WTF Of The Day

This story about a mother in Arkansas who just had her 16th child! Naturally the father is an Arkansas politician. This is just wrong, wrong, wrong. Even better is that the Discovery Health Channel filmed the story and will be showing it in the spring. You would think that supposedly being a health channel, the message would be this:

People of America, tonight we will present you something that is the opposite of health. It's the grotesque story of woman who had 16 children and still wants more!

Somehow, I don't think that's going to be their angle.

The Romance of Radium: A Post on Short Films

God, I love old short films. To me, the short films of the 1930s through the 1960s serve much the same function as the silents did and the talkies did before the Hays Code. They give an insight onto the values of the time in a very visceral way. They push certain kind of moral values in a tendentious way that was usually avoided within the real films that followed since those actually had to entertain. It is easy to see why Mystery Science Theater made fun of so many of these shorts--they are hilarious nuggets of absurd gold. I had TIVOed some shorts off of TCM that I watched back to back the other night.

The first set were these 1940s nostalgia trips. Great stuff. The first was an early look at car nostalgia. The narrator was just a baby when his parents bought their first car, which was some kind of 1905 thing. It went through time showing how cars framed our lives and changed the city streets. It was fascinating to see how early car nostalgia reached Americans. Seeing this short was the equivalent of going to the modern-day car show with your grandfather and listening to him spiel about what all of these cars meant to him.

The second short in this set was a piece on a family's Swedish maid off all the damn things in the world. It was the same guy narrating as the first one. It was about his family growing up in the city and hiring a Swedish maid just over from the old country. One thing was particularly striking about this: the story starts off with the woman getting hired as a trial and the father coming home the first night to witness her spraying the boys with a hose as they had been messing with her. She is going to be fired the next day but she cooks her best Swedish food that night and wows the father and they keep her on. Now my question is this: how bad must American food have been in 1900 or whenever this supposedly took place to be completely overwhelmed by Swedish food? Wow. That is totally beyond my comprehension. White American food by all accounts was almost totally inedible to the modern palate even in the early 20th century. Now I have greater insight into this.

The second set revolved around science. The first of these shorts, "The Romance of Radium," which is a great title if I've ever seen one was about the discovery of radium and the early experiments that took place with it. It wasn't all that exciting, despite the title, though there was a good bit on some African kid getting healed by his local tribe through being placed in radium-laced dirt, something that gave the creators of the short a good excuse to film their version of African customs. The second short in that was about Alfred Nobel and was pretty uninteresting I suppose.

The last set came from the late 1960s. The first was one of the creepiest things I'd ever seen for many reasons. It was entitled "All Eyes on Sharon Tate" and was basically a publicity short for Tate after she shot her first movie. So obviously there was a certain element of unintended creepiness built into this. But to make it more creepy, her first film, which I can't remember the title of now, starred David Niven, a creepy guy if there ever was one. To make it worse, when Niven is interviewed about Tate, the first thing he says is, "Well, first of all she's a marvelous looking bird." Which is a great 60s phrase from a really creepy guy. The next best part of this short was Sharon Tate saying she would never want to do something like Shakespeare but she would like to do some light comedy.

The final short was the only one too boring to get through. It was about the 1969 John Frankenheimer film The Gypsy Moths that had a lot of skydiving in it. The short was about the skydiving stunts. To some, no doubt it would have been really interesting. To me, well I just don't care about stuff like that. Plus by that time I had had a few and wasn't really up for paying attention to something that didn't grab me.

None of these matched my favorite short of all time which was about Stephen Foster and was an excuse for blackface and racial stereotypes, but nonetheless these did give a nice overview of bad filmmaking, self-serving moral tales, and Hollywood self-promotion. And what makes better watching than that?

A Belated Post on No Direction Home

I just never got around to writing up what I was planning on Scorsese's No Direction Home, about Bob Dylan, that played on PBS 2 weeks ago. In the blogosphere, 2 weeks is an eternity. For a historian, it's like the second before last.

