Index
Latest
2024
Nov
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
|
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Streamnotes (October 2018)
Pick up text
here.
Music Week
Music: current count 30524 [30499] rated (+25), 293 [287] unrated (+6).
Despite the late posting, cutoff was Monday afternoon (including
Monday's incoming mail). Count is low mostly because I took time off
to shop for and cook Birthday Dinner last week. Went with French,
mostly dishes from the South country, definitely nothing gourmet or
nouvelle cuisine-ish. Made a terrific cassoulet with duck, an even
better veal marengo, a slightly inferior boeuf bourguinon, my usual
ratatouille, and a simply divine gratin dauphinois, as well as a few
spreadables (chicken liver, duck rillettes, salmon rillettes, herbed
cheese, tapenade), and a pretty yummy flourless chocolate cake. Took
three solid days: one shopping, two cooking. More extensive notes
in the notebook.
During that time, I listened to golden oldies, including all of
Rhino's The R&B Box. Before (and slightly after) I got
stuck in
Will Friedland's
The Great Jazz and Pop Vocal Albums, playing things he liked
that I hadn't heard, and other things by artists listed that I
thought might be worthwhile (mostly Frank Sinatra's Capitols).
When I first picked up the book at the library, I had heard 19
of 57 listed albums (33.3%). Now I've raised that to 51 (89.4%),
unable to find albums by Bobby Troup (Sings Johnny Mercer),
Lena Horne (At the Waldorf Astoria), Barb Jungr (Every
Grain of Sand), Carmen McRae (As Time Goes By), Jimmy
Scott (Lost and Found), and Jo Stafford (Sings American
Folk Songs). I don't have time to figure out a grade spread,
but safe to say we don't agree on very many of these.
One thing I like to do when I'm doing these dives into old music
is to knock off U-rated albums in my database, but I had trouble
locating (much less finding time for) unrated boxes of Sinatra
and Mel Tormé. (I also have an unrated Bing Crosby box somewhere.
In fact, I should spend some time with Crosby, but as it happened
I had heard Friedland's two Crosby selections, so I skipped over
him.) Maybe someday I'll write my own vocals list. It should be
very different, as only 13 albums on Friedland's list did A- or
better for me.
Streamnotes due October 31. Need to get cracking on that.
I should also note that Robert Christgau's new essay collection,
Is It Still Good to
Ya? Fifty Years of Rock Criticism 1967-2017 came out last
week.
New records rated this week:
- Danny Bacher: Still Happy (2018, Whaling City Sound): [cd]: B+(*)
- Ernesto Cervini's Turboprop: Abundance (2013-16 [2018], Anzic): [cd]: B+(**)
- Colin Edwin & Lorenzo Feliciati: Twinscapes Vol. 2: A Modern Approach to the Dancefloor (2018, RareNoise): [cdr]: B+(**)
- Fat Tony: 10,000 Hours (2018, self-released): [bc]: B+(**)
- The Marie Goudy 12tet featuring Jocelyn Barth: The Bitter Suite (2018, self-released): [cd]: B
- Robyn: Honey (2018, Konichawa/Interscope): [r]: B+(**)
Old music rated this week:
- Robyn: Robyn Is Here (1995 [1997], RCA): [r]: B+(*)
- Robyn: My Truth (1999, RCA): [r]: B+(**)
- Robyn: Body Talk, Pt. 3 (2010, Konichiwa, EP): [r]: B+(***)
- Frank Sinatra: Songs for Young Lovers (1954, Capitol, EP): [r]: B+(***)
- Frank Sinatra: Swing Easy! (1954, Capitol, EP): [r]: A
- Frank Sinatra: In the Wee Small Hours (1954-55 [1955], Capitol): [r]: A-
- Frank Sinatra: Close to You (1957, Capitol): [r]: B+(*)
- Frank Sinatra: Come Fly With Me (1957 [1958], Capitol): [r]: B+(**)
- Frank Sinatra: Come Dance With Me! (1958 [1959], Capitol): [r]: B+(***)
- Frank Sinatra: No One Cares (1959, Capitol): [r]: B-
- Frank Sinatra: Nice 'n' Easy (1960, Capitol): [r]: B+(***)
Frank Sinatra: Sinatra's Swingin' Session (1960 [1961], Capitol): [r]: A-
- Mr. Tophat Feat. Robyn: Trust Me (2016 [2017], Smalltown Supersound, EP): [r]: B+(**)
- Mel Tormé With the Marty Paich Dek-Tette: Lulu's Back in Town (1956, Bethlehem): [r]: B+(***)
- Mel Tormé With the Marty Paich Dek-Tette: Mel Tormé Sings Fred Astaire (1956, Bethlehem): [r]: A-
- Mel Tormé: Tormé (1958 [1959], Verve): [r]: B+(**)
- Mel Tormé: I Dig the Duke/I Dig the Count (1961, Verve): [r]: B+(***)
- Mel Tormé: Compact Jazz: Mel Tormé (1958-61 [1987], Verve): [r]: B+(***)
- Mel Tormé: The Best of Mel Tormé [20th Century Masters: The Millennium Collection] (1958-61 [2005], UME): [r]: B+(**)
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- François Carrier/Michel Lambert/John Edwards: Elements (FMR)
- Annie Chen Octet: Secret Treetop (Shanghai Audio & Video): November 9
- Coyote Poets of the Universe: Strange Lullaby (Square Shaped, 2CD)
- Jake Ehrenreich: A Treasury of Jewish Christmas Songs (self-released)
