I bought some new old music from Amazon:
Fucking brilliant. I'd heard it a couple times as Music AM at Borders--J357 used to play it time and again. Mick Ronson rules--at points on this album he sounds like Tonni Iommi. I was thinking the other day about buying whatever album has Bowie's "Andy Warhol" track--I used to have it on 45 and taught myself the riff on guitar in like '85.
Hadn't heard
in probably 20 years. "Why Does it Hurt When I Pee?" "Catholic Slut" and "Fembot in a Wet T-Shirt"--these tracks not only hold up, I like them better now than I did as a teen. I appreciate the instrumentation much more as well (mostly because I'm not pulling a four-foot bong while listening anymore).
Sometimes the production on "new" bluegrass recordings can sound too clean, too sharp. That's the case with
and
but I still like them both a great deal. Both artists are very pure singers, both have assembled kick-ass bands whose members aren't afraid to ramp up already fast classics to new crazy tempos. Dolly even turns a turgid and painfully bad old Billy Joel ballad into a can o' banjo whoop-ass. For some reason I don't like really crisp and clear playing on bluegrass recordings--there should be slip-ups and twangs and toppy recordings; the sound on each of these discs is woefully impeccable. But I still catch myself saying goddam at some of the soloing here.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
See Dick Lie.
From Truthout:
"I have not," replied Cheney, "suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."
Hm.
"His regime has had high-level contacts with al Qaeda going back a decade and has provided training to al Qaeda terrorists." - Cheney, 12/2/02
"His regime aids and protects terrorists, including members of al Qaeda. He could decide secretly to provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists for use against us." - Cheney, 1/30/03
"I think there's overwhelming evidence that there was a connection between al Qaeda and the Iraqi government." - Cheney, 1/22/04
"There's been enormous confusion over the Iraq and al-Qaeda connection, Gloria. First of all, on the question of - of whether or not there was any kind of a relationship, there was a relationship. It's been testified to. The evidence is overwhelming. It goes back to the early '90s...There's clearly been a relationship." - Cheney, 6/17/04
One could argue, perhaps, the definition of "is" on this matter. Cheney did not state specifically in any of the above quotes that Iraq was involved with 9/11. But the repeated claim that Iraq was connected to al Qaeda, a claim that has been shot to pieces dozens of times over, establishes enough of an Iraq-9/11 connection to satisfy a man who appears to believe that a frightened populace is a happy populace.
George W. Bush doesn't even believe Cheney on this point. An article by Reuters from September 18, 2003, had Bush telling reporters, "We've had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved in September 11." Bush was forced into this scramble because his Vice President had, again, made this discredited connection between Iraq and 9/11 on 'Meet the Press' the previous Sunday by claiming, "more and more" evidence was being found to justify the connection. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now.
Bliss
Katherine Mansfield's "Bliss" was an enormous dud this morning in lit class. Not a surprise--this class had some trouble with Lawrence, and Mansfield approaches the same thematic territory from a Jazz-age sensibility, whereas Lawrence seems more locked in a sort of late-nineteenth century style.
I tried to allow them to explore the story with less coaxing from me, and got dead silence as a reward. So it was back to looking at specific scenes, symbols, and characters: "What do you think is happening here, where Bertha feels a kind of fire burning her when Pearl touches her arm?" "What does it say about Bertha's character that she builds two pyramids out of fruit picked because it accessorizes her rug and tablecloth?" "What about the various symbols: the "creepy" cats, the pear tree, the moon?" Blah-blah, yackety-yack. The monkeys on Mrs. Norman Knight's coat? The name Norman Knight? Meant nothing to them--oh well, at least they got all salacious when we talked about the possibility that Bertha was a repressed lesbian (I don't give it much credence, though the text does try to throw the reader off a bit--I think Bertha is re-connecting to her feminity, that's why she kind of feels a confused love/lust for Pearl--it's not necessarily a sexual attraction, and at any rate Bertha quickly feels the need for a booty call with hubby Harry). But the story is supremely vague and interestingly silly; of course it's got depth too, which is why after five readings I'm not sure what to make of it.