Overall, I thought this was a solid documentary. However, the less you knew about Dylan before the documentary, the better it probably was for you. Scorsese and the other filmmakers really skated around the bad parts of Dylan. They didn't talk to Ramblin' Jack Elliott and that's a problem because Dylan fucked Jack over like no one's business. Throughout his whole time in New York, Dylan used people up and spit them out when he was done with them. Jack was Dylan's connection to Woody Guthrie. Jack was the first big Woody fan who went on the road playing those songs after Woody stopped. Jack taught Dylan a tremendous amount about music and the history behind that music. Once Dylan had learned those tunes and got to meet Dylan for himself, he left Jack in his dust. Of course, Dylan is a far greater artist that Jack Elliott. Elliott has written about 5 songs in his life. But when Woody Guthrie died in 1967, Dylan organized a tribute show. He left Jack off the program. Jack was able to get his way on through other means but that was just a slap in the face to his old mentor and friend.

The most you got about Dylan being an asshole was from Joan Baez who talked about Dylan leaving her backstage in Europe instead of inviting her to play with him and from Dave Van Ronk who told the story of Dylan stealing his version of "House of the Rising Sun" for an early recording. Dylan did this kind of thing all the time and the hero worship that came through in the documentary did little to give a complete picture of the man's dark side.

Some mention of Dylan's speed use during the entire time of the documentary could have provided a more complete picture as well. I'm not sure that it was absolutely necessary to discuss this, but again, it would have provided a more complete picture of the man.

What was really interesting about the documentary to me was how ultimately unsatisfying 3 1/2 hours were. For as much of an asshole as Bob Dylan can be, most of that 3 1/2 hours was riveting and it left me wanting more. Some discussion of the 70s and 80s might have been most enlightening, particularly his weird move to Christianity in the late 70s, the making of his greatest album, Blood on the Tracks, and the absolute shit that he put out in the 1980s.

Bob Dylan is no doubt one of the greatest musical artists of the 20th century. I think No Direction Home is far from the final word on Dylan. But even with its flaws, it still provided a fascinating look on a great musician and quite disturbing individual. I only wish it would have focused a little more on the second part of that.

Lenin and Historical Memory

This is a bit of an older article now, so perhaps you've seen it, but I found this New York Times article on the debate within Russia over what to do with Lenin's body quite fascinating. I come down quite strongly on the side of leaving the body where it is. This is not because I love Lenin. Nor is it because I want to see him as a nostalgic reminder of a now dead economic and social system. Rather, I think it is necessary to keep that body where it is because it is important to remember Lenin for what he was. Too often, when a new order comes to a society, there is an almost complete erasure of the past. Erasing the past serves a new regime well. By eliminating reminders of the past, it helps lessen the nostalgic pull that symbols have on people and thus helps dampen foment against the new regime. I was just reading a book review of a new work on Catholicism in pre-Henry VIII England that argued this very thing. Henry and then Elizabeth did all they could to destroy all vestiges of Catholic England and replace it with a religion subservient to the state. Today, we know very little about English Catholicism and this is a shame.

I am happy that Russia so far as not gone down this path. It is important to remember the Soviet past for so many reasons. It's important to remember the cult of personality that dominated the Soviet Union. It's important to remember the bad things that Lenin caused. It's important to remember the person who spurred Soviet industrialization. It's important to remember the Brezhnev years and why people eventually rejected Soviet-style communism. Getting rid of his body may satisfy a gut urge in many to have their way with the body of a horrid tyrant but other than this primal action, what would it accomplish? Russia needs constant reminders of its history and Lenin, if he does nothing else at this point, provides that.

Matt, for good reason, presumably disagrees with this perspective.

Nathan Newman Preaches The Word on Harriet Miers

In the best reason I have seen so far for Democrats to fight against the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court, Nathan Newman argues that her pro-corporation tendencies far outweigh the possible centrism on some social issues.