- Christopher Hollyday: Telepathy (Jazzbeat Productions)
- Adam Hopkins: Crickets (Out of Your Head)
- Jason Kao Hwang Burning Bridge: Blood (True Sound)
- Jazz at Lincoln Center Orchestra With Wynton Marsalis: Una Noche Con Rubén Blades (Blue Engine)
- Lawful Citizen: Internal Combustion (self-released): November 9
- Carol Liebowitz/Birgitta Flick: Malita-Malika (Leo)
- Jack Mouse Group: Intimate Adversary (Tall Grass): January 1
- Jorge Nila: Tenor Time (Tribute to the Tenor Masters) (Ninjazz): January 4
- Chris Pasin: Ornettiquette (Piano Arts)
- The David Ullman Group: Sometime (Little Sky)
- David Virelles: Igbó Alákorin (The Singer's Groove) Vol I & II (Pi)
- Way North: Fearless and Kind (self-released): November 2
- Kenny Werner: The Space (Pirouet): November 2
Weekend Roundup
I haven't written much about the elections this year. Partly, I don't
care for the horserace-style reporting, or the focus on polls as a proxy
for actual news.
FiveThirtyEight currently forecasts that the Democrats have a "1 in
6" chance of gaining control of the Senate, and a "6 in 7" chance of
winning the House. The main difference there is that Democrats have a
huge structural disadvantage in the Senate: only one third of the seats
are up, and Republicans have a large margin among the carryover seats;
most of the seats that are contested this year are Democratic, so the
Democrats have many more opportunities to lose than to win; and the
Senate isn't anywhere near close to uniformly representative of the
general population. The House itself has been severely rigged against
the Democrats, so much so that in recent years Democrats have won the
national popular vote for the House yet Republicans won most of the
seats (same as with the 2016 presidential election). Despite those
odds, it seems likely that the Democrats will get a larger share of
the nationwide Senate vote than the House vote. I'm not sure what
the best thinking is on this, but it seems likely to me that the
Democrats will have to win the nationwide House vote by 4% or more
just to break even. The break-even point in the Senate is probably
more like +10%, so a Democratic wave of +6-7% will give you those
forecast odds.
Of course, one reason for not obsessing over the polls and odds
is that Republicans have tended to do better than expected pretty
much every election since the Democratic gains in 2006-08. I don't
really understand why this has been the case, aside from the hard
work Republicans have done to intimidate and suppress voters (but
I doubt that's all there is to it). Early this year, I thought a
bit about writing up a little book on political eras and strategy,
but never got past the obvious era divisions: 1800, 1860, 1932,
1980; 2020 would be about right, especially since Trump has more
in common with the dead-end presidents (Adams, Buchanan, Hoover,
Carter) than the era-shifters (Jefferson, Lincoln, Roosevelt, and,
ugh, Reagan). Maybe I'll return to that after the election, with
some more data to crunch.
Of course, the real meat of such a book would be a dissection
of the Republican political machine: how it works, why it works,
who pulls the levers, and why do so many otherwise decent people
fall for it. (I don't see much value delving into the so-called
deplorables, although two of them snapped and made the biggest
news this week -- more on that below.) This should be easier now
than it was just weeks or months ago, as Republican campaign
pitches have become even more fraudulent and inflammatory as the
day of reckoning approaches. Still, I'm not sure I'm up to this
task. It's so easy to caricature Trump that most of his critics
have failed to notice how completely, and even more surprisingly
how deftly, he has merged his party and himself into a single,
homogeneous force.
On the other hand, the Democrats are still very much the party
of Will Rogers, when he famously proclaimed: "I am not a member
of any organized political party. I am a Democrat." Despite the
recent polarization of political parties -- mostly accomplished
by Republican efforts to detach Southern and suburban racists
from their previous Democratic Party nests -- Democrats still
range over virtually the entire spectrum of American political
thought, at least those who generally accept that we live in a
complex open society, one that accepts and respects differences
within a framework of equal rights and countervailing powers.
This contrasts starkly with the Republican Party, which has been
captured by a few hundred billionaires, who have bankrolled a
media empire which expertly exploits the fears and prejudices of
an often-adequate segment of voters to support their agenda of
enriching and aggrandizing their class, with scant regard for
the consequences.
