Index
Latest
2024
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2023
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2022
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2021
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2020
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2019
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2018
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2017
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2016
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2015
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2014
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2013
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2012
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2011
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2010
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2009
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2008
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2007
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2006
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2005
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2004
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2003
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2002
Dec
Nov
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
Jan
2001
Dec
Oct
Sep
Aug
Jul
Jun
May
Apr
Mar
Feb
|
Monday, September 30, 2013
Music Week/No Jazz Prospecting
Music: Current count 22093 [22066] rated (+27), 572 [579] unrated (-7).
Didn't get back from Arkansas/Oklahoma until Wednesday night, so
this is a bit more than a half-week's work, plus/including eight new
releases this week (most written up earlier and held back). The HMs
are interesting albums, but the week belongs to Brazilian saxophonist
Ivo Perelman. It's not easy to sort out his many albums -- he's as or
maybe even more prolific, at least over the last five years, as Ken
Vandermark, Joe McPhee, and Anthony Braxton -- and they rarely wind
up high on my year-end lists, but they jump out of the speakers when
compared to my typical weekly regimen (like everything else below).
Enigma is easily the top one, followed by Serendipity
from earlier this year.
With Christgau's Expert Witness kaputt and Tatum's Downloader's
Diary only slowly dribbling in -- that September window has all but
closed -- I'm on the fence again, tempted either to hang it up or
double down: install that blog software over at terminalzone.net
and open it up for interested fellow spirits, while resurrecting my
long-neglected next-generation ratings/reviews database code and
using the thousands of short reviews I've written as a skeleton for
an opinionated reference resource.
On the down side, I've noted, for instance, that I'm no longer
receiving records from ECM -- especially troubling given that Tina
Pelikan was the first jazz publicist who showed an interest in me.
On the other hand, I did just get a substantial package from NoBusiness
in Lithuania -- not yet unpacked below -- and other desperate pleas
for notice. (I'd hazard a guess that few self-acknowledged jazz fans
have heard of more than a third of the 18 leaders/co-leaders below;
at least a third were new to me.) Can't do this without them, but
even as a critic not afraid to dredge up something obscure the gap
between what I get and what I want keeps widening.
What Christgau has done for more than forty years, and I have
attempted to do much more sporadically, has been to sort out as
much music as might be of conceivable interest. That task is way
beyond what any human can do, so we each have our cheats: he
discards shit when it fails to engage him, and I write it up
anyway (albeit not very well). He's managed (until now, anyway)
to get paid for his considerable trouble, whereas I haven't (at
least since the Village Voice editors lost interest in jazz,
but really even before then). And that matters more to him,
because he's always tried to make a living writing, whereas
(even when I got paid) I never did.
When I moved to New York, I immediately sought out a typesetting
job to make ends meet. On the other hand, I had a self-published
zine, Terminal Zone, and had every intention of continuing
to publish it. That blew up in a horrible misunderstanding with
my partner, Don Malcolm, but even before that it had floundered
on the question of whether we could get good writing cheap enough.
I had expected that when I moved to New York I would meet all kinds
of talent, but I mostly ran into expense, and I've never had the
business chops to make that work. A couple years after losing
Terminal Zone, I gave up writing about music, and started
to make a real living, but that came to an end after 2000. Thanks
to Christgau I then got an outlet for jazz reviews, and soon found
that I could publish anything I wanted to write about on the web.
In effect, it became possible to restart Terminal Zone --
but it hasn't happened yet, mostly due to technical problems: I'm
not the programmer, or for that matter the worker, I once was,
and every time I touch it I get stuck.
As for writers, I expect that if we build it they will come.
Why not? The marginal cost of information is zero, and it is at
least a public good -- something everyone has at least a minimal
interest in creating and preserving. The days when a private party
could corner it and extract meaningful rents are numbered, perhaps
even negative. So let me throw out this invite: if anyone out
there knows their way around Linux, Apache, PHP, MySQL, and (here's
where I get shaky) JavaScript/Ajax, and wants to help build a
website framework for managing discographical info and attaching
reviews and ratings, please get in touch with me.
Also, let me throw out this offer: much of Terminal Zone
is available on-line (here), but
if anyone wants a physical copy, send me email. As I recall, I have
a box full of extras in the basement. I won't guarantee very fast
service, and I'm not sure what it's all going to cost (especially
postage overseas), but right now I don't forsee any need to charge.
It would also be nice to get the rest of the contents online -- I
just did my own stuff, but I doubt that anyone else would object,
and it would be especially nice to get Kathy's artwork scanned.
For the address, look for the contact page.
Also, I have a file with links to a bunch of download links
from commenters during the last week of Expert Witness. I expect
they will progressively break over the next couple weeks -- some
are already gone -- but they've been degunked and are more usable
than trying to excavate them from the comments. Again, send me
an email request.
Ted Brancato: The Next Step (2012 [2013], Origin):
Pianist, grew up in Seattle, "has worked in and around NYC" almost
30 years. This looks to be his first album: all original pieces,
with one co-credit to percussionist Mayra Casales. Best known band
member is bassist Ron Carter, probably the most recorded musician
of all time. Credits list runs long, including guitarists with
names like Carri Coltrane and Woody Allen, but the record is most
attractive when he keeps it uncluttered.
B+(*)
Brasslands [A Motion Picture Soundtrack] (2013, Evergreene):
As usual, I have no idea about the film, but the soundtrack features
two sets of Balkan brass bands, one from the old country (Serbia)
and the other from Brooklyn -- Slavic Soul Party, with its jazz
luminaries, I've run across before, but Veveritse Brass Band, Raya
Brass Band, and Ziatine Uste are new to me. Same for the Serbian
groups -- orchestras led by Dejan Advic, Demiran Cerimovic, and
Dejan Petrovic. Not sure if any of them aim for the dance beats
popular with Balkan bands in Berlin and Wien, but the rhythm is
as central as the brass here and it isn't folkloric -- it flows.
B+(**)
Lou Caimano/Eric Olsen: Dyad: Plays Puccini
(2012 [2013], self-released): Alto sax and piano, respectively.
Second album together. Olsen has a previous album under his own
name, two as Urban Survival. Tunes from the opera writer, done
straightforwardly with instrumentation that plays up the melodies --
this was, after all, the pop music of the 19th century -- without
those horrible voices.
B [October 1]
The Matthew Finck Jonathan Ball Project: It's Not That Far
(2012 [2013], self-released): Finck plays guitar, Ball sax (tenor in the
photo). Band includes Jay Anderson (bass), Adam Nussbaum (drums), and on
three tracks Randy Brecker (trumpet/flugelhorn). Neither leader, unlike
the others, has much prior discography, but the sax is striking, and as
mainstream jazz this is entertaining and substantial -- e.g., "The Way
You Look Tonight."
B+(**) [October 1]
Erik Friedlander: Claws and Wings (2013, Skipstone):
Cellist, composed this in the months after his wife of 22 years died,
at once somber, affectionate, and lovely. With Sylvie Courvoisier
on piano and Ikue Mori on laptop.
B+(***) [October 1]
Florian Hoefner Group: Falling Up (2013, OA2):
Pianist, from Germany but based in New York, second album (as far
as I can tell), reprising the group from his debut Songs Without
Words: Mike Ruby (tenor/soprano sax), Sam Anning (bass), Peter
Konreif (drums). Postbop with some edge and quick moves. All by
Hoefner except for "Eleanor Rigby" -- usually unjazzable but he
keeps it neatly cloaked until the punch line.
B+(***)
Tim Horner: The Head of the Circle (2012 [2013],
Origin): Drummer, studied at Berklee, moved to New York in 1980;
third album under his own name, several dozen side credits going
back to 1982. All original material. Band includes Ted Nash (tenor
and soprano saxes, bass clarinet, flute), Jim Ridl (piano), Steve
Allee (accordion, keyboards), Joe Locke (vibes), and Dean Johnson
(bass). Horner adds a scat vocal I don't care for, and the flute
leaves something to be desired, unlike Nash's tenor sax leads.
B
Keefe Jackson's Likely So: A Round Goal (2013,
Delmark): Tenor saxophonist, b. in Fayetteville, AR; based in
Chicago where he rotates several band projects -- notably Fast
Citizens, which cellist Fred Lonberg-Holm borrowed for a superb
album last year (Gather). This group is all saxes and
clarinets, seven strong, a mix of Chicagoans (Mars Williams, Dave
Rempis, Jackson) and Europeans (Waclaw Zimpel, Marc Stucki, Peter
A. Schmid, Thomas K.I. Mejer) recorded live in Switzerland. A mixed
bag, remarkable for stretches, annoying in spots, variously thin
and shrill and thick and sumptuous.
B+(**)
Ahmad Jamal: Saturday Morning (2013, Jazz Village):
Pianist, has been recording steadily since Chamber Music of the
New Jazz in 1955, mostly trios or, like here, quarters with
extra percussion (Manolo Badrena) added to the bass-drums (Reginald
Veal, Herlin Riley). At 82 he still runs the keyboard, lots of fleet
arpeggios especially when Badrena has that Latin tinge moving, not
that he doesn't also handle ballads authoritatively.
B+(**)
RJ Miller: Ronald's Rhythm (2013, Loyal Label):
Drummer, also plays keyboards and analog synths here, based in
Brooklyn, first album; backed by bass, additional keyb or analog
synthesizer on most tracks, accordion (Leo Genovese) on one. The
analog synths, in particular, give this the feel of vintage
electronica.
B+(***) [October 1]
Billy Mintz: Quartet (2013, Thirteenth Note):
Drummer, first album (although AMG, with its tendency to sort the
last name first, credits him with a 1997 album that lists Steuart
Liebig and Vinny Golia left-to-right). Quartet includes John Gross
on tenor sax, Roberta Piket on piano and organ, and Putter Smith
on bass, with Piket singing one. Best part is the sax chasing the
beat, but there's also a lot of slow stuff.
B+(*)
Michael Moss/Billy Stein: Intervals (2013, 4th Stream):
Stein is a guitarist, based in New York; has a previous album that was
a high HM back in 2005 (Hybrids). Moss plays clarinet, sax, and
flute. He arrived in New York in the mid-1960s, played in a group called
Free Life Communication, later Free Energy and Four Rivers. He recorded
three albums 1978-80, then got a Ph.D. in psychology. Songs are credited
to either or both but feel improvised, surprising even if they wander a
bit. And for once I don't advise the saxophonist to tear the flute down
and shelve it, although I suspect Stein deserves as much credit there
as Moss.
B+(***)
Tsuyoshi Niwa: At the End of the Day (2013, self-released):
Soprano saxophonist, plays flute on one cut, b. 1972 in Tokyo, Japan;
programmed computers, graduated with a degree in chemistry, moved to
NY and studied with George Garzone, bounced around returning to NY in
2011. Has a couple previous albums. Starts this quintet off with "My
Favorite Things," which thanks to John Coltrane has probably sold more
soprano saxophones than any other song or artist, Sidney Bechet and
Steve Lacy included. Other five cuts are originals. Randy Brecker's
trumpet provides a strong contrasting horn.
B+(*)
Meg Okura and the Pan Asian Chamber Jazz Ensemble: Music
of Ryuichi Sakamoto (2013, self-released): Plays violin and
erhu, b. 1973 in Tokyo, Japan; studied at Juilliard and is based in
New York. Third album with this group: Anne Drummond (flute), Helen
Sung (piano), Dezron Douglas (bass), and E.J. Strickland (drums).
I find the CD to be totally impossible to read, so excuse the lack
of info. Presumably the dozen pieces are from the very prolific
Japanese composer/keyboardist, who started in Yellow Magic Orchestra
and now has many dozens of albums (at least 80, half soundtracks,
including his Oscar-winning score to The Last Emperor). The
"chamber" rubric may be a cliché for violin-flute-piano but they
cut against each other's excesses. Not sure Sakamoto isn't a hack,
but he provides plenty to chew on.
B+(**)
Ivo Perelman/Joe Morris/Balazs Pandi: One (2013,
Rare Noise): Tenor sax trio, with Morris playing electric bass for
the first time on record -- he established himself on guitar, but
has also played acoustic bass more frequently of late -- and Pandi
on drums. Perelman's been knocking out a half-dozen records per year
recently, with two good ones already this year -- The Art of
the Duet, Volume One with Matthew Shipp, and Serendipity
with Shipp, William Parker, and Gerald Cleaver -- and this, with
its choppy intro and an inspired torrent near the end, is another
inspired performance.
A- [advance: October 1]
Ivo Perelman/Matthew Shipp/Whit Dickey/Gerald Cleaver:
Enigma (2013, Leo): Tenor sax, piano, two drummers --
the doubling up isn't conspicuous or necessary even to balance
out leaders who run on the loud side, but in an art where "the
drummer plays with the band" their separate takes add subtle
points -- not that you need them when the Brazilian saxophonist
is on such a roll.
A- [October 1]
Ivo Perelman/Matthew Shipp/Mat Maneri: A Violent Dose of
Anything (2013, Leo): Tenor sax, piano, viola. Brazil's
leading avant-saxophonist has been releasing six albums a year for
a good while now, most with Shipp (their relationship goes back
to 1996's Bendito of Santa Cruz duet), so one can wonder
whether they wind up being too much of the same thing, or whether,
having graded A- no less than ten of his releases since 2000 (13
since 1989) I've lost my objectivity. Perelman's forte is the sax
trio: he's basically a free blower and nothing suits him more than
a strong rhythm section pushing him on -- Shipp has nearly that
same effect in a duo, even more so in a quartet. Perelman usually
has more trouble with strings, but those records are just easier
to dismiss. But this one is harder. Shipp and Maneri go back at
least to a 1998 duo (I don't particularly recommend). The viola
is particularly prickly here, often engaging like a second horn
although sketching out a more treacherous terrain, which Perelman
is eager to explore -- the first few minutes offer some of his
most flightful work ever. Title comes from a film for which this
is the soundtrack, but the seven pieces are long and coherent
with none of the pastiche or cliché that marr filmwork. Played
this more than the others and it's barely on the cusp, but in
some ways the handicaps make it all the more remarkable. Bump
those numbers up one more.
A- [October 1]
Matthew Shipp: Piano Sutras (2013, Thirsty Ear):
Pianist, a major one since c. 1990, plays solo here, something he's
been doing more frequently lately as if he's trying to shake the
taint of his early Blue Series albums' veer into jazztronica. The
focus here is in dense chord patterns, lots of muscle rather than
melodic lines. Two covers ("Giant Steps," "Nefertiti"), short ones
for just a whiff of recognition.
B+(**)
Dave Slonaker Big Band: Intrada (2012 [2013],
Origin): Los Angeles-based outfit, first record, Slonaker arranges
and conducts but doesn't play. He grew up in Pittsburgh, studied
trombone and piano, got degrees at Indiana and Eastman School of
Music, and headed west to work in film and TV. Standard big band
lineup (five reeds, four trumpets, four trombones, piano, bass,
drums -- many names I recognize but few real stars (Bob Sheppard,
Wayne Bergeron, Peter Erskine are probably the best known). All
Slonaker originals except for "It's Only a Paper Moon."
B-
Matt White: The Super Villain Jazz Band (2012 [2013],
Artists Recording Collective): Trumpet player, studied in Miami, based
in Nashville, has played in big bands at both stops but this is his
own first album. Postbop, gets help from two saxophonists (Evan Cobb
and Don Aliquo) plus piano-bass-drums, but his trumpet makes the deepest
impression; wrote all but the Tom Waits cover.
B+(**) [October 1]
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Dave Bennett: Don't Be That Way (Mack Avenue): October 15
- The George Bouchard Group: Listen to Your Dreams (self-released): October 15
- Kris Davis: Massive Threads (Thirsty Ear): advance, November 5
- Enrico Granafei: Alone Together (CAP)
- Tom Harrell: Colors of a Dream (High Note): October 22
- Sue Maskaleris: Bring Nothing but Your Heart (Jazilian)
- Bill Mays Inventions Trio: Life's a Movie (Chiaroscuro)
- Houston Person: Nice 'n' Easy (High Note): October 22
- Ben Wanicur: The Excluded Middle (Middle Path)
- Phil Woods & the Festival Orchestra: New Celebration (Chiaroscuro)
Daily Log
Music today (JP): Billy Mintz, Dave Slonaker; (RG): Marvin Gaye, Four
Tops, Jan & Dean.
Posted this at EW:
Tried posting this earlier but MSN wasn't cooperative. I posted new
Jazz Prospecting today. Been thinking about past and future projects,
and made an offer there to send out a free copy of my old Terminal
Zone magazine to anyone who writes requesting a copy. Also put out a
plea there for some programming help on a future Terminal Zone website
project. Again, any interest, please write me.
I also have a file collecting nearly all of the download links
posted in the last week or so, so if you want that, again, write
me.
I was planning on writing something more substantial here or
elsewhere, but between my trip and all the catching up I haven't had
time. If not here, then elsewhere.
Sunday, September 29, 2013
Weekend Roundup
Big story this coming week will be the government shutdown, forced
by Republicans in the House for no better reason than that they can.
They've staked out an ignorant position, one voters should remember
next November -- one the Democrats should relentlessly remind voters
of. Moreover, I feel their vindictiveness is aimed explicitly at me.
I'm 62 now and unemployed and the only way I'll be able to buy health
insurance next year is through an ACA exchange. I don't have any links
on this below, but that doesn't mean this isn't important.
Some scattered links this week:
Janet Allon: From the Mean-Spirited to the Asinine: 7 Prime Examples
of Right-Wing Lunacy This Week: Actually, looks like a formula
for a piece she can write every week. The headline list:
- Ken Blackwell: Cutting Food Stamps, Oh So Christian
- Bill O'Reilly: Jesus Died for Our Taxes
- AIG CEO: My Plight Is Similar to Lynch Mob Victims
- Gohmert's Pile (of Crap) -- Obamacare and Immigration Are Plots to Deprive Real Americans of Full-time Jobs
- NRA Lobbyist: Opposing Elephant Slaugher Is Hitlerian Animal Racism
- Bryan Fischer Gets in on the Teenaged Bullying Action
- Kansas Christian Group: Stop Oppressing Our Kids By Teaching Them Science
Tom Engelhardt: Bragging Rights: Eight exceptional(ly dumb) American
achievements of the twenty-first century: Starts quoting and commenting
on Obama's "bomb Syria (but not quite yet)" speech, especially the bit
about "That's what makes us exceptional." Indeed, let us count the ways:
- What other country could have invaded Iraq, hardly knowing the
difference between a Sunni and a Shiite, and still managed to successfully
set off a brutal sectarian civil war and ethnic cleansing campaigns between
the two sects that would subsequently go regional, whose casualty counts
have tipped into the hundreds of thousands, and which is now bouncing back
on Iraq? [ . . . ]
- What other country could magnanimously spend $4-6 trillion on two
"good wars" in Afghanistan and Iraq against lightly armed minority
insurgencies without winning or accomplishing a thing?
[ . . . ]
- And talking about exceptional records, what other military could
have brought an estimated 3.1 million pieces of equipment -- ranging
from tanks and Humvees to porta-potties, coffee makers, and computers --
with it into Iraq, and then transported most of them out again (while
destroying the rest or turning them over to the Iraqis)? Similarly,
in an Afghanistan where the U.S. military is now drawing down its
forces and has already destroyed "more than 170 million pounds worth
of vehicles and other military equipment," what other force would have
decided ahead of time to shred, dismantle, or simply discard $7 billion
worth of equipment (about 20% of what it had brought into the country)?
The general in charge proudly calls this "the largest retrograde mission
in history." [ . . . ]
- What other military could, in a bare few years in Iraq, have
built a staggering 505 bases, ranging from combat outposts to ones
the size of small American towns with their own electricity generators,
water purifiers, fire departments, fast-food restaurants, and even
miniature golf courses at a cost of unknown billions of dollars and
then, only a few years later, abandoned all of them, dismantling some,
turning others over to the Iraqi military or into ghost towns, and
leaving yet others to be looted and stripped?
[ . . . ]
- [ . . . ] Opinion polls there indicate that
a Ripley's-Believe-It-or-Not-style 97% of Pakistanis consider [America's
drone] strikes "a bad thing." Is there another country on the planet
capable of mobilizing such loathing? [ . . . ]
- And what other power could have secretly and illegally kidnapped
at least 136 suspected terrorists -- some, in fact, innocent of any
such acts or associations -- off the streets of global cities as well
as from the backlands of the planet? [ . . . ]
- Or how about the way the State Department, to the tune of $750
million, constructed in Baghdad the largest, most expensive embassy
compound on the planet -- a 104-acre, Vatican-sized citadel with 27
blast-resistant buildings, an indoor pool, basketball courts, and a
fire station, which was to operate as a command-and-control center
for our ongoing garrisoning of the country and the region? Now, the
garrisons are gone, and the embassy, its staff cut, is a global
white elephant. [ . . . ]
- Or what about this? Between 2002 and 2011, the U.S. poured at
least $51 billion into building up a vast Afghan military.
[ . . . ] In 2012, the latest date for which
we have figures, the Afghan security forces were still a heavily
illiterate, drug-taking, corrupt, and inefficient outfit that was
losing about one-third of its personnel annually (a figure that
may even be on the rise).
We've never been able to shake the notion that America is
exceptional because there are many respects in which it is true.
The real problem comes from inflating the facts into a sense of
moral superiority and destiny -- Madeleine Albright's formulation,
that the United States is "the indispensible nation" sums up this
conceit perfectly, and from there it is only a short step to the
"exceptional(ly dumb)" blunders enumerated above. Some time ago
I found a useful corrective in a Camper Van Beethoven lyric:
"And if you weren't born in America, you'd probably have been
born somewhere else." And having been born somewhere else, you
would likely not be so full of yourself as America's political
class feels the need to be.
Engelhardt also introduces
Dilip Hiro: A World in Which No One Is Listening to the Planet's
Sole Superpower. It's worth noting that not only isn't the US
"indispensible" -- the world is stepping up to take the lead, not
least because the US under Obama (as under Bush) is inapable of
doing the right thing. If was Russia, after all, that secured the
agreement of Syria to give up its chemical weapons, when the only
"solution" the US could think of was to shoot some cruise missiles
its way. And it was Iran that broke the ice in proposing talks to
monitor its nuclear power program when all Obama could think of
is crippling economic sanctions. If this looks like marginalizing
US power, that's largely because US superpowerdom has crawled
into such a tiny mental space already: the Pavlovian impulse to
lash out militarily is only exceeded by the whining when others
decline to follow Washington's lead.
On Iran, see
Can Washington Reciprocate Iran's "Constructive Engagement"?.
John Allen Gay: Obama's Post-Humanitarian Interventionism:
An interesting turn of phrase.
Of course, the administration had many good reasons for making the
distinction -- after all, if its justification for war were saving
lives, it would have acted sooner. And, as officials repeatedly
emphasized, no number of cruise missiles could put Syria back
together again. Yet at the bottom of it all, this was a decision
rooted in the necessities of domestic politics (few Americans wanted
to go into Syria) and of selfish national interests (Syria's war
hurts America, but not in a direct, urgent and vital way). Officials
certainly would have preferred to defend both the norm against killing
innocent civilians and the norm against using chemical weapons. But
they recognized that the means available to them could only defend
the latter.
I don't think the US has ever entered a war for anything remotely
resembling humanitarian purposes, but US (and other) hawks have often
tried their best to cloak their intents in humanitarian guise. It's
hard to tell whether Obama's unwillingness to join this charade is
because he recognizes that humanitarianism has no political clout
anymore -- the GOP-dominated House, after all, just wiped out the
food stamp program, so how eager will they be to "protect" Syrians
if they could care less whether Americans starve to death -- or
because he recognizes the fundamental deceit of the ploy. After
all, if he enters a war to "help" people, shouldn't he be judged
on whether his war actually does help people? -- a standard which
guarantees failure. Yet he's stuck with this "magnificent military"
(in Madeleine Albright's conventionally inarguable words), ready
to intervene but only in the destructive and self-defeating manner
of its design. A sensible president would start to disassemble a
military that only leads to such bad outcomes, but a clever one
might just try to limit the damage by making the prospect so
unappealing.
Stephen M Walt: Threat Inflation 6.0: Does al-Shabab Really Threaten
the U.S.? While I was in Arkansas, the big story was the "terror"
attack on an upscale mall in Nairobi, Kenya -- a tragic story, but
nothing on why Somalis would be attacking targets in Kenya (like all
those Kenyan troops that invaded Somalia in 2011. Rather, favorite
angles were whether al-Shabab had recruited Somali-Americans to
take part in the attack, and the implication that they could just
as well attack here.
Ditto al Qaeda. Osama bin Laden didn't get up one day and decide he
wanted to launch a few terrorist attacks, pull out his atlas, and pick
the United States at random. His decision to attack U.S. military forces
and government installations, and then to attack the United States
directly, was reprehensible and an obvious threat, but it didn't come
out of nowhere. On the contrary, the emergence of al Qaeda was a direct
response to various aspects of America's Middle East policy (e.g.,
blanket support for Israel, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia and the U.S.
military presence in the Persian Gulf through the 1990s). As I've
noted before, the United States has devoted most of its energy and
effort since then to chasing down bad guys and killing them, but
hardly any time trying to act in ways that would make the terrorists'
message less appealing to potential recruits.
Note that Walt feels the need to remind us of his opposition to
al Qaeda's 9/11 attacks, but he doesn't say anything about the many
more people that the US has killed. As such, his argument against
inflating threats of terrorism is that doing so is ineffective. In
effect, his argument inflates the threat as well. Evidently, the
"realist" creed means that we can only talk about ourselves.
On Kenya, see:
David Zarembka: No "Cake Walk" for Kenya in Somalia.
Also, a few links for further study:
Robert Christgau: Blind Lemon Jefferson/Rokia Traore/Robert Sarazin Blake
With Jefferson Hamer and the Powderkegs: The last batch of capsule
reviews written under the benign patronage of Microsoft as the post-Ballmer
beancounters have now decided to dispense entirely with original, much less
expert and professional, content -- thinking, perhaps, that even paltry
profits on zero costs are infinite. Given the logic of the system it's
remarkable that it ever worked at all, but the takeaway lesson is that
we can no longer count on the inefficiencies of the oligarchy to allow
anything worthwhile to be produced. The three reviews provide a microcosm
of Christgau's range of interests: in Robert Sarazin Blake he's found a
remarkable album by someone you've never heard of (I know I hadn't), in
Rokia Traore he shows his pioneering expertise in African pop by not quite
falling for the latest by a relatively established star, and in Blind Lemon
Jefferson he looks back to the first major bluesman of the recorded music
era. But the main reason for following the link is to read the numerous
comments (233 at the moment) with dozens of thoughtful remembrances, if
not of Christgau himself then of the impact his writing and recommendations
have had. Nothing by me, yet -- I've got my own blog to do.
David Denby: Hitler in Hollywood: Comments on two new books:
Ben Urwand: The Collaboration: Hollywood's Pact with Hitler
(Harvard), and Thomas Doherty: Hollywood and Hitler, 1933-1939
(Columbia), favoring the latter's less acusatory treatment. One thing
people forget now is how respectable Hitler seemed back in the 1930s,
though part of that was because the Nazis were pretty aggressive at
keeping critical views out of print. George Gyssling was one such
agent, and his beat was Hollywood, where he was at least moderately
successful, as shown here.
Seymour Hersh on Obama, NSA and the 'pathetic' American media:
Haven't heard much from him lately, so this interview piece is most
welcome:
Don't even get him started on the New York Times which, he says, spends
"so much more time carrying water for Obama than I ever thought they
would" -- or the death of Osama bin Laden. "Nothing's been done about
that story, it's one big lie, not one word of it is true," he says of
the dramatic US Navy Seals raid in 2011.
Hersh is writing a book about national security and has devoted a
chapter to the bin Laden killing. He says a recent report put out by
an "independent" Pakistani commission about life in the Abottabad
compound in which Bin Laden was holed up would not stand up to scrutiny.
"The Pakistanis put out a report, don't get me going on it. Let's put
it this way, it was done with considerable American input. It's a
bullshit report," he says hinting of revelations to come in his book.