I'm still not sure at all that Democrats should oppose Miers at this point for the sole reason that it's better to let Republicans fight amongst themselves. And I still don't think that any nominee is going to be better than Miers, either on corporate issues or social issues. But Newman does highlight perhaps the greatest weakness of the Democratic Party today, which is ignoring economic issues. Sure Democrats talk about economics during election time and sure they opposed Bush's social security plan. But what is the Democratic program on economic issues? Where do they really differ with Republicans on the role of corporations in American society? On outsourcing? There is no question that there are serious differences between Democrats and Harriet Miers on economic issues. It is conceivable certainly that a Roberts court that includes Miers could witness a rollback in minimum wage legislation and of the few remaining effective pro-labor laws in this country. And that is a good reason to oppose to her.

I guess my greater concern past the Miers nomination is what the Democratic position is on economic issues. What's the message to give to working-class voters? Hell, the party rarely even talks about the working-class anymore. How often did you hear the words "middle-class" come from the Kerry campaign? How often did they discuss the "working-class?" The difference was significant. So what has replaced economic issues at the core of the Democratic Party? Social libertarianism and opposing the use of the US military under almost any circumstances. While the need to preserve the remnants of Roe v. Wade, to fight for equality for gays, and to fight against the war in Iraq are paramount, I have to believe that it is necessary to wrap all of this up in an economic framework in order to rebuild a winning political coalition. Newman rightfully is angry that Democrats are giving Miers a free pass without even examining her positions on business and labor. I, and presumably Newman as well, see this as emblematic of the problems within the Democratic Party today.

A Stunning Reversal?

From this New York Times story about the dashing of liberal hopes that Hurricane Katrina would lead to a serious discussion of poverty and renewed commitment to social programs.

"We've had a stunning reversal in just a few weeks," said Robert Greenstein, director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal advocacy group in Washington. "We've gone from a situation in which we might have a long-overdue debate on deep poverty to the possibility, perhaps even the likelihood, that low-income people will be asked to bear the costs. I would find it unimaginable if it wasn't actually happening."

Wow. Are progressives still, after these last nearly 5 years, so naive as to believe that the Republicans will not press their agenda at every opportunity? Are we still not prepared to counter this? None of this should have come as a surprise. Not the suspension of affirmative action requirements for contractors. Not the push by Congress for spending cuts in social programs to offset the cost of the relief effort. This shock is just so frustrating.

On the other hand, it is not as the conservatives come off well here either. See this closing paragraph from the article:

"What we've done for the poor hasn't worked," said Robert L. Woodson, president of the National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, a conservative policy group. "People are going to say, 'How did these people get into this circumstance in the first place?' It gives us an opportunity to really turn over a new leaf."

How did the poor get there in the first place? Well, considering that many of them are black, I would say that 250 years of slavery and 100 years of Jim Crow, followed by the Republicans' Southern Strategy that looked to marginalize the poor and people of color from an entire party would have something to do with it. Does Woodson really believe that the Great Society made people poor? Or does he think that if he and other conservatives say this shit enough, people will believe it.

So on one side you have people whose hearts are in the right place but still maintain a naive view of the evils of the Republican Party and the current political outlook in America. And on the other side you have a bunch of lying bastards looking to screw over the poor at every turn. Lovely.

Evil Vanquished

Fuck the Yankees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Seriously, it is so great to see those bastards lose for the 5th straight year. K-Rod getting Fuck-Rod to hit into a double play in the 9th was particularly sweet.

Notice that the Yankees haven't won the World Series since Bush took office. I have to believe there is a reason for this. It would simply mean there was too much evil in the world. God has to maintain some kind of control over Satan. When Bush won, it just couldn't happen that the Yankees could win too. Humanity still has hope.

Haloscan Problems

Over the past few weeks I am not able to look at more and more comments on blogs that use Haloscan. I can still look at my own and some others, but more and more I cannot. I don't have this trouble at my work computer or my office computer in Albuquerque. Does anyone have any idea why this is happening?

Harriet Miers

As I mentioned when Roberts was nominated, I am not the person to read for insightful legal analysis. However, after reading a lot of perspectives on the blogosphere (even conservatives!), I have a couple of comments.

