The Road to Rhode Island


Moving, as some of you already know, is hell. After a week of packing and saying goodbye to my friends, some whom I don't want to leave, I'm hitting the road. Going back to Rhode Island. RI has a way of sucking its own back into the borders. We just can't leave the quahogs and weiners behind, I guess. And you can't go a summer without having some of that frozen lemonade everyday.

(For those of you in other parts of the country thinking that you have frozen lemonade there, you don't. It's crap. RI's soft serve frozen lemonade is heavenly, and you don't need a plastic spoon to chip away at it. Frozen lemonade anywhere outside of RI should be recognized as pure crap and nothing else.)

Anyways, I hope to be updating this blog again by the end of the week. For now, I'm hoping that Matt has enough time to update the site. He's in South Korea and might get swept up in a few anti-American protests, you never know. Keep is tuned to Loaded Mouth and rip off the knob!

(You know, tuned, a reference to radio, and knob, the turning knob on the radio.. Ah, fergeddit.)

On the Station fire, these lawsuits don't appear to be doing wonders for the public image of Rhode Island lawyers. I think people need to step back for a minute and take a look at what happened, what led to the deaths of 100 people, to know who's really responsible: Great White and the owners of the Station.

Besides the city government, which I will make a case for later, they are the only parties responsible. Sure, like any good lefty, I hate Shell Oil and Clear Channel, and I would like to see them get fucked up the ass with a lawsuit or two, but this isn't the right case because they share no responsibility for the tragic fire.

So, here's the situation: Great White, the headlining band, brought in pyrotechnics and used them on their first song. These pyrotechnics soon lit up the tinderbox club known as the Station, creating the dangerous situation. But to complicate this dangerous situation, the club was overcrowded. So, as the fire started, people naturally panicked (I don't know anybody who wouldn't panic in that situation) and make a mad rush for the door, or any exit that they can create.

But this created a bigger problem because the club owners stuffed in as many people as possible, thus leading to the deaths of many people.

Being a long time Rhode Island resident, having frequented, and sometimes performed, at clubs in the he state, I have a unique perspective of things. I never went to the Station before (the Station was basically the joke bar that bad 80's hair metal bands going out on tour again performed at), but I imagine that it operated like many other clubs in Providence, even if the Station was in a different city. Shows I went to were frequently overcrowded; clubs would keep on packing people in until you were hardly able to move through the crowd to get and drink or goto the bathroom. This is something that happened at all the clubs, and the cops or the city never did anything about it. Besides trying to evict Lupos so developers could build high rent luxury apartments, Providence never fucked with the clubs. At least the places I went to, I never went to shitty dance/techno places. Hell, it's a well known fact in Providence that a 12 year old could goto the Living Room and get a beer, not to mention that the owner there is a drug addict, and the cops did come in there couple of times. But the activities just continued. Law enforcement and the government never gave two shits about what Rhode Island club owners did before the Station fire.

If lawyers claim that Shell Oil and Clear Channel are partly responsible for this tragedy because they simply promoted the show, then I think the government should be sued, because they never enforced maximum occupancy laws, among other things, creating a culture in which club owners knew that they could break the law on a nightly basis and not have to worry about the legal ramifications.

Great White has to take the most responsibility. To amalgamate a lame pun with a lame cliche to state the obvious, they played with fire and got burned. If you read the rider that Great White sent out to clubs they played at, there is no mention of pyrotechnics. The band never told clubs they played at that they would be using pyrotechnics. Not only is this irresponsible, but it's a crime even if the fire never happened. In short, Great White used pyrotechnics on stage and they never received permission. They have to bear the most responsibility. It sickens me that they are now trying to form a legal defense fund and getting their fans to donate to it, trying to tell their fans that they haven't done anything wrong. It's THEIR fault this tragedy happened. I wish these cowards would grow a backbone and own up to it.

Club owners Jeff and Michael Derderian also have to take responsibility. The Station was a tinderbox; a standing fire hazard. It took pyrotechnics to point this out, but any number of electronic malfunctions could have had a chance to spark this, too. They are also responsible for overcrowding the club, in violation of the law and contributed to the situation that lead to 100 deaths.