[ . . . ]
"Like killing people, how does [Obama] get away with the drone
programme, why aren't we doing more? How does he justify it? What's
the intelligence? Why don't we find out how good or bad this policy
is? Why do newspapers constantly cite the two or three groups that
monitor drone killings. Why don't we do our own work?
"Our job is to find out ourselves, our job is not just to say --
'here's a debate' -- our job is to go beyond the debate and find out
who's right and who's wrong about issues. That doesn't happen enough.
It costs money, it costs time, it jeopardises, it raises risks. There
are some people -- the New York Times still has investigative
journalists but they do much more of carrying water for the president
than I ever thought they would . . . it's like you
don't dare be an outsider any more."
Avi Shlaim: It's now clear: the Oslo peace accords were wrecked by
Netanyahu's bad faith: Actually, it's been clear for a long time,
but the effect was partially masked by Ehud Barak's bad faith, and
ultimately by Ariel Sharon's aggression. But Rabin and Peres hadn't
laid down a very firm foundation either.
David Swainson: Top 45 Lies in Obama's Speech at the UN: I won't
list them all, but particularly appreciate this one:
2. "It took the awful carnage of two world wars to shift our thinking."
Actually, it took one. The second resulted in a half-step backwards in
"our thinking." The Kellogg-Briand Pact banned all war. The U.N. Charter
re-legalized wars purporting to be either defensive or U.N.-authorized.
After WWI the War Department reverted to a skeletal operating force
(aside from occupying the Phillipines and various spots in Central
America and the Caribbean). After WWII the War Department was renamed
the Department of Defense and after an initial bit of contraction
they got ever larger, deadlier, and more reckless.
Also:
29. "Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons." Iran's what?
Israel started predicting that Iran would develop nuclear weapons
"within five years" back in the mid-1990s. They've occasionally
predicted shorter time frame, and never predicted a longer one,
yet it never happened. In the entire history of nuclear weapons,
no nation has come so close and yet never managed to produce a
weapon. It's almost as if they aren't trying. But they say they're
not trying, so we know they must.
Michael Vlahos: Why Americans Love Bombardment: "Has justice through
retribution become the new American virtue?" Vlahos argues that "bombardment
is theater," which makes me think of the Situationist notion of "spectacle" --
above all else, "shock and awe" over Baghdad promised to be a grand fireworks
show, photographed at just enough distance to spare you the blood and gore.
I'm also reminded of Jim Geraghty's Voting to Kill -- my, what
vicious bloodsuckers we've become.
More critically, it has replaced original, more compassionate framings
of American virtue. Bombing nations has in some cases (especially after
9-11) actually come to stand in our minds for liberation itself. It is
intended not only as the punishment of evil, but also as its very
purification. [ . . ]
We are Americans, and Americans are by definition, exceptional,
because we are chosen. No one else: Not ancien monarchs and sultans,
not Victorian prime ministers and les presidents, can go forth among
humanity today and lay waste to the wicked. Only we Americans are
entitled to do so, declaring all the while the unimpeachable
righteousness of what we do.
Daily Log
Watched The Good Wife and The Mentalist series debuts,
the Dexter and Breaking Bad season finales. Seems hard
to believe that they would kill Lisbon off in the first show of the
"Final Red John" season so that was far more surprising and shocking
than anything in the finales. Of course, it could just be a feint, but
Red John previously demanded that Jane kill Lisbon, and he's made a
point in the past of killing Jane's loved ones, and even if he's just
out to torture Jane it's hard to make a better case that letting her
live has any advantages -- worst scenario I can think of is that it
would cause Jane to crack and decide to hunt down the whole list to
make sure he got the right guy, which would change the whole nature
of the show.
The Breaking Bad finale was OK. Just as well Walt didn't
take petty revenge on his ex-partners: cajoling them to launder his
money was about as smart a move as he could make. The scene with
Skyler was nicely played, with his admission that it was really
about his own sense of feeling competent and alive -- a constant
going back to cooking his first batch and that scene where he blows
up that first drug lord crib, although they lost track of that many
times along the way. Jesse killing Todd was the most expected turn.
I wondered if he'd make the kill while cooking, like Walt did way
back when, but regardless of Jesse's reputed skill there's never
been any reason to expect he could improvise with chemistry like
Walt did. On the other hand, there was no reason to expect that
Walt could have hot-wired that car in New Hampshire, so the good
luck of having the keys fall from the visor was more plausible.
One comment from past episodes. I hate the repeated notion that
DEA agent Hank was the one character who never "broke bad." As I
see it, the DEA is the original sin behind the whole show. Without
them and the laws they enforce Walt could have pursued his chemistry
without ever getting dragged down into criminality. If he could,
say, have taken his meth to farmers markets and sold it like a
craft, he would never have gotten involved with Tuco or Gus Fring
or Todd or Lydia or any of those people. Of course, you might try
arguing that Walt was attracted to the criminality. Certainly it
challenged his intellect and added to his adrenaline, and those
things helped to compensate for losing the pathetic work and home
life he had previously led. Moreover, Hank wasn't just a legalist
by-the-book cop. He really enjoyed the power he held, and he
flaunted it. I found him at least as creepy and crooked as Walt,
and if anything worse in his sanctimoniousness (not that Walt was
beyond delusion -- he certainly had his moments).
I have less to say about Dexter. Only watched the last year.
None of the characters (except maybe the Latina nanny) were in any way
sympathetic, and Hannah's murderous past isn't clear (although it comes
in useful). Dexter's realization that he destroys the lives of all the
people he cares for comes late but probably required all the sacrifices
the show made to sink into his thick skull. I've seen references to him
as a vigilante and superhero and the like but he's just another killer
in a country that's way too soft on the species.
Music today (JP): Ivo Perelman, Myra Melford; (RG): Marvin Gaye.
Saturday, September 28, 2013
Rhapsody Streamnotes (September 2013)
Pick up text
here.
Daily Log
Spent most of the day working my way through Expert Witness
comments, building up the downloadable table. (Got mail from
Georgia requesting some help there.) Thinking about writing a
comment, but haven't done anything about it yet.
Went shopping and out for dinner at Yen Ching. Didn't watch
any TV. Instead, wrapped up my abbreviated Rhapsody Streamnotes
post.
Music today (JP): Ted Brancato, Tsuyoshi Niwa, Meg Okura, Ivo
Perelman.
Friday, September 27, 2013
Daily Log
Music today (JP): Keefe Jackson, Brasslands, Matt White,
Michael Moss/Billy Stein, Matthew Shipp; (RS): Robert Sarazin
Blake.
Much activity today on the occasion of Christgau's last Expert Witness
post at MSN.
LarryBud described himself as "a dumb teenager listening to Bachman
Turner Overdrive, the Doobie Bothers, and other dreck," before discovering
Christgau. I responded:
I have to point out that the first review Christgau commissioned
from me was on Bachman-Turner Overdrive, and that request was
undoubtedly based on my favorable reviews of their second and/or third
albums. So that seemed to have been a signature taste test, and I
passed it. Review requests for Lou Reed, Eno, and Nick Lowe followed.
Today's comments were up to the 100 mark before I got around to
starting from the beginning. Joe Yanosik got the first word in. Then
Cam Patterson (vital stats: 13 in 1976 when The Ramones came
out, so b. 1963? went to college in Nashville in 1981):
But to me there is this: I went to medical school and then
residency mostly assigned to a tough part of Atlanta, and for
basically 6 years straight during that time I was on call every fourth
night taking care of patients and hanging out with my
colleagues-in-training who shared this experience with me. We saw
things you'll never believe, we did a lot of good for people, and we
had a lot of fun together inside and outside the hospital. I'd count
8-10 of this group as my deepest, take-a-bullet-for-them friends, but
another 100 or so that I could connect with at any time our paths
cross and instantly regain an important connection. It's not that I
haven't made friends since then, I've got more than I deserve. But
that instantaneous connection, that shared experience, that deep look
into a colleague's eyes and knowing exactly what was going on -- how
could that ever be recreated? And believe me, that experience is
miraculous.
For twenty years now, I've been telling the trainees who I teach
and mentor that they should recognize that they will never develop
such intense personal relationships as the ones they are now
cultivating with their peers in the trenches during medical
training. And for years this has held true for me. Until Expert
Witness happened.
Expert Witness is just as vivid and important a shared experience
for me as my residency was. I've made friends I'll hunt down in my
travels. I'll share my tough moments. I'll always have my eye out for
someone wearing a Wussy t-shirt. And I'll always be there when any
Witness gives me a call.
Bradley Sroka (musicology student, writing his dissertation on
Christgau's rock crit):
As for our host, what can I say? I've devoted my professional life
to his work. The dissertation has had setbacks, and is currently
coming out very very slowly. But it's not for lack of interest in my
subject. If nothing else, my love and understanding of his work has
only grown and become more sophisticated (I hope!) because of this EW
community. I didn't realize all of the different ways to receive his
writing, and coming to know how multivalent it is has helped me
sharpen my own take on his work. It also helps that he has contributed
so much and so often to our little club. I consider him a kindred
spirit, and knowing him personally even just a little bit like I do
has made his writing that much more telling. I treasure this
experience and will hold my participation at EW with me as a point of
pride forever.
Allen B[elz]:
This particular form of the CG, with it's near-daily interactivity
with our host himself is, to my mind, one of the best examples of the
digital community idea -- I'm very biased, but I think it justifies
the concept all by itself. A group of people with one thing in common,
except as soon became apparent in the way the discussion ranged all
over the place, it was far more than just the one thing. I'm so happy
to have found you bunch of people.
Jonathan Culp:
I grew up in a loving family tragically festooned by a sexually
abusive grandpa in the Niagara Region of Ontario. I had few friends
and those friendships were eccentrically limited -- I so rarely left
the house that in my mid-teens my mom actually took to encouraging me
to go to a party or something. I was really, really miserable, and my
music reflected that misery -- neurotically escapist dead-ends with
Yes at one end of the duality and Weird Al Yankovic at the other.
I was going through a particularly hard time in grade 9, and my
soundtrack was Pink Floyd's The Wall. I would listen to it while I
made masters (fruit boxes) in the barn, yell along, and be lonely and
alienated and angry. Then one day I was at the Beamsville public
library, and discovered Christgau's 70s record guide on a shelf. Of
course I flipped straight to The Wall, and there was his impossibly
concise, scrupulously balanced, and entirely murderous 63-word
review. And I knew there was more life in that review than there was
in the album, or any of my albums. And I needed to know more.
Carola D[ibbell]:
I'm having a hard time finding words to talk about how much this
site has meant to Bob, and to me too, though I post so rarely. I'm not
much of an online person or even a list person, so it was not till Bob
showed me one thread about novels that I got a sense of what has been
going on here, how smart and far ranging the comments can be. And then
I began to notice the personal things -- Witnesses wishing other
Witnesses luck when a wife went to the hospital, or giving support
when a parent died. Do I remember someone posting about a new cat? And
then, the Wussy thing! It was fun to meet some of you -- I remember a
bunch of us sitting around a bar after the 2012 Cake Shop Wussy show,
and then some young guy nobody knows comes striding up, takes a little
breath, and says, "I'm Duke," and everyone's mouth drops open. And
Ryan who I met before I knew any of his posts -- thanks, Ryan, for
quoting me in your wonderful long piece. Thanks, Cam, for all kinds of
things, including! The Mark Benno link! Thanks everyone for being so
smart and open minded and obsessive. And for making me feel
welcome. Till the next time.
Allen B[elz]:
Anyone here who has the urge to want to give back a little
something might think about emailing Tom Hull and asking what he needs
help with over at the Xgau website. I did that back around 2000 and
got to spend a cumulative 2 or 3 years immersing in the writing even
more than I already had been, plus I got a lovely thank-you Christmas
card from our host as well.
Joe Levy (after recounting a story of a shared evening when he was
22 and Christgau was exactly twice as old):
The people who change you, well, there's very little repaying the
favor beyond saying thanks. So here's a thank you to Bob, but also a
thank you to all of you guys, you proud and hungry listeners, you
devoted readers and writers, you defenders of PJ Harvey, you lovers of
cats and dogs, you digitizers and downloaders, you list makers and
score keepers and grade grubbers -- you Witnesses. What fine fellows
and -- though you be few -- ladies, what good men and women. What a
rare lot are you. What a pleasure to be in your company. Tonight, the
red wine will poured in your honor, and in honor of he who brought us
here: our dean, our king, our kind of human being.
Milo Miles:
In the flood of pop, there's a certain heroism in Keeping Up. With
Bob, it's part of his iron work ethic and dedication people have
mentioned. But Expert Witness proved liberating, not confining. Not
just books, but reissues galore -- artists not considered before or
ones massively reevaluated -- past releases -- and more. This cinched
it for me if I started my own blog. Shit man, you're not gonna get
assignments for a quarter of the things you want to write about all
the time -- ever again. So you can remain silent or swallow hard and
go for the promo with free writing. Expert Witness showed me the
advantages. And it convinced me to keep the action hopping -- throw up
a (quality) joke or weirdness if nothing else to reward the
audience.
Christgau insists he only writes for money, but he has taken at
least a few steps toward surrendering that principle over the course
of EW. Some of us less established have fully surrendered, and some
are trying to negotiate what's left of the paid space in between.
But one thing you give up in writing for cash is the direction of
what you write about, at what length, and for what purpose, and at
some point it's very liberating to shove all that and take control
of your own life.
Michael Tatum:
Most of all, I actually have found people who appreciate my writing
-- something I've never really had. You see, my wife, my Mom, my
brother, my immediate family -- don't actually read a word I
write. It's been a very painful thing to be good at something that the
people you care most about can't really appreciate (most common
complaint: "I don't understand a thing you say"). But now I not only
have an audience, I have also found wonderful friends who love music
-- and writing about it -- just as much as I do. I can't even begin to
thank you for this gift. There are, of course, things more important
in life whether or not you can tell someone that the new Arctic
Monkeys blows (EVEN THOUGH IT DOES). But man, thanks to you I've found
my karass -- and if I'm swimming in foma, I'm so happy
being on this little cloud with my fellow travelers, I could care
less.
Same thing backwards - patrick:
So basically everyone here came in as an already full-fledged Xgau
nut. Out in the real world, my knowledge of all things Xgau is almost
rainman-esque. On this board, it's about average. You can say things
here like "Speak for yourself, Ferdinand" or "Mick Jagger should fold
up his penis and go home" (or, as someone mentioned earlier, "the one
with the orange cover"), or discuss the joys of Have Moicy! or Spoek
Mathambo or Pylon's "Cool", and everyone knows what you're referring
to. You can share your delight in discovering an almost not negative
review of Uriah Heep that never made it to the first CG book. You get
to read thoughtful, real-time reactions to Xgau's picks, and animated
tangents on politics and literature and baseball and whatever
else.
Other comments I clicked "like" on: Jon LaFollette, Jason Gubbels,
Philip Brasor, Rodney Taylor, Dan Weiss, Ryan Maffei, Chuck Cleaver,
Greg Morton, Dan Weber, Jason Bridges, Matt Rice, Adam Weiner (Low
Cut Connie), Richard Cobeen, Kenny Mostern, Liam Smith, Jimmy Cook,
Steven Manning, Tom Walker, Damien Wilkins, babysneaks (about time
we heard from him), JockRothko, Greg Magarian (complements a story
I heard from Christgau without ever putting the name Bruce Ennis to
it), Kevin John, SpaceCoast (Jim Chaffin), Erik Best, Richard
Cobeen, Jalen Cobeen.
Fairly arbitrary, I'm sure.
Should note for future reference that Nina was adopted in 1985
from Honduras. Probably could have recalled and/or figured that out.
I would have been in Massachusetts at the time.
Bradley Sroka has set up an email address for further announcements:
expertwitnessnewsletter [at] gmail.com -- first I heard of this, but
I've been planning on doing an "announce" list.
I eventually worked my way back to the previous half-week's comments.
Scott Manzler:
Some housekeeping before the house is shuttered for good: As Tom
noted in a reply to my first post, I've been working with him on
several website items. One head-scratcher: Seem to be missing a
Newsday-era Creem Consumer Guide (i.e. the CGs between Voice gigs) or
two. In addition to those included on the site, have transcriptions
pending for 07/72 (lead capsule, Jackson Browne), 01/73 (Eric
Andersen) and 02/73 (Rita Coolidge). Between library visits and my own
personal cache, seems I should have a complete set, and yet there are
several Newsday CG caps of which I'm aware that don't appear in any
Voice or Creem column that I've seen (for a sampling, see
below). Anyone who can shed some light on this issue, please reply to
my post. I'll check back in over the next coupla days. Thanks.
Sampling:
- Blue Oyster Cult: Tyranny and Mutation
- Derek and the Dominoes: In Concert
- Mahavishnu Orchestra: Birds of Fire
- Yoko One: Approximately Infinite Universe
- Bill Rose: Uncle Jesus and Auntie Christ
- Leon Thomas: Blues and the Soulful Truth
Nora Hollywood:
I was asking about other Bird biographies, but really I'm
interested in any great writing about jazz. I love Martin Williams'
notes on the Smithsonian Classic Jazz box, and I love 'Straight LIfe'
by Art Pepper, and 'Four LIves in the Bebop Business, and as I say, I
loved 'Bird Lives'. Mingus' 'Beneath the Underdog'. For some weird
reason I haven't read Miles' autobiography yet, but I will soon. I
used to go through the Penguin Guide by Richard Cook & Brian Morton,
and have a great illustrated book (lots of album covers) somewhere
which I think is also by Morton. So, apart from other biographies of
Bird, does anyone have other recommendations for jazz reading?
Sroka shouts out Gary Giddins. Milo Miles cites "everything you
can find by my friends Francis Davis and Bob Blumenthal; also The
Freedom Principle: Jazz After 1958 by John Litweiler and But
Beautiful by Geoff Dyer." Gubbels mentions Amiri Baraka: Blues
People. Lunday mentions Ben Ratliff's Coltrane. Walker adds
"Young Man with Horn, a 1938 novel by Dorothy Baker." Morton
cites Whitney Balliet: American Musicians and American
Musicians II. Milo adds Martin Williams: The Jazz Tradition,
Jazz in Its Time, Jazz Masters in Transition, Jazz
Masters of New Orleans, Hidden in Plain Sight.
Milo Miles recommends Béla Bartok:
Béla Bartók's The 6 String Quartets captures me every time I
play them and won't let go for two-and-a-half hours. Run through the
complete set at least every other year. And play both the versions I
own.
Bartók first fascinated me because he belonged to no school or
movement and seemed to truly cut his own way forward, unlike even
independents like Picasso and Stravinsky, who often put their stamp on
movements rather than ignore them altogether. But certainly a
secondary attraction to the Hungarian was his Magyar madness -- the
folk tunes recorded in Transylvania on donkeyback and then splintered
into hundreds of rude and beauteous shards in his works.
His restless combinations of sensibilities seal the deal. I feel I
can follow an evolving thread through the String Quartets, as Bartók
slides from almost-balmy romanticism in the First Quartet (1908)
(winding tighter at the conclusion), through the more poison-gassed
and bloodied meditation on Debussy in the Second Quartet (1915-17), on
to the rising intellectual modernism and frenzied chips of folk in the
Third and Fourth Quartets (1927-28 -- the 3rd is a particular
favorite). In the Fifth (1934) and Sixth (1939) Quartets, Bartók can
do anything, but they are sad works -- Europe is coming to an end, his
mother dies, he seems to have premonitions how difficult it will be to
compose abroad in America. But the 5th is a wondrous strange thing --
smoke wending through a pitch-black night -- and the piece I would
play if had to pick one.
I can't pretend my CD renditions are the best -- they're the only
two I know. Turns out that the treatment by Takacs Quartet (London,
1998) is one of the most frequently and highly recommended. But I will
not slight the rendition by the Lindsay String Quartet (ASV, 1988),
which I've owned and loved longer. It wasn't an arbitrary selection --
somebody I trust recommended it (tempted to say Lloyd Schwartz, but
can't really remember). Very roughly, I would say the Takacs feel the
folk elements more vividly and hit the modernism more precisely;
Lindsay bring out the romanticism smartly and reach deeper into the
balm behind the sorrow of the later pieces.
Anyway, all six keep sounding more essential to me. A feast that
can never be finished.
Robert Christgau (reply to Deus Vauche, no need to quote that):
As for how much traffic we got or didn't get here and what
difference that did or didn't make, you should really learn to both
read and think. As my first post on this thread says, and as has been
reported widely elsewhere, MSN's entire freelance editorial operation
has been axed. This would appear to be the Amazon model (why pay for
writing when your customers will write for free), the AOL model (why
pay writers when some aggregating sweatshop will extract written
inches from piece-workers so much cheaper), or some combination of the
two, although I have no inside info on that and wouldn't share it if I
did. Any digital empire, as Microsoft certainly is, is ultimately
controlled by quants: people who think mathematically. Some quants
care about written language. Others disdain it or worse.
Milo Miles:
I don't have much to add beyond what has already been said, though
I do wish to concur that Dave Marsh has never been the same since his
daughter passed away.
He was a thoroughgoing professional who enriched many copies of the
Phoenix when I was Music Editor there. I considered him as much
a friend as a college for years. Unfortunately, I thought his
professionalism would extend to understanding why I would want Mark
Moses to do an honest review of Glory Days (and it wasn't
entirely a pan at all -- though he did brilliantly identify that a
major problem with Marsh's outlook is that he fixated on a King of
Rock -- Elvis, Hendrix, Springsteen -- and there could be no other
contenders). Got a phone call from Dave, who told me he was shocked as
hell that I would run such a hatchet job on him and that he was not
writing for the Phoenix any more and, indirectly, we weren't
friends any more.
That was over 25 years ago. It still hurts thinking about it.
I wrote my own "hatchet job" on Marsh back in the mid-1970s. Met
him a couple times since then -- was tagging along with Bob, and we
managed to bum some pretty good Yankees tickets off him once -- but
we never talked. I have, however, always thought that a piece he
wrote proclaiming Queen as the "real fascist rock band" was meant
as an answer to my ELP piece, which (like so much else) he clearly
didn't understand.
Robert Christgau:
My relations with Marsh have been off and on since I had the
temerity to suggest that Springsteen wasn't God in 1975 and scant
indeed since the mid '90s--I just gave up trying after one too many
abusive rants about the Voice as a refuge for bohemians and people who
went to college, two of many many things he doesn't know shitlist
about. But what he did in the '70s was awesome. He made Creem happen,
not Lester, who he had the brains, imagination, and chutzpah to import
to Michigan. Lester was more talented, as Marsh knew. But Marsh gave
him a home and an outlet he could make his own. At the same time he
fought to keep black music coverage in Creem--an issue he's always
been strong on. And whatever you think of his analysis, which can be
pretty crude, he's identified unstintingly with the left start to
finish. His wife works for Springsteen, so that prejudice seems
neither here nor there to me, although I'm sure Jeff's credible horror
story could be multiplied many times. In any case, the Wikipedia
article is an ignorant disgrace. Marsh is so much smarter and FAIRER
than whoever wrote it the whole enterprise is called into
question.
The whole extended discussion of Marsh here is first rate. I'd
have to go back to my original piece to see what turned me so much
against him in the first place.
Jason Gubbels:
A few specific thanks from me to some of those assembled here are
in order, so in no order:
Milo! Thanks for (among many other things) your Oct. 2011 NPR
review of "Turkish Freakout," which convinced me those two
compilations were something more than the usual crate-digging
third-rate-funk/psych obscurity project. Both volumes have proved
favorites in this household.
Joe Levy! Thank you for correcting me when I excitedly burbled on
about Dawn Richard going number one across the country or something
like that. Having the editor of Billboard on hand as a fact-checkin'
cuz was some kind of thrill.
Michael Tatum! Thanks for asking me over Thai food one afternoon if
I had ever done any music writing. It was the right question to
ask. Thanks also for lending me your copy of "Don't Stop 'Til You Get
Enough," which I did remember to get back to you, right?
Tom Hull and Dan Weiss / ex machina! Thanks for being generous
promoters of talent/writing/rockcrit, and thanks Tom for getting me a
Pazz & Jop ballot (the great Joey D. also threw in some good
words). I owe you.
Cam Patterson! Mike Imes! Bradley Sroka! Mark Rosen! Joey
Daniewicz! KT Lindemann! Christopher Monsen! Michael Tatum again! You
all made the time to meet up with me in person, often over food/drink,
and you're all wonderful. It was my pleasure. What a group.
I'm leaving out so very many people, I know, including our generous
host, but that's enough for now. More to come.
In a subcomment, Tatum wrote:
Some rockcrit lessons I've learned in the last 3 years (many
through Bob, though he doesn't know it):
- The last review you write for a monthly column will always be the
one you regret. Sit on any opinion you write for a week or so. Don't
rush shit out.
- Don't give into hype (this is "The Dombal Rule").
- Be an individualist, with your own opinions. Having said that,
listening to your friends is sometimes a really good idea.
- If you're reviewing world music, READ THE TRANSLATED LYRICS. I
wouldn't review a record in English without doing the same,
right?
- Edit, edit, edit, edit, edit, edit. I was like this before -- more
so now. The lines you strike will probably be ones you hold dear. Get
used to it -- if they don't work, they don't work. (Example: in my 2/2
posting, "on this cloud" and "swimming in foma" is a mixed metaphor.
In this informal case, I'm too lazy to change it. Maybe for Cam and
Melnick's book.)
I quote this mostly because I have yet to learn those same lessons
(although I probably do OK on 2 and 3). I don't listen to records I
write about as much as other critics do. (Two plays is probably the
median, with the mean a slightly higher fraction, probably closer to
three but certainly less.) That means I do a fair amount of guessing:
based on two plays, what grade am I most likely to settle on after 5
or 7 or 10? If specific people I like, whom I trust to have done due
dilligence, lean one way I'm somewhat likely to lean that way too --
unless I have good personal reason not to, of course. So I'm not imune
to hype, even if I'm not easily swayed by it.
I almost never regret monthly column reviews, possibly because I
rarely play the album again. But also I don't venture A+ or A grades
very often, so I rarely go way out on a limb. I also rarely go below
B-, a grade bad enough for most practical purposes. I usually do force
myself to listen to an A- or B+(***) album a second time to see if it
sticks, but it usually does. Might be more accurate to space plays
out a bit, but that's more work. Might also help to compare against
old work, but again that's a lot of extra work for small advantage.
(Tatum may have more regrets because he's more excitable, hoping
to find new gems first and sometimes jumping the gun.)
I never read translated lyric sheets. In fact, I almost never read
lyric sheets. In fact, I worry very little about lyrics. If I get them,
fine; if I don't, no big problem. I'm not a lit guy. I'm not indifferent
to words, but not obsessed with them either. I don't worry about artists
slipping words past me. I review what I hear. And if it's in a language
I don't understand (even if that's nominally English) what I'm hearing
is just music anyway.
And I'm too lazy to do much editing. I'm not proud of that, and I
know for a fact that extra editing passes improve the writing. I just
lack the patience to go through those steps.
Thursday, September 26, 2013
Daily Log
Took it easy today.
Music today (JP): Florian Hoefner, Ahmad Jamal, Tim Horner.
Daily Log
Wednesday, September 25, 2013
Daily Log
Wednesday. Duan and I drove to Stroud and up to see Harold and Louise.
Harold, 88, got up and came out to see us, a good deal more alert and
less depressed than when I had seen him a year ago, although no more
coherent. Louise, also 88, seemed to be doing well -- she had reportedly
fell and "broke her hip" (twice) but I couldn't see any evidence of that,
either when she stood up from a low chair or when she walked. They depend
on their daughter (Julie) to take care of them, and Louise in particular
seemed irritated by restrictions -- can't drive, can't go out and shop,
even the thermostat was under lock and key. We spent a couple hours,
then drove back. Stopped at Aunt Lola's old farmhouse, which is a wreck
these days (and no longer connected to any farm). Took a couple pictures
and returned to Bristol. Later we met Judy Kay at a new chain place in
town, Boomerang Cafe. Had chicken fried steak, which was tasty but my
stomach was upset afterwards. I went to drive home after dinner, but
wound up having to stop at several restrooms on the way back. Part of
the drive was straight into the setting sun, and the whole thing was
miserable. Got back around 11 PM, about 200 miles. Was worn out and
irritable but finally my stomach started to settle down.
