Why don't presidents fight the war?
Why do they always send the poor?

There are some questions, such as "When did Serj Tankian stop beating his wife?" and "Why does Serj Tankian collect so much child pornography?" that are tricky to answer because the premise is (and I'll give ol' Serj the benefit of the doubt) untrue. "Why do they always send the poor?" is one of those questions. Turns out that the income distribution of our military recruits matches that of the population at large pretty well. There are perhaps a smaller percentage of pampered rock stars in our all-volunteer Armed Forces than in the population as a whole, but even the sons of one of last year's presidential candidates and both vice-presidential candidates have been serving overseas. This Memorial Day, let's remember the sacrifices of all our soldiers and sailors, whether poor, middle-class, or better-off.

As for presidents fighting the war, the American people don't seem to find that terribly important - the presidential candidate with more military experience has lost five straight elections. Though perhaps what Serj is getting at is replacing war with some sort of one-to-one combat between the leaders of opposing countries. In that case, we'd probably be electing different types of presidents altogether. Both Obama and Bush are pretty fit men (and I can see Clinton holding his own in a bar fight), but we'd be looking for something more - Arnold Schwarzenegger, perhaps. (Though that would be ridiculous, as everyone knows he is ineligible to run, having been born outside the U.S.)

To find someone well-suited to the new job description, presidential debates would probably end up being less like a series of canned remarks and more like a cross between American Gladiators and Ultimate Fighting... You know, I daresay that might be an improvement. Perhaps Serj is on to something after all...

"The Heat Is On"

The heat is on
The heat is on
The heat is on
Oh, it's on the streets
The heat is on

There's nothing really wrong with these lyrics. Repeating the song title over and over in the chorus is perhaps a bit lazy, but it's way too common a feature of pop songs for me to have a legitimate issue with. No, what annoys me is that I am doomed to hum this song to myself every time the dang heat comes on in my house. We have a bunch of old clanking radiators, so every winter's day it's like *clang*, *bonk*, *klunk*, and here comes the sax riff...

"Round And Round"

Round and round
With love we'll find a way just give it time
Round and round
What comes around goes around
I'll tell you why

I've never been particularly fond of the cliche "what comes around goes around" - it has a pleasing rhythm, but it falls apart on closer examination. Presumably, it means "you get what you give", but if so, then like "you can't have your cake and eat it too", it's written backwards. Either way, it's always just said as a statement of fact, without regard to whether or why it's true. Why would something that comes around also go around? Where is it coming from, and where is it going?

So here comes Ratt to explain the phrase. Or so they claim. They quite brazenly do not deliver on the promise to tell us why. We're left hanging and thus it remains a mystery. My hopes are cruelly dashed; it's like an arrow through the heart.