We see the consequences of unchecked Republican power every day,
at least since the last general election delivered the presidency
to Donald Trump, and allowed the confirmation of two more extreme
right-wing Supreme Court Justices and many more lesser judges --
indeed, my Weekend Roundups for the last two years, including the
one below, barely scratch that surface. But for all the talk of
polarization, the practical situation today is not a stark choice
between two dogmatic and opposed political extremes, but between
one such party, and another that reflects the often flawed but
still idealistic American tradition of progressive equality, an
open and free society, and a mixed but fair economy: the traits
of a democracy, because they are ideals that nearly all of us
can believe in and agree on.
So despite the billions of dollars being spent to persuade you,
the choice is ultimately stark and simple. Either you vote for a
party that has proven itself determined to make America a cruder,
harsher, less welcoming, less fair, more arrogant, more violent,
and more rigidly hierarchical place, or you vote for Democrats,
who may or may not be good people, who may or may not have good
ideas, but who at least are open to discussing real problems and
realistic solutions to those problems, who recognize that a wide
range of people have interests, and who seek to balance them in
ways that are practical and broadly beneficial. Republicans only
seek to consolidate their power, and that means stripping away
anything that gives you the option of standing up to them: pretty
much everything from casting a ballot to joining a union. On the
other hand, voting for Democrats may not guarantee democracy, but
it will at least slow and possibly start to reverse the descent
into totalitarianism the Republicans have plotted out.
This choice sounds so obvious I'm almost embarrassed to have to
bring it up, but so many people are prey to Republican pitches that
the races remain close and uncertain. Nor am I worried here just
about the polls. I see evidence of how gullible otherwise upstanding
people can be every time I look at Facebook. The main reason I bother
with Facebook is to keep tabs on my family and close friends. While
I have little cause for concern among the latter, my family offers a
pretty fair cross-section of, well, white America. So every day now
I see disturbing right-wing memes -- most common ones this week were
efforts to paint alleged pipe-bomber Cesar Sayoc as a closet Democrat
(one also argued that he isn't white). A couple weeks ago it was
mostly misleading memes defending Brett Kavanaugh. It's very rare
to find these accompanied by even a cursory personal argument.
Rather, they seem to be just token gesture of political allegiance.
Probably the most important stories of the week were two acts of
not-quite-random violence: one (mailed pipe bombs to a number of
prominent Democratic Party politicians and supporters) seems to be
a simple case of a Trump supporter acting on violent fantasies
fanned by the president's reckless rhetoric; the other (a mass
shooting at a synagogue in Pittsburgh) erupts from a much older
strain of anti-semitism, one that was much more fashionable back
in the 1930s when Trump's father was attending pro-Nazi rallies
in New York. Republicans, including Trump, were quick to condemn
these acts of violence (although, as noted above, there has been
a bizarre strain of denialism with regard to the pipe-bomber).
I have no doubt that these are the isolated acts of profoundly
disturbed individuals. Of course, that's what politicians always
say when their supporters get carried away and cross the bounds
of law and decency. Still, I think there are cases where political
figures set up an environment where it becomes almost inevitable
that someone will act criminally. Two fairly convincing examples
of this are the murders of Yitzhak Rabin in Israel (called for by
prominent rabbis) and of George Tiller here in Wichita (killed on
the second assassination attempt after years of being demonized
by anti-abortion activists). I don't think either of this week's
acts rises to that standard, but the fact is that violence against
blacks, Jews, and others vilified by right-wing propagandists spiked
shortly after Obama was elected president, and Trump deliberately
tapped into that anger during and after the 2016 election. Indeed,
right-wing rage has been a feature of American politics at least
since it was summoned up by GW Bush in response to the 9/11 attacks,
deliberately to put America onto a permanent war footing, something
that seventeen years of further war has only increased. That random
Americans have increasingly attempted to impose their political
will through guns and bombs is no coincidence, given that their
government has done just that -- and virtually nothing else but
that -- for most of our lives.
Some scattered links this week:
Matthew Yglesias: The hack gap: how and why conservative nonsense dominates
American politics: This at least starts to explain why, for instance,
when Hillary Clinton referred to half of Trump's supporters as "a basket of
deplorables" the comment was repeated ad nauseum along with the horrified
reactions from both halves of the Trump party, but when Trump says "Anybody
who votes for a Democrat now is crazy" hardly anyone ever hears of it:
The reason is something I've dubbed "the hack gap" over the years, and
it's one of the most fundamental asymmetries shaping American politics.
While conservatives obsess over the (accurate) observation that the
average straight news reporter has policy views that are closer to the
Democratic Party than the Republican Party, the hack gap fundamentally
does more to structure political discourse.
The hack gap explains why Clinton's email server received more
television news coverage than all policy issues combined in the 2016
election. It explains why Republicans can hope to get away with
dishonest spin about preexisting conditions. It's why Democrats are
terrified that Elizabeth Warren's past statements about Native
American heritage could be general election poison in 2020, and it's
why an internecine debate about civility has been roiling progressive
circles for nearly two years even while the president of the United
States openly praises assaulting journalists. . . .