Tuesday, September 24, 2013
Daily Log
Tuesday. Packed up and left Elkins before noon. Drove 200 miles to
Bristow, Oklahoma, taking a southerly route that drove through Fayetteville
and on to Tallequah and Muskogee, bypassing Tulsa and all those hideous
toll roads. Lunch at Carl's Jr. in Tallequah. Got to Duan's around 4PM.
Judy Kay joined us around 5:30. She heated up some ribs that Michael D.
had smoked, plus baked beans and corn. Duan seemed to be doing pretty
good, at least for 86. Judy Kay told me that she had been operated on
for a brain tumor underneath the pituitary gland. Surgery went in under
her lip so there were no obvious scars, and the tumor had detached and
was benign. Weird. Stayed over at Duan's.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Music Week/Jazz Prospecting
Music: Current count 22066 [22042] rated (+24), 579 [581] unrated (-2).
I expect to be on the road by the time this Jazz Prospecting appears,
but much of this has been sitting around for several weeks, and there's
plenty enough to run, especially if you focus on the top grades. Should
be back before the following Monday, but don't know how much work I'll
manage to get in.
Howard Alden/Andy Brown Quartet: Heavy Artillery (2012
[2013], Delmark): Two guitarists, retro-swing guys with special fondness
for George Van Eps, backed with bass and drums. Alden, based in New York,
is well established with close to 30 albums since 1985, most on Concord
or Arbors. Brown is much younger, based in Chicago, has an album under
his own name and a nice duo backing his wife, singer Petra van Nuis
(Far Away Places). Nothing heavy here, let alone artillery-like:
title song actually comes from Django Reinhardt, another shared hero.
B+(***)
Geri Allen: Grand River Crossings: Motown & Motor City
Inspirations (2012 [2013], Motéma Music): Solo piano, except
for four duos: three with trumpeter Marcus Belgrave, one with alto
saxophonist David McMurray. Three Allen originals, the rest Detroit
themed, mostly Motown -- "Tears of a Clown" benefits from the subtle
pianistic twists, but "Wanna Be Startin' Somethin'" is short on
thrust. The horns jump out at you, while the piano sneaks slyly
around.
B+(**)
Marnix Busstra: Sync Dreams (2013, Buzz Music):
Dutch guitarist, b. 1965, no idea how extensive his discography is,
since at least some of it is buried in groups like Buzz Bros Band
or credited to vibraphonist Mike Mainieri (co-leader of a quartet).
This is a quartet with a pianist named Rembrandt and a bassist
(acoustic) named Dooyeweerd. Brings out his inner John Scofield
in particularly appealing ways.
B+(**)
Claudia Quintet: September (2013, Cuneiform):
John Hollenbeck's soft-toned group -- Matt Moran's vibraphone is
more than ever the focal center, with accordion (Red Wienenge)
and clarinet/tenor sax (Chris Speed) for color, and bass to round
out the bottom. All pieces composed in various Septembers since
2001, a pivot point in Hollenbeck's career. One samples a speech --
sounds like Franklin Roosevelt, and is titled "1936 We Warn You,"
but I don't follow why he should be complaining about "the present
administration" which would have been his -- chopping it up and
replaying it for its musical tones. The rest are percussion jams,
as inspired as ever.
A- [September 24]
Joey DeFrancesco: One for Rudy (2013, High Note):
Organ trio, with Steve Cotter on guitar and Ramon Banda on drums.
Rudy is Van Gelder, possibly the most famous jazz producer and
recording engineer of the last 50-60 years, and that concept sets
up a vintage songbook -- Davis/Powell, Rollins, Monk, Hubbard,
"Stardust," finished off with an original for the title track.
No pumping or grinding, just a pleasing light touch on everything.
B+(***) [September 24]
Anne Drummond: Revolving (2012 [2013], Origin): Flute
player, from Seattle, studied at Manhattan School of Music and is based
in New York; third album, also plays piano on three cuts, yielding to
Benny Green on six, David Chesky on the other; the tracks without Green
have Vic Juris on guitar and/or Dave Eggar on cello. Two Green pieces,
one Pixinguinha, the rest by Drummond. Aims for a chamber feel, but
also comes off a bit corny, which is probably a plus.
B
Kenny Garrett: Pushing the World Away (2013, Mack Avenue):
Alto saxophonist, eighteen albums since 1984, graduated to a major label
in 1989 and has been one of the most prominent mainstream players ever
since. Wrote all original material except for Bacharach-David's "I Say
a Little Prayer," but "Chucho's Mambo" (for Valdes) and the calypso
"J'ouvert (Homage to Sonny Rollins)" don't fall far from the tree.
Switches between two core bands (with common bassist Corcoran Holt),
swaps in guests including strings, and fills up 72:06. Troubles me that
the above-listed pro forma pieces are the most appealing -- the others
don't stand out even when they push hard.
B [advance]
Marsha Heydt and the Project of Love: Diggin' the Day
(2013, Blujazz): Alto saxophonist, second album, also plays soprano and
flute here. Good natured but unadventurous pop jazz, helped out by
Daniel Sadownick on percussion and, especially, James Zollar on trumpet
and flugelhorn. One vocal by Carla Cook, three cuts with strings plus
a fourth featuring violinist Sam Bardfield.
B
Oliver Jones: Just for My Lady (2012 [2013], Justin Time):
Pianist, b. 1934 in Montreal, studied briefly with Oscar Peterson's sister
but didn't start recording until 1984, now up around 22 albums. The lady
on the cover is violinist Josée Aidans, and they're backed with bass (Éric
Lagacé) and drums (Jim Doxas), mostly Jones originals but the Gershwin
tune at the end, "Lady Be Good," is the one that sticks in your mind.
B+(***) [September 24]
Dave King Trucking Company: Adopted Highway (2013,
Sunnyside): Drummer with the Bad Plus and Happy Apple; second album
under this group name, with two tenor saxes (Chris Speed, Brandon
Wozniak), electric guitar (Erik Fratzke), and acoustic bass (Adam
Linz). The guitar is central here, not that King intends anything
fusion-like but he has that rock beat he can fall back on, and he
likes layering even when it gets a bit thick and sludgy.
B+(**) [September 24]
Matt Mitchell: Fiction (2012 [2013], Pi): Pianist,
based in Philadelphia, first album under own name after side credits
with Dave Douglas, Darius Jones, and Tim Berne. Duo, with Ches Smith
on percussion, including vibes. Very sharp, angular attack in free
time, sometimes out-percussing the drummer, although the pianist
can't quite shake the beat, no matter how hard he tries to dodge it.
B+(***) [September 24]
Jonathan Moritz Trio: Secret Tempo (2012 [2013],
Hot Cup): Tenor saxophonist (soprano too), b. 1977 in Tehran, Iran;
moved to Southern California quite young, then to Belgium to study,
then back for more study at California Institute for the Arts.
Website offers nine records for sale: this is the first under his
own name, but the others are mostly sax trios or quartets -- Trio
Caveat, The Up, Evil Eye; The E.R.A. is a larger group -- that I
would file under his name (at least once I recognized it). This
one has Shayna Dulberger on bass and Mike Pride on drums. First
impression was that this is the sort of sax record I fall easiest
for. After several replays the soprano had me wavering, but the
bassist sold the deal.
A-
Mostly Other People Do the Killing: Red Hot (2012
[2013], Hot Cup): Moppa Elliott's Pennsylvania hick group takes its
terror act to Dixieland, expanding from a quartet to septet along
the way -- additions are at piano (Ron Stabinsky), bass trombone
(David Taylor), banjo (Brandon Seabrook), while Jon Irabagon picks
up the C melody sax, soprano too. The harmony is reminiscent of old
times, but the group knows too many new tricks to go authentic --
free rhythm, abstract piano solos, some electronic drone. As usual,
they're just out to mess with you.
A- [advance: September 24]
Bill O'Connell + The Latin Jazz All-Stars: Zócalo
(2013, Savant): Seems like I mess up a lot of credits/titles when
I rush through the unpacking, but the actual title here is in very
small and broken type, much harder to read than the label logo or
the enlisted All-Stars: Conrad Herwig, Steve Slagle, Richie Flores,
Luques Curtis, Adam Cruz. O'Connell is a pianist with nine (or so)
albums since 1978 (unless my sources have him confused with the
drummer with the same name). Moved into Latin jazz with his 2004
album Latin Jazz Fantasy, and shows real affinity for it,
much like his trombonist.
B+(**) [September 24]
Michael Pedicin: Why Stop Now/Ubuntu (2013, Groundblue):
Tenor saxophonist from Philadelphia, mainstream guy although his quintet
included both guitar and piano (Johnnie Valentino and Rick Germanson)
instead of a second horn. Title matches the first and last songs. Has
a big, bold tone.
B+(**) [September 24]
Sachal Studios Orchestra: Jazz and All That: In Memory of
Dave Brubeck (2013, Imagine Music): Large orchestral group,
at least as configured here, based in Lahore, Pakistan: 24 violins,
3 cellos, sitar, tabla, dholoks/percussion, a chorus, 9 more listed
as "UK Musicians" including trumpet, piano, guitar, and bass, but
also harp, sarod, ghatam and moorsing. They play 13 songs arranged
by Izzat Majeed, only one ("Blue Rondo a la Turk") I in any way
associate with Dave Brubeck. Less jazz than exotica, or orchestral
kitsch, especially on tunes like "Eleanor Rigby" and "The Pink
Panther" that are infectious even when they're awful (which is most
of the time).
B-
Ira Sullivan Presents the Jim Holman Trio: Blue Skies
(2011-12 [2013], Delmark): Sullivan, b. 1931, came up in Chicago during
the bebop era, playing trumpet and tenor sax; his discography is widely
scattered, with an Introduces in 1956, a Bird Lives! in
1962, a prolific stretch from 1978-83, and roughly a record per decade
since. Holman is a pianist, and there's some confusion here over who's
in his trio, but drummer Roger Humphries is listed as "special guest."
Holman does a fine job of framing these songs. Sullivan may have seemed
like a minor figure way back when, but in his eighties if he isn't the
real thing he's one of the last links to it.
B+(**)
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Chaise Lounge: Dot Dot Dot (Modern Songbook): September 24
- Laurent Coq: Dialogue (Sunnyside): November 5
- Amir ElSaffar: Alchemy (Pi): October 22
- Diane Hubka: West Coast Strings (SSJ): October 2
- Kidd Jordan/Hamid Drake: A Night in November: Live in New Orleans (Valid): November 5
- Myra Melford: Life Carries Me This Way (Firehouse 12)
- Chris Parker: The Chris Parker Trio (GPR)
- Ivo Perelman/Matthew Shipp/Whit Dickey/Gerald Cleaver: Enigma (Leo): October 1
- Ivo Perelman/Matthew Shipp/Mat Maneri: A Violent Dose of Anything (Leo): October 1
- Quartet San Francisco: Pacific Premieres: New Works by California Composers (Violin Jazz): September 24
- Ed Reed: I'm a Shy Guy (Blue Shorts): October 1
- Fay Victor Ensemble: Absinthe & Vermouth (Greene Avenue Music): November 5
Daily Log
Monday, still in Elkins, Arkansas. I offered to fix dinner, hoping to
attract Rhonda's sons Chad and Chris (Chad missed the party, so he was the
only one of Elsie Lee's grandkids I hadn't seen), as well as to draw out
Skyler and Colter, but none of that worked out. I drove to Harps to shop
for groceries, then wound up having to go to WalMart (surprisingly far
away) for a few key items and some kitchenware. Took a couple hours and
I grabbed lunch at Steak & Shake. Came back and cooked: baked shrimp
and feta cheese, Apullian roast potatoes, horiatiki salad, mast va khiar
(yogurt, cucumber, scallions, sultanas, walnuts, mint). Shrimp came out
suboptimal: not sure whether to blame the shelled frozen shrimp or the
Dutch oven -- I usually use a 9x12 baking dish, which exposes more surface
area to the hot oven.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
Daily Log
Sunday: I tried sleeping in, but the sun hit my eyes through the blinds
around 9:45 so I got up. Rhonda had already left. Brenda, Richard, and
Marianne were getting ready to take Elsie Lee to church. I went back to
bed. Caught a couple more hours sleep, and they brought more chicken and
rolls for lunch. Richard and Marianne left mid-afternoon. Brenda's ex-ami
Lloyd stopped by and we talked about music and history. Last time I was
in those parts they were living together on his old family farm west of
Fayetteville. I eventually got the story that a schism had developed
between him and Brenda's two sons, so Brenda effectively had to choose
between them. The older son is college-aged (but not currently enrolled),
but the younger is a sophomore (I think) and wanted to move to Elkins to
play basketball for a particular coach who had taken an interest in him.
At the same time Elsie Lee's lease in Mountain Home was running out, so
Brenda rented a fairly new four-bedroom house in Elkins and moved her
sons and Elsie Lee in there. An "experiment," Brenda said.
Called up Thelma and had her talk to Elsie Lee, delighting both.
Saturday, September 21, 2013
Daily Log
Failed utterly to write my trip log on the fly. Wanted to pick up a
fresh notebook to write in, but that didn't happen until well into the
trip. Also forgot to bring my keyboard, and had some trouble with the
Dell laptop, not that the built-in keyboard wasn't turnoff enough. So
I'm writing these entries after the return.
Saturday. Got up around 11 AM and rushed to finish packing. Laura
had a meeting at noon so we swapped the cars around and she left. I
pulled out a little after 1 PM, headed for Arkansas where my cousin
Elsie Lee was celebrating her 80th birthday in a new house I hadn't
previously seen: in Elkins, AR, a few miles southeast of Fayetteville.
I drove out of town on US-400 (formerly K-96). I've driven the road
many times to Independence, but this time I skipped past the turnoff,
skirting past Parsons and Pittsburg to the end where it merges into
I-44, just past the Missouri border a few miles short of Joplin.
Turned south from Joplin. Highway ran out at the Arkansas border
as I drove through Bella Vista -- brought back memories of visiting
my late cousin Bob Burns (hadn't drove through there since the funeral
trip). Then on past Bentonville, Springdale, and Fayetteville. GPS
steered me around to the south end of town then back a bit until I
picked up AR-16 and drove out to Elkins. GPS didn't find the house
address, so I had to get directions and poke around a little. Lots
of people there, as it was Elsie Lee's 80th birthday: Rhonda, one of
her two sons (Chris + Karen); Tammy and her three kids; Brenda and
her two sons (Skyler and Colter); Richard's three children (Richard
and Marianne were out shopping but returned later). No one told Elsie
Lee I was coming so that much had a surprise element. They had food,
cake, ice cream.
Tammy left later that night. Richard and Marianne finally showed
up.
Thursday, September 19, 2013
Backsplash
We started working on remodeling the kitchen in late 2008. Finally got
the last planned thing done, less than five years after we started. That
was the backsplash between the solid surface (LG Hi-Macs) countertop and
the large window, a small area about 74 inches wide by 8 inches high. It
was previously painted light blue, but the plaster was deteriorating. We
looked at lots of tile, but nothing quite fit the color scheme until we
found this mosaic of 5/8-inch tiles covered with stainless steel. Added
a pearl gray grout, and tried to bevel it around the edges. Looks like
this, or did until we cluttered it up again:
Spice rack to the right. The countertop from it on back is stainless
steel sheet, and there's a Capital 36-inch 6-burner range just out of
the picture. Dishwasher is the old GE that we had before the remodel.
We figured we'd replace it (and the refrigerator) with stainless steel
front models when they broke, but they haven't obliged yet.
Daily Log
Steve says Josi is coming to Wichita to go to the Hamilton Junior High
(Intermediate) School reunion this week. Doesn't seem to be year-specific.
Looks like there are two events (organized on Facebook):
- O'Malley's Irish Pub, 2405 W. 31st South, 7:00 PM, Friday, Sept. 27
- Loretta Boone-Hollinger's house, 1602 W. 61st Street North, 5:00 PM,
Saturday, Sept. 28: pot luck dinner.
Facebook lists 13 people coming (4 maybe, 15 more invited). Don't
recognize any names. I went to Hamilton 1962-65; my brother followed
me 1965-68, and my sister 1969-72. Josi would have been in between
the latter, probably closer to Kathy (say 1968-71). Classmates.com
lists 246 Hamilton alumni -- again, don't recognize any. There were
approximately 900 students when I attended, so 300 per grade (7-8-9
at the time; now 6-7-8). The school was built in 1919, so has probably
had more than 10,000 students pass through it. (Peak enrollment was
1,100; average in the 1990s was 500; to get to 10,000, you'd have
to average 318 per year.)
Talked to Christgau about the impending doom of his Expert Witness
column. Can't quite summarize that here, but it's going to cause some
churning.
Trying to get organized and packed for the drive to Arkansas tomorrow.
Lots of stuff to do. Will try to keep a log as I travel, and fold it back
into the notebook here when I get back. (Assuming, of course, the laptop
still works.)
Music today (JP): Ira Sullivan, Jon Moritz.
Robert Christgau, at EW:
Just woke up so I won't go into too much detail at the moment, but
now I can make it official. As rumored, Expert Witness will be no more
at MSN as of October 1. As I understand it, Microsoft is shutting down
the entire MSN freelance arts operation at that time, including its
film coverage, where the estimable Glenn Kenny has done so much good
work, as well as my music colleagues Maura Johnston, Alan Light, and
the other bloggers. I got this news 12 days ago, at which time I'd
stockpiled enough reviews to get me through my last scheduled post on
September 27, and since I do write for money stopped all CG-style
writing at that time. I'll have more to say in the hours and days to
come, but that's the nub of it. Thanks to all who comment here and all
who lurk and all who never look at the comments because in the online
world that's usually such a waste of time, as it has never been
here.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Daily Log
Baked a meatloaf and potatoes for dinner. Slight refinement of the
recipe I've been working on: used three cloves of raw garlic instead
of six cloves roasted garlic this time, and used two eggs. Ground beef
was frozen and hadn't fully thawed, so I tried dumping it in the cooked
onion-tomato sauce, which partially cooked it. The result was too hot
and runny to form into a loaf, so I put it into the freezer for 12-15
minutes. Still wasn't ideal -- could form the loaf but it left more
juices in the pan underneath the potatoes. Still, nothing that wouldn't
render eventually. After an hour at 375F, the result was near perfect.
Watched Orange Is the New Black. Finished the jigsaw puzzle.
Talked to Rhonda Pyeatt about her plans for Elsie Lee's 80th birthday
party. I promised to drive down there -- Elkins, AR, near Fayetteville --
Saturday afternoon. Doing so, I'll probably bypass Independence to avoid
the delay. Talked to Steve later and he tells me that Josi is coming to
Wichita on Wednesday, and might want to go to Independence while she's
here. Not sure if I'll get back to Wednesday, but will be back before
she leaves, so could make the Independence trip then. Still no contact
in Oklahoma. I should call Duan tomorrow.
Music today (JP): Matthew Finck/Jonathan Ball; (RS): ZZK Sound Vol.
3, Trombone Shorty, The Sadies, Factor, Forest Swords, Mark Ernestus.
RS file presently has 25 records.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
Daily Log
Got a haircut. Picked up some chicken on the way back.
Music today (JP): Brian Haas, Anne Drummond, Gavin Templeton;
(RS): Body/Head.
Christgau's EW picks today were Nuggets (Rhino, presumably
the 2012 40th anniversary reissue, replicating Lenny Kaye's 1972 2LP
of 1963-68 singles) and Flamin Groovies: Supersnazz (CBS 1990,
originally released in 1969). I have both records graded a notch up
(which for Supersnazz means A+). I wrote this:
Two of my all-time favorite albums, huge influences in my formative
years as a rock critic -- both graded a notch higher in my database.
Admittedly, I didn't get to Nuggets until its 1976 Sire reissue,
by which point Lenny Kaye had become more famous as Patti Smith's
guitarist than he ever was as a writer, but most of the songs were
familiar from their heyday. Bob's characterization of the album as
punk's folk music is far more apt than anything having to do with
psychedelia or for that matter any attempt to cast those bands as
first-generation punks.
I got to the Groovies a bit earlier, introduced by Paul Yamada --
the third writer in the first edition of Terminal Zone, and I
think the principal writer of the third edition (which I've heard
about but never seen) -- working backward from their next albums,
Flamingo and Teenage Head. They, too, were rediscovered
by Sire in 1976, regrouping (minus Roy Loney) for the lame Shake
Some Action. By then "Teenage Head" was roots rock recycled by
Ducks Deluxe on their second album, cementing the notion that Groovies'
retro spawned pub rock and hence new wave.
I've long thought it was less linear and more epochal: Supersnazz
wasn't an oldies act (like Sha Na Na or, for the thinkers, Bette Midler)
but the first really good shot of postmodernism in rock. After 1969 you
lose the directional arrow of modernism (in jazz as well as rock), and
the whole of history becomes a direction-less plaything, with new bands
recycling old riffs every which way. (Sure, Creedence was already doing
something like that, making new music that sounded old, as did Springsteen
later, but they never played with it like, say, Nick Lowe.)
Loney, by the way, released a terrific EP in 1978 called Artistic
as Hell, followed by a good 1979 album, Out After Dark (a B-
from Christgau, I know, and disagree). Also, Bob failed to mention Al
Dexter. There's an ASV collection called Pistol Packin' Mama
which has way more than you need but shows that the title cut wasn't
anyway near his only song worth hearing.
Monday, September 16, 2013
Music Week/Jazz Prospecting
Music: Current count 22042 [22016] rated (+26), 581 [571] unrated (+10).
Not real sure what happened, or didn't, this past week, but the
inbox queues have started to fill back up. Was trying to listen to
some new music on Rhapsody, but didn't get very far, and at least
for now that's on hold. After the robbery, I built two new computers
using Antec boxes. One was an AMD-powered Linux machine for everyday
work, and I've since refitted it with new motherboard, cpu, and
memory, and it's been rock solid as long as I don't run Facebook
on it. The other was an Intel-powered Windows Vista box which I
had speakers on and used for nothing but playing music and the
occasional DVD. It's hosed now. We've had two power outages in
the last few days. One occurred when I was asleep and persisted
long enough to drain the UPS. The Windows box didn't reboot clean
after that, but eventually did come up with I wasn't looking, so
was able to run until the next shutdown. Now it's not coming up,
and I'm unable to find the original repair discs -- the latter
have to be somewhere, but that's the rub. The office has devolved
into an incredible mess where I can't find anything. Straightening
it all out is almost inconceivable -- I shudder even to think about
it.
Good chance I'll take a trip later this week, so that will slow
things down even more.
Adventure Music: 10 Years (2003-2012 [2012],
Adventure Music, 3CD): Mike Marshall, a mandolin player who started
in bluegrass then developed an affection for choro, founded this
label in 2003, initially to document his own collaborations with
Brazilian musicians, then to give the latter a US outlet, and over
time has expanded to include other musicians from South America,
their allies and fellow travelers. I've been fortunate enough to
follow this label from shortly after its inception, and have 66
of their records in my ratings database -- my favorites are the
Moacir Santos compilation, Ouro Negro, and the 2006 record
Renewed Impressions, by Brazilian trombonist Vittor Santos.
This expansive label compilation was selected by vocalist Monday
Michiru, and arguably favors singers a bit too much, but does a
nice job of plotting out the label's breadth.
B+(*)
Cacaw: Stellar Power (2012 [2013], Skirl): Trio --
Oscar Noriega (sax), Landon Knoblock (keyboards), Jeff Davis (drums) --
but Knoblock wrote all the pieces. The electric keybs give this a
flair that is alternately cheesy and rocky, at odds with the more
avant inclinations of the others. Sometimes that even works for them.
Favorite title: "Neutron Star, Eating Its Binary Neighbor."
B+(**) [September 17]
Tom Dempsey: Saucy (2013, Planet Arts): Guitarist,
five albums since 1998, backed by organ (Ron Oswanski) and drums
(Alvin Atkinson) here, a soul jazz move when he's playing Buddy
Montgomery or Lee Morgan or his own originals, less soulful with
Paul Simon.
B+(*) [September 17]
FivePlay Jazz Quintet: Five & More (2012 [2013],
Auraline): Quintet, principally Tony Corman (guitar) and Laura Klein
(guitar), who split the writing 5-4, plus Dave Tidball (sax, clarinet,
wrote one song), Paul Smith (acoustic bass), Alan Hall (drums). They
have two previous albums, this one adding guests -- four clarinets
on two cuts, four trombones on two other, some vibes.
B [September 17]
Griffith Hiltz Trio: This Is What You Get . . .
(2013, self-released): Canadian trio: Johnny Griffith (saxes, bass
clarinet), Nathan Hiltz (guitar, bass pedals), Sly Juhas (drums).
Regular beat, guitar more important than the sax, doesn't quite
slide into either the fusion or smooth jazz ruts, too scrawny for
the former, not slick enough for the latter.
B [September 19]
Jessica Jones/Connie Crothers: Live at the Freight
(2011 [2013], New Artists): Tenor sax and piano respectively, duets,
live, three improvs, one piece by Jones, three standards: "All the
Things You Are," "In a Sentimental Mood," "There Will Never Be Another
You." Crothers has nearly 20 albums since 1974. Jones has been much
less prolific, but both are adventurous players, even if this is a
little dicey.
B+(*) [September 17]
Bryn Roberts: Fables (2012 [2013], Nineteen-Eight):
Pianist, originally from Winnipeg, based in New York, two previous
albums. Quartet, with Seamus Blake (tenor/soprano sax), Orlando
LeFleming (bass), Jonathan Blake (drums). Six originals, two standards
("In the Still of the Night," "Guess I'll Hang My Tears Out to Dry").
B+(**) [September 17]
Samo Salamon Quartets: Stretching Out (2008-12 [2013],
Samo, 2CD): Guitarist, b. 1978 in the future Slovenia, has spent some
time in New York but is still based in Slovenia; 13 records since 2003,
this one a double, one disc each with an American quartet in 2008 and
a European one in 2012. The latter, with Dominique Pifarely on violin,
Bruno Chevillon on bass, and Roberto Dani on drums, is dense, scratchy,
and ultimately rewarding although it took me a lot of time to pan out.
The former, with Donny McCaslin on tenor sax, John Hébert on bass, and
Gerald Cleaver on drums, is no trouble at all -- the guitarist brings
back his John Scofield roots, and McCaslin follows seamlessly, never
tripping himself up.
A- [September 20]
Salsa de la Bahia: A Collection of SF Bay Area Salsa and
Latin Jazz (2003-10 [2013], Patois, 2CD): I don't have the
eyes to sort through all the small print here -- the year range,
for instance, only covers the first disc, so it's possible there
are outliers on the second. The San Francisco area has become home
to a huge range of world music, but I've rarely been impressed by
what I've heard. This, however, holds up surprisingly well. Only
name I recognize is John Santos, although there are doubtless more
in the fine print.
B+(**)
Zansa: Djansa (2013, self-released): Afropop group
based in Asheville, North Carolina; led by Adama Dembele, who figures
himself a 33rd generation musician, tracing his ancestry back through
his native Cöte d'Ivoire. The rest of the band look like they crawled
out of the Appalachian hollers, with Matt Williams' fiddle especially
prominent. Ends with a striking fish-out-of-water story.
