The only thing worse than meaningless pop drivel is political pop drivel. STFU Sting. Go back to songs about hookers.

Every single time I hear a cut off of stings newest album, I can think of a new reason why it is absolute pretentious garbage. The problem (this listen) is that everything going on in this song has abosolutly NOTHING to do with one another. Not to mention that everything about this song feels stolen from other, talented artists.

There is WAY too much going on in this song... it almost sounds like two songs playing over each other... this of course from a serious Police fan....

philarktos wrote: Yeah, my mistake. #-o

SCTRANS wrote: To me, it seems he consistently has two or three very good songs on each release. Contrast that with the Police, who put two or three filler cuts on each album...usually. And he's now got that oh-so-healthy, gaunt, zero-fat-intake look these days... doesn't become a man of his (our) age.

drH wrote: Agreed, I haven't heard the whole record either, but is it just me or has Sting really lost it? I really lost respect for him after the Soul Cages and he has done nothing in my opinion to earn my respect back, in fact his songs put me to sleep!!

I haven't heard the whole album, but this MUST be the best song on it...

rgj13 wrote: What hath I wrought ? I was the one who referred to concern for his, and yes by extension, all children, future generations, as Sting's motivation. I've noted this since "Dream of the Blue Turtles" and heard him refer to it in interviews. Remember he started out as a teacher as well. But it's not in the lyrics to this song, and I never said it was.

Stickytylertoo, I think you tend to oversimplify your position when you mention toothpaste and propaganda. Your stacking of the cards is a bit self-willed.

BillG wrote: Likewise, I feel my main point is overlooked. There is plenty of evidence for propaganda. (Also, I'm familiar with the problems of the Policy of Containment) I would argue, however, don't sit around pretending your not being swayed by propaganda. I'm not particularly interested in the self-serving, transparent propaganda coming out of the story surrounding Iraq. From my way of thinking, no, I can't see how we're more safe because we invaded Iraq. I do see however there were a lot of mass graves in Iraq that we as intervenors probably won't be filling, and otherwise would have been filled. Also, we did go into Kosovo for such a reason and there was not near the reaction from the "killing-is-wrong-as-long-as-it-doesn't-interfere-with my-Grateful-Dead-DVD-player" group in this country. Why not? Because Bill Clinton's propaganda was really smart. He spun it as a humanitarian action----with automatic weapons. I'm tired of being told that because I'm on one side of an issue or another, that I'm being motivated by propaganda. Of course, I am. Stop acting like your not. We're being motivated by propaganda everytime we do something as simple as buy toothpaste, why wouldn't it affect us we we consider the morality of invading another country. Despite this, every once in awhile one primitive, little free-thought pushes its way through all the insecurities and propaganda we're all swimming in--whether from Radio DJs or Presidents--and says something along the lines of, "What a load of...". Its seems to happen just as often if I take a pro or con position of the current administrations reason for invading Iraq. So with that in mind, I submit, it is a mistake to personalize a debate, especially about a political issue, to a comment about someone's psychological make up and intelligence like "arrogant and ignorant". For one thing, don't underestimate the people who disagree with you, they may have a perspective for you to consider---even if only to reject it. Besides, the opposite of ignorant is informed. Are you informed if you have not explored someone else's viewpoint as fully as your own? Absolutely not. Further, are you arrogant if you conclude, having not fully explored someone else's viewpoint, that said person thereby falls into a certain category or class of behavior? Well, I'll let you decide but, it is definately a prejudice. I think I'll stop here, since this raises the real problem I initially pointed out. My main point, which I feel has been set aside, is that by claiming all those who disagree with your particular take on the Iraq situation and the propaganda associated with it, are "arrogant and ignorant" is a situation analogous to the thinking that put troops in Iraq. You have made your judgment, and now your taking action. All Iraqis are terrorists, and all Bush-supporters are arrogant and ignorant, let's invade. I understand you are interested in defeating a way of thinking, but don't go thinking your immune to the mistakes you can find in others. Of course, I say all this, and I did the same thing, just this morning.