Since there are exactly two significant political parties in the
United States, it's natural to think of them as essentially mirror
images of each other.
But they're not, and one critical difference is that the Republican
Party benefits from the operation of mass-market propaganda broadcasts
that completely abjure the principles of journalism.
Back in the 19th century, most newspapers in America were highly
partisan, but around 1900 they gave way to mainstream papers which
strived to establish clear facts that could inform all readers. As
broadcast media developed, it was licensed by the government and
required to serve the public interest and provide equal time on
matters of controversy. This pretty much ended when Reagan's FCC
got rid of the equal time rule. Right-wingers were quick to buy up
newly unregulated media and turn them into pure propaganda outlets.
The left might have wanted to follow suit, but none (by definition)
could afford to buy up the formerly "free press," while liberals
and centrists were generally content to stick with the mainstream
media, even as its fact-bias tilted to the right to encompass the
"reality" of the propagandists. This continuous rebalancing has had
the effect of allowing the right to define much of the terrain of
what counts as news. A prime example of this has been the nearly
continuous mainstream press reporting on an endless series of Clinton
"scandals" -- even when the reporting shows the charges to be false,
the act of taking them seriously feeds the fears and doubts of many
uncommitted voters, in some cases (like 2016) tilting elections:
And yet elections are swung, almost by definition, not by the majority
of people who correctly see the scope of the differences and pick a side
but by the minority of people for whom the important divisions in US
partisan politics aren't decisive. Consequently, the issues that matter
most electorally are the ones that matter least to partisans. Things like
email protocol compliance that neither liberals nor conservatives care
about even slightly can be a powerful electoral tool because the decisive
voters are the ones who don't care about the epic ideological clash of
left and right.
But journalists take their cues about what's important from partisan
media outlets and partisan social media.
Thus, the frenzies of partisan attention around "deplorables" and
"lock her up" served to focus on controversies that, while not objectively
significant. are perhaps particularly resonant to people who don't have
firm ideological convictions.
Meanwhile, similar policy-neutral issues like Trump's insecure cellphone,
his preposterous claim to be too busy to visit the troops, or even his
apparent track record of tax fraud don't get progressives worked into a
lather in the same way.
This is a natural tactical advantage that, moreover, serves a particular
strategic advantage given the Republican Party's devotion to plutocratic
principles on taxation and health insurance that have only a very meager
constituency among the mass public.
Yglesias cites some interesting research on the effect of Fox News and
other cogs in the right-wing propaganda machine, showing that the margin
of nearly all Republican victories "since the 1980s" can be chalked up to
this "hack gap." One effect of this is that by being able to stay extreme
and still win, Republicans have never had to adjust their policy mix to
gain moderate voters. Indeed, they probably realize that extreme negative
attitudes are, if anything, more effective in motivating their "base,"
although that also leads to them taking ever greater liberties with the
truth.
Other Yglesias pieces from the last two weeks:
The case for amnesty.
Democratic priorities for 2021: what's most important? Given
all the people who are likely running for president in 2020, what
do they hope to accomplish?
In my view, the most important things to tackle right now are climate
change, the state of American democracy, and the millions of long-term
resident undocumented immigrants in the country.
Democrats need to learn to name villains rather than vaguely decrying
"division": Yglesias doesn't get very specific either, but that's
because what he says about Republicans fits damn near every one of them:
But there is also a very specific thing happening in the current American
political environment that is driving the elevated level of concern. And
that thing is not just a nameless force of "division."
It's a deliberate political strategy enacted by the Republican Party,
its allies in partisan media, and its donors to foster a political debate
that is centered on divisive questions of personal identity rather than
on potentially unifying themes of concrete material interests. It's a
strategy whose downside is that it tends to push American society to the
breaking point, but whose upside is that it facilitates the enacting of
policies that serve the concrete material interests of a wealthy minority
rather than those of the majority.
That's what's going on, and it's time to say so.
Here in Kansas, Kris Kobach is running for governor, and his adds try
to turn him into a normal "family man," while attacking his opponent,
Democrat Laura Kelly, as "far left." I don't know the guy personally,
so I merely suspect, based on his public behavior and manifest ignorance
of law, that the former is a bald-faced lie. The charge against Kelly
is no less than rabid McCarthy-ite slander: not that it would bother
me if it were true, but she's about as staidly conservative as any
non-Republican in Kansas can be. Meanwhile, Ron Estes' ads for the
House stress how hard he's is fighting to protect Social Security and
Medicare -- something there's no evidence of in his voting record. No
mention of the real hard work he does in Washington, carrying water
for the Kochs, Boeing, and the hometown Petroleum Club.