I tried to allow them to explore the story with less coaxing from me, and got dead silence as a reward. So it was back to looking at specific scenes, symbols, and characters: "What do you think is happening here, where Bertha feels a kind of fire burning her when Pearl touches her arm?" "What does it say about Bertha's character that she builds two pyramids out of fruit picked because it accessorizes her rug and tablecloth?" "What about the various symbols: the "creepy" cats, the pear tree, the moon?" Blah-blah, yackety-yack. The monkeys on Mrs. Norman Knight's coat? The name Norman Knight? Meant nothing to them--oh well, at least they got all salacious when we talked about the possibility that Bertha was a repressed lesbian (I don't give it much credence, though the text does try to throw the reader off a bit--I think Bertha is re-connecting to her feminity, that's why she kind of feels a confused love/lust for Pearl--it's not necessarily a sexual attraction, and at any rate Bertha quickly feels the need for a booty call with hubby Harry). But the story is supremely vague and interestingly silly; of course it's got depth too, which is why after five readings I'm not sure what to make of it.
Saddam Hussein did not vigorously pursue a program ...
It's kaput. The entire case for invading Iraq is kaput, smoldering like a shock-n-awed Hussein palace. No longer can George say "Saddam was a gathering threat." Saddam was writing novels while his staff told him what he wanted to hear. No longer can George say "Saddam supported terror and was linked to Al Qaeda," since Rumsfeld (and Dick Cheney last night) have at last admitted there was "no strong evidence of a tie" between the two. No longer can Bush claim that Al Qaeda was operating freely inside Iraq before the invasion, because the CIA just released a report that says the primary operatives in Iraq were clearly in the no-fly zone outside of Saddam's control; no collusion. How will George justify his war at the Friday debate? He can no longer say it was necessary because Saddam refused to dis-arm. It's hard to dis-arm when there's no arm to dis.
Monday, October 04, 2004
The Sweet Life, indeed
Goddam but that Fellini mothafucka was good!
is spectacular. I love the way he manages hugely complex scenes with parades of characters carefully choreographed moving from one place to another, often without cuts. In lieu of a firm narrative we get many scenes: conversations, reaction shots, dances--a variety of settings and situations into which Fellini places his characters in order to reveal them. Somehow it works every time--life isn't tidily tied up each day, and Fellini's films don't pretend to end in any conventional manner. When Anita Ekbert is on screen there's an instant electricity, and Marcello Mastroianni is of course his usual debonair, playa self. I'd do either one of them. Ekbert in the Trevi Fountain? Woof. Tradition has it that when you visit the Trevi you should turn your back and throw a coin over your shoulder into the water to ensure a repeat visit. Watching La Dolce Vita evoked powerful, vivid memories of Rome: the smells, the streets, the cobblestoned pathways, the ruins. I feel like I've been back! I have to buy all this guy's stuff on Criterion.
I must admit that as much as I liked Dolce I liked
and
and
better.
I'm excited because next up on my Netflix queue is my fave George C. Scott pic:
I haven't seen it since I was a young teen and it scared the shit out of me.
is spectacular. I love the way he manages hugely complex scenes with parades of characters carefully choreographed moving from one place to another, often without cuts. In lieu of a firm narrative we get many scenes: conversations, reaction shots, dances--a variety of settings and situations into which Fellini places his characters in order to reveal them. Somehow it works every time--life isn't tidily tied up each day, and Fellini's films don't pretend to end in any conventional manner. When Anita Ekbert is on screen there's an instant electricity, and Marcello Mastroianni is of course his usual debonair, playa self. I'd do either one of them. Ekbert in the Trevi Fountain? Woof. Tradition has it that when you visit the Trevi you should turn your back and throw a coin over your shoulder into the water to ensure a repeat visit. Watching La Dolce Vita evoked powerful, vivid memories of Rome: the smells, the streets, the cobblestoned pathways, the ruins. I feel like I've been back! I have to buy all this guy's stuff on Criterion.