1. We can't expect a good nominee from this president. Given that, we have to have realistic expectations of what we can expect. Miers no doubt is bad, but I ask this question. Would you rather have a weak conservative justice or a strong conservative justice? I would much rather have Harriet Miers than Priscilla Owen, Michael Luttig, or another conservative intellectual that will not only ally themselves with Thomas and Scalia on votes, but also as active and effective philosophers of right-wing judicial activism. I don't think Miers has the ability to do this. From this president, I'll accept that.

2. Anything that is causing this much consternation among the Republican base must be good. We won't know for awhile just how conservative Miers is. What we can hope for in the meantime is some increased hostility toward Bush from his base. That would be lovely. I don't expect it. I expect that the power brokers will rally around Miers and sell her to the loony right. But I can hope, can't I?

3. If Democrats ally themselves with the Sam Brownbacks and Tom Coburns of the Senate to reject Miers, what would happen? Would we get a better nominee? Or would the answer be Alberto Gonzales or Owen? I would be very angry if they got on the court. Sometimes incompetence is the best you can ask for. And my friends, Harriet Miers is likely to be exhibit A of incompetence coming from the Bush administration.

4. Some progressives are saying that we should filibuster Miers if we can, just to do it. I really have trouble seeing what that accomplishes unless we can find information showing that she is even more awful than the average Bush nominee. Because if she is rejected, there is no question that the next nominee gets through with all the conservatives on board.

5. Other progressives are saying that they would rather see a principled conservative like Scalia rather than an incompetent one like Miers. I simply cannot understand this. Is it because active progressives think a great deal of principles in general and therefore have a certain amount of respect mixed with hatred for Scalia? For me, I would like to have a principled liberal more than anything. Then I'd rather have an incompetent liberal. But if I have to choose between an incompetent conservative and Scalia, I'm taking the incompetence. Miers' potential to do damage is far less than Scalia.

See Scott for more perceptive analysis of this issue that I can give.

Nick and Jessica Are Over! What Am I To Do?

With the tragic news that Nick and Jessica may be breaking up, I'm very confused. Without them, what other celebrity couple will I not give a shit about? Tom and Katie? Britney and that dude? Ben and Jennifer? My God, I need that important celebrity couple to not give a shit about or I will lose my sense of self.

Any suggestions on which of these celebrity couples should take over that role of me not giving a shit about? Should I give less of a shit about one of these over the others? I really need your help.

Bush's Second Term--A Scorecard

Let's see. What has gone right for Bush since he won in November and what has gone wrong for him?

Right
John Roberts

Wrong
Social Security privatization (don't hear too much about that one these days. Wonder why?)
Iraq
Katrina Response and Michael Brown
Oil Prices
Conservatives angry over nomination of Harriet Miers
Indictment of Tom DeLay
Valerie Plame case
Declining approval ratings
Bill Frist stock improprieties

What I am forgetting here? Regardless of whether I have forgotten anything major, it is clear that the second term has been little short of a disaster for W. The sad part? I still think that despite all of these clear indications that Bush is a terrible president and a horrible leader, he would win reelection over most any major Democratic candidate. I'm not sure if this says more about the zombie-like loyalty of the Republican base or the lackluster nature of Democratic candidates. Anyway, let's keep hoping for more negatives. Because this just keeps getting richer and richer.

Alexander Hamilton on Miers-esque Nominees

Via TPM Cafe.

"[The President] would be both ashamed and afraid to bring forward, for the most distinguished or lucrative stations, candidates who had no other merit than that of coming from the same State to which he particularly belonged, or of being in some way or other personally allied to him, or of possessing the necessary insignificance and pliancy to render them the obsequious instruments of his pleasure."

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 76

There is nothing more to be said.

Maybe I Just Don't Trust Science Like I Should, But This Is A Bit Disconcerting

Read these short and not-so-short pieces about scientists reconstructing the deadly 1918 influenza virus. This particularly was far from reassuring:

REST ASSURED: The public health risk of resurrecting the virus is minimal because people developed immunity to the deadly 1918 virus after the pandemic, and a certain degree of immunity is believed to persist today.