B+(***)
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Howard Alden/Andy Brown Quartet: Heavy Artillery (Delmark)
- Dave Askren/Jeff Benedict: It's All About the Groove (DaWay Music)
- Ted Brancato: The Next Step (Origin)
- David Buchbinder's Odessa/Havana: Walk to the Sea (Tzadik): advance, September 24
- Laurent Coq: Dialogue (Sunnyside): advance, November 5
- Sérgio Galvão: Phantom Fish (Pimenta): September 24
- Florian Hoefner Group: Falling Up (OA2)
- Tim Horner: The Head of the Circle (Origin)
- Keefe Jackson's Likely So: A Round Goal (Delmark)
- Billy Mintz: Quartet (Thirteenth Note)
- Carol Morgan: Retroactive (Blue Bamboo Music)
- Justin Morell Dectet: Subjects and Compliments (Sonic Frenzy): October 29
- Mary Ann Redmond/Paul Langosch/Jay Cooley: Compared to What (self-released): September 24
- David Sills: Blue's the New Green (Gut String): October 1
- Ricardo Silveira/Vinicius Cantuária: RSVC (Adventure Music)
- Dave Slonaker Big Band: Intrada (Origin)
- Ira Sullivan Presents the Jim Holman Trio: Blue Skies (Delmark)
- Tierney Sutton: After Blue (BFM Jazz): September 24
The Kind of Progress We Are Seeing Today
A front page article in the Wichita Eagle this morning is titled
"Summers out of running for Fed chairman." I wasn't able to find the
article on the Eagle's website, but it is by Kevin G. Hall (McClatchy
Washington Bureau), and here's a
link. Above the headline, the article pointed out that "women's
groups, others opposed nomination." Indeed, aside from some of Summers'
fellow economists -- if I recall correctly, Brad DeLong is the one I'm
most likely to credit -- the only person who seems to have favored
Summers was Barack Obama. This has always struck me as a bit odd: if
you read Ron Suskind's book on Obama's economic team, Confidence
Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President,
only Tim Geithner -- who flat-out obstructed Obama decisions against
the big banks -- comes off worse than Summers, who comes off as a
self-appointed bottleneck making sure that Obama never got advice
he didn't pre-approve. Given that things didn't work out so great,
you'd think the president would hold some lingering resentment of
the stifling adviser, but evidently not. The article quotes Obama:
Larry was a critical member of my team as we faced down the worst
economic crisis since the Great Depression, and it was in no small
part because of his expertise, wisdom and leadership that we wrestled
the economy back to growth and made the kind of progress we are seeing
today.
Say that again, "the kind of progress we are seeing today."
As it happens, I just posted a chart at the top of yesterday's
Weekend Roundup that shows "What's Up, What's Down" since July
2007, when the economy started to go south. What's up? S&P 500
+8, corporate profits +42%, financial profits +59%. What's down?
Employment/population ratio 6.7%. I also cited a piece by
Mike Konczal on how the richest 1% of Americans took home a
larger share of the nation's income than in any year since 1928.
(Key quote there: "the top 1 percent have enjoyed 95 percent of
all income growth from 2009 to 2012.") I also cited Jeff Madrick's
piece where he argues that unemployment isn't just a bit high,
but has metastasized into an entire "jobless generation."
So when Obama talks about "the kind of progress we are seeing
today" he must be seeing things than I am not and not seeing
things that I am. In the decade before the collapse financial profits
had grown to 40% of all corporate profits, something that was only
possible due to the predatory behavior of banks. Obama and Summers
not only didn't stem that tide. They've increase financial profits
even further. Higher corporate profits feed off three main factors:
financialization (corporations playing finance games), increasing
monopoly rents, and squeezing the labor market. None of those are
things that make the economy stronger, let alone things that lead
to higher living standards for more people. Yet under Obama and
Summers those trends have become even worse. Worse still, under
Obama and Summers those trends are counted as "progress."
Hall's article goes on to quote Sen. Bernie Sanders:
What the American people want now is a Fed chairman prepared to
stand up to the greed, recklessness and illegal behavior on Wall
Street, not a Wall Street insider whose deregulation efforts helped
pave the way for a horrendous financial crisis and the worst economic
downturn in the country since the Great Depression.
Within the narrow confines of what Fed chairmen can do, I don't
consider Summers a horrible choice -- he would, for instance, have
been better than Ben Bernanke in 2009. (I've long felt that Obama's
failure to appoint his own Fed chair was one of the worst mistakes
of his presidency.) But there's little in his past to suggest that
he wouldn't immediately become a captured regulator of the largest
(and most corrupt) banks in America, and there are alternatives that
don't carry his brand of arrogance and corruption. (And, by the way,
Donald Kohn -- another Obama favorite -- isn't one of them.) But
Summers is a relatively known commodity. What's more disturbing here
is that Obama's own view of the economy seems to be so narrowly
subservient to the bankers' view -- and so far disconnected from
what's actually happened to workers in America.
By the way, had a power blackout during last night's storms, and
that delayed (and forced a hastil conclusion to) yesterday's Weekend
Update post. Also backed up Jazz Prospecting, which will come out
late tonight or early tomorrow, unless we have another blackout.
Sorry for the delays, but I also wanted to sneak this morsel in.
Daily Log
Ordered books from Amazon: Josh Ruebner: Shattered Hopes: The
Failure of Obama's Middle East Peace Process; Andrew J. Bacevich:
Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their
Country; Michael Geier: How to Diagnose and Fix Everything
Electric. Also, Laura wanted the DVD of Damages: The Complete
Fifth Season. The electronics book is a first, at least in a long
time. We've gotten into the habit of just replacing everything that
breaks around here, but I'm often reluctant to junk things if it
seems like they could be repaired. Problem is I don't know how to
repair electronics, appliances, etc., so the junk accumulates. I
have some tools, like a DMM, but not others. (I used to have an
oscilloscope but never got much use out of it.) Anyhow, would like
to be able to set up a small test bench, and also explore problems
like speaker hum (just where does that noise come from?). Not sure
this will ever mount to anything, but this book looks like a modest
start.
Meanwhile, Windows PC is hosed. Having trouble finding the old
discs. Windows 7 and 8 have come out since then -- talk about shit
I hate to spend money on, but the easiest fix is probably to take
it to a repair shop and have them install the upgrade. Performance
on that machine can be sluggish too, so maybe I should look into
upgrading it.
Music today (JP): Samo Salamon, Geri Allen.
Sunday, September 15, 2013
Weekend Roundup
Obama has had a lucky week. First, Vladimir Putin secured agreement
with Assad to destroy Syria's chemical weapons -- a far greater result
than Obama had even hoped for from his threat of an "incredibly small"
but "not a pinprick" threat to bomb Syria. And now Larry Summers has
finally ended speculation that Obama would appoint the chief architect
of the 2008 banking meltdown to be chair of the Federal Reserve.
Some scattered links this week:
Jonathan Chait: The Arguments of the Great Recession Are Over. Hooray.:
First, a chart:
In other words, employment is down, weakening labor, and profits are
up, especially for the most predatory sectors of the economy. In other
words, the "recovery" has been strictly on the backs of workers, who
haven't recovered at all. Obama and the Democrats have advanced some
muddled policy initiatives that might help a little bit, while the
Republicans started with a set of faulty theories which have since,
as they've proven untenable, been replaced by sheer mean-spirited
obduracy. Or, as Chait puts it:
The right has consumed itself with a lively internal argument about
the direction of conservatism and the Republican Party -- libertarian
populism, conservative reform, and all that. But this discussion has
ignored the front and center economic questions. Do conservatives
still think cutting short-term deficits will increase rather than
retard growth? Academic support for that position has almost entirely
collapsed. I don't even see many conservative intellectuals defending
it in columns. And yet the Republican Party marches on, opposing any
effort to lift short-term austerity policies that economists almost
all believe are holding back the recovery. It's as if the head of the
austerity monster has been sliced off, but the body lurches forward
regardless.
Meanwhile, however Republicans resolve their long-term vision
debate, they have coalesced around a short-term vision. It is to
repeal Obamacare without a replacement, maintain short-term austerity,
weaken labor laws, loosen financial regulation, and defend every tax
deduction enjoyed by the affluent. I don't see how this policy mix
could be remotely defended in light of actual circumstances. Almost
nobody on the right seems to want to defend it. But nobody seems
interested in placing even the slightest pressure on the Congressional
party to alter its stance, either.
Conor Friedersdorf: Obama Acts Like He Doesn't Know He's an Executive-Power
Extremist: Sub: "On the fake moderation of a president who talks
a good game but doesn't follow through."
We know that Obama is an executive-power extremist in his actions.
He believes the president has the power to intervene militarily
without Congress in places that do not threaten America; that he
can order American citizens killed in secret without due process;
that he can secretly collect data on the phone calls of all Americans;
that he can invoke the state-secrets privilege to avoid adjudicating
constitutional challenges to his policies on their merits; that he
can indefinitely detain prisoners without evidence, charges or due
process, that he can sit in judgment of anyone on earth, then send
a drone anywhere to strike them.
Jeff Madrick: America's Jobless Generation:
Consider the bleak prospects of young people entering the workforce
today: the portion of people aged twenty to twenty-four who have jobs
has fallen from 72.2 percent in 2000 to just 61.5 percent. Meanwhile,
if we adjust for inflation, the median earnings of men between the
ages of sixteen and twenty-four working full-time has fallen by nearly
30 percent since 1973. For women, the median has fallen by 17 percent.
As Andy Sum, an economist at Northeastern University who has studied
youth unemployment for many years, has shown, if you are out of work
or underemployed during those initial years of adulthood, chances are
far higher you will be unemployed, poor, or dependent on welfare later
on. [ . . . ]
In fact, it is not technology and China that are the main causes of
joblessness among the rising generation. First, by a long shot, ours
is a nation that refuses to take the economic measures necessary to get
itself to anything resembling full employment. The sequestration --
Obama's own proposal -- is reducing government spending just at the
moment when it might help the economy finally reach the conditions
for lasting job growth. Instead, we have a situation in which older,
more qualified adults are taking scarce jobs from young adults, young
adults from teens, the college-educated from those with only a high
school degree.
Robert Maiman: With War Off the Table, It's Time for Syria Cease-Fire,
Negotiations and Talking to Iran: Couldn't agree more, but thus
far Kerry's negotiations with Russia have been limited to things like
"verifiability" and Kerry and Obama keep talking about how they're
keeping the "threat of force on the table," even though any such thing
would clearly be an illegal act of war. But if Kerry really does want
"verifiability" a cease-fire will be essential, as well as the right
thing to do.
Michael Ignatieff: How to Save the Syrians, despite the author's
notorious past as a "liberal hawk," winds up agreeing:
This is hardly a failure to intervene: external intervention has been
constant from the beginning. A ferocious, well-armed proxy war is
devouring Syria, with weapons pouring in from all sides. Iran, Russia,
Saudi Arabia, Turkey, the Gulf States, and Hezbollah have each tried
to tip the military balance in favor of the regime or the rebels. Far
from succeeding, they have aggravated the atrocities and exposed
civilians on every side to repeated, deliberate, and murderous attack.
[ . . . ]
From stalemate comes a ray of hope, the hope that all the external
sponsors of the conflict will begin to reduce weapons supplies to all
sides. A strategy of asphyxiation could be followed by concerted
pressure at the UN for a negotiated cease-fire. If no side can win
it all, it is just conceivable that each may settle for what it
already has. The result would be a divided Syria, with Assad in
sovereign control, but with effective authority in the north and
east in rebel and Kurdish hands.
Leaving Assad in place, in other words, may be the only way we
can protect civilians from carnage without end. An uglier trade-off
between peace and justice is hard to imagine, but continuing to
demand Assad's departure, in the absence of any effective means to
force him out, has become an empty threat and an even emptier
strategy.
Also, a few links for further study:
W James Antle III: Antiwar Conservatism Isn't Going Away: I don't
buy many of his examples -- Marco Rubio, John Cornyn, Sarah Palin,
John Bolton, Sean Hannity -- who would most likely be happy to go to
war if they could wrap the flag around themselves, but he's right that
the drift among conservatives is anti-intervention. Still, I think the
real test will be whether conservatives start to embrace international
law as an alternative to American hegemony and dysfunction. Otherwise
they have little defense against the isolationism charge -- other than
that it sure beats the recent alternative.
Andrew J Bacevich: David Brooks Is Constantly Wrong: An excerpt
from Bacevich's new book, Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed
Their Soldiers and Their Country, which could just as well have
been written about all sorts of right-wing apologists. For instance,
Thomas Friedman.
Zack Beauchamp: Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder:
Mostly methodological, explained in part by the roadblocks the NRA
has erected to even studying the effects of gun ownership on violence,
so this isn't as striking at it could be. I'm fairly resigned to the
fact that there will be no significant movement toward greater legal
restrictions on gun ownership or sales, but the notion that we should
not study gun use nor attempt to draw lessons from it is dangerous
and absurd.
Peter Beinart: The Rise of the New New Left: Argues that today's
youngest new voters will make up a generation that moves America
significantly to the left.
The argument between the children of Reagan and the children of Clinton
is fierce, but ideologically, it tilts toward the right. Even after the
financial crisis, the Clinton Democrats who lead their party don't want
to nationalize the banks, institute a single-payer health-care system,
raise the top tax rate back to its pre-Reagan high, stop negotiating
free-trade deals, launch a war on poverty, or appoint labor leaders
rather than Wall Streeters to top economic posts. They want to regulate
capitalism modestly. Their Reaganite Republican adversaries, by contrast,
want to deregulate it radically. By pre-Reagan standards, the economic
debate is taking place on the conservative side of the field. But --
and this is the key point -- there's reason to believe that America's
next political generation will challenge those limits in ways that cause
the leaders of both parties fits.
Beinart also has a long piece applying his generational analysis
to American Jews viz. Israel:
The American Jewish Cocoon.
For further thoughts on generations, see
Nona Willis Arnowitz: What is the Crash Generation?: people who
came of age during the crash have been doubly damned as opportunities
have vanished.
Sarah Gold: Why Obama Can't Make Peace in Israel-Palestine:
Short review of Josh Reubner's new book, Shattered Hopes: The
Failure of Obama's Middle East Peace Process. Review doesn't
cover it all, but the book starts with Obama's pre-election
experiences and covers the 2008 Operation Cast Lead, which was
the first shot across the bow after Obama was elected. Not clear
how much the book has on Iran, which was Netanyahu's preoccupation
any time Obama tried to point Israel toward any sort of "peace
process" -- eventually Obama swallowed the bait there whole.
Mike Konczal: The 1 Percent Took Home the Largest Share of Income Since
1928 Last Year: Data from Emmanuel Saez. Konczal notes that the top
1% share drops with each recession, but since the 1980s has been
rebounding ever higher: 2012 more than recovers from the dips in 2008
and 2009, which helps explain why the rich care so little about growing
the economy: they already got theirs.
Thomas E Mann/Norman J Ornstein: Brighter future for politics and policy
requires a different Republican Party: Another book excerpt, from
It's Even Worse Than It Looks: How the American Constitutional System
Collided With the New Politics of Extremism. Actually, we already
have the "different Republican Party" the authors advocate -- it's
called the Democratic Party. What we need is a party to its left that
can propose and advocate for real solutions to real problems.
Vladimir V Putin: A Plea for Caution From Russia: The Russian
president's hands are far from clean given his efforts in restarting
the Chechen War, but the first US president to win a Nobel Peace
Prize was Theodore Roosevelt, who unlike John McCain actually did
find a war he didn't want to jump into the middle of -- the 1905
Russo-Japanese War, which he negotiated an end to. Putin has been
slammed for butting in on Obama's Syria war, and especially for
scoffing at Obama's "what makes us exceptional"
war speech, but any fair comparison of the two documents
shows the Russian to be taking far more reasonable and coherent
stands: "From the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue
enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future.
We are not protecting the Syrian government, but international
law." That, like his proposal that Syria surrender its chemical
weapons, is something to try to build on.
Diane Ravitch: School privatization is a hoax, "reformers" aim to
destroy public schools: An excerpt from her new book, Reign
of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Danger to
America's Public Schools. Argues that the main reason people
think public schools are broken is the propaganda of people out to
make quick bucks by peddling solutions that don't work. Doesn't
deny that some public schools are indeed in trouble, but mostly
due to poverty and the perpetuation of the underclass.
Daily Log
Had to go out for groceries today, so did that late afternoon.
Stopped at Hog Wild for dinner: basic Wichita barbecue. Got caught
in a thunderstorm on the way back, briefly raining very heavy. Sky
was super patchy, and we had a stretch driving into bright sunlight
while it was pouring down.
Tried to pull a Weekend Roundup column together. Was surprised
that Salon had a lot of interesting-looking things, but they nearly
all turned out to be book excerpts. Watched Breaking Bad.
Power went out shortly after that. Was out for about an hour, but
cable was broken after that, so we had no phone or internet. Got
that back a little after 3AM, then took some fiddling with the
computers to get them working. Finally filed Weekend Roundup, but
backdated it to the end of Sunday. (Server is on Pacific Time, so
actually only cheated about 1:30.
Music today (JP): Harris Eisenstadt, Samo Salamon; (RS): Congo Natty,
Factory Floor.
Saturday, September 14, 2013
Daily Log
Missed yesterday, and probably most of the day before. Baked cookies
for a Peace Center event: two batches of Best Recipe's chewy
chocolate chip cookies, but with dark chocolate chunks in one, pecans
and butterscotch in the other. The event was a talk by Marjorie Cohn
on Obama's use of drones, especially the substitution of targeted
assassination (as well as "signature bombings" which are killings
of unidentified people who merely look suspicious) for incarceration,
given the political embarrassments and thorny legal problems that
the latter (especially at Guantanamo) has given rise to. She has a
book on the subject coming out next year, as well as previous books
along those lines: The United States and Torture: Interrogation,
Incarceration, and Abuse (2011); Cowboy Republic: Six Ways
the Bush Gang Has Defied the Law (2007); and with Kathleen
Gilberd: Rules of Engagement: The Politics and Honor of Military
Dissent (2009). No surprises, but good speaker, and generally
good q&a following. Only had about 30 people in an uncomfortably
hot church. Used the basement for refreshments afterwards, but the
crowd had largely dissipated, and my cookies wasted.
Music today (JP): Zansa; (RS): Arctic Monkeys, 2 Chainz, Superchunk,
Franz Ferdinand, Nine Inch Nails, Chelsea Wolfe.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Recycled Goods (112): September, 2013
New Recycled Goods: pick up text
here.
Total review count: 3788 (342 + 444).
Daily Log
Power was off when we got up, or at least when I got up after noon.
UPS's had drained, so computers were flatlined. Tux failed to come up
at first; had to be rebooted, and being ancient takes forever to boot,
fsck and all that, but finally came up. Reminds me I need to replace
it. More immediate problem is that the Windows machine won't start.
Wants me to insert the original disc and use the repair option. It's
still running Vista, which was damned expensive when I bought it, and
has been auto-updated dozens of times since. Scrounging around I have
yet to find the software. Will have to keep looking, or take it to
some computer shop. Also, the LCD monitor on the camera has gone black.
The little blue power light flashes -- don't know what that means,
but none of the menu buttons do anything either. I think this is the
third monitor we've had there. They run 24/7 and don't last long. At
least the DVR looks good, and we can see the camera feeds on the TV,
but the monitor is essential to our security.
Went to Office Depot and found a small monitor on sale for $89.99,
so that filled the bill. Aspect ratio is a bit wider, and color is
a bit more bluish, and mounting screws made it impossible to plug
the audio wire in (the audio only works on playback, so that's fairly
minor). Stopped by the fancy office equipment store downtown and
ordered an expensive Herman Miller chair -- "Embody," basic graphite,
soft wheels, cost $801 and change. Should arrive in a couple weeks.
Will be a great pleasure to throw the one I'm sitting in into the
dumpster. Not sure whether it's worth it, but I do spend a lot of
time on the damn thing.
Music today: didn't keep track.
My comment at Expert Witness (sums up some Marshall Berman stuff),
and plugs Recycled Goods.
Back when I was deep into Marxist theory I wanted to write a book
of intellectual and cultural history under the title "Secret Agents"
-- comes from a Walter Benjamin quote where he describes Baudelaire as
"an agent of the bourgeoisie's secret discontent with their own rule."
In it I would paint Marx and his followers as prisoners within the
bourgeoisie's love-hate relationship with the economy, society, and
culture they created. I always wondered whether Marshall Berman's
magnum opus was a close relative of what I had in mind -- it does,
after all, have that pivotal section on Baudelaire -- but I never got
around to reading it (indeed, I've read nothing in the field since the
mid-1970s, about the time I dived into rock-crit). I can say that I
spent a lot of time studying Berman's first book, "The Politics of
Authenticity," and was much influenced by it.
Also note that Berman had a piece in the Christgau
festschrift. I've never been clear on why we're not publishing more of
those pieces -- certainly not the fault of HUP's lawyers.
I'm also saddened to note that Saul Landau has died. The 1966 book
that he edited with Paul Jacobs, "The New Radicals: A Report with
Documents," was the first political book I bought and read after I
dropped out of high school, and as such had a big part in shaping the
frustration and indignation that I felt as a teenager into a coherent
political critique.
By the way, I posted a new Recycled Goods tonight, which I mention
because it's very long and has been a huge amount of work, although on
the downside it will be of interest to very few of you: the main theme
is Polish jazz, and yes, I do love typing all those names.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
The Ever-Evolving Folly of 9/11
Twelfth anniversary of the late Osama Bin Laden's orchestrated attack
on the big buildings of New York and Washington, but today that appears
strangely overshadowed by the first anniversary of a gunfight at the "US
consulate" in Benghazi -- actually, just a CIA station, but an ambassador
on the State Dept. payroll was killed along with three other Americans.
The Benghazi attack has become a major bugbear for Republicans for reasons
that have never made much sense, at least until recently.
Initially, the major complaint was that the administration (specifically
UN Ambassador Susan Rice) confused the armed attack with angry but peaceful
demonstrations at other US embassies over a YouTube film trailer that was
believed to be blasphemously anti-Islamic, and failed to use the proper
codeword ("terrorist") to describe the attack. While Rice no doubt misspoke,
Obama himself never missed a beat in using the T-word or in avowing all
the time-tested V-sentiments from vigilance to vengeance.
This gripe then evolved into a more general complaint that the Obama
administration had covered up the event, which is true inasmuch as they
tried to deny the central role and presence of the CIA, both in Benghazi
on that day and in Libya during the summer-long operation that overthrew
Gaddafi -- one where Obama had promised a limited NATO-led air offensive
and "no boots on the ground." Obama's people never understood an issue
here: presidents always have to lie to protect their covert operatives,
and besides, weren't the Republicans way more hawkish on Libya than
Obama was? Certainly John McCain and Lindsey Graham were, and weren't
they the GOP's Fearless Leaders on foreign policy?
Well, we now know that McCain and Graham are no longer representative
of the party: they're just a pair of superhawks, dedicated to getting
the US into jams practically no one else wants to get stuck with. One
hint should have been that when Obama belatedly went to Congress for
approval of his Libya intervention, the Republican-led House refused
to consent. Of course, that didn't matter much at the time -- Obama
had done what he wanted to do -- but over time it became clear that a
Congress that hadn't bought into the war in the first place felt free
to snipe at every little setback: hence, Benghazi.
That turns out to have been a big part of the reason Obama went to
Congress before bombing Syria. Back in the 1990s when Clinton would
bomb Iraq Republicans may have seethed in private but they were so
heavily committed to bombing Iraq themselves that they couldn't raise
an objection to the act. McCain and Graham are still around, but most
Republicans have quietly moved on. For example, consider this letter
by William Stout in the Wichita Eagle today:
On Wednesday the nation will mourn the 12th anniversary of an
attack on American soil by the terrorist organization al-Qaida that
claimed the lives of more than 3,000 innocent Americans and destroyed
a national landmark.
Wednesday will also mark the one-year anniversary of another
terrorist attack in Benghazi, Libya, that claimed the lives of four
more Americans. Our government has spent a full year lying about that
event.
Finally, for the biggest insult of all, Congress is debating
whether the United States should assist rebels linked to al-Qaida and
attack Syria (a sovereign nation).
What has the nation become in 12 years? What have we allowed to
happen? We have sacrificed our freedom and our personal liberty. We
have allowed the media and our current administration to remove the
word "terrorist" from our language, and now we are at the edge of
voting to aid the enemy.
Voting to aid the enemy that took so many American lives is
unthinkable. Every member of Congress who votes to authorize an
attack on Syria should be impeached on grounds of treason.
This letter didn't come from anyone in the traditional "peace
and justice" camp. I would have toned it differently, but I can't
say that I disagree with a word of it (well, I'm not wild about
"treason" but it makes sense in context). I have several very
different reasons for reaching the same conclusion, but if this
is the way you think about the world, at least you're no longer
the problem. And even if not every anti-Assad insurgent in Syria
is anti-American, a US attack on Syria will push enough Syrians
over the edge to make the net effect anti-American.
Personally, I could do without the word "terrorist": not
that it is never applicable, but I've seen it used so casually
to dehumanize people who are merely defending their homes --
Robert Fisk's big book on Lebanon, Pity the Nation, is
so full of such examples it gradually eats at the author until
he himself explodes. On the other hand, the assertion about
sacrificing "freedom and personal liberty" is spot on: the
monstrous NSA surveillance program could only have grown in
an atmosphere of perpetual war.
I'm even more struck by the Eagle's editorial, titled
Casualties still mounting, which starts like this:
Twelve years after al-Qaida terrorists drew the United States into
war, the military casualties are still mounting on the battlefront in
Afghanistan. As tragically, they also continue on the homefront --
including a record 352 suicides among active-duty troops last year.
That heartbreaking tally exceeded not only the 301 such suicides
the year before but also the 295 Americans who died in combat in
Afghanistan in 2012. At least another 157 active-duty and mobilized
National Guard and reserve troops have taken their own lives this
year.
For each family, the loss is a private shock and sorrow. One such
Iowa family shares its grief and story in "Dillion," a documentary
directed by Wichita filmmaker Tom Zwemke, a former Cessna Aircraft
employee and Vietnam veteran, that will air at 8 p.m. Wednesday on
KPTS, Channel 8 in Wichita.
After serving U.S. Army tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, Dillion
Naslund was slated for a third deployment this year. He had been
drinking too much and struggling to sleep when, at 25, he ended his
life last December. "He was fighting the demons, and those demons took
over," his father, Jeff Naslund, says in the film, in which his
mother, Lisa Naslund, urges those in pain to get help.
Collectively, the suicides are a public shame for a nation that has
worn its patriotism so proudly since Sept. 11, 2001, yet failed to get
so many of these warriors the treatment they need to handle
post-traumatic stress disorder, brain injuries, depression, addiction
and other challenges.
This, by the way, was written by Rhonda Holman, who invariably
takes the right-wing view on the editorial board. The first point
is the active noun in the first sentence: "al-Qaida terrorists
drew the United States into war." The US was suckered into a war
that only compounded the initial suffering with more and more,
a war where we can take no comfort in knowing that others have
suffered even more.
Twelve years ago that rush to war was automatic, unthinking,
a conditioned response to our self-image as the world's sole
superpower -- the culmination of 55 years of patting ourselves
on the back for saving the world in the second World War, and
never admitting that we had made a mistake along the way. Osama
Bin Laden recognized that hubris and knew how to play on it. He
knew that empires including the British and the Soviet Union
had crumbled in Afghanistan, and figured that he could topple
the United States by luring it into war there -- and as much
as we hate to admit it, he hasn't been proven wrong.
But if you carefully read Obama's "bomb Syria"
speech last night, you'll see how skillfully he pushes the
same buttons that let us be driven into war in 2001, but you
will also feel that they ring hollow. This is partly because
his arguments are exceptionally disingenuous and his logic is
tortured, but it's mostly because we're no longer excited by
the prospect of more war. Given that poison gas is on the menu,
I'm most tempted to compare this to the first World War, which
began with jubilant parades and ended four-and-a-half years
later with 21 million dead, with its survivors holding much
more somber views of war. (By the way, poison gas fatalities
in WWI are estimated at close to 90,000 -- less than 4% of
military deaths. Its use was largely discontinued after that
not because it was universally abhorent so much as because
it wasn't very effective or manageable. It doesn't seem to
have been used on civilian populations, where it would have
been more effective.)
But to return to Holman's editorial for a minute, she goes on to
make an interesting point:
A further puzzlement is why so many of those who've taken their own
lives -- more than half the active-duty suicide victims between 2008
and 2011 -- had never served in Iraq or Afghanistan. Some wonder if
many of those who joined the military after 2001 had pre-existing
conditions that made them vulnerable to suicide.