Biden is right, of course, that the upshot of that divisiveness is
deplorable and bad for the country. It would be much healthier for
American society to have a calmer, kinder, more rational political
dialogue more focused on addressing the concrete problems of the
majority of the country. But while society overall would be healthier
with that kind of politics, Donald Trump personally would not be
better off. Nor would the hyper-wealthy individuals who benefit
personally from the Republican Party's relentless advocacy of
unpopular regressive tax schemes.
The American people were not crying out for the Trump administration
to legalize a pesticide that damages children's brains and then follow
it up with a ruling to let power plants poison children's brains, but
the people who own the pesticide factories and power plants are sure
glad that we're screaming about a caravan of migrants hundreds of miles
away rather than the plutocrats next door.
Combating this strategy of demagoguery and nonsense is difficult,
but the first step is to correctly identify it rather than spouting
vague pieties about togetherness.
An extended discussion of the US-Saudi alliance shows Trump still has
no idea what he's talking about.
After playing nice for one afternoon, Trump wakes to blame the media
for bombings.
Trump's middle-class tax cut is a fairy tale that distracts from the
real midterm stakes:
There is a kind of entertaining randomness to the things Trump says and
does. The president decides it would be smart to start pretending that
he's working on a middle-class tax cut, so he just blurts it out with
no preparation. Everyone else in the Republican Party politics knows
that when Trump starts lying about something, their job is to start
covering for him.
But because Trump is disorganized, and most people aren't as shameless
as Trump is, it usually takes a few days for the ducks to get in a row.
The ensuing chaos is kind of funny.
But there's actually nothing funny about tricking millions of people
about matters with substantial concrete consequences for them and their
families. And that's what's happening here. Trump is lying about taxes --
and about health care and many other things -- because he will benefit
personally in concrete ways if the electorate is misinformed about the
real stakes in the election.
Ebola was incredibly important to TV news until Republicans decided it
shouldn't be.
California's Proposition 10, explained: This has to do with rent
control. Yglesias once wrote a book called The Rent Is Too Damn
High, so this is something he cares a lot about -- certainly a
lot more than I do, although I sure remember the pain of getting
price gouged by greedy landlords. Yglesias mostly wants to see more
building, which would put pressure to bring prices down.
To defend journalism, we need to defend the truth and not just
journalists:
Trump is a bigot and a demagogue, but he is first and foremost a scammer.
When Trump fans wanted to learn the secrets of his business success,
he bilked them out of money for classes at his fake university. When
Trump fans wanted to invest in his publicly traded company, they lost
all their money while he tunneled funds out of the enterprise and into
his pockets.
He riles up social division by lying about minority groups to set up
the premise that he's the champion of the majority, and then lies to the
majority about what he's doing for them.
He can't get away with it if people know the truth, so he attacks --
rhetorically, and at times even physically -- people whose job it is is
to tell the truth. To push back, we in journalism can't just push back
on the attacks. We need to push back on the underlying lies more clearly
and more vigorously than we have.
Reconsidering the US-Saudi relationship: Argues that a US-Saudi
alliance made sense during the Cold War, and that hostility between
the Saudis and Iran makes sense now (the sanctions keep Iran from
putting its oil on the market and depressing the price of Saudi oil),
but points out that while the Saudis benefit from keeping the US and
Iran at loggerheads, the US doesn't get much out of it. That Trump
has fallen for the Saudi bait just shows how little he understands
anything about the region (and more generally about the world).
The biggest lie Trump tells is that he's kept his promises: Well,
obviously, "a raft of populist pledges have been left on the cutting
room floor," starting with "great health care . . . much less expensive
and much better." Also the idea of Mexico paying for "the wall." Here's
a longer laundry list:
There's a lot more where that came from:
- As a candidate, Trump promised to raise taxes on the rich; as
president, he promised tax changes that at a minimum wouldn't benefit
the rich.
- Trump promised to break up America's largest banks by reinstated
old Glass-Steagall regulations that prevented financial conglomerates
from operating in multiple lines of business.
- Trump promised price controls on prescription drugs.
- Trump promised to "take the oil" from Iraq to reduce the financial
burden of US military policy.
- Trump promised many times that he would release his tax returns
and promised to put his wealth into a blind trust.
- Trump vowed rollback of climate change regulations but said he was
committed to upholding clean air and clean water goals.
- Trump promised a $1 trillion infrastructure package.
The larger betrayal is that Trump portrayed himself as a self-financed
candidate (which wasn't true) who was willing to take stances on domestic
and economic issues that his donor-backed opponents wouldn't. In terms of
position-taking, that was true.
I see less grounds for faulting Trump on this score. For one thing,
I never heard or felt him as a populist -- so half of the above, as
well as such vague and impossible promises as better/cheaper health
care, never registered as campaign promises. A pretty good indication
of my expectations was how sick-to-my-stomach I was on election night.
