I guess I'm missing the obvious irony of this song.

Ian:  I just assumed the Speaker in this song was watching a block of videos, or maybe Remote Control and a video for the ever-enchanting Yo-Yo ball came on...  Annnnyway, I see the confusion here, as most of the bands to which he's snidely referring relied heavily on synthesizers at the time.  Or, ahem, turntables... But that point is moot as in the early 80's rap wasn't real music.  As far as getting any chick at any time for free, need I remind Mr. Knopfler of the hundreds of crooners, shred-wizards and hip-hop moguls throughout the decades that have suffered frivolous marriages to opportunistic wives who guzzle down their disposable income?

Paul: Now they are just rattling off the "to do" list that was left for them over the weekend, or they are employed by Rent-a-Center. I get it your life is hard, lets move forward. 

Ian:  Truth be told, no one's really forcing them into this line of work.  I thought the gripe had more to do with the fact that they received money [et al] for nothing, hence the title.  I mean, these guys are still working, these guys on the MTV.  I get the feeling that if this Speaker made the same wage playing music, that he'd be dissatisfied doing that and spout off with backhand admiration for movers and electricians.  So is it about the labor or the lack of compensation?  Or is this a thinly veiled Marxist trope reflecting on the commodification of the proletariat in a perpetually oppressive fashion?

Paul: Wow, this came out of left field. This is clearly a man who was losing money in the late 70's when glam started knocking out no talent rock acts of the 70's. If I was in the music industry I would want to party with a faggot with a million dollars and a plane - there would be no competition for all the free women they are earning from being on Mtv. 

Ian:  I'm...uh... confused.  Are we still talking about the same guy who gets chicks (and some waffle fries) fo free?  Maybe he's not paying because he doesn't employ their services.  Maybe they all go out for coffee and do a little shopping at Moda, BR and Top Shop... Seriously, though, epithets based on social stratification governed by gender politicking is not going to solve anyone's financial woes, although it's becoming clear now why the Speaker has yet to organize a grass-roots socioeconmoic revolutionary party and why he is unable to find a job other than, uh, what was it again that you do, bro? It was, um, installing... something...

Paul: Does he work for these faggot millionaires? If so, I can see him being bitter, but he wrote this song so maybe he has a relative in the moving industry?

Ian:  Again, you don't have to!  Organize a labor union, strike protest, grow your numbers and break down your stereotypical barriers  so maybe there won't be a such thing as millionaires.  Maybe if you're willing to organize with those of a different sexual orientation and maybe if you'd drop the overtly sexist rhetoric and reactionary lament, just maybe you'd be able to work your way into a new job, or better yet a new society.  If you were paid the same to move furniture or to compose songs and travel 300 days out of the year, which would you prefer?  I'll call the Central Committee.

Paul: Aren't you in a band? Are we listening to your song? Maybe this is a subtle hint that Dire Straits was ghostwritten by fags? Plus, giving up on your dreams so early is not helpful to anyone. This is just a bitter man who hates the modern world around him. Is the bongo line a subtle jab at Paul Simon?

Ian:  Or maybe at Todd Rundgren? 

Paul: I'm so over him bitching about manual labor. Get a new job!

Ian:  I'm surprised he's referring to musicians the way he is, considering the generally accepted population that makes up the interior design industry (and therefore custom kitchens).  Maybe that's the B-Side.

Paul: Maybe this is a wake up call that he needs to quit his job at Rent-a-Center and learn a few chords on the guitar. Maybe he can write a visciously bitter song about music trends, while whining about how much of a shitty life he has? Sounds like a hit to me.

Ian:  What isn't workin?  Is he saying the oven, the fridge and tv are all busted??  Is he sayin that playing music isn't actually working?  Is there an applicable breakdown of what art is labor and what isn't?  Is this what the Speaker works on in his spare time instead of practicing music?  If he's saying that playing music ain't work, then why does he want to learn how...?  If he's commenting that his current position isn't satisfactory for him, then I've already suggested an alternative.  This guy just wants the easy way out.  I'm done here.

"There is a new bill that the United States government is trying to pass. It is called the Stop Online Piracy Act, or (SOPA) for short. Also known as The Protect IP Act of 2011. The US Congressional Budget Office estimated that implementation of the bill would cost the federal government $47 million through 2016. Translated into plain english, It will cost tax payers $47 million.
The SOPA act will censor you from accessing cirtin websites and block all access to other areas of the internet that the United States government does not want you to access.

The SOPA act essentually means, That even if you make a video of your child playing or singing and you have music playing in the background, or video on TV, you are breaking the law, and the government will order the websites that host your content to censor your content because of their new bill. Or if you visit websites that are on servers not in the United States you will be blocked so that you cannot access them.

Ask yourselves, Who really owns the internet? Or type it into google.

The answer is simple, No one actually owns the Internet, and no single person, organization or government controls the Internet in its entirety. It is more of a concept than an actual tangible entity, the Internet relies on a physical infrastructure that connects networks to other networks. There are many organizations, corporations, governments, schools, private citizens and service providers that all own pieces of the infrastructure that make up the internet, but there is no one entity that owns it all. How can the US government decide to block access to parts of the internet that the US government does not even own? The SOPA act is a direct violation to people's right to freedom of knowledge and information, And for that violation the United States government is a disgrace to the land of the free, The free that every United States soldier has fought or died for. The United States government is essentially telling the people of the United States that they are free to do as the government tells them. If people do not follow their rules they will arrest them for making an attempt to learn. No matter where that knowledge or information comes from. But the government will tell the media that these people are getting arrested for acts of treason, domestic terrorism, or internet piracy. As for the United States government. Who gave you the right to regulate the people's right to think outside the box and use the internet as they see fit?


To the people of The United States, We would like to refer you to Operation Blackout. A link to another video regarding Operation Blackout will be included in the description. We ask for the people of the United States to stand together and fight for your rights of internet freedom, and together we will show the US government that we will not allow them to take away our power. The power of the people, The people that elected the President, Senators, Govenors, and Mayors. You put them in office.

If you speak, They have to listen. If they do not listen, Their blatant disregard for the people will not go un-noticed, and is not acceptible. "