A study published last month in the Journal of the American Medical
Association raised questions by indicating that the spike in
active-duty and veteran suicides has as much, if not more, to do with
mental illness, substance abuse, and financial and relationship
troubles as with combat and foreign deployments.
I'm not sure what to make of this. It is at least relatively
easy to see how the debilitating injuries and PTSD make one more
likely to commit suicide. But absent those exceptional stresses,
this also suggests that mentally troubled people are more likely
to join the military and/or are more fragile when exposed to
military culture -- it does, after all, celebrate killing even
for those not on the front lines. But also the military has
become a very peculiar form of safety net for individuals who
lack civilian opportunities, yet the skill set it leaves veterans
with is increasingly at odds with what the economy needs.
(David Finkel has a new piece in the New Yorker,
The Return, on veterans with PTSD -- unfortunately, only
online for subscribers.)
The Eagle today also featured a frequent columnist writing
what turns out to be an antiwar column:
Cal Thomas: Mideast mistakes likely to be repeated in Syria:
Perhaps if America had a successful track record in the Middle
East, President Obama's appeal for a "limited" attack on Syria might
carry more weight. But because our attention span in the region
increasingly resembles that of a fidgety 4-year-old, an examination of
recent history is in order.
Consider Iran. In 1979, President Jimmy Carter supported toppling
the shah, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi. Whatever the shah's shortcomings, who
believes the theocratic government of the ayatollahs that replaced him
was better than the one we helped overthrow? At least the shah was not
pursuing nuclear weapons or fighting proxy wars like Syria.
Or Iraq. In 2003, President Bush ordered an invasion of Iraq to
topple Saddam Hussein and rid the country of weapons of mass destruction.
Remember the Iraqi refugee code-named "Curveball"? He was the main
provider of "intelligence" that Saddam was pursuing WMDs. No WMDs
were ever found. In 2004, "Curveball" was officially classified a
"fabricator" by the CIA -- too late for those thousands of Americans
who died or were wounded.
Now, Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry say we can trust
the intelligence on Syria. Do you?
Even if the videos showing dead Syrian children are real and
the intelligence is accurate, that is still not sufficient reason
to attack Syria. Given our experience with Iran and Iraq -- and
the increased likelihood that growing instability in Afghanistan,
Libya, possibly Egypt and even Lebanon might turn out unfavorably
for the U.S. -- what makes anyone think history won't repeat
itself?
Now, Thomas is no genius. In fact, he's one of the worst columnists
working in America these days. And he's got virtually everything wrong
about Iran. Carter may have been somewhat sympathetic to early demonstrators
against Iran's Shah -- who had by then become one of the most embarrassing
despots in America's shadowy closet of dictator-allies -- but he did
nothing to overthrow the Shah, and his sole contribution to helping
turn what was initially a democratic revolution into a theocratic one
was by making the US public enemy number one by inviting the
Shah to enter the US. And, by the way, the Shah did too have a nuclear
program, and was involved in proxy fights (albeit against Iraq, not
Syria).
So it's odd to read a column about the importance of history
lessons written by someone with so little grasp of his subject, but
even Thomas understands that bombing people to send a government a
message isn't going to have the intended effect.
Today's reading on Syria:
-
Bob Dreyfuss: Russia Trumps Obama War Plan: Meant to cite this one
yesterday, but this much is still true: "Meanwhile, the incompetence
and bumbling of Obama and Secretary of State Kerry on Syria is
staggering. Obama's mistakes on Syria make a long list: first, calling
for the fall of Assad in 2011, without any means to make it happen;
second, drawing a "red line" on chemical weapons in 2012, thus boxing
himself in when reports of Syrian gas use began piling up; third,
promising to arm the Syrian rebels months ago, thus escalating the
war and getting the rebels excited, with no real follow-up; fourth,
oddly allowing Qatar and Saudi Arabia to take the lead in Syria policy,
led by Prince Bandar and Saudi intelligence, while the United States
took a back seat and the war was taken over by Islamists, the Muslim
Brotherhood and Al Qaeda types; fifth, opting for a military strike
with no obvious strategic value; and sixth, tossing the whole mess
into Congress' lap." I'd add last night's speech, where the key new
point of accepting Putin's diplomatic efforts is buried in a speech
otherwise advocating military strikes. Dreyfuss also points out:
"Putin's action wasn't sudden, shocking or surprising. As I blogged
last week, the Russians have been signaling for quite a while that
they might be willing to join a United Nations-sponsored Syria effort
centered on chemical weapons, but not if the United States insisted
on a military strike. The idea of getting Russia's constructive help
on Syria didn't seem to occur to the United States, and Kerry's odd
statement yesterday seemed more designed to undermine the Russian
plan, not aid it."
-
Greg Mitchell: Four New Polls Show Americans Strongly Against Attack
on Syria: "Turns out the more President Obama and Secretary of
State Kerry talked about it -- and liberal pundits like Bill Keller
and Nick Kristof promoted it -- the more people hated the idea. Polls
turned more firmly against the bombing a few days ago, and now four
new polls show opposition is overwhelming -- even though most now
agree that (1) chemicals were used and (2) the Assad side used them."
-
George Monbiot: Obama Is Presiding Over the Biggest Rogue State in
the World, Trampling Every Law It Demands That Others Uphold:
Some of us know this stuff but Obama's speech depends on you not
knowing anything, just believing in fairy tale American virtue.
-
Alex Pareene: The political press presents how not to cover the Syria
debate: E.g., debating on Crossfire, ex-Senators Rick Santorum and
Joe Lieberman: "So, representing 'the right': the Rick Santorum who
supported striking Syria until approximately five days ago. And
representing 'the left': the Joe Lieberman who supports striking
Syria and basically everywhere else while we're at it. A hawk from
the right and a hawk from the right-pretending-to-be-the-middle,
both with essentially identical foreign policy views on every
single issue besides one issue that they began to disagree about
less than a week ago, representing 'both sides of the debate,' or
'both' 'sides,' of 'the debate.'" Then goes on to Dana Milbank,
and concludes: "These are the options the objective political press
presents: No point of view beyond naked cynicism, or two dueling,
equally idiotic points of view locked in a symbiotic forever
argument."
-
William Rivers Pitt: The Long Lesson, and New Legacy, of September
11: On Obama's speech: "To wit: Gas sucks, dead children are
terrible, so I want to attack, but Congress needs to be involved,
and now we're working on a diplomatic solution, yet if you're on
the right and love the military, or if you're on the left and love
human rights, you totally have to look at the dead kids on YouTube
and get behind me on attacking Syria, because we're not the world's
policeman even though we're totally in charge of policing the world
on stuff like this, but since I've asked Congress to suspend the
vote and we're pursuing diplomacy, there won't be an attack, or
something. P.S. Hitler, and American exceptionalism, and dead kids
are bad." Left out "God bless America," but that about sums it up.
-
Micah Zenko: The Wrong Way to Be Right: "If President Obama does
not follow any of these near universally accepted enforcement procedures,
and -- with or without Congress's approval -- authorizes a near-unilateral
attack against Assad regime targets, the U.S. will be derided, rejected,
or ignored by much of the international community. An attack would build
upon the already long and tragic history of American military involvement
in the Middle East. Nobody in the region, or elsewhere for that matter,
would conceive of this particular intervention in isolation from all the
U.S. troops, missiles, and bombs that preceded them. Nothing captures
public attention and anger like widely televised and well reported uses
of military force. Should Obama proceed on the current path, the world
will again remember America's bombs far longer than the horrendous war
crime that they were a response to."
War in Context has a series of
posts arguing that the Russian-Syrian plan to give up chemical weapons
will work in Assad's favor. This seems to bother Paul Woodward, although
not everything he runs seems to be rebel propaganda. (Woodward's own
piece on "Why Syria was so quick to support the chemical weapons deal,"
which I linked to yesterday, is a useful summary of that point-of-view.)
Right now, the biggest risk to the chemical weapons deal is that the US
and other "rebel" sympathizers will sabotage it in favor of trying to
force regime change.
Daily Log
Again, barely got the stub written, so once again I'm filling in.
Trying to finish Recycled Goods, but keep listening to more records,
and, besides, had to say some more about Syria.
Watched The Bridge and Broadchurch. Latter is finally
getting somewhere. Former jumped the shark several weeks ago and is
now running from one incredible twist to another.
Music today (JP): Joey DeFrancesco; lots of other stuff.
Cam Patterson:
So, a few thoughts on sports and PEDs:
1. I get that some people aren't into sports. Some people aren't
into music the way I am too, and it bugs me when they give me grief
because I put so much effort into it.
2. Although these are relative distinctions, I think that PEDs warp
baseball for serious fans moreso than is the case for, say, football
or soccer, because baseball is not just about how things sort out at
the end of the year, but it's such a sport of personal and team
records. And even moderately attentive fans focus on
cross-generational comparisons in ways that just aren't quite as
intense in many other sports. Thus, the "live-ball" era frequently
gets invoked, and folks have all kinds of issues with comparing
pitchers before and after the height of the pitching mound was
changed. PEDs are a major (and glaringly obvious) distorting factor in
these comparisons.
3. Anabolic steroids in the doses used by professional athletes are
bad for your health. And this effect is compounded in young kids who
use PEDs to emulate their heroes.
4. I'm not convinced that PEDs somehow level the playing field for
non-"white capitalists." Maybe there is some skewing of failed tests
from Latinos because they don't have sophisticated doping schedules
that can obfuscate the current testing regimens -- the Lance Armstrong
situation bears this out to some extent. A case can be just as easily
made that PEDs give a greater advantage to the more privileged
athletes.
5. I pretty much agree with Rodney's analysis of Sappera's
rhetoric. What do "protestants" have to do with any of this? (Full
disclosure: I am not, and have never been, a protestant.) Give me a
break. I get JMel's point, but respectfully disagree. Without going
off the deep end on a topic I pay a lot of attention to, access to
reasonable health care isn't "performance-enhancing," it's a
fundamental right in any society that can afford it. Comparing health
care (or other) disparities with PEDs is somewhere I don't want to
go. Satchel Paige may have been the greatest pitcher in the history of
baseball, but the reason that we don't know for sure isn't because the
white guys had a "performance-enhancing" advantage -- it was because
Paige and all African-American athletes in the US for most of the 20th
century were horribly discriminated against. It serves no purpose to
equate the two issues.
Robert Christgau:
Here's something I just sent to a friend of mine at the NY
Times. As many of you know, Marshall was a close friend of mine and
probably the most brilliant person I ever met--certainly the most
brilliant I ever knew well. His mind was fully active till the day he
died.
Marshall Berman, author of the celebrated and widely translated
Marxist-humanist celebration of late modernism All That Is Solid
Melts in Air, died this morning, apparently of a heart
attack. Berman was a graduate of Columbia University with a Ph.D from
Harvard who also did graduate work at Oxford. Since 1966 he had taught
at the City University of New York, where he was a Distinguished
Professor of Political Science and in May delivered CUNY's annual
Lewis Mumford Lecture, an honor rarely accorded faculty. He was born
November 24, 1940 in the Bronx, a locale that inspired writing about
the city that ranged from ancient Jerusalem to Baudelaire's Paris to
Brasilia and Rio de Janeiro.
Christgau again:
Let me add two things to what's below
- If you haven't read All That Is Solid Melts Into Air, do so.
It's one of the great books of the 20th century, and not a difficult
read at all.
- Marshall had read all the biggies of Western Civ--he read constantly,
endlessly--yet he enjoyed, respected, and cared about popular culture
like few academic intellectuals I'm aware of, and that includes some
who specialize in the stuff. Loved hip-hop, although he did lose track
a little. Loved Dylan even more. Appeared in Doug Simmons's music
section at the Voice.
I could go on.
Joe Levy:
We actually passed a copy of All That Is Solid Melts Into
Air around among my friends at college after one of us
accidentally shoplifted it -- started reading a copy while having a
coffee at bookstore cafe and walked out still reading it without even
realizing what he was doing. That book isn't just hellishly
smart. It's exciting. When I worked at the Voice, Marshall Berman
reviewed Public Enemy's Apocalypse '91 for me. He was one the
warmest, most relentlessly curious and fascinating people I've ever
met. A lovely man. A great mind. They don't always go together.
Christgau again:
This from Jon Langford of the Mekons:
All that is Solid was a huge influence on mekons round the
time of the Curse album - Tom was particularly obsessed with the
Conjuring!
Marshall called me once to meet up at the Art Institute in Chicago
and suggested the sofa opposite Seurat's Grand Jatte as a suitable
meeting place. My Mum was visiting from Wales so I took her with me
and we sat on the sofa before having afternoon tea in the AIC Cafe.
He was there to promote his latest book in and my Mum asked him what
it was called. "Adventures in Marxism" replied Marshall. "Oh, that's
nice" said my Mum.
I stopped reading Marxism after I left college, and never returned
except for an occasional book on economics or contemporary politics --
e.g., Tariq Ali's The Clash of Fundamentalisms and Bush in
Babylon. Berman's All That Is Solid Melts Into Air: The Experience
of Modernity wasn't published until 1982, so it landed about the time
my interest in such things was at its low point. Nonetheless, I bought
the paperback, but never did more than thumb through it. (I had spent
a lot of time with Berman's 1970 book, The Politics of Authenticity:
Radical Individualism and the Emergence of Modern Society. Don't
remember clearly what it was about, but can summon up the cover image.)
Back in my Marxist phase I fancied writing a book about Marx and the
radical, revolutionary, and reformist streams that followed him. My title
was Secret Agents, which came from a line Walter Benjamin used to
describe Baudellaire -- "a secret agent of the bourgeoisie's discontent
with its own rule." Baudellaire was a key focus of Berman's book, so I
always fancied that we were secret allies, and that as my book became
something I would never write, his book would have to do as the closest
approximation of my thought to see print. I met him a couple times after
Christgau befriended him, but I never talked much to him.
My thesis was that Marx's revolutionary imagination was limited by
his bourgeois framework, and as such could never see beyond reforming
capitalism. I think one can work out examples from the arts, as Berman
does (or John Berger), although I'd be most interested in exploring
the buzz and whirr of machines. Love-hate affairs abound, consciously
enough that Marx's main contribution is a methodology for exploring
(and possibly exploding) them.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Obama and the Sadness of a War Denied
Note: This post was substantially written before Obama have
his big speech tonight. The speech reiterates his desire to bomb
Syria, either to punish Assad for using chemical weapons (adding
to the death toll of Syria's civil war) or just to remind the
world of America's might-makes-right moral superiority (adding
to the death toll of Syria's civil war). And he still wants
Congress to rally behind his leadership and bless his right to
bomb Syria, but he's going to hold off on that for a few days --
not so much because Congress was prepared to vote against his
war mongering as because he's willing to give Russia and the UN
a few days to wrap up a deal where Syria would give up its
chemical weapons (although he still wants the UN to authorize
him to bomb Syria if they don't do it to his satisfaction).
Not that he actually needs anyone's permission to bomb Syria --
he is, after all, the Commander-in-Chief and he can damn well
bomb anyone he pleases: "That's what makes America different.
That's what makes us exceptional." And, uh, "God bless the
United States of America."
One reason I've been harping so much on Obama's failures to
engage Russia (and Iran) over Syria is that a deal such as the
one Putin proposed (and Assad agreed) to on chemical weapons has
always seemed possible. The Obama administration is now trying
to spin this as a victory for their sabre rattling (see
White House Takes Credit for Syria's Apparent Concession),
but the main reason they have for embracing it is that it gives
them an opportunity to put off potentially face-loosing votes
in Congress. However, in order for the deal to go through, Russia
insists that the US withdraw its threats to bomb Syria -- how,
they argue, can you get a state to voluntarily disarm while under
threat of attack?. Already, the French have attempted to undermine
the deal by tying it to a UN Security Council Resolution that
would authorize force. (See
Russia balks at French plan for U.N. Security Council resolution
on Syrian chemical arms). I've also seen reports that the
insurgent groups are opposed to the deal.
For an example of how little effort the Obama administration
put into diplomatic efforts, and how strong their mental blinders
are, consider this quote from the latter article:
The possibility of placing Syrian chemical weapons under international
control was discussed by Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin when
they met Friday at the Group of 20 summit in St. Petersburg. On Monday,
appearing before reporters, Kerry referred to it almost sarcastically
when he was asked whether there was anything Assad could do to avoid a
U.S. attack.
"Sure, he could turn over every bit of his weapons to the international
community within the next week, without delay," Kerry responded with a
shrug. "But he isn't about to."
As Kerry flew back to Washington to help lobby lawmakers, he received
a midair call from Lavrov, who said he had heard the secretary's remarks
and was about to make a public announcement. The statement in Moscow came
before Kerry landed.
Lucky for us that Putin, at least, was paying attention. Also that
he recognized that chemical weapons were a matter of some ambivalence
for Assad. Chemical weapons have never been very effective -- the few
exceptions were mostly cases where they were used on people who had
nothing comparable to fight back with, such as when the British used
them in Iraq in the 1920s or when the Italians used them in Ethiopia
in the 1930s. Nor have they been an effective deterrent against powers
like Israel and the United States. On the other hand, their possession
can be pointed to in propaganda, as the US did with Iraq and is doing
now with Syria.
As far as I can tell, Syria developed chemical weapons thinking they
would provide a deterrent against Israeli attack, maybe even offering
a cheap balance against Israel's arsenal of nukes. A second reason may
have been Iraq, at least back when Saddam Hussein had (and was fond of
using) chemical weapons. Syria and Iraq were both Ba'ath Party states,
but they had split in terms of what that meant, and were rivals for the
leadership of the broader Ba'ath movement (Arab nationalism). Syria was
so hostile to Hussein it became an agitator for the US-led Gulf War
against Iraq.
But the Ba'ath rivalty with Iraq is long past, and it never was clear
that chemical weapons did much to deter Israel -- which continues to bomb
Syria periodically, but is unlikely to send its army into Damascus, not
because it fears the Syrian army but because there are just too damn
many Arabs living there. So there's little reason for Syria not to give
up its chemical weapons. Indeed, there's the risk that rebels will loot
them for use against the government. So for Syria this isn't a setback.
If anything, it makes the regime appear more reasonable and legitimate.
Aside from France, some Syrian insurgent groups, and superhawks like
John McCain, everyone else is pleased by this turn of events. One more
quote from the article is especially interesting:
In Tehran, newly appointed Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Marzieh
Afkham said Iran "welcomes Moscow's initiative at this stage to resolve
the Syrian crisis. The Islamic Republic of Iran sees this initiative as
a way to halt militarization in the region."
This is an interesting choice of words, not least because the US,
Israel, and Saudi Arabia -- probably the three largest per capita
military spenders in the world -- habitually accuse Iran of being
the one militarizing a "Shiite Crescent" from Iran across to Lebanon.
Afkham's choice of words not only express approval for ridding Syria
of chemical weapons, they open the door to further demilitarization
in Syria and elsewhere. Also, the word "resolve" is significant: the
civil war could go on indefinitely without chemical weapons, but
that doesn't seem to be Iran's intent or desire. We should look at
this as one step of several toward a resolution.
It seems essential to me that there should be a ceasefire while
the chemical weapons are being inventoried and secured. A ceasefire
would freeze the current territorial division, and set up the basis
for a negotiated resolution. It would stem the current torrent of
refugees, and allow at least some to go home. It would be the right
thing to do.
More reading today:
-
Ezra Klein: The White House may really be about to win on Syria:
"Remember: The White House's aim here wasn't to topple Assad, or even
to hurt him. It was to affirm and reinforce the international norm
against chemical weapons. [ . . . ] But the White
House shouldn't work too hard to set the bar high here. If Assad is
willing to sign the treaty and stop using chemical weapons, they
should declare victory. It's a better outcome than they could have
hoped for."
-
Natasha Lennard: Obama's embarrassing Syria scramble: "While the
Obama administration and its key mouthpieces have been banging the war
drum with mounting vigor in recent weeks -- touting the immutable moral
imperative of military action in the face of "humanity's red line"
being crossed -- the chemical weapons handover initiative made Russia
look a dove to America's hawkish leadership. Little wonder Obama was
then swift to call the proposal a 'possible breakthrough' and insist
that it was his idea all along. The fact that the president and Putin
may have discussed a possible chemical weapons resolution last week
hardly undoes Obama's rhetoric-drenched push for military action in
recent days."
-
Robert Collier: World's best diplomats: Here's how to achieve peace
in Syria: "negotiate aggressively; include all regional powers --
including Iran; no preconditions about core issues; no war crimes
trials -- at least not right away; be creative; freeze out the true
extremists."
-
Megan Iorio: How Syria Plays Into AIPAC Mythology: "Iran's influence
with the Assad regime is undeniable and their cooperation will be necessary
to secure a cease-fire. Yet, last year, Iran was not invited to a peace
conference on Syria that was held in Geneva, a fact which many attribute
to the conference's failure. A second Geneva conference has been proposed,
but the US has refused to allow Iran to attend, which, in turn, has
prevented the conference from convening. The US has also yet to engage
directly with Iran to find a diplomatic way to address the chemical
weapons issue, even though new Iran President Hassan Rouhani, who ran
on a message of reconciliation with the US, has condemned the alleged
use of chemical weapons."
-
'A disaster anyway we cut it' -- Phyllis Bennis on the folly of U.S.
strikes on Syria: "You know, one of the things that nobody is talking
about, is if President Obama went on television Tuesday night and said to
the American people, not just, "there have been 100,000 people killed in
this terrible war in Syria, and we have to go after the dictator who is
responsible." If instead of saying that, he said, "there have been 100,000
people killed in this civil war" -- 43 percent of them, according to the
pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights -- 43 percent are
government, pro-Syrian government militiamen and 37 percent are civilians,
and 17 percent are opposition fighters, would people feel the same way?
The implication is always that these are 100,000 innocent civilians, all
killed by the regime, when in fact almost half are regime soldiers and
militiamen who have been killed by the other side." Obama, of course,
didn't say any such thing. He went on and on about 400-some children
killed by sarin gas. Curiously, 1400 dead including 400 children is
almost exactly the number of Palestinians killed by Israel in Gaza in
Operation Cast Lead in 2008 -- facts that didn't raise a peep from the
president-elect.
-
Gareth Porter: Obama's Case for Syria Didn't Reflect Intel Consensus:
"In essence, the White House selected those elements of the intelligence
community assessments that supported the administration's policy of
planning a strike against the Syrian government force and omitted those
that didn't. In a radical departure from normal practice involving summaries
or excerpts of intelligence documents that are made public, the Syria
chemical weapons intelligence summary document was not released by the
Office of the Director of National Intelligence but by the White House
Office of the Press Secretary."
-
Linda J Bilmes: The Cost of Striking Syria: 4 Lessons From Iraq and
Afghanistan: "The Pentagon's accounting system is so flawed that
there is no way even to perform an audit. Indeed, officials admit they
have 'lost visibility' on tens of billions of dollars.
[ . . . ] We also do not account for the value of
lives lost, or the future value of deferred benefits owed to veterans.
The economic lessons from 12 years in Iraq and Afghanistan are that
we underestimated the costs, borrowed all the money to pay for them,
and failed to account for where it was all spent."
-
New claim that order for chemical attacks did not come from Assad.
-
Israel skeptical about Russian plan; Netanyahu said to be personally
lobbying Congress to support attack on Syria; also
Does Israel have chemical weapons too? When Syria signs, that
will leave only six nations in the world that haven't signed the
Chemical Weapons Convention: North Korea, Angola, Egypt, South
Sudan, Burma, and Israel.
-
Paul Woodward: Why Syria was so quick to support the chemical weapons
deal: "The only way of ensuring that the operation could successfully
be completed and that chemical weapons could be prevented from falling
into the hands of opposition militias would be for Assad to remain in
power. The United States and Russia would in effect become the guarantors
of Assad's continuing rule." There's something to this, and it certainly
won't set well with the insurgent groups. But this step also marks the
start of an effort to reform the Syrian government. There is still an
awful lot that needs to be done in that direction, but it strikes me
as more promising than waiting for a central government collapse and
subsequent fighting between the fractured resistance.
-
Helena Cobban: The Russia-Syria deal: What it means and what now?
Details how this is a win-win-win deal, then adds: "Who is this deal
not good for? I would say, firstly, the Qaeda-linked and other takfiris
in Syria, who have been working assiduously since spring 2011 to draw
the Americans in, in order to "win" their battles in Syria for them --
a gameplan they had pursued with such success in Libya in March 2011.
(Has anyone looked at the situation in Libya recently??)" Also: "The
deal is definitely not good for Susan Rice, Samantha Power, or John
Kerry. The attempts these three have made to (a) hype the threat in
Syria, (b) express certainty where none was warranted, and (c) sell
the war to Congress and the American people -- let alone that 95% of
humankind who are not U.S. citizens! -- have been mendacious,
ill-informed, and unsuccessful. They have led the president into
looking pretty stupid."
That's a good line to end on: "They have led the president into
looking pretty stupid." Unfortunately, if you read his
speech, you'll see that he has scarcely begun to recover.
Daily Log
Quiet day at home, mostly spent catching up on the latest Syria
War twists, leading to the post above.
Watched second episode of Silk, which Laura passed on. Much
depends there are very arcane aspects of the English judicial system --
e.g., the organization of prosecutors and defense lawyers into "chambers" --
that I don't really get. Also watched Copper.l
Music today (JP): Salsa de la Bahia, Griffith Hiltz Trio,
Adventure Music: 10 Years; (RG): Los Angeles Jazz Quartet,
Andrzej Przybielski, Construction Party.
Monday, September 09, 2013
Music Week/Jazz Prospecting
Music: Current count 22016 [21976] rated (+40), 571 [574] unrated (-3).
Late getting this up today. Spent the whole day fixing much too
much Indian food for a dinner party for seven tonight: a lamb and
potato curry (rogani ghosht), saffron pilaf with peaches, kali dal
(a very rich small black lentil mash), cabbage, eggplant (bharta),
yogurt with spinach (palak raita), served with a homemade lemon
pickle, several store-bought chutneys and pickles, and heated-up
(and not very good) paratha. My dessert pudding was inedible, but
I had a can of gulab jamun and one of the guests brought ice cream,
so we made do. (I have a long history of flubbing Indian desserts.)
Much talk about Syria, which we all agree the US shouldn't bomb,
although a couple people were more sensitive to the plight of the
Syrians and more inclined to grasp at straws.
Didn't manage to play much today, or unpack today's mail. Last
week, however, was pretty productive, especially as I close in on
wrapping up September's Recycled Goods (which, as it turns out,
won't be a 1960s special -- wound up spending much too much time
listening to Polish jazz). Today's Jazz Prospecting list is perhaps
the first to benefit from holding records back until release week.
I started this practice over a month ago when I realized that I
had managed to write up this week's top-rated album way ahead of
its release date. After slow weeks for August and Labor Day, the
new releases are picking up this week. (Though I will note that
because I only had an advance copy of Dave Holland's new one, I
missed its release date.)
Rated count topped 22,000 this week. With all the Rhapsody
quickies, I'm rolling over thousand marks just about once a year.
Still, I recall a conversation long ago -- perhaps as far back
at the late-1970s although it could have been later -- with Bob
Christgau and John Rockwell where record collection size came up,
and those numbers stuck in my mind. Bob had something like 10K
LPs stashed away at various addresses, but Rockwell, who wrote
equally about classical music, had twice as many. I doubt that
I had more than 3,000 LPs when I moved from New Jersey and sold
most of them off. Of course, again thanks to Rhapsody, I doubt
that I have half as many CDs as I have rated, and finding places
to store those I do have is maddening.
|
Lucian Ban: Elevation/Mystery (2010 [2013], Sunnyside):
Pianist, b. 1969 in Romania, based in New York. Seventh or so album
since 2002, most with baritone saxophonist Alex Harding, and second
one this year, following Transylvanian Concert with Mat Maneri
on ECM. That stretched out his folkloric/classical side, but this one --
a quartet with Abraham Burton (tenor sax), John Hébert (bass), and Eric
McPherson (drums) -- recorded live at Cornelia Street Cafe in NYC sets
him in an avant context, especially when the saxophonist works up a
full head of steam. Nor is a quiet spot with just the bassist any less
interesting. By the way, the "Mystery" part of the title is obscured --
how clever some graphic designers are! I missed it on unpacking, and
most likely others will too.