I must admit that as much as I liked Dolce I liked
and
and
better.
I'm excited because next up on my Netflix queue is my fave George C. Scott pic:
I haven't seen it since I was a young teen and it scared the shit out of me.
Just Awful
I came home from teaching D.H. Lawrence to find that as I entered the front door of the house, Cha was entering through the back. Strange that she'd be returning from Halstead Academy so early on a school day, I thought, and when I saw her face and the wounded look I knew something was up.
She barely managed to get it out before crying: some unknowns had broken into the school Friday night and ransacked her office. They took her spray paint and ruined all her student work (she directs an Arts Magnet program) with graffiti, they took her canned paints and poured them all over the books in the library, and used more to decorate the cafeteria. She was unable to see her office--as soon as she got to school her principal was waiting to send her home because the crime lab people were in her office--and this was certainly for the best. Word has it they tore up her files and her portfolios and lesson plans. Anyone who teaches knows how much work can be lost--ten years worth of finessed and carefully re-thought preptime could be down the drain!
Making this worse is the fact the school alarm system went off Friday and the security guard responded--but instead of checking the school he simply shut off the alarm and closed the open window he found, leaving the perps free reign! Duh.
She barely managed to get it out before crying: some unknowns had broken into the school Friday night and ransacked her office. They took her spray paint and ruined all her student work (she directs an Arts Magnet program) with graffiti, they took her canned paints and poured them all over the books in the library, and used more to decorate the cafeteria. She was unable to see her office--as soon as she got to school her principal was waiting to send her home because the crime lab people were in her office--and this was certainly for the best. Word has it they tore up her files and her portfolios and lesson plans. Anyone who teaches knows how much work can be lost--ten years worth of finessed and carefully re-thought preptime could be down the drain!
Making this worse is the fact the school alarm system went off Friday and the security guard responded--but instead of checking the school he simply shut off the alarm and closed the open window he found, leaving the perps free reign! Duh.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
DC Visit
Had a pleasant visit to DC with the Travelin' Joneses yesterday. Hadn't seen them in months (actually, haven't seen ANY of the Old Crew in months--Sluggo, Buf, etc).
Got to hang out with Startling Sam, who vies with my niece for brightest youngster I know ("It's ok to leave crumbs here," he told me, eating a Granola bar on the steps before the Lincoln Memorial. "Because the birds will eat them?" I asked. "Yes, the birds," he said wistfully. "And the Unknown Creatures."). He showed us all the bugs in his book at home at the Smithsonian, and speculated openly and cleverly about machinery and skeletons. He asked as we walked back along the Mall if we were heading the right way, then said we must be because the pond with ducks was on the other side now; he even recognized a tree he'd looked at before, The Slanty Tree.
All remarkable in a young brain. Of course, all young brains are remarkable. Sam's brother Drew is no exception; he had a rough patch on the train (Sam sagely intoned as Drew screamed "We all get grumpy at times, but sometimes it's best to keep it inside and not let others see.") after which he took a nap and quickly his enthusiasm for bugs ("hey, that scorpion has a backhoe on it") and dinosaurs took control.
It was a nice day, and we saw a lot. I'm reminded that I desperately want to get to the Native American Museum when the crowds die down a bit.
Got to hang out with Startling Sam, who vies with my niece for brightest youngster I know ("It's ok to leave crumbs here," he told me, eating a Granola bar on the steps before the Lincoln Memorial. "Because the birds will eat them?" I asked. "Yes, the birds," he said wistfully. "And the Unknown Creatures."). He showed us all the bugs in his book at home at the Smithsonian, and speculated openly and cleverly about machinery and skeletons. He asked as we walked back along the Mall if we were heading the right way, then said we must be because the pond with ducks was on the other side now; he even recognized a tree he'd looked at before, The Slanty Tree.
All remarkable in a young brain. Of course, all young brains are remarkable. Sam's brother Drew is no exception; he had a rough patch on the train (Sam sagely intoned as Drew screamed "We all get grumpy at times, but sometimes it's best to keep it inside and not let others see.") after which he took a nap and quickly his enthusiasm for bugs ("hey, that scorpion has a backhoe on it") and dinosaurs took control.