People who promote shows are not responsible for what happens at those shows. Period. They are also not responsible for overcrowding at shows, that responsibility falls squarely upon the club owners an who they have in charge of running the show.

If Shell Oil and Clear Channel are found guilty, what kind of precedence would this set? If I start running advertisements on this website and I advertise a show that a tragedy happens at, am I then suddenly responsible for it? If I ran an ad for the Great White show, should I have blood on my hands? Fuck no. It's simply ridiculous, and no matter what the lawyer says, he's going after deep pockets. They are looking for money. They, and their clients whom are being manipulated, are using a tragedy for their own benefit, their own profit. It's sick, perverted, and pathetic. How these lawyers are able to sleep at night is beyond me.

For the record, Brian Cunha is the lawyer who dropped Great White from his lawsuit, saying that since Great White doesn't have money, they aren't worth suing. Thus proving that they are going after people with money, and not actually look towards who's responsible. Another lawyer, Ronald J. Rasmini, holds no reservations against suing Great White. However, he wants to sue everyone else under the sun, companies with deep pockets who bear no responsibility. Of course, he's not going after the city governments for creating a culture where club owners were allowed to break the law on a regular basis and not face arrest, fines, or the loss of their business. Rasmini is also grabbing for the money, which, in my eyes, makes him a worthless, sick fuck piece of shit. I hope you can't sleep at night, you fucking asshole.

I guess it's "Bash Israel" week here at Loaded Mouth. So excuse me for this being off-topic, but I have to talk about an area of personal amusement and disgust for me: sports! Mike Tyson has opened his mouth again, and when that happens, you just know that something stupid will come out.

I don't know if Mikey expected to get public sympathy for these comments, but this is what he recently had to say about the girl he raped in 1991, claiming that he never raped her: "I just hate her guts. She put me in that state, where I don't know. I really wish I did now. But now I really do want to rape her.''

How do you reply to that? Just when you think Mikey couldn't shove his foot down his throat farther then he did the last time he was in the press (Remember that time when he told a female reporter at a press conference that he only answers questions from female reporters if they put out? That was his pickup line, believe it or not), he comes out and says something even more shocking and more stupid than before.

Of course, we're all afraid of the time, which will eventually come, when he actually does something stupid again. Like rape somebody or bite off an opponents ear in the ring. The man is a walking time bomb with a hidden timer, you have no clue when he's going to explode. And when he does eventually blow up, you hope that nobody is hurt in the blast.

To tie this in with the Loaded Mouth theme of the week, maybe we should send Mikey to Israel. They deal with walking timebombs all the time.

I'm trying to gauge how bad the situation with Iran is right now, which is why I have kept mum about it. I don't want to make a big stink out of a story if it's only going to blow over in a week, much like what happened with the US/Syria situation. The US is blowing a lot of hot air, just like we did with Syria, but that alone is not a real indication that we are ready and willing to pull an Iraq in Iran. But let's explore the situation a little bit.

If we give Iran a close look, we will find evidence of, if not the outright existance of, weapons of mass destruction in the country, and they do have ambitions to build nuclear weapons. Let's face it, for a country that has one of the largest supplies of oil in the world, there really isn't a need to build civilian nuclear power plants to generate energy for the country. Russia is helping Iran build there first nuclear power plant, and said that they will finish the plant, despite the recent US stance against Iran. Iran has enough oil to power their whole nation and make their nation rich through oil exports, so honestly, there's no need for a nuclear power plant that can also be used (a-la North Korea) to make nuclear weapons.

With that said, here's something else to think about: what right do we have to tell Iran that they shouldn't have nuclear weapons? Or any weapons of mass destruction at all, for the matter? Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Iran fight a long war against Iraq, and didn't Iraq use chemical weapons against Iran (weapons that the US sold to Iraq)? Wouldn't Iran want to defend themselves and prepare for the next attack when they have a violent neighbor?

And correct me if I'm wrong again, but doesn't Israel have a large stockpile of nuclear weapons? And hasn't Israel been one of the most violent nations in the Middle East? Have they not murdered Palestinians, occupied land in another sovereign nation (Lebanon), and bombed a neighboring country (they derailed Iraq's nuclear weapons program by bombing a plant in the 80's). Let's not forget the US ship Israel bombed in the late 60's that they didn't receive a slap on the wrist for. And Israel has nukes! If you're Iran, wouldn't you want some nukes, too? And if you live with that type of well armed neighbor, what right does the US have to tell Iran that they cannot defend themselves as they see fit?