A- [September 10]
Cheryl Bentyne and Mark Winkler: West Coast Cool
(2013, Summit): Standards singers, both have long careers; Bentyne
principally with Manhattan Transfer since 1979 but also 13 albums
under her own name; Winkler with a dozen albums since 1985. The
"West Coast Cool" songs start with Dave Brubeck and Chet Baker,
include a Neal Hefti piece by that title, and inevitably end up
with Nat Cole and Bobby Troup medleys -- the warmer and more
personable Winkler makes "Hungry Man" a highlight.
B+(**) [September 10]
Brandon Bernstein Trio: But Beautiful (2012 [2013],
Jazz Collective): Guitarist, based in Los Angeles, teaches at
Pasadena City College, co-authored a book of Kurt Rosenwinkel
transcriptions for Mel Bay; website refers to his "CDs" (plural),
but I've only found one previous one, a collection of Tom Waits
songs. This trio, with bass and drums, is all standards (two by
Jimmy Van Heusen). Has a light tough, with a bit of Django.
B+(**)
Brussels Jazz Orchestra/Joe Lovano: Wild Beauty
(2012 [2013], Half Note): Lovano is listed on cover and spine as
"featuring" but he's more than just the guest draw here; he's the
main point. Title could be, or subtitle probably is -- parsing
album covers is such a wretched business -- Sonata Suite for
the Brussels Jazz Orchestra, but I'll stick to the big type.
The other name phrase on the cover is "arranged by Gil Goldstein."
The compositions belong to Lovano, so it would make most sense
to credit the whole thing to Lovano and combine title: subtitle.
The big band -- no strings here other than guitar and bass --
has a huge sound and gallops hard, its occasional lurches and
lapses annoying, but the leader towers above it all, a talent
that goes back to his days with Woody Herman.
B+(***) [September 10]
Stephan Crump's Rosetta Trio: Thwirl (2012 [2013],
Sunnyside): Bassist, eighth album since 1997, a turning point being
2006's Rosetta, where he introduced this trio with Liberty
Ellman on acoustic guitar and Jamie Fox on electric guitar, with
2010's Rosetta Trio album Reclamation the breakthrough. The
group's sound has always been meticulously balanced so no single
instrument dominates, but the risk is that none will stand out,
which is the problem here.
B+(**) [September 10]
Charles Evans: Subliminal Leaps (2013, More Is More):
Baritone saxophonist, two previous albums including his solo debut,
has a chamberish quartet here with David Liebman's soprano sax for
contrast, Ron Stabinsky on piano, and Tony Marino on bass. No drummer
to rush things along.
B+(**) [September 10]
John Funkhouser: Still (2013, Jazsyzygy): Pianist,
has at least one previous album under his own name, plus the 1998
eponymous group album Funkhouse suggesting that his name
overdetermines his style. Mostly trio, plus guitar on 3 (of 8)
cuts and Aubrey Johnson vocalizing on two cuts. Three covers:
"House of the Rising Sun," "My Romance," "Little Rootie Tootie."
Does get the funk idea.
B+(*) [September 12]
Dave Holland: Prism (2012 [2013], Dare2): This is being
touted as a return to Holland's early days with Miles Davis at the birth
of fusion. If he has to step back, I'd rather recall his work with Sam
Rivers or Anthony Braxton -- Conference of the Birds, from 1972,
remains his greatest record -- but you have to take what you can get.
Quartet, with Kevin Eubanks on guitar, Craig Taborn on keyboards, and
Eric Harland on drums. Jumps off with impressive flow, with Eubanks
reminding one of another Davis alumni (Scofield, not McLaughlin), and
Taborn showing why he's the most effective Fender Rhodes player of his
generation. Still, lacks that extra point of reference Davis added,
and trails off into ballad territory by the end.
B+(**) [advance]
Vijay Iyer & Mike Ladd: Holding It Down: The Veterans'
Dreams Project (2012 [2013], Pi): Ladd does spoken word
projects, eleven since 1997, including two memorable discs with
pianist Iyer providing the music: In What Language? (2003),
and Still Life With Commentator (2007). This new project
pulls texts from Iraq and/or Afghanistan veterans describing their
dreams, the texts read by Ladd, Maurice Decaul, Lynn Hill, and
Pamela Z. The words are vivid and often disturbing, a fair reminder
of the hell our politicians have put these people through. Less
sure what the make of the music, with Liberty Ellman (guitar),
Okkyung Lee (cello), and Kassa Overall (drums), dreamy or just
put together by chance, nor am I sure how much hell I care to
listen to, just to reconfirm what a horrible idea that whole "war
on terror" was.
B+(**) [September 10]
Chad Lefkowitz-Brown: Imagery Manifesto (2013,
self-released): Tenor saxophonist, first album, wrote all the
pieces; group includes trumpet, guitar, piano, bass (Linda Oh),
and drums for a complex and dense postbop gumbo. Website gave
me a lot of aggravation, but that's neither here nor there.
B+(*)
Pedro Martins: Dreaming High (2009-10 [2013],
Adventure Music): Guitarist, from Brazil, b. 1993 so Martins would
have been 16 when this was recorded. (Looks like his first album,
originally released as Sonhando Alto in 2011.) All original
pieces. Guitar doesn't stand out a lot, but he gets good help,
especially Josué Lopez on tenor sax.
B+(*)
Pete McGuinness: Voice Like a Horn (2013, Summit):
Vocalist, started out playing trombone which he still does here.
Has a couple previous albums, one with a quintet, one with a big
band, is co-lead with the New York Trombone Conspiracy; side credits
include a lot more big band work. Backed here by Ted Kooshian's
piano trio, plus "special guest" slots for Jon Gordon (alto sax)
and Bill Mobley (trumpet), two cuts each. Songbook standards plus
"Birks' Works" -- an occasion to let the scat fly. But his voice
isn't really "like a horn" -- nothing wrong with his scat runs,
but he has a firm grip on the text and the language, something
vocalists who aspire to mimic horns often lose.
B+(***)
M1, Brian Jackson & the New Midnight Band: Evolutionary
Minded (2013, Motema): The late Gil Scott-Heron's one-time
partner raises the banner again, recycling a list of songs for the
revolution still to come, with help from various MCs -- M1 up front,
Chuck D, Stic Man, Killah Priest, and Wise Intelligent get "feat."
slots, as well as singers named Martin Luther and Gregory Porter,
and spoken words from gun rights advocate Bobby Seale.
B+(***) [September 10]
James Zollar: It's All Good People (2012 [2013], JZAZ):
Trumpet player, originally from Kansas City, only three albums under
his own name since 1997 (the excellent Soaring With Bird), but
his side credits include David Murray, Billy Bang, Sam Rivers, Don
Byron, Bob Stewart, and quite a bit with Marty Ehrlich. Surprisingly
goes for down home funk grooves here, with a bit of rap, vocals by
Sheryl Rene and Erika Matsuo, a bit of Gregoire Maret harmonica,
and a closer looking back at his elders, called "For Cootie &
Clark." I'd be tempted to say he's wasting his talent here, but the
trumpet is stellar, and I can't begrudge a guy for having a good
time.
B+(***)
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Randy Brecker: The Brecker Brothers Band Reunion (Piloo, CD+DVD): October 8
- Wilford Brimley With the Jeff Hamilton Trio (Capri): September 17
- The Elec Tet: Shiny Metal Objects (Blujazz)
- Marsha Heydt and the Project of Love: Diggin' the Day (Blujazz)
- Ahmad Jamal: Saturday Morning (Jazz Village)
- Mike Jones Trio: Plays Well With Others (Capri): September 17
- Frank Potenza: For Joe (Capri): September 17
- Samo Salamon Quartets: Stretching Out (Sazas, 2CD)
- Clark Terry/Buddy DeFranco/Terry Gibs/Jackie Ryan: Grand Masters of Jazz (Open Art): October 15
- The Ian Torres Big Band: January (Blujazz)
- Matt White: The Super Villain Jazz Band (Artists Recording Collective): October 1
Daily Log
Spent the day cooking (menu in main post above). Maher and Stephanie
Muslem, Michael Poage, Gretchen Eick, and Alice Powell joined us for
dinner. Struggled to get the lamb cooked dry enough while had the
opposite problem with the dal. Eggplant was a bit disappointing. The
frozen paratha had no layering, just puffy little discs of dough. I
grilled four of them, and they were all eaten -- didn't taste awful,
but it's a brand to avoid. Most aggravating part was the peaches, in
part because I have so little taste for fruit anyway. Had to peal them
(blanching didn't work, but the vegetable peeler did), then slice them
(they didn't come at all easy off the pit) and sautée in ghee. In the
end they carmelized nicely and didn't get mushy. Still not a big fan
of that pilaf.
Music today (JP): Matt Mitchell, Michael Pedicin.
Monday, September 08, 2003
Weekend Roundup
Some scattered links this week (sorry, no cartoons):
Max Ehrenfreud: Flouting International Norms in Kenya:
In Nairobi this week (since I promised not to discuss Syria on this
blog this morning) the Kenyan parliament voted to withdraw from the
International Criminal Court. If Kenya follows the motion with a
formal notice to the United Nations, Kenya will be the first country
to withdraw from the court, establishing a clear precedent for leaders
in all of the courts' member states: You can commit atrocities as long
as you have the support of a a majority of the electorate and your
allies in the region. Kenyan president Uhuru Kenyatta is accused of
inciting his followers to violence after the disastrous election of
2007. It is true that his case hasn't gone to trial yet, so it would
be wrong to make assumptions about his culpability. In addition, the
country's withdrawal does not remove Kenyatta's legal obligation to
appear before the court, since the investigation was already underway.
Still, the Kenyan parliament's message seems clear. Perhaps in the
future, other countries where heads of state have guilty consciences
will remove themselves from the court in a more timely manner.
This is one "norm" the US is unlikely to enforce, given that the
"guilty consciences" in the US Senate refused to join the International
Criminal Court in the first place.
Paul Krugman: It Takes a Government (to Make a Market), and
Picturing the Winners and Losers from Obamacare: A couple posts
on private insurance rates under ACA, which now look to be up but
"are generally lower than expected." From the former piece:
What's going on here? Partly it's a vindication of the idea that you
can make health insurance broadly affordable if you ban discrimination
based on preexiting conditions while inducing healthy individuals to
enter the risk pool through a combination of penalties and subsidies.
But there's an additional factor, that even supporters of the Affordable
Care Act mostly missed: the extent to which, for the first time, the
Act is creating a truly functioning market in nongroup insurance.
Until now there has been sort of a market -- but one that, as
Kenneth Arrow pointed out half a century ago, is riddled with problems.
It was very hard for individuals to figure out what they were buying --
what would be covered, and would the policies let them down? Price and
quality comparisons were near-impossible. Under these conditions the
magic of the marketplace couldn't work -- there really wasn't a proper
market. And insurers competed with each other mainly by trying to avoid
covering people who really needed insurance, and finding excuses to
drop coverage when people got sick.
With the ACA, however, insurers operate under clear ground rules,
with clearly defined grades of plan and discrimination banned. The
result, suddenly, is that we have real market competition.
I think that's true as far as it goes, but how much "magic" we
get remains to be seen. Any opportunities to scam this system will
be exploited. And while a market should reduce the profit share
the insurance companies take, the entire health care system is
chock full of rent-seeking opportunists. Krugman reminds us that
"I believe that single-payer would be better and cheaper, and it's
still a goal we should seek."
MJ Rosenberg: Obama Is No JFK: I'm not a big believer in the JFK
revisionism that argues that he was on his way out of Vietnam, and
even less so that he "had decided to reach out to Castro" -- points
Rosenberg makes citing David Talbot's Brothers: The Hidden History
of the Kennedy Years, but much evidence suggests that Kennedy was
at least aware that the CIA, FBI, and DOD were untrustworthy:
Kennedy got it, not all of it or he would have survived his
term, but enough of it to begin changing the world.
There is no evidence Obama gets it at all. He is now planning to
launch an attack on the Middle East advocated by the same people who
gave us the Iraq war. He is about to appoint as head of the Federal
Reserve, the very same official whose policies gave us the economic
collapse of 2008.
If he has learned anything since becoming president, it is hard
to know what it is. Kennedy stopped trusting the system, understanding
that he didn't run it. Obama thinks he does and that, although it is
far from perfect, all it will take to fix it is some tinkering around
the edges.
Gordon Goodstein's book on McGeorge Bundy, Lessons in Disaster,
makes the point that in their respective approaches to Vietnam, Lyndon
Johnson wanted to be perceived as strong, whereas Kennedy wanted to be
right. Obama, like Clinton before him, seems to share LBJ's concern,
perhaps because they have repeatedly been slagged as weak and wobbly,
and challenged to prove their manhood by senselessly killing people,
and once they've tasted blood they have more and more trouble backing
away. Has anyone noticed that this is more like an initiation rite
into organized crime than anything else?
Kennedy was a virulent anti-communist, but the most egregious
examples of that came early in his career -- such as being the last
Democrat to defend Joseph McCarthy. But Kennedy's first taste of
blood was the Bay of Pigs, and he didn't enjoy it one bit.
Also, a few links for further study:
Sasha Abramsky: Shake a Stick in Post-Financial Collapse America, and
One Hits Poverty: Intro to Abramsky's book, The American Way
of Poverty: How the Other Half Still Lives (Nation Books).
-
Leslie H Gelb: Bomb Scare: The doyen of American foreign policy
hacks reviews Kenneth M. Pollack's newbook, Unthinkable: Iran, the
bomb, and American Strategy. Pollack, a CIA veteran and Brookings
Institute pundit, argued for invading Iraq in his influential 2003
book, The Threatening Storm, but in his later book on Iran,
The Persian Puzzle, politely stepped back from the "real men"
who yearned to invade Tehran. It now looks like, having considered
Iran's "nuclear program" further, he's backed off even further --
to the point that he'd rather coexist with Iran having nuclear
weapons than risk all the mayhem that could result from trying to
prevent those weapons with military interventions. But Obama has
already proclaimed a "red line" against that, and Congress has
already committed at least to supporting any act of war Israel
takes against Iran. Gelb goes even further than Pollack, urging
negotiations:
If negotiations fail, they fail, and that, of course, would be tragic.
But Obama's current path is already heading toward war, and Pollack's
position of containment may not be able to prevent it. Only negotiating
all the hot-button issues offers the hope of reconciling two enemies --
enemies who should be friends.
Rachel Maddow: Overcommitted: Book review of Andrew J Bacevich:
Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their
Country:
What is successful is the persuasiveness of Bacevich's argument --
through this and his last several books -- that we try to use the
United States military against problems that have no military
solution, and in ways that exacerbate our inclination to overuse
it in the first place. In Breach of Trust, with prose that
is occasionally clunky but always unsparing, Bacevich dismantles
the warrior myth we civilians and politicians so enjoy worshiping
from afar, and replaces that idol with flesh and blood, vulnerable
humans, who deserve better than the profligate, wasteful way in
which we treat them.
John Perr: Health Insurance "Coverage Gap" Coming to a Red State Near
You: The tally of Republican rejection of expansion of Medicaid
under the Affordable Care Act.
Corey Robin: Jean Bethke Elshtain Was No Realist: A review of
the late hawk's life and work.
Matt Taibbi: The Last Mystery of the Financial Crisis: Explores
the ratings agencies, like S&P, who were paid handsomely to
certify toxic securities as AAA.
And today's reading on Syria:
Andrew J Bacevich: The Hill to the Rescue on Syria?: A conservative
who blames it all on the Carter Doctrine wants a definitive answer on
America's "30 years war" in the Middle East:
A debate over the Syrian AUMF should encourage members of Congress --
if they've got the guts -- to survey this entire record of U.S. military
activities in the Greater Middle East going back to 1980. To do so means
almost unavoidably confronting this simple question: How are we doing?
To state the matter directly, all these years later, given all the
ordnance expended, all the toing-and-froing of U.S. forces, and all
the lives lost or shattered along the way, is mission accomplishment
anywhere in sight? Or have U.S. troops -- the objects of such putative
love and admiration on the part of the American people -- been engaged
over the past 30-plus years in a fool's errand? How members cast their
votes on the Syrian AUMF will signal their answer -- and by extension
the nation's answer -- to that question.
No reason Congress will be forthcoming, in large part because so
many have so much vested in the mistakes of the past, but if we had
not seen one misjudgment after another, one fiasco after another,
for so long this wouldn't be happening. In retrospect, a clear sign
that their war fever had broken was when the Republicans let the
sequester eat away at the military budget.
Juan Cole: When Syria was a US Ally (or at Least Helpful): Recently
I've made several comments about Syria's efforts to ally, or at least
curry favor, with the United States. Cole has a checklist here. Of course,
the US has mostly taken its cues on Syria from Israel, so that limits
the list -- as does Syria's dependency on Russia for arms. And there's
much more to Syria's involvement is Lebanon: the US invited Syria in, and
eventually insisted that Syria leave, and in between their role wasn't
always to our liking, although for the long period when Israel occupied
southern Lebanon (1982-2000) Syria's presence elsewhere in Lebanon was
more often than not a stabilizing force.
Conor Friedersdorf: President Shouldn't Be Able to Credibly Threaten
Wars That the People Oppose: You keep hearing that we have to bomb
Syria so people (in Iran, no less) will realize that they have to take
him seriously even when he makes an ill-considered offhand comment
that virtually no one in America actually agrees with.
It is the hawks who threaten American credibility most in the long run,
both because they'd make us subject to any chance comment from the series
of fallible politicians who make it to the White House, and because waging
an ill-conceived war, with all the attendant negative consequences, hurts
the credibility of a nation a lot more than any mere rhetoric. When we
look back at blows to American credibility, we think of Vietnam and Iraq,
not some bit of rhetoric and the way the world interpreted our follow
through. If an American intervention in Syria goes badly, our credibility
will suffer profoundly, and hawks will once again bear blame for weakening
America more than any other Americans.
Also,
America Has Little to Fear From Congress Rejecting Force in Syria:
For some time, we've known that the Iraq War will cost trillions of dollars,
that almost 5,000 Americans lost their lives there, that their families are
devastated, that tens of thousands of combat veterans are wounded due to
the war, some with missing limbs and others with traumatic brain injuries,
and that PTSD is epidemic and suicides are epidemic. But Galston says we're
only now reckoning its full costs -- now that the "costs" include reluctance
to enter another war of choice. If you compare the actual costs the United
States and its people bore from Vietnam and Iraq to the costs we've born as
a result of a reluctance to intervene, it becomes clear that interventionists
are the ones with a "syndrome."
MJ Rosenberg: The Education of Congressman Van Hollen: From Mensch to
AIPAC Hack: Recounts how Van Hollen (D-MD) criticized Israel for
its 2006 war on Lebanon and felt the political fury of AIPAC. "Two
years later, when Israel smashed Gaza killing 1400 civilians including
400 children, Van Hollen not only didn't criticize, he applauded. And
now he supports bombing Syria."
David Sirota: Narcissists are ruining America: "We're on the verge
of bombing another country -- because a few conceited people want to
feel good about themselves."
Many Americans supporting a new war in the Middle East want to feel
good about themselves. Many want to feel like we did "the right thing"
and didn't stand by while chemical weapons were used (even though we
stand by -- or use them ourselves -- when we're told that's good for
America). But, then, many war supporters desperately want these
heartwarming feelings without the worry that they may face
any inconvenient costs like higher taxes or body bags at Dover Air
Force Base.
What emerges is a portrait of pathological self-absorption. That's
right -- despite the pro-war crowd's self-congratulatory and sententious
rhetoric, this isn't about helping the Syrian people. Channeling the
zeitgeist of that famous quote in Broadcast News, this is all
about us. To the pro-war crowd, if both feeling morally superior and
avoiding any real sacrifice mean having to kill lots of Syrians without
a chance of actually stopping their civil war, then it's worth the
carnage, especially because it's half a world away.
A classic example of this was Madeleine Albright's comment, when
asked about reports that US sanctions against Iraq in the 1990s had
resulted in up to a million deaths of Iraqis while not in any serious
way undermining the regime, insisting that the sanctions were "worth
it." Easly to be callous when all you think about is yourself.
Max Weiss: Diplomacy is the best way to intervene in Syria:
For lack of a compelling legal, moral or humanitarian argument, the U.S.
administration seems to be ramping up for what might be called Operation
Save Face. Obama wants to drop bombs because he once said he would. Such
a callous calculus is hardly grounds for a just and viable Middle East
policy.
Key figures in the Syrian opposition abroad and inside the country
reject negotiations with the regime; they want al-Assad's head on a
pike. Yet there is good reason to believe that military escalation in
Syria will likely only result in further military escalation in Syria.
Bashar al-Assad is unlikely to respond without a credible threat, but
a stick-heavy approach devoid of carrots is a policy bound to fail.
Rory Stewart draws the same conclusion, although he writes more
about Bosnia, recalling the negotiations that ended the war, where
most hawks point to the bombs that preceded the negotiations. There
is no necessary correlation between bombing and negotiation, and the
differences between Bosnia and Syria are daunting: Milosevic had the
simple option of retreating to Serbia (although the deal wound up
more generous, giving Serbs a slice of Bosnia); Assad has no other
country to retreat to.
Stephen Kinzer goes even further, arguing
To resolve the Syria crisis, the US must negotiate with Iran.
Kinzer, you may recall, wrote the book on the the CIA's 1953
plot against democracy in Iran (All the Shah's Men: An American
Coup and the Roots of Middle East Terror, which he followed up
with Overthrow: America's Century of Regime Change From Hawaii
to Iraq). Nor is Syria the only thing the US should negotiate
with Iran over.
Daily Log
Music today (JP): M1.
Sunday, September 07, 2003
Daily Log
Slipping up: missed this entry, making it up the following day,
but I won't try to reconstruct the music list.
Put two coats of grout sealer on the backsplash. Tried using the
applicator brush, then a finer brush. Wound up favoring the former,
but just for speed. No way to limit the sealer to the grout, but it
looks like it wipes off the stainless steel easily enough. They also
make a spray, which would have been even more indiscriminate.
Went out and shopped for Monday's big dinner. Watched Orange
Is the New Black.
Saturday, September 06, 2003
Syria Again, Again
Saw an article in the Wichita Eagle today about Obama bumping into
Putin at the G20 conference in Russia. They greeted each other cordially,
but didn't set up a much needed tete-a-tete on Syria. Although in general
I don't like nations meddling in the internal politics of any country,
the US and Russia are the principal arms suppliers to that conflict (so
are in effect already involved) and also hold the most economic impact
on the future of Syria. So right now the best chance for a ceasefire and
a negotiated settlement lies in Obama and Putin putting aside their other
differences and agreeing to press to end this war. But Obama isn't even
trying for that chance.
I dashed off the following to the Wichita Eagle's Opinion Line:
Obama says he wants a negotiated solution to Syria's civil war, but
even though he is in Russia he refuses to meet with Putin, who is the
one person in the world best positioned to put pressure on Assad. I
guess he's too busy starting a war to do anything about ending it.
I could have written a letter about this and unpacked it a bit more.
It's worth recalling that both the 1967 and 1973 Arab-Israeli wars were
ended under the pressure of UN ceasefire resolutions that were hammered
out by the USSR and US -- the arms suppliers and economic allies of the
belligerents. An Obama-Putin agreement would be easily ratified by the
UN. Putin could put a lot of pressure on Syria for a ceasefire, and most
likely for some controls in chemical weapons -- something Obama has no
chance of doing through bombing. Obama would have to give up his missile
campaign, and his insistence on Assad's removal as a precondition for
negotiation, and would have to put pressure on Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and
any other "allies" arming the insurgents. But none of those "concessions"
really hurt American "interests." Syria is not a proxy fight between the
US and Russia (and/or Iran). It is something that happened locally, and
has sucked in foreign powers because of their pre-existing conflicts.
(The US should empathize: we have been sucked into more than a few civil
wars in defense of dictators we should have wanted no part of -- lots of
examples in Latin America, but the most costly one was Vietnam.)
Besides, there was already a good
letter in the Eagle today, from
Kathleen Butler (don't know her):
Regarding "Obama's indecisiveness sends wrong message" (Sept. 4
Opinion): What do pundits like Cal Thomas want from President Obama?
If Obama goes into Syria with guns blazing, he's a guy without a plan
who should have asked for permission from the "people" before doing
so. If he waits and asks for the permission they demand, he's weak and
indecisive. Which is it?
Our situation is not helped by a guy like Sen. John McCain,
R-Ariz., who has never met a war he didn't like. He insists we should
have run headlong into the Syrian civil war from the get-go. After
all, doing so in Iraq and Afghanistan went so well.
The bottom line: War is hell and people die. And whether it is from
chemical attacks or bullets, they are just as dead. As bad as Syria
is, I say let them sort it out. Maybe they'll finally wake up to the
fact that it is only under dictatorships that their sectarian
differences are kept in check.
If it gets any worse, we have the capability to turn Syria, Iran
or, for that matter, Russia into a parking lot. But until then, I am
tired of the United States going broke fighting other people's wars
and being hated no matter who wins.
I would quibble a bit here. I doubt that the "sectarian differences"
in Syria were checked by the dictatorship so much as were things that
didn't much matter until the civil war led both sides to associate
minorities with the Assad regime. Those differences would again vanish
under a properly liberal democratic society, but civil war may turn
the conflict toward genocide. Indeed, that's exactly what happened in
Iraq, and for that matter in Afghanistan -- in both cases groups that
had lived relatively peacably with one another for thousands of years
soon became bitter enemies.
The Eagle also had a good opinion column from a local professor,
Russel Arben Fox: Vote 'no' on Syria strike, for whatever reason.
They've also run pro-war columns by Clive Crook and Cal Thomas, and
something in between by Kathleen Parker ("Credibility matters, but
so does being wise").
More useful links keep coming it (cartoon from Truthdig):
-
Israeli view of Syria: 'Let them both bleed, hemorrage to death':
At least they don't call it their "good neighbor" policy. Israel actually
has a long history of fomenting conflicts in the Arab world, especially
when they've supported non-Arab groups like the Kurds in Iraq. They had
a longstanding policy of developing alliances with peripheral non-Arab
states like Iran and Turkey. They sent arms to the Hashemites in Jordan
to attack the PLO. They've made a whole series of alliances to split up
Lebanon. They consciously sought to prolong the Iran-Iraq war, generally
favoring Iran while the US and the Gulf States catered to Iraq. So, of
course, they're enjoying the misery in Syria. For one thing, as long as
it's going on, no one's going to pressure them to return the Syrian land
they've occupied since 1967.
-
Gavin de Becker: Fooling Ourselves Into War: Talks about the Geneva
Conventions and chemical weapons, finding them not to be fundamentally
different from "bullets, bombs, and white phosphorus," then makes the
point: "The act of identifying one type of lethal weapon as being
unacceptable carries with it the implicit endorsement of the other
lethan weapons as acceptable." Actually, what Obama proposed isn't
implicit at all: he's explicitly saying that it's not just proper but
a matter of morality to punish the use of chemical weapons with cruise
missiles. [The web page also has a committed vote count. Currently
the House is opposed 227-40 (166 undecided, which even if they broke
100% for war wouldn't be enough to pass). The Senate is much closer,
but still opposed 31-28 (41 undecided).]
-
Alex Kane: 6 major players who turned Syria into a proxy war nightmare:
In Kane's order: United States, Iran, Hezbollah, Israel, Russia, Saudi
Arabia (Qatar gets a mention here). All true, and the proxy war aspects
are the most dangerous thing here, not so much because they promise to
spread the war (although that's a real risk, and has already happened
in Lebanon) as because it takes the nations that might have had reason
to mediate the conflict and ties them to the fate of internal groups,
making each of them more intransigent. Several other nations could have
been discussed here -- Egypt, for instance, was promising rebel support
before the coup -- but the glaring omission is Turkey, which has many
longstanding issues with Syria, a lot of refugees, clear partisanship,
a major bug up its ass regarding the Kurds, and the sort of arrogance
that comes from once having ruled the place. Speaking of which, there's
also France, who took over from Turkey.