What Trump's done since taking office is very consistent with what I
expected that night. In fact, I would say that he's been much more
successful at fulfilling his campaign promises than Obama was after
taking office in 2009, or Clinton in 1993. This is especially striking
given that both Clinton in 1993 and Obama in 2009 had strong Democratic
majorities in Congress, which they pissed away in bipartisan gestures.
Trump had much less to work with, and had to awkwardly merge his agenda
into that of the harder right Congressional Republicans, but he's gotten
quite a bit through Congress, and gone way beyond his mandate with his
executive orders. Moreover, things that he hasn't fully delivered, like
his wall, wrecking universal health care, and resetting international
trade regulations, he's made a good show of showing he still cares for
those issues. Of course, he lies a lot about what he's doing, and what
his acts will actually accomplish. And nearly everything he's done and
wants to do will eventually blow back and hurt the nation and most of
its people. But as politicians go, you can't fault him for delivering.
You have to focus on what those deliveries mean, because history will
show that Trump's much worse than a liar and a blowhard.
How to make the economy great again: raise pay.
The Great Recession was awful. And we don't have a plan to stop the next
one. A couple of interesting charts here, comparing actual to potential
output, as estimated over time since the 2008 recession started. Not only
did the recession cause a lot of immediate pain, it's clear now that it
has reduced future prospects well past when we technically recovered from
the recession.
Progressives have nothing to learn from "nationalist" backlash politics:
"Nativism is the social democracy of fools." Cites an op-ed by
Jefferson Cowie: Reclaiming Patriotism for the Left.
Proportional representation could save America: Maybe, but it won't
happen, mostly because no one with the power to make changes to make it
easier for independents and third parties to share power will see any
advantage in doing so. I once wondered why after 2008 no one in the
Democratic Party lifted a finger to restrict or limit the role of money
in elections, but the obvious reason was that even though a vast majority
of rank-and-file Democrats (and probably a thinner majority of Republican
voters) favored such limits, the actual Democrats (and Republicans) in
power were by definition proven winners at raising money, making them
the only people with good self-interested reasons for continuing the
present system.
Jon Lee Anderson: Jair Bolsonaro's Victory Echoes Donald Trump's, With
Key Differences: For the worse, he means. Actually, he's sounding
more like Pinochet, or Franco, or you-know-who:
Bolsonaro himself has promised retribution against his political foes,
swearing that he will see Lula "rot" in prison and will eventually put
Haddad behind bars, too. He has also pledged to go after the land-reform
activists of the M.S.T. -- the Movimento Sem Terra -- the Landless
Worker's Movement, whom he has referred to as "terrorists."
In a speech last week, Bolsonaro called Brazil's leftists "red
outlaws" and said that they needed to leave the country or else go
to jail. "These red outlaws will be banished from our homeland," he
said. "It will be a cleanup the likes of which has never been seen
in Brazilian history." Later, referring to his supporters, he said,
"We are the majority. We are the true Brazil. Together with this
Brazilian people, we will make a new nation."
Also see:
Greg Grandin: Brazil's Bolsonaro Has Supercharged Right-Wing Cultural
Politics; also
Vijay Prashad: Bolsonaro of Brazil: Slayer of the Amazon; and
Noam Chomsky: I just visited Lula, the world's most prominent political
prisoner. A "soft coup" in Brazil's election will have global
consequences..
Peter Beinart: The Special Kind of Hate That Drove Pittsburgh Shooter --
and Trump. In many respects the shooter is a classic anti-semite,
but he specifically singled out the Pittsburgh synagogue for its support
for immigrants, including Muslims. For more on this, see:
Masha Gessen: Why the Tree of Life shooter was fixated on the Hebrew
Immigrant Aid Society. Also of interest:
Abigail Hauslohner/Abby Ohlheiser: Some neo-Nazis lament the Pittsburgh
massacre: It derails their efforts to be mainstream.
Tara Isabella Burton: The Pittsburgh synagogue shooting comes amid a
years-long rise in anti-Semitism; also:
Why extremists keep attacking places of worship; also
German Lopez: Trump's responses to mass shootings are a giant lie by
omission, and
The Pittsburgh synagogue shooting is another example of America's gun
problem, to which I'd add "war problem."
John Cassidy: Donald Trump Launches Operation Midterms Diversion:
Who wants to talk about pipe bombs sent to political enemies and mass
shootings in synagogues (or in grocery stores) when you can send troops
to the Mexican border to brace against the migrant hordes? Cassidy also
wrote:
The Dangerously Thin Line Between Political Incitement and Political
Violence,
Why Donald Trump Can't Stop Attacking the Media Over the Pipe-Bomb
Packages, and
American Democracy Is Malfunctioning in Tragic Fashion.
Michael D'Antonio: Cesar Sayocs can be found almost anywhere in America.
Presidents should take heed:
Trump campaigned using taunts and suggestions that all the Cesar Sayocs
could have heard as calls to violent action. When a protester interrupted
a rally, Trump announced that he would "like to punch him in the face"
and waxed sentimental about the days when protesters would be "carried
out on stretchers."