It was a nice day, and we saw a lot. I'm reminded that I desperately want to get to the Native American Museum when the crowds die down a bit.
Steamed Rice
The Times today has an excellent cover story about Administration officials--in particular Dick "Heinous" Cheney and Condy Rice--disregarding dissenting views in intelligence and leaping immediately to the direst possible interpretations of information in presenting the case to the American public that Saddam HAD to be removed. My first reaction was to question why it took the Times so long to put together such a report, the facts of which have been buzzing around the 'net since BEFORE THE WAR STARTED. My other reaction was to think about how the Administration would work their response to the story after Bush's collapse in the debate Thursday, especially given that today's reporting suggests strongly that Bush and Co. were aware of much less damning and far more cautious intelligence and squashed it before giving it to Senators like John Kerry--in effect the Congress didn't see "the exact same intelligence" the White House had, but rather a spun version, an edited version.
Condy Rice, on This Week today, was as bad as Bush was last week. She was shrill, bitter, and scolding when Stephanaupolis dared press her on these tough points. He would not let her evade contradictions in the record and she did not like this one bit (and yes, I know using words like "shrill" and "scolding" has negative connotations in describing women in power, becuase women in power who act like men in power can be described as "shrill" to diminish them for having an executive bearing--in this case I'm using such words anyhow, because they FIT her demeanor to a TEE this morning. In fact, that other un-PC label for women also came to mind: hysterical. She was at points overwrought and really struggling to control the rage which distorted her face; "Now George," she'd say when he interjected a counterpoint, her brow furrowing, lips pursing up, eyes watering--and after three of these I thought she was going to leap out of her chair she was glowering so much).
What it boils down to is this Administration is unused to having its assertions challenged. They have grown comfortable with their isolated, tough-as-nails sureties, and now that questions have been raised and journalists are smelling blood in the water, Rice and the President have fallen off script, or found that scripts aren't working so well. Bush doesn't give press conferences for a reason--and it's not simply the fact that he's terrible at answering unscripted questions and that he's not nimble enough for follow-ups--Bush doesn't give press conferences because he can only justify his position to adoring fans who not only can't articulate counterpoints, but wouldn't dream of doing so. That's why his public appearances and campaign stops allow only those truly loyal fanatics access. Bullies and fierce ideologues don't like when pieties are challenged, any more than religious fundamentalists like being confronted by more nuanced scriptural interpretations. Bush in the first debate looked and sounded like what he was: someone out of his depth, someone who tried to force reality into his pathetically small worldview ["I know how this world works," he whined at one point Thursday.] and now that there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary on his desk every day, he's finding that simply restating old claims won't work.
And yet he does so, again and again.
Rice isn't as small-minded; she's more nimble, she's certainly more capable of rhetorical flourishes and bait-and-switch manoeuvers designed to either evade a questioner or turn the topic to her advantage, but Stephanaupolis wasn't having it this morning, and Rice got petulant and bitter and flustered. Hughes was acting the same way late Thursday night. They're in trouble.
Kerry, on the other hand, in the two speeches I saw on CSPAN this weekend, was clear, exhuberant, forceful, aggressive, bitter, and mean-spirited. His rhetoric was impassioned and righteous, and he was even funny and relaxed. My criticisms of his debate performance thought he lacked some of this, but I can see him using two different personae for two different groups: A cautious, honed, firm but pliable Kerry in the debates where people are in effect shopping for a product. The undecideds are looking at cues those of us who've made up our minds aren't, and Kerry is aware of this. In front of the crowds he spoke to this weekend, he was in rabid anti-Bush territory--no one at these events was making up their minds. They wanted to be fired up, agitated, reminded of what they despise and why. Kerry's craftier than I gave him credit for. We'll see how well Edwards rises to the Cheney challenge--I think Kerry held back so that Edwards (the more ebulliant and effusive of the Dem duo) can play gutter ball next week with less ramifications for the ticket. Hopefully Edwards'll smear Cheney with the worst: Halliburton (Truman called war profiteers "traitors,"--bring it up), the Times story today, the fact Dick still harps about connections with Al-Qaeda and nuclear capabilities. Play hard-ball with Dick--he'll lash out and appear repetitive just as Bush did, and he'll likely get angry and let out the un-PC Darth Vader which is an overwhelming liability for the Republican ticket. They have to know Cheney is going to try and be the Terminator after Bush's spoiled brat performance.