-
Ezra Klein: Why the very bad arguments for intervening in Syria matter:
Some pretty ridiculous examples -- Sen. Barbara Boxer's "Not only is it
important to keep North Korea in mind" is priceless. Many try to suggest
that an act calculated to change nothing will in fact miraculously change
everything. Klein concludes: "The problem is that achieving that goal
requires a military intervention of a size and length that America is
not willing to countenance. So they're increasingly trying to justify
the military intervention that Americans might countenance by using the
arguments for the military interventions they won't consider." One of
the most interesting aspects to the congressional votes is how many
truly bad ideas will be voted down if Obama's bombing resolution fails.
-
Noah Millman: There Is No Liberal Internationalist Case for War in
Syria: "If we launch an attack on Syria, it will not be under any
legal warrant whatsoever. But the entire public justification for an
attack is the to punish Syria for a crime of war -- that is to say,
the justification is the need to uphold international law. In other
words, an attack would be an open declaration that the United States
arrogates to itself the right to determine what the law is, who has
violated it, what punishment they deserve, and to take whatever action
is necessary to see it carried out. If that's liberal internationalism,
then I'm a kumquat. With each American intervention since the end of
the Cold War, the fig leaf that America operates as the anchor state
in some sort of collective-security architecture grows more and more
tattered."
-
Alex Pareene: McCain town hall sums up entire Syria debate: "The
people at McCain's town hall were not peacenik outliers. The majority
of Americans are opposed to airstrikes in Syria. (Democrats oppose
them more strongly than Republicans do, so thus far 'liberal hypocrisy'
on the issue is primarily limited to elected officials, as ever.) If
President Obama loses a congressional vote and then doesn't strike
Syria, well, that might actually be a pretty politically popular move.
But it would lead to John McCain and a chorus of Washington pundits
calling him 'weak.' Doing your best to reflect the will of the people,
as represented either by polls or by the votes of popularly elected
representatives, is always considered 'weaker' than just doing hugely
unpopular stuff because a couple of rich guys want you to." Also links
to a
Mother Jones map of all the countries McCain has threatened to
attack, as well as sample quotes. Russia, by the way, should be a
brighter shade of red on the map, especially for his extraordinarily
bellicose tantrum over Georgia. Even as unhappy as I am with Obama
this week, every day I'm thankful he defeated McCain. Hell, I'm even
happy GW Bush bumped McCain off in 2000.
-
12 US Intelligence Officials Tell Obama It Wasn't Assad;
Top Chemical Weapons Expert Highly Skeptical of US Case Against Syrian
Government;
Yes, the Syrian Rebels DO Have Access to Chemical Weapons: I haven't
generally been passing these reports along, partly because I think the
whole "chemical weapons" issue is misguided (there are lots of reasons
why) and partly because I don't want either to get into weighing the
morals of the various sides. But there certainly is ample reason to
question the "intelligence" and propaganda put out by every side and
by every interested party. How can you tell the latter? Well, for one
thing, anyone who sincerely cared for the welfare of the Syrian people
would have made a major point of resolving the Israel conflict, and
I don't see anyone in the US government with credentials like that.
-
Kelley Vlahos: Neocons Are Back -- But Not in the GOP: Surveys
many of the usual suspects, including "a letter signed last week by
60 mostly neoconservative throw-backs from the Iraq War -- including
Paul Bremer, Karl Rove, Dan Senor, and Elliott Abrams -- calling for
the president 'to take meaningful and decisive actions to stem the
Assad regime's relentless aggression and help shape and influence
the foundations for a post-Assad Syria" -- basically, the neocon
position on Iraq fifteen years ago. On the other hand, that's become
an increasingly tough sell among Republicans. It occurs to me that
one reason is that the neocons themselves developed a critique of
Clinton's containment-with-occasional-symbolic-bombings approach
that said not only that they wanted boots-on-the-ground but that
nothing less would do the job. Under Bush they got their wish and,
well, that didn't work out too well either. Now what Obama is doing
is basically reverting to the Clinton approach -- limited, deadly
but ultimately ineffective bombing to express symbolic twitches --
and even if they didn't distrust Obama it's pretty obvious that
nothing worthwhile is going to come from the effort. Maybe if
Republicans had a Fearless Leader in the White House like, say,
Lynne Cheney, they'd give it another shot, but that isn't the
case. The real question is why any Democrats are buying it. Sure,
back in the 1990s bombing forays made Democrats feel all macho,
plus they enjoyed the Republicans, having staked themselves out
as the war party, squirming as they reflexively rallied around
the president. But that only worked as long as the Republicans
played along. Right now the Democrats are in real danger of
losing their brand as the peace party, and at the very moment
it's become massively popular. Obama, Kerry, and maybe Hilary
Clinton have just forever tarnished their careers by their
misjudgment here. What remains to be seen is how many more
lemmings will follow them over the cliff -- a real shame given
how hard the Republicans have worked lately to destroy their
own credibility.
-
Stephen M Walt: An Open Letter to My Congressman About Syria: To
an "undecided" Democrat. There are other arguments I prefer, but you
got to argue with people where they live. When addressing Republicans,
you might even complain about all those Syrians who'll want asylum
here, and how the deeper we find ourselves mired in the Middle East,
the closer we come to sharia law here. Or you might just point out
that a no vote will make Obama look like a pussy.
-
Aaron Blake/Sean Sullivan: The "no's" keep piling up on Syria resolution
in the House: Straw polls, in the Senate as well. The generally
worthless Kansas delegation is listed as 5-to-1 against the war -- the
sole hawk is Wichita Rep. Mike Pompeo. Democrats in the hawk column
should be considered for primary challenges: two especially embarrassing
big names are Al Franken and Keith Ellison. What is it about Minnesota?
They sure picked the wrong issue to try to differentiate themselves from
Michelle Bachmann. I've spent nearly every day since the 2010 election
complaing about Republicans on virtually every issue, but if they are
the margin by which this insane motion is defeated -- well, I don't know,
but the Democrats who go along with Obama on this issue will neither be
forgotten nor forgiven.
I saw a bit of TV discussion tonight where veteran Washington
pundits were sitting around absolutely incredulous that Congress
might reject Obama's war resolution -- one admitting that his own
reporting didn't confirm anything he believed. It's been clear
that ever since the "sole superpower" moment following the collapse
of the Soviet Union -- the "end of history" and all that-- that
the US was declining as a world power, and for lots of reasons:
the hollowing out of the economy, a series of debilitating military
misadventures, fiscal crises, neglect of education and even public
contempt for science, gross internal divisions. But all along
politicians of both parties pretended nothing was amiss. And now
they worry that the president may face a "loss of credibility"
when in fact they're the only ones so myopic as to still deny
that it's already been lost. The congressional vote may finally
be their comeuppance. Welcome to the real world.
Daily Log
Went out and looked at some fancy Herman Miller chairs. My office
chair is complete crap at the moment, so I started thinking that
maybe I should invest in something nice. Went out to a Mexican
restaurant after that -- keep forgetting the name, but on Arkansas
just north of 21st.
Watched three episodes of Luther. Rather strange to watch
a show where cops don't have guns or wear kevlar vests.
Music today (JP): Diego Urcola, Dave Holland, John Funkhouser,
Dave King; (RG): Michael Marcus.
Thursday, September 05, 2013
Daily Log
Music today (JP): James Zollar; (RG): Orange Trane, Rosa Luxembourg
New Quintet, Simple Acoustic Trio.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Syria, Again
As long as the war drums are beating for Syria, we might as well
keep the links coming. But first, let me quote myself. I was asked
to write something for a Wichita Peace Center press release, and
turned in the following paragraph. (I've since added some paragraph
breaks.) Not sure what they did with it, but I gather it was longer
than expected, so they trimmed here and there. Anyhow, it's a
succinct position paper, touching on a lot of the central points.
The Civil War in Syria is both tragedy and folly: tragedy for the
100,000 people who have been killed since the Assad regime met
demonstrations for democracy with bullets and opponents of the regime
tried to overthrow it by armed struggle, and folly because by
resorting to violence both sides are only deepening the nation's
wounds. The only solution is for both sides to cease fire and seek
help in mediating their differences.
A big part of the reason this
hasn't happened is that foreign countries have chosen sides and are
sending in arms to further fuel the fire: Russia and Iran back Assad,
while Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey support the
insurgents, and such aid gives both sides hope that they will triumph
in a war which, like all wars, only has losers. Meanwhile, Lebanon is
divided and fears that the war will spread, and Israel has been more
or less at war with Syria since 1948, and has perpetuated hostilities
by occupying the Syrian (aka Golan) Heights since 1967 -- much of the
reason Syria is so militarized and so autocratic can be traced back to
its losing conflict with Israel.
Nor has the United States done
anything to end the war in Syria. In particular, President Obama has
made a series of unfortunate statements -- stating that "Assad must
go," offering arms to the insurgents, declaring a "red line" over the
use of chemical weapons, and most recently asking Congress for a
resolution to endorse his desire to launch missiles at undisclosed
targets in Syria. No one -- not even Obama -- thinks that bombing
Syria will do anything but prolong and escalate the killing and
suffering. So why do it? Supposedly it has something to do with the
president's "credibility" -- so that people will understand that when
they cross his "red lines" they will face a stiff punishment.
But that
only makes sense if you assume that the US has a right to interfere in
every other nation's business, and an obligation to be judge and
executioner over other peoples. Even more critically, it assumes we
are so prescient as to use our powers wisely. Unfortunately, from the
CIA's 1953 coup against a liberal democratic government in Iran up to
Obama's latest tantrum over Syria, it is hard to think of a single
instance when this was true of the US in the Middle East. But at least
this time, Obama has given us, through Congress, a chance to reject
the drumbeat of war. We should take this opportunity and resoundingly
say, "hell no, we won't go!"
I didn't want to play up the question of chemical weapons. I'm not
convinced that Assad's forces have actually used chemical weapons,
but I don't think they have any particular scruples against doing so.
One of the many problems with Obama's "red line" speech is that it
gives anti-Assad forces reason to fake chemical attacks in the hope
that if credible such attacks might push the US into providing more
anti-Assad support. If that turns out to be the case, Obama could
wind up bearing some responsibility for the use of chemical weapons
in Syria.
In any case, we won't know more about recent alleged chemical
attacks until the UN inspectors finish and publish their analysis.
At that point the findings should be kicked up to the UN Security
Council for action, which could condemn Syria, impose sanctions,
and/or authorize the US to use force to punish Syria, or not. But
unless that happens, the strikes that Obama is proposing are war
crimes, nothing less. I didn't get into that point either, because
at this point it's virtually impossible to win an argument on the
basis that the action you're opposed to would be a war crime. The
problem is that hardly anyone in the US appreciates the prospect
of living under international law any more. Proof of that is that
even if he passes on Syria, Obama is already a war criminal, one
of many in a procession that dates back through Bush and Clinton
and on to the other Bush and Reagan, and Nixon and Johnson, and
arguably other presidents.
We could, of course, debate about the need for international
law and what that law should cover, and we could go into the need
for reforms that would make the UN more effective. But you don't
have to be so idealistic to see the folly in Obama's plans, so
that is what I chose to focus on. I also didn't get into the
matter of how much open-ended war with Syria would cost, or what
else should be done with the money. For one thing the reflexive
politics of Washington will always find money for any wars they
want to fight, and can never be counted on to allocate that same
money to any other project.
Needless to say, anyone who wants to limit government, let alone
safeguard freedom, should first cast a jaundiced eye at the military.
But those who do fall into the "limited government" trap will never
be persuaded by arguing that the same money could be better spent
on schools and bridges. Indeed, most of them have repeatedly voted
for war on the theory that if the government has to spend money,
at least there it won't be spent on anything constructive.
Some links (plus cartoons from Truthdig):
|
|
-
Associated Press: Putin on Syria: Interview with the president of
Russia -- you know, the guy Obama refuses to meet with even though he's
in Russia this week, the one world leader who is in the best position
to get Assad to agree to a ceasefire and negotiations.
-
Brian Beutler: Elites fall right into trap, fecklessly support war
secrecy: Kerry pleading his case at the Senate. Last line: "Much
later in the hearing, Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., reflected on a series
of U.S. missile strikes against Iraq in the 1990s, which in a real
way primed the country for the invasion in 2003. That's the scenario
Kerry tried but failed to hide."
-
Patrick Cockburn: In Syria, it's a case of all or nothing: I don't
see how the "all in" case would work, but this much is surely true:
"All sides are dependent on outside backers, and even those who most
want to fight need weapons, ammunition and money. Heavy pressure could
be put on them to agree to a peace conference and a temporary ceasefire."
Also: "In practice there has been a stalemate in most of Syria for the
last year. If the Syrian army did use poison gas, it shows it does not
have the strength to retake even the inner rebel-held suburbs of Damascus.
It is better therefore for the battle lines to be frozen under some form
of UN supervision. Long-term solutions will only begin to be feasible
when Syrians are no longer at the mercy of what Northern Ireland
politicians used to call 'the politics of the last atrocity.'"
-
Juan Cole: A US attack on Syria will Prolong the War, and
On Syria: The US Is No Long Ranger and Should Put That Six Shooter
Away: The former makes its case succinctly, especially that US
support for the insurgents makes them less likely to negotiate.
(I would go further: the US is starting to see this as a proxy war
against Russia and Iran, and as such a chance to relive Cold War
glory.) The latter goes down the whole chemical weapons rathole,
where the US and UK don't exactly have clean hands. (The UK, you
may recall, were the first to use chemical weapons in the region.)
Last point: "In 1998, then-President Bill Clinton fired cruise
missiles at the Sudan of President Omar al-Bashir. If you don't
know, do a quick Google search for whom the sitting president of
the Sudan is now. Bombs are seldom the answer to geopolitical
problems."
-
EJ Dionne, Jr: Syria and the Return of Dissent: "Ultimately, after
intricate negotiations, the balance of power among all these factions
will almost certainly give the president the congressional victory he
needs to take action -- in part because majorities in both houses know
that an Obama defeat on Syria would be devastating to American foreign
policy." I wish it were that easy, but my second thought is that Dionne
(who on most matters is a sensible journalist) is drawing a "red line"
of his own. If Obama's war resolution fails Congress, even if it fails
by failing to garner support from superhawks who don't think it goes
far enough -- accommodations to which, by the way, were necessary to
get it through the Senate committee vote -- it will be a shocking
rebuke to Washington's "conventional wisdom" which has thus far
sheltered and enabled the world's largest war machine. Once it proves
possible to say no to war, it will only get easier.
-
Tom Engelhardt: Alone and Delusional on Planet Earth: Like
Lind (below), a history of the neocon impulse, which Engelhardt
finds still deeply entrenched, even if pivoting toward easier
game in Africa after having made an expensive mess of the Asian
belt from Pakistan to Lebanon -- not that they would pass up the
opportunity to show the colors in Syria, and possibly regenerate
some of that terrorist blowback that proved so profitable in the
last decade.
-
Robert Fisk: Once Washington made the Middle East tremble -- now no one
there takes it seriously: Rambles a bit, but the common thread of
all the examples is how little Obama and company know about the Middle
East and how ridiculous that makes them look -- the scoffing of a man
who does indeed know quite a lot. Also see Fisk's
Iran, Not Syria, Is the West's Real Target. The surest way to
perpetuate war in Syria is to view it as a proxy contest with Iran.
-
Chas Freeman: Don't Just Sit There, Bomb Something: A long-time
US diplomat -- you may recall that when he initially took office Obama
tried hiring Freeman as a Middle East advisor, but he was bullied into
withdrawing the offer because Freeman wasn't Zionist enough. Nothing
here on Israel -- a subject that actually has much to do with the
equation -- but lots of useful history and perspective that seems to
be lacking in the currently AIPAC-certified White House staff.
-
Glenn Greenwald: Obama, Congress and Syria: "There are few things
more bizarre than watching people advocate that another country be
bombed even while acknowledging that it will achieve no good outcomes
other than safeguarding the 'credibility' of those doing the bombing."
It will be interesting to see how Kerry's insistence that Obama has
the right to bomb Syria even if Congress rejects the resolution plays
out. Lack of consequences may prove liberating to Congress, allowing
members to vote their conscience, or even (gasp!) the popular view,
and it will probably give Republicans leeway just to vote against
Obama. As Greenwald points out, the House rejected a resolution to
rubber stamp Obama's bombing of Libya, and that's fed into their
peculiar obsession with Benghazi.
-
Haaretz: Israel lobby strongly supports attack on Syria: "The
Conference of Presidents of Major Jewish Organizations said in a
statement that 'failing to take action would damage the credibility
of the U.S. and negatively impact the effort to prevent Iran from
achieving a nuclear weapons capacity.'" So this is a case of one
foreign country (Israel) using its political influence in the US
to promote a war with another foreign country (Syria) in order to
further its own conflict with a third foreign country (Iran).
-
Glenn Kessler: History lesson: When the United States looked the other
way on chemical weapons: Argues that Syria's chemical weapons
stockpile had been tacitly accepted by the US as a trade-off against
Israel's unacknowledged nuclear weapons. Makes me wonder whether Iraq's
chemical weapons, which never bothered the US when they were being
used against Iran (and didn't raise much of a peep, at least at the
time, when used against Iraq's Kurdish minority) weren't covered by
a similar "understanding." Again, this shows how US failure to work
out peace treaties to resolve Israel's various conflicts has helped
to destabilize the entire region.
-
Michael Lind: Bye-bye, neocons: Your fantasy has finally died:
Tries to sort out the major schools of US foreign policy in light of
the Syria intervention question. Not sure that he has this right,
or even that: "Neoconservative dreams of creating a hard-edged,
neo-imperial American hegemony over the world died in the rubble of
Iraq and Afghanistan." The dreams still rise in such fevered minds,
and more importantly Obama hasn't come close to "changing the way
we think about war." Thus far, it appears that the neocons are
divided: willing to give Obama unlimited war powers, but skeptical
that he will use them to their satisfaction. Lind likes to blame
their war lust on Dixie macho, but their mantra is more along the
lines of: what would Israel do if that small nation had the full
resources of the US? Until we confront their "Iron Wall" fixation
we won't be free of the neocon madness.
-
Paul Pillar: The Coming Congressional Debate on Syria:
"Congress being Congress, however, let us not get too high our
hopes for care and profundity in the deliberative process that
is about to begin."
-
Gareth Porter: How Intelligence Was Twisted to Support an Attack on
Syria: Too much here to quote, as Porter casts doubt on point
after point that John Kerry insisted "we know," including the Israeli
providence of intercepts. Always amazes me when they call this stuff
"intelligence." Last line: "Regardless of what evidence emerges in
coming weeks, we would do well to note the inconsistencies and
misleading language contained in the assessment, bearing in mind
the consequences of utilizing ambiguous intelligence to justify an
act of war."
-
Stephen M Walt: Applying the 8 Questions of the Powel Doctrine to
Syria: As opposed to the unquestioning credulity of Powell's UN
speech on Iraq's WMDs. The "Powell doctrine" from 1990 was designed
to prevent the US from getting into another Vietnam while allowing
smaller, more limited conflicts like the 1990-91 Gulf War a free
pass. Had Powell thought to apply it to Iraq in 2003, and been at
all honest with himself and us, that war would probably not have
passed muster. As Walt shows, Syria isn't even close.
-
Matt Welch: John Kerry's Morally, Linguistically, and Historically
Obscene Case for War in Syria: Goes through Kerry's Senate
testimony with a much finer comb than I had the stomach for, with
a lot of revealing finds -- especially his description of the
upcoming Senate vote as a "Munich moment." (JP Sottile followed
up on this:
When in Doubt, Say 'Hitler'; so did Conor Friedersdorf:
Godwin's Corollary: In War Debates, the Probability of Hawks Invoking
Hitler Approaches One). As I've written many times before, the
anti-Munich taunt was never even accurate about Munich: it was
rationalized after the fact, and has been used by pro-war hacks
ever since then. In the current context, it means little more than,
"you're a sissy if you don't pull the trigger."
-
Stephen Zunes: Eight Arguments Against Going to War With Syria:
Only eight? "1) A US military attack would be illegal. 2) There is
little strategic rationalization. 3) Military intervention likely
would lead to more death and destruction. 4) The US has little
credibility regarding chemical weapons. 5) A military attack likely
would strengthen the Syrian regime. 6) A military strike likely
would reduce the chances of successfully ending the war. 7) The
United States is isolated in the international community. 8) The
American public opposes military intervention in Syria." I'd edit
out at least three "likely" qualifiers there, and as you can see
from my statement, focus less on international law and hypocrisy --
although if Obama were serious about "international norms" viz.
unconventional weapons (and Cole, above, quite rightly points out
the US fondness for mines and cluster bombs, also condemned by
international law as well as "norms") the way he could actually
have an impact would be to make a case for laws above the whims
of states, even the US. Zunes also misses the far more basic
reason that engaging in this violence is simply wrong -- most
likely he thinks he's gaining some credibility by not being one
of those pacifist folks.
Given that this issue will be voted on in Congress, this is a rare
time when it might actually work to put as much pressure as possible
on your representatives -- especially in the case of Democrats, who
seem to be especially wobbly on Obama (as well as soft on Israel).
Much of Obama's own legitimacy as a presidential candidate owed to
his prescient opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, but he has squandered
his reputation several times over since assuming office, and nowhere
more clearly than here. The same standards should be applied to all
his potential successors: in particular, Hillary Clinton has once
again proven her unfitness for the Oval Office. By all means be
clear about that.
Daily Log
At this point the backsplash is looking pretty good. The grout edges
have dried out to a very unassuming gray, which blends nicely into the
blue paint as well as the stainless steel tiles. Still need to put some
grout sealer on. They say wait 72 hours for that. Also need to decide
between putting the paper towel holder back and installing a rectangular
basket that I found -- 22 inches long, about 6 deep, would bolt onto the
window sill.
Got new phones in the mail today. Need to charge them 12 hours before
using them, so I just plugged the batteries in, and the transformers
into a couple power strips. Hoped to mount at least some on the wall,
but all the holders are designed to sit loose on desktops. Can't imagine
no one else wants wall-mounted phone chargers, but it's really hard to
find such things these days. Also astonishing both how cheap the phones
are -- we got five cordless plus a bluetooth headset for $130 -- and how
narrow the range of optional functionality is. Almost like one company
in China has cornered the market, and all the brands are just fronts
with minor cosmetic differences.
Watched The Bridge and Broadchurch.
Music today (JP): Brussels Jazz Orchestra, James Zollar; (RG):
Szilárd Mezei, Joe McPhee, 3D, Hasidic New Wave.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
Daily Log
Missed a day, something that was bound to happen sooner or later.
Music today (JP): Cacaw; (RG): Szilárd Mezei; possibly others.
Monday, September 02, 2013
Music Week/Jazz Prospecting
Music: Current count 21976 [21937] rated (+39), 574 [585] unrated (-11).
Relatively slim week, especially in the unpacking section. September
releases don't seem to amont to much until next week -- I have five
Sept. 10 releases cued up for next week (including Lucian Ban and Vijay
Iyer), four more Sept. 17 releases for the following week, and Mostly
Other People Do the Killing the week after.
Wasn't initially sure whether to do The Road to Jajouka here
or in Streamnotes, but the clincher was producer Billy Martin, whose
Wicked Knee album, Heels Over Head, is still number two on my
2013 list -- you can make a case
for him as Jazz Musician of the Year.
Looks like I should postpone my promised 1960s Recycled Goods
special. Got distracted so I've been doing something else. RG will
probably run later this week, although it's not clear right now
when I'll hit bottom, much less resurface.
Chicago Jazz Orchestra: Burstin' Out! (2012
[2013], Origin): Originally founded in 1978, currently directed
by Jeff Lindberg, don't have a good sense of their recording
history (only album in their web store is this one). Also don't
recognize hardy any of the big band musicians, let alone the
phalanx of strings that become noticeable whenever this hits
a dull patch. However, that rarely happens: the standards
repertoire is stellar, and "guest vocalist" Cyrille Aimée is
a real sparkplug -- best big band singer I've heard in years.
B+(***)
Tom Goehring: A Reflected Journey (2013, Mengli Music):
Trumpet player, based in New York, plays in big bands led by Jamie Begian
and Darcy James Argue; first album on his own, a hard bop/post-bop quintet,
with Roger Rosenberg on saxes/bass clarinet and Dave Leonhardt on piano.
Starts with four originals, followed by five covers -- Thad Jones and
Dizzy Gillespie the obvious sources.
B+(**)
Craig Hartley: Books on Tape Vol. 1 (2011 [2013],
self-released): Pianist, studied at Manhattan School of Music;
first album, a trio with Carlo De Rosa (bass) and Henry Cole
(drums), plus trumpet (Fabio Morgera) on two tracks. Originals,
including one with lyrics sung by Dida Pelled, and one cover,
"My Foolish Heart."
B+(**) [September 3]
Tom Kennedy: Just Play! (2012 [2013], Capri):
Bassist, b. 1960 in St. Louis, moved to New York in 1984, fourth
album since 1996's Basses Loaded, plus one as the Kennedy
Brothers with pianist Ray Kennedy, and side credits back to 1985.
Star-laden nonet, two tenor saxes (George Garzone, Steve Wirts),
Tim Hagans (trumpet), John Allred (trombone), Renee Rosnes (piano),
two guitars (Mike Stern, Lee Ritenour), Dave Weckl (drums). One
piece by Stern, most of the rest jazz standards (Ellington, Rollins,
Timmons, Hubbard, Walton, Brubeck), two songbook chestnuts (Young,
Porter). Rich, expansive, somehow works in a nice bass solo.
B+(**)
Anya Malkiel: From the Heart (2013, self-released):
Standards singer, grew up in the Soviet Union, emigrating to the US
in 1990. First album, backed by piano trio, Jim Schneider on tenor
sax and flute, Christian Tambur on vibes. Accent threw me off a bit.
B+(*)
The Miami Saxophone Quartet: Four of a Kind (2012
[2013], Fortitude): Gary Keller on soprano, Gary Lindsay on alto,
Ed Calle on tenor, Mike Brignola on baritone -- cover type changes to
red for him (the name, well aside from Calle, I thought I recognized;
turned out to be confusion with the late, unrelated baritonist Nick
Brignola). De facto leader is Lindsay, who wrote most of the pieces
and arranged the rest (sharing blame with Calle for "Twinkle Twinkle
Little Star"). Usual problem with sax quartets is the lack of rhythm
to push things along and harmonic limits of four instruments that
can only produce one note each at a time, but these guys solve those
problems the old-fashioned way, by cheating -- adding a piano trio,
Svet Stoyanov on mallets, and for good measure Brian Lynch on trumpet.
Together they generate big band swing, and the live audience approves.
B+(***) [September 3]
Ken Peplowski: Maybe September (2012 [2013], Capri):
Plays clarinet and tenor sax, has close to forty albums since 1987,
several with Benny Goodman in the title, others with Ellington or
Strayhorn, a mild-mannered retro-swing guy who rarely exceeds
expectations, but I wound up playing this repeatedly during an
afternoon of cooking and never felt the need for anything else.
Basic quartet with Ted Rosenthal on piano; one original, standards
by Berlin and Warren; nods to Ellington, Poulenc, and Artie Shaw;
a Lennon-McCartney I can live with, a "Caroline, No" I relish.
B+(***)
The Road to Jajouka: A Benefit Album (2013, Howe):
Known nowadays as the Master Musicians of Jajouka led by Bachir Attar,
the Moroccan institution first came to worldwide attention when Brian
Jones (Rolling Stones, you might recall) released a 1968 album of
theirs called The Pipes of Pan at Jajouka. Attar would have
been four at the time, the son of then-leader Hadj Abdesalam Attar.
They have scattered albums of their own -- AMG lists eight starting
with the Jones affair (which, by the way, was certainly the first
album from Africa or the Middle East I ever heard) -- but this one
they owe to western intermediaries: above all, Billy Martin (of
Medeski & Wood fame), whose illybeats lay the techno-fusion
foundation for a parade of guests, including Marc Ribot, DJ Logic,
Lee Ranaldo, John Zorn, Bill Laswell, and Ornette Coleman.