He referenced a "Second Amendment" response to Hillary Clinton's
possible election and offered to pay the legal bills for those who
assault his protesters. . . .
As president, Trump never pivoted from his destructive campaign mode
to become a leader of all the American people. Just weeks ago, he
praised fellow Republican Greg Gianforte for assaulting a reporter
who had asked him a question. "Any guy that can do a body slam, he's
my kind of . . . He was my guy," said Trump.
The President's encouragement of violence, combined with rhetoric
about the press being "enemies of the people" and political opponents
being un-American, are green lights for those who are vulnerable to
suggestion. Worse, when you think about the President's impact on
fevered minds, is his penchant for conspiracy theories. With no evidence,
he recently suggested terrorists were among immigrants now marching
toward the United States.
Previously, Trump has said that the hurricane death toll in Puerto
Rico was inflated to hurt him politically, Supreme Court Justice
Antonin Scalia may have been murdered, climate change is a "hoax"
and millions of people voted illegally in 2016. Keep in mind, this
is the President of the United States we're talking about, and though
they are favored on the fringes of the internet, none of these ideas
is supported by facts.
Taken together, Trump's paranoid rants encourage people to believe
that almost anything can be true. Can't find actual facts to support
your belief that some conspiracy is afoot? Well, the absence of facts
proves that the media is in on the game. An election doesn't go your
way? As the President says, the system is "rigged."
Consider Trump's paranoid blather from the perspective of a man who
may already feel alienated, angry and afraid. You hear the President
of the United States repeatedly assert that the dishonest press is
hiding the real truth. He implies that his enemies are out to hurt
him and he needs the help of ordinary citizens. Add the way that
Trump encourages violence and seems to thrill at the prospect, and
is it any wonder that someone would act? The real wonder is why it
doesn't happen more often.
I wouldn't have committed to that last sentence, but the rest of
the quote is pretty spot on. I can think of lots of reasons why this
doesn't happen more often. For starters, few people (even few Trump
voters) take politics as personally as Sayoc and Trump do. Even among
those who do, and are as disaffected as Sayoc, hardly any are ready to
throw their lives away to indulge Trump's whims. It might even occur
to them that if Trump really wanted to order hits on his "enemies,"
he'd be much more able to foot the bill himself. (He'd probably even
have contacts with Russians willing to do the job.) But Trump himself
doesn't do things like that: he's not that deranged, or maybe he just
has a rational fear that it might blow up on him (cf. Mohammad Bin
Salman, or for that matter Vladimir Putin). I think it's pretty clear
that Trump attacks the media because he's afraid not of satire (the
former meaning of "fake news") or opinion, but of the corruption,
deceit, and dysfunction that media might eventually get around to
reporting (if they ever tire of his tweets and gaffes). By turning
his supporters against the media, he hopes to create doubt should
they ever get serious about the damage he's causing.
A second point that should be stressed is that you don't have
to be president to incite someone like Sayoc to violence. Indeed,
incited violence most often reflects a loss or lack of power. It
is, after all, a tactic of desperation (a point Gilles Kepel made
about 9/11 in an afterword to his essential book Jihad: The
Trail of Political Islam). I fully expect we'll see an uptick
in right-wing violence only after Trump leaves office -- much like
the one following the Republican loss in 2008, but probably much
worse given the personal animus Trump has been spouting. (Of course,
Republicans who argued last week that Trump is being unfairly blamed
because no one blamed Obama for a Charleston church massacre that
occurred "on his watch" will spare Trump any responsibility.)
For more on Sayoc, see:
Dan Paquette/Lori Rozsa/Matt Zapotosky: 'He felt that somebody was
finally talking to him': How the package-bomb suspect found inspiration
in Trump.
Madison Dapcevich: EPA Announces It Will Discontinue Science Panel That
Reviews Air Pollution Safety.
Garrett Epps: The Citizenship Clause Means What It Says: Adding to
the last-minute campaign confusion, Trump's talking about using his
executive powers to override the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution.
Also see:
Aziz Huq: Trump's birthright citizenship proposal, explained by a law
professor.
J Lester Feder: Bernie Sanders Is Partnering With a Greek Progressive to
Build a New Leftist Movement: The guy who didn't get his name in the
headline is Yanis Varoufakis, who left his post as an economic professor
in Texas to become Greece's finance minister under the Syriza government,
and left that post when Syriza caved in to the EU's austerity demands.
Since then he's written several books: And the Weak Suffer What They
Must? Europe's Crisis and America's Economic Future, and Talking
to My Daughter About the Economy: A Brief History of Capitalism.
The article sees this as a response to Steve Bannon's efforts to forge
an international alliance of far-right parties, normally separated by
their respective nationalisms. Reminds me more of the pre-Bolshevik
Internationale, but maybe we shouldn't talk about that? But globalism
is so clearly dominated by capital that resistance and constructive
alternatives emerging from anywhere help us all.