Condy Rice, on This Week today, was as bad as Bush was last week. She was shrill, bitter, and scolding when Stephanaupolis dared press her on these tough points. He would not let her evade contradictions in the record and she did not like this one bit (and yes, I know using words like "shrill" and "scolding" has negative connotations in describing women in power, becuase women in power who act like men in power can be described as "shrill" to diminish them for having an executive bearing--in this case I'm using such words anyhow, because they FIT her demeanor to a TEE this morning. In fact, that other un-PC label for women also came to mind: hysterical. She was at points overwrought and really struggling to control the rage which distorted her face; "Now George," she'd say when he interjected a counterpoint, her brow furrowing, lips pursing up, eyes watering--and after three of these I thought she was going to leap out of her chair she was glowering so much).
What it boils down to is this Administration is unused to having its assertions challenged. They have grown comfortable with their isolated, tough-as-nails sureties, and now that questions have been raised and journalists are smelling blood in the water, Rice and the President have fallen off script, or found that scripts aren't working so well. Bush doesn't give press conferences for a reason--and it's not simply the fact that he's terrible at answering unscripted questions and that he's not nimble enough for follow-ups--Bush doesn't give press conferences because he can only justify his position to adoring fans who not only can't articulate counterpoints, but wouldn't dream of doing so. That's why his public appearances and campaign stops allow only those truly loyal fanatics access. Bullies and fierce ideologues don't like when pieties are challenged, any more than religious fundamentalists like being confronted by more nuanced scriptural interpretations. Bush in the first debate looked and sounded like what he was: someone out of his depth, someone who tried to force reality into his pathetically small worldview ["I know how this world works," he whined at one point Thursday.] and now that there's overwhelming evidence to the contrary on his desk every day, he's finding that simply restating old claims won't work.
And yet he does so, again and again.
Rice isn't as small-minded; she's more nimble, she's certainly more capable of rhetorical flourishes and bait-and-switch manoeuvers designed to either evade a questioner or turn the topic to her advantage, but Stephanaupolis wasn't having it this morning, and Rice got petulant and bitter and flustered. Hughes was acting the same way late Thursday night. They're in trouble.
Kerry, on the other hand, in the two speeches I saw on CSPAN this weekend, was clear, exhuberant, forceful, aggressive, bitter, and mean-spirited. His rhetoric was impassioned and righteous, and he was even funny and relaxed. My criticisms of his debate performance thought he lacked some of this, but I can see him using two different personae for two different groups: A cautious, honed, firm but pliable Kerry in the debates where people are in effect shopping for a product. The undecideds are looking at cues those of us who've made up our minds aren't, and Kerry is aware of this. In front of the crowds he spoke to this weekend, he was in rabid anti-Bush territory--no one at these events was making up their minds. They wanted to be fired up, agitated, reminded of what they despise and why. Kerry's craftier than I gave him credit for. We'll see how well Edwards rises to the Cheney challenge--I think Kerry held back so that Edwards (the more ebulliant and effusive of the Dem duo) can play gutter ball next week with less ramifications for the ticket. Hopefully Edwards'll smear Cheney with the worst: Halliburton (Truman called war profiteers "traitors,"--bring it up), the Times story today, the fact Dick still harps about connections with Al-Qaeda and nuclear capabilities. Play hard-ball with Dick--he'll lash out and appear repetitive just as Bush did, and he'll likely get angry and let out the un-PC Darth Vader which is an overwhelming liability for the Republican ticket. They have to know Cheney is going to try and be the Terminator after Bush's spoiled brat performance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)