Israel is guilty of not only having weapons of mass destruction, but also denying UN weapons inspectors access to inspect their country (Israel has yet to admit that they have nukes, but every intelligence organization in the world knows that they do), disobeying UN Security Council resolutions, plus invading and occupying another sovereign nation. That's on top of their arrogance in dealing with Palestinians. But yet, they aren't seen as a problem. The fact that they have nuclear warheads probably aimed at Tehran right now isn't seen as a problem. But Iran wanting nuclear weapons, yeah, that's the big issue. Right.

Why don't we disarm Israel, first? If Iran wants the bomb after that, we'll deal with them then.

As for US intervention in Iran, it didn't work before. In 1953, the CIA and England's equivalent, M16, helped take down the democratically elected leader of Iran and installed the Shah as Iran's head of government. Why would the US intervene in Iran back in the 50's? OIL!

Dr. Mohammad Mossadegh, Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister, fell victim to a CIA/M16 led coup in 1953 which placed Reza Shah Pahlavi in power. The Shah was the leader of Iran back in the 30's when he brokered a deal with England in which England basically owned all the oil in Iran. When Mossadegh became Prime Minister in 1951, the first thing he did was get the "Oil Nationalization Bill" passed, which terminated British ownership of the Iranian oil industry. England went to the UN Security Council and World Court in Hague to argue against the bill, but both bodies ruled in favor of Iran.

So, a coup staged by US and England, took place in Iran to place the Shah back in power, who would give access to Iran's oil back to the west. The Shah, of course, was a brutal dictator, which led to a revolution in 1979 that put, well.. Another brutal dictatorship in power, and that's the government that exists in Iran today. That's the government which the US is calling for a regime change to replace. Haven't we fucked around with Iran enough? Our last regime change in the country was so brutal that it produced a revolution which placed an America-hating, Islamic fundamentalist government in power. Why don't we just keep our hands off the country? Haven't we done enough?

But no, the US never believes that it has done enough. Now there is talk of how the US should attempt to destabilize the region to throw the current Iranian administration out of power, and there are reports that the US might be talking with the son of the Shah, Reza Pahlavi, who now resides in Virginia.

As for Iran and links to al-Qa'ida, why don't we look for links in Saudi Arabia, first? All of the terrorists killing Americans seem to come from that country. Hm, I wonder why? In other news, Saudi Arabia's government is friendly with the the US and allows us to have access to their oil business. I guess that's what a country has to do for immunity these days.

And let's not forget the track record of the Bush administration for countries that he has invaded. Afghanistan still isn't close to being stable, and we are facing anti-American protests and fierce fighting in Iraq. All of those troops from the Iraqi army which weren't around Baghdad when we rolled our tanks into the city now seem to be coming out of the woodwork, and I have asked myself if the the urban warfare which the US so wanted to avoided, and seems like it successfully did avoid, is now about to start. We'll find out more about this as soon as we find out where these attackers are coming from and what their motivations are.

Uh oh, Matt posted something to the blog which criticized Israel. I'm surprised the firestorm of hatemail hasn't started yet. ;> I used to post articles and commentary to an eGroup, and one of my common themes for a while was the Israel/Palestinian conflict until I got completed frustrated with it. Honestly, I hate both sides of this conflict. I consider the violent Israelis to be just as despicable as the violent Palestinians, and I can never bring myself to agree with the methods that either side employs. Suicide bombers are just as wrong as using military power to eliminate your enemy.

If somebody asked me to have sympathy for a side, whose views I thought were right, I guess I would lean towards the Palestinians. It was the Zionist movement, starting among European Jews in the 1850's, which decided that the land of Canaan was there's by Biblical right, and they started a pilgrimage back down there. But then you have to look at the Israeli side: the Jews did not feel comfortable in Europe. There was strong bigotry and prejudice against them. Anybody who doubts this only needs to be reminded of Hitler as proof that extremely strong anti-semantic sentiment existed in Europe. The Jews needed a place to go. To throw a bigger monkey wrench into things, some people blame the colonialism of Great Britain for the problems between Israelis and Palestinians, claiming that the two sides lived in harmony with each other before England fucked things up. I know that Palestine was not an independent country before it became Israel, it was another country under Great Britain, but I'm afraid that's where my education on the topic ends. Needless to say, this is a very complicated situation.