Oh well--"a certain degree of immunity." So what is that degree? 100%? 2%? Somehow I'd like to know that if we are going to reconstruct one of the most deadly viruses in human history that we had some clue about just how much immunity we had to this thing.

Also, see Lawyers, Guns, and Money for a discussion of Bush's proposal to allow the military to enforce quarantines. This sounds like about the worst idea I could possibly imagine. Because nervous uneducated kids who are scared of getting a disease they don't understand and have guns in their hands make me feel real scared.

Paul Pena, RIP

Most people only know Paul Pena from his appearance in Genghis Blues, the excellent documentary about Pena's travels to Tuva in order to sing with the Tuvan throat singers. And that's fine since that's where I know him from. He also wrote "Jet Airliner" which Steve Miller made a hit of. Despite the fact that Steve Miller was involved, it's really not that bad of a song. What I am interested in on Pena's death was not his own music, which was a kind of laid-back West Coast hippie version of the blues, nor even the Tuvan singers which were interested. I'm not even really going to talk about the complex issue of Pena going over there and winning the big Tuvan throat-singer competition, which I'm sure he won because the audience was amazed he was over there rather than him being significantly better than the other singers.

What I am interested in is the Paul Pena in the film. Never before have I seen such powerful evidence on what blindness does to your emotions and your psyche. Pena lived on his own thanks to his royalties from "Jet Airliner" but his movement was highly restricted as you can imagine. But his blindness, in addition to other illnesses that eventually killed him, sent him spiraling into deep depression that was sad to watch on the film. So may Paul Pena rest in more peace that he did in life.

Here's To Good Friends

One of the hardest part about my wife being in Houston is that I have trouble dealing with being alone for very long. In an ideal world, I would be with other people and having conservations with those people the whole day, except for maybe the early morning when a little alone time to wake up is nice. I don't know why this is. I think that loving conversation is part of it. But I get lonely pretty quick without being around people. Who knows why.

Anyway, I consider myself extremely lucky that I have such great friends. It is they who are keeping me sane during this period. I owe a particular thanks to my friends in Albuquerque who have allowed me to crash at their places after nights of fun and who have listened to me talk about all sorts of things that are probably boring to them.

I generally have found the most wonderful friends in my life. To me friends are far more important than family (wife excluded) because I choose my friends whereas families seem like a joke from God who just throws random people together to see what happens. Perhaps this is a reflection upon my own family more than others, who knows, but it's how I feel about it.

So raise a glass to your friends and tell them how you really feel about them. I'm at work so I'm raising my nalgene bottle to them. Later, I'll buy them all drinks.

Fuck Martin Chavez

The well-thought out, reasoned, and respectable title of this post comes from my reaction to local Albuquerque elections yesterday. Martin Chavez, a Democrat of Lieberman-esque stripes, won re-election yesterday with widespread Republican support. The real Democrats came out for city councilman Eric Griego but it wasn't enough to stop Chavez from getting the 40% he needed to gain reelection without a run-off. Chavez is the worst kind of politician. He has a layer of sleaze on him that is so thick you would need an ice pick to chisel it off. He is vindictive and nasty. He has made it a personal cause of his to end all-age shows in downtown Albuquerque, even though that is the only interesting thing to do downtown at night if you don't like bars that are basically corporate chain-bars and serve as meat markets. Albuquerque should be basing its downtown redevelopment on Austin. Instead, Chavez seems to like the San Diego model better, where we attract yuppies who spend a lot of money but who don't actually contribute to making the place interesting.

Furthermore, Chavez did not support the living wage ordinance, which also went down to defeat yesterday. Quite a Democrat here, a man who does not support raising the minimum wage to a whole $7.50 and $4.50 for tipped employees. No doubt that kind of wage rates would put thousands of small business owners out of business. If that is true, may my hand fall off now. Hmmm, it still seems to be attached to my arm.

What is frustrating about living wage ordinances can be summed up from this comment on the issue from m-pyre.

How is raising min wage going to solve the poverty problem:All it's going to do is make me pay more for stuff. As usual, the middle class get screwed. I went to college and care about my future and career, too bad many others don't. And shame on you for condoning this.

