i miss spike

.
[alternate title: i miss 1991]

understand something: i am not now, nor have i ever been, one of those social, clubby fags--by which, i mean (a) i don't dance; (b) i don't like dance music; (c) i hate traveling in a shrieking pack; and (4) i'd rather shave my head with a cheese grater while chewing on tinfoil than scream conversation back and forth over background noise until i'm hoarse [and yeah, i know, i'm missing out on the whole gay communal experience--eat me already].

back in the day, if mkf was caught dead in a gay club it was for one reason only: to find somebody to fuck. and to the degree the club in question facilitated said objective, it placed higher on my list.

and in all the years i catted around los angeles, no club ever surpassed spike in this regard.

situated on the wrong end of santa monica boulevard, spike was this hole-in-the-wall joint that seemingly existed for no other reason than to hook people up. billed as a "levi/leather" bar, it wasn't really--it was just a dark, narrow space for guys to pack into and find each other when the lure of the glossy weho bars paled--plus, they were open til 4 on weekends. what more could anybody ask for?

get there at about 11:30 or so, order the token vodka/whatever so you'd have something to hold until you found your boy, fight your way through the cigarette smoke to the pool table (which had been covered by then so people could sit on it) or--like me--to the back of the room, settle your ass onto the stack of beer boxes lining the perimeter, light up and await developments.

and then--and this was the thing about spike--be unexpectedly blown away by the music you heard there.

over the course of the many years i patronized the place, i heard shit come outta their little dj booth i never heard anywhere else--such as, for instance, the one that came up on shuffle tonight and thus prompted this post:



only four notes to the whole goddam song, but four notes you won't soon forget--talk about creative minimalism.

[i would like to think that my fond memories of this song have more to do with its intrinsic goodness than with the blond boy who was grinding his ass into my crotch to its beat the first time i heard it, but that's open to interpretation.

whatever.]

and then that one leads inevitably to this one, from about the same time:



i've blacked out the artist on this video for a reason: because i want you to listen without prejudice, just as i did on that dark, smoky night way back in 1991 when it blew me away the first time i heard it.

i knew the song, and i recognized its author (b.b. king) on lead guitar, but i couldn't for the life of me figure out who the fuck was singing it.

[until i went over and asked--and then went out the next day and bought the first and only pat benatar album i've ever owned.]

and what ultimately happened to spike? doesn't matter--it's gone, as it probably should be. that wasn't the point of this post, really; i just hope you enjoyed the music.

from the "someday you'll look back on this and laugh" file

.
going through old emails and came across this one to noblesavage from a couple years ago:

re: the mostly unfabulous social life of [mkf]

so earlier this week i dropped into virgin megastore with the intention of picking up george michael's new single as a surprise mini-gift for sam, this guy i'm seeing (he's a huge fan and didn't know about the new release). when he realized why we were there, he hugged me and said something like, "what a great surprise! thanks, babe," at which point the kid behind the counter said, "wow, what a cool dad".

sam is 35.

so how's your week going?

and now, a word from my favorite talking head

.
market-player that i've recently become, i've started to watch the financial channels in the morning--and, for the most part, they're all populated by the same bloviating assholes spouting and reinforcing each others' blindly-optimistic bullshit.

except for one guy who, from day one, always made me sit up and take notice--the one who gets derisively dismissed by all the other talking heads whenever he joins squawk box on cnbc as "dr. doom."

first time i heard peter schiff speak, his common sense resonated with me immediately, even as he was being laughed at by the occupants of the other seven boxes on the screen.

so, me being me, i investigated--i went out and got my hands on a copy of the book dr. doom wrote in late 2006 (you know, back when the economy was "sound"), just to see.

and guess what: pretty much everything this guy forecast back then has come to pass today--i.e., had you taken his advice then, you wouldn't be tearing your hair out now.

[and yeah, this is the same peter schiff who was ron paul's chief financial advisor, although i didn't know that at the time.]

for a little glimpse into what got my attention early on, i offer to you a link to a column he wrote for the washington post* last week--it's short and sweet.

the money quote:

Just as prices in a free market are set by supply and demand, financial and real estate markets are governed by the opposing tension between greed and fear [emphasis added]. Everyone wants to make money, but everyone is also afraid of losing what he has. Although few would ascribe their desire for prosperity to greed, it is simply a rose by another name. Greed is the elemental motivation for the economic risk-taking and hard work that are essential to a vibrant economy.

and then he goes on to nail the problem to the wall:

But over the past generation, government has removed the necessary counterbalance of fear from the equation.

truer words were never spoken. and do you think either party presently pandering to the clueless electorate with their laughably unrealistic proposals for a soft landing from this mess has any intention of putting fear back into the mix? hell, no--telling the hard truth to the american people might cost 'em votes.

read the article and think about it before you wholeheartedly assume the policies of either candidate are gonna lead us outta the wilderness, ok?

