.  How dare he.

Before I voted third party again, Obama intrigued me when he dared to say he wouldn't rule out speaking with Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.  Just making that comment drew the ire of fellow candidate and Senator McCain.  How dare he suggest that he could just talk to the enemy.  Just talk, mind you.  Personally, I agreed with Obama on that issue.  We will only achieve real peace with enemies by talking to them.

I won't debate that Kim Jong Ill was brutal to the North Korean people according to everything we've been told.  People were forced to cry and wail for three days when he died, according to reports I've seen.  But the man leading the North Korean people is 28 years old and not the same person as his grandfather or father.  Maybe he would be open to change?  Maybe a conversation or two wouldn't hurt?

But, no, let's just attack Rodman for saying nice things about the North Korean leader while on a trip as an ambassador for the sport of basketball.  How dare he.  Doesn't he realize what countries are part of the Axis Of Evil?  I'm not suggesting that America and North Korea should be buddy buddy all of a sudden.  I just think there is no harm in at least talking and seeing if anything can be done now that North Korea has a new leader.