How do you fight against this kind of attitude? People have bought whole hog into the idea that government interference in the economy destroys the middle-class and causes inflation and other economic problems. What is so frustrating is that so much historical evidence points to the exact opposite result of government intrusion into the economy. Not only does this guy place the blame on the poor for their own poverty and assume that if you don't go to college that you don't care about your future, but he laughably assumes that a wage of $7.50 an hour will lead to inflation and screw him over. I say it is laughable, but really it's not--it's sad, frustrating, and exasperating.

As are Albuquerque politics.

Black Indians

A student of mine loaned me her issue of Wired magazine, which I had never read before, because it had a story about black Indians, something that I guess I had made a reference to in a lecture. Here's the link to Brandon Koerner's article.

Black Indians present an extremely complex issue in America's crazy race relations. Here's some of the facts and my opinions.

1. The "Five Civilized Tribes" were happy to pick up the practice of African slavery to work their cotton fields. In fact, many fought in the Civil War for the Confederacy.

2. The Seminole nation is heavily black because many slaves from southern Georgia and northern Florida used the Florida swamps as a place to escape too, where they were taken in by the local Indians. This was especially possible when Florida was still owned by Spain.

3. Intermarriage has always taken place between Indians and peoples of other races. There are pure-blood Indians, but really not all that many.

4. The United States government has played a big role in creating this insanity because from the Dawes Act of 1887 came the idea of "blood quantum." Blood quantum was how the government determined who was "Indian" and who was not. It depended upon how much Indian blood that one had. If you are 1/8 Indian, you are no longer Indian. Related to this is that a person can only register as being a member of one tribe with the tribal governments and thus the federal government. Money from the federal government often depends upon the number of people in a tribe. Thus there is great pressure on mixed-Indian Indians to register with one tribe or another, even though in their hearts they embrace both traditions. Here's some interesting commentary on blood quantum issues. Here's a petition to get the BIA to reverse this policy.

5. Making this even more complicated is the relations between Indian nations and the federal government. Obviously, for most of American history the federal government has looked to exploit Indian peoples at every turn. But over recent years, the feds have seen the light of day and have increasingly allowed Indians to govern themselves with minimal federal interference. This has only grown since the passage of the 1988 Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, which led to the rise of Indian casinos and serious economic power for many peoples. Now the government has to reckon with Indian economic power if they want to take them on. And as we all know, money matters more than anything. What does this mean? That is it going to be very hard for the federal government to enforce their idea of blood quantum on Native Americans. First, do they care enough to? Second, do they want to spend the resources to do so?

6. In any case, is it the role of the federal government to determine who is Indian and who is not? Wouldn't doing so just reinforce the exploitation of Indian peoples by the federal government and undermine the autonomy that many of us find great value in? I don't see how the government enforces this without it being easily interpreted as another example of colonialism. This is true regardless of what is actually fair and right in this case.

7. As to what is fair and right--clearly the black Indians are completely in the right. By any reasonable standard, many of these people should be considered Indians with full rights. Why aren't they. Several reasons. Greed is huge. With increased economic power has come great greed among the leaders of some tribes. Making membership inclusive of all those who are actually Indians would mean sharing the wealth. Can't have that. Also, we should not underestimate the snakepit that is tribal politics. It makes the machinations of Washington look down right tame. The level of corruption and nepotism in Indian politics is unbelievable. It may well be that many of the people of these various tribes would be happy to include their darker-skinned relatives in the tribe. But that will never pass the tribal leadership. Theoretically tribal governments are usually elected. But cheating, intimidation, and bribery are very common. So on most reservations there is a pretty big disconnect between leaders and people and a great deal of disillusionment and fatalism among the average tribal member.

8. Finally, we should discuss the relationships between Native Americans and history a bit. As we know, history can be a powerful political tool. This is particularly true in the modern age when increased respect for Native Americans and other minority groups has made America listen to their stories. The only problem is that there is great hesitation to challenge these stories when they are false or misleading. It doesn't serve the interest of the Oklahoma tribes to talk about their slave-owning past. So they don't. Admitting these black Indians to the tribe would make the slave past central to their history. They know that's not the image they want to portray.