Israel is with side with the guns and the money, and it comes as no surprise to me that there are Palestinian suicide bombers to match military might. When one side is stronger than another in a conflict, the weaker side will not pull punches. Hence, we now have a tit-for-tat battles where the Israeli military commits atrocities, and the terrorists on the Palestinian side commits more atrocities in reply. It hasn't really solved much, has it?

If I hadn't packed away the new Atom and his Package CD, "Attention! Blah Blah Blah", I would quote the notes from his song, "The Palestinians are not the same thing as the Rebel Alliance, jackass". Atom (Adam Goren) is jewish, and also a lefty/activist type. Being an activist and touring the country with his music, he runs into a lot of people with the same political beliefs who completely oversimplify the Israeli/Palestinian situation, taking the Palestinian side in the whole conflict. Atom is rather sensitive, and I would imagine more educated, to the situation, being jewish and all (the songs notes say that he's just as scared of people who oversimplify the situation and take the Israeli side). I haven't checked with him, but I imagine that since the album came out, he's taken a lot of shit for that song, and all of it is undeserved in my opinion. It's a good song with a good message: you shouldn't easily take sides in a very complex situation.

Being a staunch pacifist, I came to the conclusion a long time ago that I could not fully support the Palestinian side because of their extreme violence. If push came to shove, I might be able to support the violence as revolutionary action against a strong, oppressive military if the attacks were only aimed at the military, but violent Palestinians wish to take out Israeli civilians, which is something that I can never condone.

On the other side of things, our government and our media are guilty of oversimplifying the situation, taking the Israeli side. And Matt is right: Israel will not even receive a slap on the wrist for their latest atrocity. That's just plain wrong.

This whole conflict is just frustrating, and I choose not to comment on it regularly. I secretly hope that a massive earthquake hits Jerusalem, West Bank, and the Gaza Strip, sinking all of these lands into the Mediterranean Sea so I don't have to think about it anymore.

Just say no to Media Deregulation
MoveOn.org is turning up the heat in the fight against media deregulation of the television industry. They need your donations to run TV and full page newspaper ads, telling the FCC to vote against media deregulation in June 2nd. Click here to donate.

A five-person FCC panel, three Republicans and two Democrats, will be voting on media deregulation for television companies in a week. You probably guessed that the three Republicans are set to vote for it, making the two Democrat votes against it moot. This is why it's important to make our voices heard, and make them heard now.

If media deregulation alone isn't enough to make you open your wallet, then read this article about how media deregulation of the radio industry, along with media giant Clear Channel, are directly responsible for death of at least one person. Save lives, donate now.

Crush Kill Destroy
So who hasn't had to vent about the Department of Motor Vehicles in their state? I can one-up that, though, because I have two to complain about: the DMV in RI, and their counterpart in Ohio.

Since I moved here, I still haven't registered my car for Ohio, and I still have my Rhode Island plates. At the beginning of this month, my RI registration expired, and I have been driving it around unregistered ever since. (Just for the record, out of the 25 states my car has been in, I've driven in while unregistered in 8 states!)

Before my registration expired, I went to two Ohio BMV offices, explained that my registration was about to expire, but I was moving back to RI in a month anyways, and if there was anything they could do about giving me a temporary registration. At both offices, they told me no.

Well, I thought, I would just drive it around unregistered in Ohio and when I move back to RI, I'll rent a truck and get something to attach my car to the back of the truck. This was my solution until last week, when I found out that renting truck to move what little belongings I have would run me, at least, an astounding $1100. I couldn't sell my couch, bed, coffee table, and end tables for that price (I paid $600 for them in the first place), so there's no way I can justify that expense. So, now I have to drive across the county and - OH SHIT! - my car is still unregistered!