[and after you do that, go buy yourself some gold and then sit back and watch the fun]

_________________

* on second thought, for those who don't have a washington post account and/or don't wanna jump through the hoops necessary to obtain one, i am hereby thoughtfully providing the article in its entirety below:


Don't Blame Capitalism

By Peter Schiff
Thursday, October 16, 2008; A19

Amid the chaos of recent days, as the federal government has taken gargantuan steps to stabilize the financial markets, realigning the U.S. economic system in the process, comes a nearly universal consensus: This crisis resulted from government reluctance to regulate the unbridled greed of Wall Street. Many economists and market participants who were formerly averse to government interference agree that a more robust regulatory framework must be constructed to cage the destructive forces of capitalism.

For the political left, which has long championed the need for such limits, this crisis is the opportunity of a lifetime.

Absent from such conclusions is the central role the government played in creating the crisis. Yes, many Wall Street leaders were irresponsible, and they should pay. But they were playing the distorted hand dealt them by government policies. Our leaders irrationally promoted home-buying, discouraged savings, and recklessly encouraged borrowing and lending, which together undermined our markets.

Just as prices in a free market are set by supply and demand, financial and real estate markets are governed by the opposing tension between greed and fear. Everyone wants to make money, but everyone is also afraid of losing what he has. Although few would ascribe their desire for prosperity to greed, it is simply a rose by another name. Greed is the elemental motivation for the economic risk-taking and hard work that are essential to a vibrant economy.

But over the past generation, government has removed the necessary counterbalance of fear from the equation. Policies enacted by the Federal Reserve, the Federal Housing Administration, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (which were always government entities in disguise), and others created advantages for home-buying and selling and removed disincentives for lending and borrowing. The result was a credit and real estate bubble that could only grow -- until it could grow no more.

Prominent among these wrongheaded advantages are the mortgage interest tax deduction and the exemption of real estate capital gains from taxable income. These policies create unnatural demand for home purchases and a (tax-free) incentive to speculate in real estate.

Similarly, the FHA, Fannie and Freddie were created to encourage lending by allowing primary lenders to turn their long-term risk over to the government. Absent this implicit guarantee, lenders would probably have been much more conservative in approving borrowers and setting interest terms, and in requiring documentation of incomes and higher down payments. Market forces would have kept out unqualified buyers and prevented home-price appreciation from exceeding the growth in household income.

Interest rates contributed the most to creating the housing boom. After the dot-com crash and the slowdown following the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the Federal Reserve took extraordinary steps to prevent a shallow recession from deepening. By slashing interest rates to 1 percent and holding them below the rate of inflation for years, the government discouraged savings and practically distributed free money.

Artificially low interest rates invigorated the market for adjustable-rate mortgages and gave birth to the teaser rate, which made overpriced homes appear affordable. Alan Greenspan himself actively encouraged home buyers to avail themselves of these seeming benefits. As monetary policy caused houses to become more expensive, it also temporarily provided buyers with the means to overpay. Cheap money gave rise to subprime mortgages and the resulting securitization wave that made these loans appear safe for investors.

And even today, as market forces deflate the credit bubble, the government is stepping in to re-inflate it. First came the Treasury's $700 billion plan to purchase mortgage assets that no one in the private sector would buy. Now it has recapitalized banks to the tune of $250 billion, guaranteeing loans between banks and fully insuring non-interest-bearing accounts. Policymakers say that absent these steps, banks would not be able to extend loans. But given our already staggering debt burden, perhaps more loans are not the answer. That's what the free market is telling us. But the government cannot abide solutions that ask for consumer sacrifice.

Real credit can be supplied only by savings, so artificial steps to stimulate lending will only produce inflation. By refusing to allow market forces to rein in excess spending, liquidate bad investments, replenish depleted savings, fund capital investment and help workers transition from the service sector to the manufacturing sector, government is resisting the cure while exacerbating the disease.

The United States reached its economic preeminence on the strength of its free markets. So far, the economic disaster exacerbated by government policies is creating opportunities for further government interference, which will lead to bigger catastrophes. Binding the country to a tangle of socialist ideals will seal our fate as a second-rate economic power.

The writer, who was economic adviser for Ron Paul's 2008 presidential campaign, is president of Euro Pacific Capital. He is the author of "The Little Book of Bull Moves in Bear Markets."

back to politics for a minute

.
[this blog has of late been uncharacteristically silent on the subject of the sickening course of current events, preferring instead to find comfort in the sweet immutability of the past--but never for a second think i'm not payin attention.]

it seems mccain has finally gotten smart--realizing, belatedly, that america doesn't care about wright or ayers, he's recently taken to hitting obama where it might actually hurt by calling him out as a socialist (which, of course, he totally is).

and then, in the same speech, mccain goes on to address the problems faced by all the idiots who bought houses they couldn't afford via zero-down, adjustable-rate mortgages they lied to secure, by saying (and i hereby quote),

"We [as in you, the taxpayer] need to buy up these mortgages, give you a mortgage that you can afford, so you can pay your mortgage and realize the American Dream of owning your home."

which position, of course, isn't socialistic in the goddam motherfucking least, is it, johnny boy?

* * * * *

i cannot even begin to tell you how deeply i resent the dumbass american voting populace for putting me in the untenable position of having to choose between two assclowns who are, each in their own unique and individual way, so completely and totally unsuited to the task of leading my country outta the grave peril in which she presently finds herself.