If we take all of these causes and factors together, I think we should realize a couple of things. First, that racial problems in this country are far from black and white, literally and figuratively. They are tremendously complex in ways that most of us don't even think about. Second, there are no easy answers here. History, politics, and money all get in the way of fairness. Third, God bless anyone who wades into this quagmire to try and solve these problems.

Remarkable

In this cnn.com story about how people are dealing with gas prices, we have this quote:

"We have stopped spending on things that aren't necessities, and we've been forced to halve our grocery bill. The kids no longer get fresh fruit or vegetables and no longer get turkey sandwiches. Now we buy only canned goods and the cheapest lunch meat possible. With the price of gas up, everything else is up... except for our wages."
-- Christine

Now I understand that a lot of people are poor and that any rise in prices makes it tougher for a family to survive. But I have to confess that this sounds to me like America at its worst. Here we seem to have Christine making a concious decision to place driving over buying decent food for her family. No doubt Christine is not a wealthy woman. But are Americans so adverse to carpooling that they are willing to sacrifice nutrition for driving? Or do we just not even know what carpooling is?

The Decline and Fall of Herbie Hancock

I was in Starbucks the other day. I don't go in there real often, but when I do I always look and see what kind of music they are offering for sale. I find this interesting because they are essentially offering a soundtrack to the lives of yuppies who see music as wallpaper.

Today, I was saddened but not shocked to see a CD of Herbie Hancock playing with special guests. Now it's been at least 20 years since Hancock has done any music that can be considered vital. Most of it is fairly dispensable though not really bad. In any case, its mostly less urgent and interesting versions of the same kind of music that he was making as far back as the mid 1960s. This doesn't bother me so much because it is really hard for artists to keep up the intensity and creativity in their music for a lifetime. The duet CDs are a really bad sign for these artists. This is when you know that it is really over and there vitality is never coming back. And this CD had many of the kind of usual suspects that you would expect on such a CD. You know, Hancock playing with Sting, Paul Simon, etc.

What really got me about this CD was a duet with Herbie Hancock and Christiana Aguilera. Are there any circumstances where I would want to listen to a duet between these two? The answer is no. I shudder at the thought of this. And I wonder what the Herbie Hancock of 1970 would think of this. Somehow I think he'd be as disappointed as I am.

Alice Munro

After Philip Roth finally wins the Nobel for literature (hopefully this week!), I am going to be pulling for the Canadian writer Alice Munro. Take this exchange from her story "Apples and Oranges" out of her collection Friend of My Youth.

Murray fell in love with her then, if he was not in love already. Here is a noble girl, he thought. A bold black-and-white lily out of the Swamp Irish--Lorna Doone with a rougher tongue and a stronger spine. Mother won't like her, he thought. (About that he was entirely right.) He was happier than he'd been at any time since he lost his faith. (That was an unsatisfactory way of putting it. It was more as if he'd come into a closed-off room or opened a drawer and found that his faith had dried up, turned to a mound of dust in the corner.)

He always said that he made up his mind at once to get Barbara, but he used no tactics beyond an open display of worship. A capacity for worship had been noticeable in him all through his school days, along with his good nature and a tendency to befriend underdogs. But he was sturdy enough--he had enough advantages of his own--that it hadn't got him any serious squelching. Minor squelches he was able to sustain.

Barbara refused to ride on a float as the Downtown Merchants' contestant for the Queen of the Dominion Day Parade.

"I absolutely agree with you," said Murray. "Beauty contests are degrading."

"It's the paper flowers," said Barbara. "They make me sneeze."

That's just some great writing. Munro is so good at exploring the kind of delusions that we live under and the ways we try too hard at the things we do. She also, and I can't really describe this well, has a way of putting a little twist at the end of stories, a fact or seemingly slight plot development, that completely changes the way you think about the story and the characters. I understand that Munro is read a lot in Canada, but not much in the US. Hopefully that changes soon.