stickytylertoo wrote: Perhaps I was reading innacurate connotations into the term "sand nazis" - if so, I apologize. That's exactly the sort of term often used by the "don't confuse me with the facts" flag-wavers, though. You don't address my main point, though - that anyone who believes that we & our children are safer - now or in the future - as a result of BushCo's misadventure in Iraq has indeed been propagandized. I stand by that one. And when I talk about world opinion, I'm not referring to any world leaders (who indeed all have their own agendas) - I'm talking about the opinions of the citizens of pretty much every country in the world (including the UK - the US government's only significant partner-in-crime in Iraq). Check it out. And no, I don't buy the "we're in Iraq because Saddam was an evil badass" BS, either. We've cheerfully supported many a regime that was even worse than his in the name of "containing communism" or protecting US business interests. Again, check it out.

BillG wrote: I did not equate all arabs and the term "sand nazis", maybe I'm just plain dumb for not seeing it, now or then. The former regime in Iraq for instance had a penchant for Hitler and Stalin. (I know Stalin was not a Nazi, but there are correlations between Stalin and the Nazis involving some pretty awful things done to human beings that are well documented.) Since I did not think of the comment as being directed at all arabs, any racial denigration was precluded. That aside, I still submit, the assumption you have made is that all those people who condone any portion of our current governments actions are "arrogant and ignorant". Is that not unilateralist? Also, why do so many people assume that other world leaders have our best interests at heart? I just don't get that one. Propaganda flows many directions.

Might it be worth crediting the song with some recognition of the use of metaphor, or really, of metonymy? I think it's perfectly plausible to gloss "my children" as "our children," as the world's children, as the future that lies ahead for all of us. Speaking in the first person and referring only to his own children merely helps the speaker personalize the political import of what he's saying; that's pretty different than being solipsistically focused on oneself and one's own interests.

stickytylertoo wrote: That post caught me on a bad day. But as I re-read it, the line "MY children want to live in a world where they don't have to worry about sand nazis killing them" still makes it appear that the poster believes that the current "war on terror" will somehow make the world safer for his children - ie: that Iraq posed a threat to the US & that we'll all be safer now that we've sent in the troops. That is sheer BushCo propaganda. The truth is that the US has created the greatest terrorist-recruitment program in recent history by invading Iraq. And the phrase "sand nazis" is rascist dreck, pure & simple. Without large doses of both arrogance & ignorance, it's just not possible to believe that the US has the right to ignore world opinion & intervene wherever we see fit - or that "Arabs = sand nazis".

philarktos wrote: Well said.

BillG wrote: I appreciate what you are saying and agree with alot of it. It is important to consider what the consequences of the things we do are. It is also important not to underestimate ourselves. I think it is a mistake to assume that because someone agrees with the otherside they are arrogant, ignorant, and susceptible to propaganda. Don't give into the darkside.

I really loved the Police, but Sting by himself, not so much. He just seems to take him self so damn seriously. Anybody remember Walking on the Moon, or Truth Hits Everybody... miss that Sting.

BillG wrote: you are scaring me again, mr. g

Illustr8r wrote: Well, looks like the propaganda is working pretty well. Give it 5 years, and you'll be wondering (like a lot of people are right now) how anyone could have ever believed that stirring up a hornet's nest is a good way to protect your back yard. As for his country not suffering any catastrophes - didn't they teach history where you went to school? God help us if we ever go through anything like what they did during WWII. He lives in NYC most of the time now, anyway. Sheesh. I try not to get baited too easily, but sometimes that all-American combination of arrogance & ignorance just gets to me.

"The future of his children"? Give me a fr*gging break. HIS children are all set already -- they were born to a millionaire rock star who thinks he's so damned enlightened (CC:Bono). MY children want to live in a world where they don't have to worry about sand nazis killing them. Let's see how high and mighty you are when something catastrophic happens to your country, bub.

Nice guitar work under Sting's rantings.

Sting at his more didactic. Still a positive message, and I respect Sting for his attempts on behalf of the future of his children, and the future of the world. Admittedly less entertaining than " Sacred Love", but not all art is about entertainment.

Nice to see him being politically assertive again. Maybe I'll reserve judgment on the song's merits for that reason alone.