I called the RI DMV to see if I could get a temporary plate. The first 20 numbers I tried (that's a bit of an exaggeration, but not by much) were busy. I tried a non-main office, they picked up - with a machine telling me to call the main number. Which was busy. I finally got through on another number I tried, an they transferred me to an extension which was fucking busy. After half an hour of dealing and screaming, I finally got through to somebody who told me that I would have to come into an office. I told them that this would be a problem, given the fact that I am 800 miles away from the nearest office.

Big fucking help.

So, rather desperate right now, I called back the Ohio BMV, only to get someone who told me that they COULD give me a temporary registration as long as I brought in my expired registration, title, and license.

God fuckin damnit, why couldn't they have told me this a month ago?! I went out of my way to goto two of their fucking offices. Can they hire people who DON'T have their head firmly enlodged up their ass? Jesus.

So now, since I am mostly packed, I have to rummage through a bunch of boxes to look for my title. Moving would be a lot easier if the general population was fucking competent with their jobs. But nope, because of other people's stupidity, I have to bust my ass. Nothing ever changes.

And here's where marriages go kaput..

Welcome to the Hamilton Inn!


You can pretend to be a powerful person by getting a reservation for our Executive Suite! (Last refurbished in the 70's. Check out that pink trim!)


Your fearless blogger was almost decapitated by a bird while taking photos of the Executive Suite. I wondered where the bird who just flew five feet away from my head came from, looked to my right, and saw this fine example of decay. Remember, it's the Executive Suite!

Who remembers the innocent?
I'm listening to "Talk of the Nation" on NPR right now, and after I finish typing this, I'll be turning it off in disgust and popping in either a Minor Threat or Methadones CD. They are doing a Memorial Day show because, obviously, today is Memorial Day. The guest, whose name I forget, is talking about the war memories that he and other people had, how older veterans are effected by war memories, etc. It's just a whole big nostalgia lovefest.

Someone just called into the show and he sounded worried. The basic point that this caller made was that there is no "Memorial Day" for the innocent victims of war, pointing out that not everyone wants to goto war, we don't even know how many Iraqi citizens died, etc.

First the host asked that his comments go back onto the "topic" of the show. When the caller continued to press his point, he was hung up on.

What about the innocent victims of war? Where's their day? And why is it that questioning the notion of war itself is not allowed? On NPR, they are talking about the war memories Vietnam Vets have, but airing the opinion that our involvement in Vietnam was needless just isn't allowed. How fucking patriotic. Remind me to fucking puke.

Here's to more needless wars. Memorial Day isn't going away anytime soon, we need more guilty reasons to have a cookout! Remember, God Bless America and fuck the rest of the world (especially France)! I'm now feeling thoroughly American.

Loaded Mouth News
OK folks, here's what's happening in my life:

I'll be moving back to Rhode Island at the end of the week. Throughout the week I get to pack up my stuff and do all the other things that one needs to do to end their life in this area, then saturday I throw all of my worldly possessions into a 4x8 trailer and drive 800 miles east, back to Rhode Island.

This means that for the next couple of weeks, blog posts will be sporadic. Moving will be my first and foremost priority. But, shortly after I get back to RI, I have a surprise in store for the website. I have been working on a redesign and revamp to change how Loaded Mouth looks, feels, and reads. Between settling into a new apartment and looking for a new job, I hope to have the new website up shortly after getting back to RI.

Speaking of moving, I better get back to that chore. The last time I moved, I ran into so much trouble that I wanted to kill someone. I hope that doesn't happen this time, but if the blog hasn't been updated in a few days, that's probably what happened, so I ask in advance for forgiveness.

The Breakfast of Champions

Mmmmm, Coco Rice Krispies.. Mmmmmm, Doritos.. Mmmmmm, Dew.. Eeeek, Adam's gut knocks his keyboard to the floor..

(Thanks to Katie for helping my blind ass find the cereal.)

It would be nice to dismiss the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) as simply being a right-wing propaganda group, but unfortunately, this is a propaganda group that has some power. It is a well known fact that top officials in the Bush administration (Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Wolfowitz) were founding members of PNAC back in 1997, so it isn't too much of a stretch to imagine that the policies of PNAC are the policies of the Bush administration. This group still trumpets the false accusations that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and links to Osama bin Laden, and they seem to support going to war for any reason, as long as it fits their view of where America's interest lie.