A-
Clark Sommers: Clark Sommers' Ba(SH) (2012 [2013],
Origin): Bassist, b. 1977 in Lake Forest, IL; claims 40 side credits
over last 15 years, but this is first album under his own name. Trio,
with Geof Bradfield (tenor/soprano sax, bass clarinet) and Dana Hall
(drums). Moderately paced postbop, much depending on the saxophonist
to shape and articulate the tone on top of the base lines, and pretty
successful at that.
B+(**)
Manuel Valera & New Cuban Express: Expectativas
(2013, Mavo): Pianist, from Cuba, moved to US to study at New School
around 1994, has a half-dozen albums since 2004. Band includes Yosvany
Terry (sax), Tom Guarna (guitar), John Benitez (electric bass), and
various percussionists. Lots of sophisticated stop-start rhythmic
breaks, seems to be the Afro-Cuban signature.
B+(*)
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Jeri Brown: Echoes (Jongleur Productions, 2CD)
- The Matthew Finck Jonathan Ball Project: It's Not That Far (self-released): October 1
- Michael Moss/Billy Stein: Intervals (4th Stream)
- Matthew Shipp: Piano Sutras (Thirsty Ear): Setpember 24
Daily Log
Grouted the backsplash today. Thought it looked good as I was doing
it, but I evidently mopped up too much with the sponge, leaving me with
relatively deep cracks between the mosaic tile. Also seems the small
tiles are glued on at irregular angles, so a lot of jitteriness. We'll
see how this looks when it all dries. Could be that a little raggedness
isn't such a bad thing.
I was pretty wiped out by the time I was done. Wanted to order a pizza
(which Laura doesn't eat these "gluten free" days), but asked for fish,
but the shop seems to have been closed. I went out for dinner instead,
stopping at Hog Wild only to find they're closed today (Labor Day), and
wound up at a deli with a BLT. Watched Under the Dome, which is
killing off characters at a pretty rapid pace.
Music today (JP): Anya Malkiel, Cacaw; (RG): Nu Band, Leszek
Kulakowski, Ravish Momin, Yuri Yaremchuk.
Laura wrote this as a possible press release for the Peace Center
on Syria:
What the president is proposing is an act of war, and illegal,
since international law says only the UN can intervene militarily. We
oppose any military attack on Syria because 1) It will not help end
the civil war, but only make it worse - even the refugee crisis has
grown worse in recent weeks because of the fear of US bombs. 2) The US
has no moral standing in this: we used chemical warfare ourselves when
we used depleted uranium and white phosphorus on Falluja, we defended
Saddam Hussein when he used poison gas on Iranian troops in 1984, and
Iraqi towns in 1988, and Vietnam is still recovering from napalm and
Agent Orange. We and the UK are the main producers and sellers of
these very chemical weapons. 3) There are non-violent ways to help the
refugees and stop the violence -- at the least we should pressure
Russia and Iran to stop supplying Assad with more deadly weapons, and
we should pressure Saudi Arabia and the Gulf emirates to stop
supplying the rebels with more deadly weapons. 4) In addition, we
like most Americans, want to see our resources going to rebuilding
this country and fixing our massive environmental and social
problems.
She then asked me to look at it and comment, and I was in the middle
of trying to do something else, so I put her off -- something she wasn't
very happy about. I finally looked at it in the middle of the night.
Nothing wrong with what she said, but I think the emphasis should be
shifted a bit, and it might help to end on an action note. I tried to
keep close to her length -- don't know why she chose that -- and jotted
down the following:
The Civil War in Syria is both tragedy and folly: tragedy for the
100,000 people who have been killed since the Assad regime met
demonstrations for democracy with bullets and opponents of the regime
tried to overthrow it by armed struggle, and folly because by
resorting to violence both sides are only deepening the nation's
wounds. The only solution is for both sides to cease fire and seek
help in mediating their differences. A big part of the reason this
hasn't happened is that foreign countries have chosen sides and are
sending in arms to further fuel the fire: Russia and Iran back Assad,
while Saudi Arabia, the Gulf States, and Turkey support the
insurgents, and such aid gives both sides hope that they will triumph
in a war which, like all wars, only has losers. Meanwhile, Lebanon is
divided and fears that the war will spread, and Israel has been more
or less at war with Syria since 1948, and has perpetuated hostilities
by occupying the Syrian (aka Golan) Heights since 1967 -- much of the
reason Syria is so militarized and so autocratic can be traced back to
its losing conflict with Israel. Nor has the United States done
anything to end the war in Syria. In particular, President Obama has
made a series of unfortunate statements -- stating that "Assad must
go," offering arms to the insurgents, declaring a "red line" over the
use of chemical weapons, and most recently asking Congress for a
resolution to endorse his desire to launch missiles at undisclosed
targets in Syria. No one -- not even Obama -- thinks that bombing
Syria will do anything but prolong and escalate the killing and
suffering. So why do it? Supposedly it has something to do with the
president's "credibility" -- so that people will understand that when
they cross his "red lines" they will face a stiff punishment. But that
only makes sense if you assume that the US has a right to interfere in
every other nation's business, and an obligation to be judge and
executioner over other peoples. Even more critically, it assumes we
are so prescient as to use our powers wisely. Unfortunately, from the
CIA's 1953 coup against a liberal democratic government in Iran up to
Obama's latest tantrum over Syria, it is hard to think of a single
instance when this was true of the US in the Middle East. But at least
this time, Obama has given us, through Congress, a chance to reject
the drumbeat of war. We should take this opportunity and resoundingly
say, "hell no, we won't go!"
Should probably be split into multiple paragraphs. As for shortening
it, well, what point do you want to drop? As yesterday's post showed,
there is a lot more that could be added.
Sunday, September 01, 2013
Suppose They Gave a War and Nobody Came
The best piece I've seen recently on Washington's incessant drumbeat
for intervening militarily in Syria is
Stephen M Walt: We're Going to War Because We Just Can't Stop Ourselves:
Yet we now appear to be getting ready to drop a lot of ordnance on
Syria -- and for a pretty flimsy reason. John Kerry is outraged that
Assad's forces have used chemical weapons -- or so he believes -- but
as I've noted before, that fact (if true) is not dispositive. Assad's
forces have already killed tens of thousands with good old-fashioned
high explosive, which is much more effective than sarin in most cases.
Yes, chemical weapons are illegal and yes, there's a taboo against
their use, but going to war solely to reinforce a rather unimportant
norm is a poor reason. The fact that Assad is killing innocent people
with this particular tool and not some other equally nasty tool is not
by itself a reason to get involved.
What is most striking about this affair is how Obama seems to have
been dragged, reluctantly, into doing something that he clearly didn't
want to do. He probably knows bombing Syria won't solve anything or
move us closer to a political settlement. But he's been facing a
constant drumbeat of pressure from liberal interventionists and other
hawks, as well as the disjointed Syrian opposition and some of our
allies in the region. He foolishly drew a "red line" a few months
back, so now he's getting taunted with the old canard about the need
to "restore U.S. credibility." This last argument is especially silly:
If being willing to use force was the litmus test of a president's
credibility, Obama is in no danger whatsoever. Or has everyone just
forgotten about his decision to escalate in Afghanistan, the bombing
of Libya, and all those drone strikes?
Since Walt wrote those words, the UK Parliament voted against
joining in the American folly. First time that's happened, so I'm
reminded of the 1960s sign, "suppose they gave a war and nobody
came?" And today, Obama announced that he'll seek Congressional
authority before he'll launch that war, and John Boehner slated
the House vote on Sept. 9. So while the chatterers on last night's
Washington Week were excitedly expecting a volley of cruise
missiles before Obama's trip to Russia next week, retribution is
at least ten days away.
Lots of things can happen in those ten days. The UN will get a
chance to finish its evaluation of the alleged chemical weapons
attack, and debate its own legal recourse. (Any American attack
without UN sanction would be illegal under international law, not
that the threat of war crimes trials has ever stopped the US in
the past.) Obama will have some face time to negotiate with Putin
in Russia. Someone might realize that there is a new president in
Iran who might be more amenable to diplomatic measures than the
previous one. (Not that there is any justification for the popular
notion that the Syrian Civil War is a "proxy fight" between Iran
and "pro-Western forces" -- you know, Qatar and Saudi Arabia.)
And Congress might decide to buck its 20% approval rating and do
something that actually aligns popularly with the wishes of the
American people. Also expect some large anti-war rallies along
the way.
In Congress, opposition to a resolution giving Obama the option
to "use force" will be bipartisan. How that breaks depends a lot
on how much pressure Obama puts on Democrats to give their president
the benefit of their doubts: the more so the more Democrats he gets,
and the fewer Republicans. From the Wichita Eagle today, I know that
Tim Huelskamp will oppose in any case, but I also see Mike Pompeo
very critical of "a warning shot across the bow" -- he wants what
he calls a "robust response," but since Obama is unlikely to satisfy
his bloodlust, he too may oppose. (In this he's not as bloodthirsty
as John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who'll take what they can get and
pray the war gets worse and we get sucked in ever deeper -- although
I've seen reports of even them holding out for a more resolution
that commits the US to toppling Assad.) Also, his patron
David Koch
has come out against intervention.
And while the Senate seems more likely to consent than advise,
can't we at least expect a fillibuster?
Some things I've been reading as I try to catch up (much more
pro-hawk than I'd like; cartoons from Truthdig):
|
|
-
Molly Ball: Why a Democrat Who Opposed the Iraq War Backs Intervening
in Syria: interview with former Congressman Tom Perriello, not
someone you ever knew much less cared about. Sample quote: "The
difference between force and violence is legitimacy. As progressives
in foreign policy, we tend to believe legitimacy matters."
-
Doug Bandow: America's Syria Folly;
Jacob Heilbrunn: Barack W. Bush: Unilateral War in Syria;
Paul Pillar: Warped Motives on Syria;
Timothy D Hoyt: How to Attack Syria;
John Allen Gay: The Smart Way to Bomb Syria: A flurry of opinion
pieces at The National Interest, most critical, the last two
intent on helping the hawks, although given the limits of what the
US military knows and is capable of doing I have no fucking idea how
they could actually carry out that advice. I'll also note that not
only do they assume that America's all-knowing, all-powerful military
can operate flawlessly, they don't consider any other risks.
-
Anne Barnard/Alissa J Rubin: Experts Fear US Plan to Strike Syria
Overlooks Risks: Ryan Crocker, for instance: "Our biggest problem
is ignorance; we're pretty ignorant about Syria."
-
Hans Blix: Even if Assad Used Chemical Weapons, the West Has No Mandate
to Act as a Global Policeman: "Unlike George Bush in 2003, the
Obama administration is not trigger-happy and contemptuous of the
United Nations and the rules of its charter, which allow the use of
armed force only in self-defence or with an authorisation from the
security council." Or, perhaps, exactly like George Bush.
-
John Cassidy: Has Obama Forgotten General Dempsey's Warnings?
You know, his "top military adviser" and chairman of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, former commander of US forces in Iraq (2003-04),
the quotes coming from testimony he made before Congress.
-
Bob Dreyfuss: No War With Syria!: Makes the basic case, and
points out who's pushing military intervention (including Israel
and Saudi Arabia). More legit worries in his follow up,
Obama Plans War Without Allies, Support or International Law,
but it appeared just before Obama backed down and called for a
congressional vote. Also see
Phyllis Bennis: Moral Obscenities in Syria, and for that matter
her refresher course on Iraq ten years after US intervention there,
Way Worse Than a Dumb War: Iraq Ten Years Later.
-
Ira Chernus: The Question Americans Can't Ask About Egypt and Syria:
"What would happen if the world's strongest nation exerted all of its
diplomatic, moral, and economic force based on the principles of
nonviolence?" Chernus just throws that out and answers, "there is no
way to know," but the "bloody stalemate which has become America's
status quo" is present in Israel as much as in Egypt or Syria.
-
James Fallows: Syria: Some Arguments for Intervention, and a Response:
the former from readers, arguing things like "Great Britain doesn't decide
our foreign policy" and "If the US does nothing, I'll feel we've lost our
moral compass in the world." The responses don't go very deep either, but
then Fallows still believes, "overall our country has been an enormous
force for good," albeit admitting "it is easy to talk ourselves into an
exaggerated sense of our own purity."
-
Conor Friedersdorf: How an Insular Beltway Elite Makes Wars of Choice
More Likely: Like, why is "credibility" even an issue? Oh, because
that's the pressure point that always leads to mindless action.
-
Michael R Gordon: Aim of US Attack: Restore a 'Red Line' That Became
Blurred: Cites glorious successes against the Serbs; ignores a
long line of failures, mostly against Arabs; talks about an offensive
mostly limited to cruise missiles; quotes an "expert" as saying, "The
strikes could be consequential or counterproductive."
-
Fred Kaplan: Obama's Gamble: A hawk argues that asking Congress for
approval "was risky and right." He's assuming it will pass and will bind
in a level of popular support that otherwise doesn't exist.
-
Samuel Knight: Defense Industry Lobbyists Are Terrible Human Beings
and That's Putting It Mildly, Syria Edition: So, it's not just
misguided humanitarians who want war.
-
Edward Luttwak: 5 Rules for Arming Rebels: Long ago Luttwak wrote
a manual on how to stage a coup d'etat and his favorite example was
Syria (shows you how long ago this was, but before Hafez Assad there
was a coup in Damascus every year or two). His rules make sense if
you're into that sort of thing, which means you can read this as five
reasons to stay the fuck clear of Syria. Earlier, Luttwak wrote
Leave Bad Enough Alone, which seems to still be his position.
("By refusing to get dragged into the Syrian quagmire, Obama and his
like-minded advisors should be commended, not condemned, for their
prudent restraint and clear-minded strategic priorities." Well, so
much for that.)
-
Jay Newton-Small: Three Reasons Congress May Not Approve War in Syria:
the House couldn't even agree on retroactively approving Libya, the
proposal splits both parties, and "polls show most Americans don't want
to see any kind of intervention in Syria"; on the other hand, they hold
out hope for AIPAC.
-
Alex Pareene: No One Wants It, but We'll Have a Little War Anyway:
"If the Western liberal interventionsists can't get their nice little
humanitarian bombing mission through the democratic process, well, who
do you suppose they have to blame? Maybe don't spend a decade incompetently
trying to remake Iraq and Afghanistan through force and then leaving both
nations in shambles if you still want everyone to be gung-ho about military
intervention."
-
William Pfaff: Syrian Intervention Can Lead Only to Yet Another War:
Another "realist" doesn't buy the rationale. He also notes that most of
the US "intelligence" on Syria comes from Israel, which has its own
agenda.
-
William Rivers Pitt: War on Syria: Twenty Pounds of Stupid in a Ten-Pound
Bag; also
Sarah van Gelder: Eleven Reasons Why We Should Not Attack Syria.
-
Michael Scherer/Zeke Miller: Unwilling to Act Alone, Obama Pulls Back
From Brink of War: "The British abandoned him. The Arab League could
not commit. The United Nations faced Russian obstruction, and the U.S.
Congress remained a comedy of dysfunction, unable to marshal a cogent
vacation response to proposed missile strikes on a nation many Americans
could not find on a map." They also note, "Obama's aides made clear that
the President's search for affirmation from Congress would not be binding.
He might still attack Syria even if Congress issues a rejection." That
sounds like grounds for impeachment to me, something Republicans itching
for that fight might consider. [For a discussion of impeachment, see
Kevin Zeese.]
-
Stephen M Walt: An Imaginative, Creative Way to Deal with the Syrian
Crisis: Like diplomacy, like with Iran.
-
Ann Wright: Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria:
Recalls the Marine Barracks destruction in Beirut, 1983, and other
unpleasant memories of decades of inept meddling in the Middle East.
-
Piotr Zalewski: For Turkey, Planned U.S. Missile Strikes on Syria Not
Good Enough: Unable to do much on their own, but ever so anxious
to get the Americans to share the blame.
The Syrian Civil War is a great human tragedy, and a decent United
States government should do everything reasonable to help bring it to
a just and peaceful solution. However, a decent US government would
not have conspired to overthrow the democratic government of Iran in
1953, nor subsidized and rationalized Israel's aggressive war in 1967
and occupation of Syrian and Palestinian land ever since then, nor
subsidized a civil war in Afghanistan since 1979, nor countenanced
let alone abetted Israel's interference in Lebanon from 1982-2000
(again in 2006), nor supported Iraq in their 1980s war against Iran,
nor repeatedly and almost promiscuously bombed Libya and Sudan and
Iraq and Afghanistan (and with drones much more, from Somalia to
Pakistan), nor helped Egypt and Jordan and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf
States suppress democratic movements for decades, nor invaded and
fomented a civil war in Iraq from 2003-09, and that list goes on
and on -- did I mention Yemen yet? Nor is there much evidence that
anything that the US consciously tried to do in the Middle East has
actually turned out the way expected. The bottom line here is that
the US has no credibility trying to insert itself, militarily or
clandestinely, anywhere in the entire region. And the degree of US
failure in the region isn't exactly a secret. The regimes we put
in place in Iran and Egypt proved to be so corrupt and hated that
they led to revolutions. And US acts have generated blowback like
kidnappings and bombings including the 1983 Beirut event and the
attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. We should know better by now. After all,
we have laws like "3 strikes and you're out" which seek to prevent
serial offenders from ever getting another chance to do ill -- yet
the CIA and the DOD goes on and on, from one blunder to another.
So the first reason why the US shouldn't intervene in Syria is
that we've proven that we're absolutely incapable of doing so in a
way that doesn't make things worse. The second reason is that in
order to quit intervening (and making matters worse), we need to
break down the institutional support for doing so. They only way
to stop making these mistakes in the future is to deny ourselves
the ability to make them. (Then you won't have some Madeleine
Albright character coming around and taunting you with "what's
the point of having this magnificent military if you never use
it?")
Beyond this obvious point there is a more profound one, which
is that war or the threat of war almost never resolves a conflict
without making it much worse, at least in the short run. Lots of
people don't recognize this, and that's a big problem, but we can
run through hundreds of cases, and it's really hard to find cases
where wars couldn't have been profitably avoided had people made
the effort to negotiate just solutions ahead of time. A corollary
here is that the defense dogma -- the idea that we can avoid war
by preparing a strong military defense -- is utter bullshit, as
anyone can see by looking at the how often the dominant military
power wound up using that power (e.g., the UK in the 18th-19th
centuries, and the US since 1945; in between the dominant power
was mostly Germany, which doesn't counter my point).
So again, on these grounds, what the US should be doing is
cutting back its military power (including the CIA and NSA), not
blundering its way into more wars.
So far these are just general statements that would apply anywhere
to any such conflict, such as the decisions to invade Afghanistan in
2001 and Iraq in 2003. While those instances were disastrous enough
they shouldn't generate much controversy, the models that you hear
socalled experts jaw about as pertaining to Syria are Kosovo in 1998
and Libya in 2008 -- air-only campaigns that are commonly remembered
as successful, mostly because our memory is rather selective, and is
focused rigidly on minimal costs to us as opposed to the suffering
of actual people in the countries the US claimed to be helping. Two
points here: one is that neither of those cases weaken by one iota
the general principles above; the other is that many of the specific
circumstances that made Kosovo and Libya relatively manageable are
not applicable to Syria. (Also note that Libya turned out not to be
as painless as originally thought, as several Americans were killed
in blowback against a CIA base in Benghazi.)
Given the above, we shouldn't have to argue specifics about Syria,
but some are worth noting. The first is that Syria is approximately
the same size and population as Iraq and Afghanistan: two countries
that the US was able to quickly invade but never quite pacify. Unlike
Iraq and Afghanistan, it has a stronger, more modernized military
that is actively supplied by Russia and Iran. It has a functioning
air force and anti-aircraft defenses, intermediate range missiles,
and evidently some chemical weapons -- none of which Iraq had in
working order in 2003, or Afghanistan had ever. So the bottom line
there is that Syria would be more difficult, at least more painful,
for the US to invade than Iraq was. That Obama isn't contemplating
"boots on the ground" pretty much acknowledges this difficulty.
That in turn brings back the question of the effectiveness of
airpower only. That was widely debated a decade ago, when Bush
decided to invade Iraq, arguing that the "no flight" zones that
the US had enforced over Iraq for more than a decade had no real
effect on Saddam Hussein's control within Iraq. For many reasons
Syria is more similar to Iraq than it is to Kosovo or Libya, so
what article of faith makes people think that "no flight" zones
and periodic bombing that didn't work in Iraq would work now?
(On the contrary, Syria's superior air defenses make at least
some observers think the opposite.) The only thing that makes
Syria seem more vulnerable is the ongoing civil war, which has
broken Assad's power in several scattered areas of the country.
That opens up the possibility that the US could arm and direct
rebel armies as proxy "boots on the ground" -- that the US could
fashion a combination of sophisticated weaponry and tight air
support that would eventually defeat Syria's professional army,
air force, and security services.
That was, after all, what basically happened in Libya, but:
Syria is a more populous country with a larger, better equipped,
and much better trained army; taking out Syria's air defenses
would be a major undertaking, whereas Libya's were wiped out in
two days; Assad has a much larger internal security organization
than Gaddafi had (in large part because he had been challenged
much more before the civil war broke out); Assad (or his regime)
is also, by any conceivable measure, much more popular within
Syria than Gaddafi was in Libya -- moreover, the split in Syria
is largely sectarian, which quickly hardened the lines in the
civil war, and raised fears of mass killings (especially if Assad
loses); meanwhile, the anti-Assad forces are split and scattered,
and it seems very likely that even if they defeated Assad they
would wind up fighting among themselves (as did the Afghans).
Most of those problems can be overcome if the US is desperate
and committed enough to make the investments and bear the pain --
pilots shot down, CIA operatives lost, etc. But neither Obama nor
the DOD (see Dempsey's testimony above) really seem up for that
level of involvement, so they are vulnerable to the charge that
whatever they do will won't be enough to get the job done. But
the latter is the real vexing problem. It turns out that the most
militant of the anti-Assad forces are affiliated with Al-Qaida,
making our worst enemies in the region our best friends in this
particular battle (and not for the first time -- recall Afghanistan
in the 1980s, when Osama Bin Laden got his first taste for blood
working for the US war effort). A good indication of how big a
problem this is can be gleaned by the fact that some months ago
Obama decided to start arming the Syrian rebels, but now we know
that the US hasn't delivered any of those arms, mostly because
we haven't found any rebels we trust with those arms.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but if you can't find any
Syrian rebel groups to arm, the strategy that is based on arming
the rebels isn't really an option. So that leaves you with the
plan that says you're just going to bomb shit until Assad cries
uncle. OK, that one worked in Kosovo, but there the Serbs had
the option of just retreating into Serbia, where they were
unthreatened (an option that Assad, and more importantly his
sectarian supporters, lack). But what Obama's proposing isn't
even that: it's that, like, the US is going to bomb Syria until
we feel like we've punished Assad enough, then leave him be
until he pisses us off again, at which point we'll bomb him
some more, and maybe, eventually, he'll get tired of it, or
we'll get tired of it, or something.
The more you dig into these specifics, the less reason you
can come up with why anything the US is likely to do is likely
to come anywhere close to working. It's certainly true that a
dictator who responds to peaceful demonstrations by shooting
people or firing artillery into whole cities has no right to
continue ruling. He should be arrested and hauled before the
ICC, or dealt with appropriately by a local court. On the other
hand, demonstrators who respond to such provocations by starting
an insurrection, leading to a civil war resulting in over 100,000
deaths, don't deserve to rule either. Nor do you ever want to set
up a situation where people simply because they are affiliated
with a sectarian group -- sunnis, alawites, kurds, christians;
you can slice and dice Syria dozens of ways -- are put at risk
simply because people associate those groups with various power
factions. All that has happened in Syria, and, sure, someone needs
to sort it out, but it can't be the US, it can't be Israel, it
can't be Turkey, it can't be the Arab League, it can't be Russia,
it can't be Iran, it can't be Hezbollah; it has to be done in
Syria, and sooner or later the factions (if not the individual
leaders) need to learn to live together and accommodate one
another. Maybe a non-violent group like the UN could facilitate in
a useful way, and it would probably help if everyone else get
behind them in some way. But what doesn't help at all is for
outsiders to try to align with inside groups.
If you'll indulge a fantasy solution, it's that while Obama and
Putin are drinking in Moscow next week they'll agree to freeze arms
shipments to Syria, press whatever other countries they have any
influence with (Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia for the US; Iran
for Russia) to do the same; insist on a cease-fire with no jockeying
for control; get Syria to bring the UN in to oversee dismantling
their chemical arms (which, as with Iraq in the 1990s, are more a
liability than an asset); negotiate a broad framework for opening
up the existing Syrian government to democratic reforms while at
the same time ensuring minority rights (e.g., from the sort of
overreach the Muslim Brotherhood tried in Egypt). Even if the
latter parts of this fantasy are a tough sell in Damascus, any
sort of international arms embargo would start to starve out the
war, whereas Obama's current plans can only escalate it.
And by the way, the demonization of Assad (which I admittedly
did a bit of above) isn't helpful. While it might be ideal to
see everyone on every side responsible for any death brought to
justice, these conflicts usually end in broad amnesties and it
is better to have lifted the burden of revenge. (Even the US let
Robert E. Lee retire from the battlefield.) Again, Iraq offers
a good example of what not to do: the demonization of Saddam
Hussein gave the regime no reason to compromise or liberalize,
and the complete sacking of the Baath state and army led directly
to chaos and civil war which still smolders today. One thing that
makes today's hawks so dangerous is that they haven't begun to
come to grips with their tragic mistakes in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Two more points need to be made, if only briefly:
The first is that Israel has had an enormous impact on the
thinking of America's hawks, and that this has completely distorted
their sense of America's interests in the region. Israel's deepest
desire is to preserve its unity and ethos as a warrior-settler state,
which means it has no desire for conflict resolution. In 1951 Syria
was the first Arab state to seek a peace agreement with Israel, and
they were rebuffed. Israel initiated many border skirmishes with
Syria over the next 16 years, after which they occupied and annexed
a substantial strip of Syrian territory, now called the Golan Heights.
Since then, Israel has kept Syria as a close enemy, and that status
has informed America's own troubled relationship with Syria -- despite
occasional attempts by Syria to cozy up to the US, especially when
they supported the Gulf War against Iraq. But Syria could never make
peace with Israel as long as Israel held onto Syrian territory, and
Syria had no choice but to depend on Russia for weapons in a region
with many enemies. The only real US interest in the region is for
peace, free trade, and free capital flows, and that's the opposite
of Israel's warrior-settler interest. Yet because US policy has been
so reflexively stupid for so long, Israel can easily manipulate the
US into opposing its enemies -- Iran has been the big project since
Iraq was defanged in 1991 -- and as such we keep feeding the conflicts
that Israel depends on.
If Obama were to make peace with Syria and Iran, he would move a
long way toward freeing American foreign policy from the perverse
stranglehold of Israel.
The second, and last, point I want to make here is that growing
Republican opposition to Middle Eastern entanglements is the logical
outcome of their racism and Islamophobia. I wouldn't want to support
their thinking in those terms, but at least it gets you to the right
policy answer, which is disengagement. The right were the first to
see that the Syrian rebels were mostly sunni fundamentalists, and
that arming them is equivalent to arming Al-Qaida. (The liberal hawks,
on the other hand, reflexively see only fellow liberal hawks in the
region.) If Obama's war powers resolution fails in Congress, it will
largely be a victim of Republican nativism. That's not the best reason
to vote against Obama, but it's the right vote.
Daily Log
Took Laura to acupuncture, for what will be the last time in three
months -- her therapist is going to Kazakhstan, where her aged mother
lives. Did some grocery shopping, and had dinner at Yen Ching. Watched
Breaking Bad and Copper.
Music today (JP): Chicago Jazz Orchestra, Clark Sommers; (RG): The
Resonance Ensemble, Kris Wanders.
|
Aug 2013 |
|