Even their statement on what their group is about frightens me: "The Project for a New American Century is a non-profit educational organization dedicated to a few fundamental propositions: that American leadership is good both for America and for the world; that such leadership requires military strength, diplomatic energy and commitment to moral principle; and that too few political leaders today are making the case for global leadership." Military strengh, global leadership.. "New World Order" is the first thing I think of. "Manifest Destiny" also comes to mind, as well as "American Nationalism". We have to remember that as much as PNAC looks like a crackpot group (and, well, is a crackpot group as far as I'm concerned), it is also what the current leaders in power believe.

And speaking of what they believe, it's good to go through their website and read their statements to see who could be next on the Bush hitlist. They wouldn't have any problem with military action in Iran. Terrorist links to Iran would be easier to believe (I can't recall if bin Laden has made states for or against Iran in the past), but there's the question of whether or not those terrorist links would come to harm America. Iraq had links to terrorism that were out in the open; Saddam support Palestinian/Hamas suicide bombers, that was no secret. But that type of terrorism does not threaten America, so it doesn't count. as a reason for American to invade the country. The Bush administration might try to make the a case that the recent arrests of al-Qa'ida members in Iran, after the suicide bombings in Riyadh and Casablanca, proves that Iran is a safe haven for terrorists, but it doesn't prove anything. Looking at the bombings in Riyadh, the media again seems to miss the point that the criminals here were Saudi Arabian, just like the 9/11 terrorists. Since 9/11, we have bombed the crap out of Afghanistan and Iraq in the "War on Terrorism", and for what? After we took over Iraq and continued to find no weapons of mass destruction or links to terrorism, al-Qa'ida (or a group similar to) said, "Yo bitches, what up?!", and killed a few more Americans. Like 9/11, the terrorists that did this were Saudi nationals. So this begs the question, just why in the hell is the Bush administration now setting its sights on Iran? It just doesn't make sense.

So, back to the issue of minors and abortion.. It's a sticky one. I guess a double standard, the one that makes things hypocritical, has to exist. It's the manner in which it exists that I have a problem with. The only time society wishes to treat a minor like an adult is when they are being tried for a crime, and that's unfair. Like I have said, abortion is a very private issue, and if a minor has to make that decision, then they should be give the same rights that an adult has. This law that is about to be passed in New Hampshire is supported by the same groups who wish to have abortion outlawed, and as far as I'm concerned, anything these groups believe is not only wrong but very damaging to society. These people can't get their heads out of their ass and figure out that people like fucking and that's never going to stop. If they stepped out of the way and let not only birth control and condoms become available, but also let sex education educate minors about, uhm, SEX, then we might now have all this discussion about minors and abortion.

I realize that in the eyes of the law, someone who is under 18 is considered to be a child and a dependent of their parents. However, I think the right to have an abortion is a very private issue for the individual considering it. And whether or not the person is a minor, it is still their body, not their parents body. Legislation like this is pushed by the Christian-right/Abstinence-only crowd who can't seem to fathom the concept that teenagers can, do, and will not stop, having sex. (I imagine that many teens in New Hampshire have sex on a regular basis, there really isn't much to do up there.) These are the same people who do not want people to have condoms and birth control as options in their sexual life, they agree with everything people like Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum have to say and would like to make it illegal to have sex out of wedlock; and they harbor the hypocritical notion that all life is sacred, yet they don't give a shit about an unwanted child after it is born. These people usually support war and the death penalty, I might add.

We live in a hypocritical society, where persons under 18 are considered minors, and the bill in the New Hampshire legislature wants to continue that tradition. Yet all across America, citizens are calling for teenagers heads if they commit a crime. Time and time again, teenagers are being tried and convicted as adults, under laws that would were intended to only be applied to adults. In the case that involves a woman's body, the deeply personal and private decision of abortion, should we continue to treat teenagers as minors who need their parents permission? This is perhaps the most adult decision they will ever make in their lives, and the same rights an adult has should be provided to teenagers in this case.

Lawmakers in New Hampshire have voted for a bill that requires women under 18 to get their parents permission to have an abortion. The next bill they will pass will modify the state motto, "Live Free or die if you're a Republican. If you are not a Republican, go fuck yourself."