Umair Irfan: Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke might face a criminal
investigation: Although they're going to have to come up with
something more substantial than "He also compared Martin Luther
King Jr. to Robert E. Lee" (the subhed -- why even mention that?).
German Lopez: The Kentucky Kroger shooting may have been a racist
attack: I don't see much need for "may" here, even if the white
shooter's "whites don't kill whites" quote is just hearsay.
Robinson Meyer: The Trump Administration Flunked Its Math Homework:
On automobile mileage standards.
Dana Milbank: The latest lesson in Trumponomics 101:
Tuesday morning brought a textbook illustration of Trumponomics.
Under this economic theory -- defined roughly as "when it's sunny,
credit me; when it rains, blame them" -- President Trump has been
claiming sole responsibility for a bull market that began nearly
eight years before his presidency.
But this month, wild swings in the market threaten to erase the
year's gains, and on Tuesday, Trump offered an explanation: The
Democrats did it! The market "is now taking a little pause -- people
want to see what happens with the Midterms," he tweeted. "If you want
your Stocks to go down, I strongly suggest voting Democrat."
Most attribute the swoon to higher tariffs set off by Trump's trade
war and higher interest rates aggravated by Trump's tax cut. But
Trumponomics holds otherwise. . . .
When you start from a place of intellectual dishonesty, there is no
telling where you'll end up. That is the very foundation of Trumponomics.
For something a little deeper on Trumponomics, see:
Matt Taibbi: Three Colliding Problems Leading to a New Economic
Disaster.
Bruce Murphy: Wisconsin's $4.1 billion Foxconn boondoggle:
"The total Foxconn subsidy hit $4.1 billion, a stunning $1,774 per
household in Wisconsin." Article also notes that $4.1 billion is
about $315,000 per job promised.
Andrew Prokop: The incredibly shoddy plot to smear Robert Mueller,
explained. Read this if you're curious. Significant subheds here
are "This was an embarrassingly thin scam" and "If this was just
trolling, then it sort of worked." All I want to add that I thought
Seth Meyers' take on this story was especially disgusting, but I
could say that for all of his "looks like . . ." bits.
Catherine Rampell: Republicans are mischaracterizing nearly all their
major policies. Why?
Republicans have mischaracterized just about every major policy on their
agenda. The question is why. If they genuinely believe their policies are
correct, why not defend them on the merits? . . .
[Long list of examples, most of which you already know]
You might wonder if maybe Republican politicians are mischaracterizing
so many of their own positions because they don't fully understand them.
But given that Republican leaders have occasionally blurted out their
true motives -- on taxes, immigration and, yes, even health care -- this
explanation seems a little too charitable.
Republican politicians aren't too dumb to know what their policies do.
But clearly they think the rest of us are.
Brian Resnick: Super Typhoon Yutu, the strongest storm of the year, just
hit US territories: That would be islands in the West Pacific, Tinian
and Saipan, with sustained winds of 180 mph, gusting to 219 mph, a 20 foot
storm surge, waves cresting at 52 feet. Just my impression, but this year
has been an especially fierce one for tropical cyclones in the Pacific,
including two that improbably hit Hawaii. Any year when you get to 'Y' is
pretty huge.
David Roberts: Why conservatives keep gaslighting the nation about
climate change: I've run across the term several times recently,
and sort of thought I knew what it meant, but decided to look it up
to be sure:
Gaslighting is a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to
sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a
targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception,
and sanity.
I guess that makes it the word of the week. As the article points
out, the tactics have changed as climate change has become more and
more undeniable, but the goal -- not doing anything about it that
might impact the bottom line of the carbon extraction companies --
has held steady (although maybe they'll come around to spend money
on "adaptation," given the equation: "nationalism + graft = that's
the right-wing sweet spot").
Alex Ward: Saudi Arabia admits Khashoggi's murder was "premeditated".
Ward also wrote
The US is sending 5,000 troops to the border. Here's what they can and
can't do. Ward cites
Dara Lind, explaining:
It is completely legal for anyone on US soil to seek asylum, regardless
of whether or not they have papers. People who present themselves for
asylum at a port of entry -- an official border crossing -- break no US
law.
Ward also wrote:
Trump may soon kill a US-Russia arms control deal. It might be a good
idea. Uh, no, it's not. Even if you buy the argument that Russia
has been "cheating" -- during a period when the US expanded NATO all
the way to Russia's border -- the solution is more arms control, not
less, and certainly not a new round of arms race. Tempting, of course,
to blame this on John Bolton, who's built his entire career on promoting
nuclear arms races. By the way, Fred Kaplan has argued
Trump Is Rewarding Putin for His Bad Behavior by Pulling Out of a Key
Missile Treaty.
Paul Woodward: Loneliness in America: Could have filed this
under any of the shooters above (specifically refers to Pittsburgh
shooter Robert Bowers), but obviously this is more more widespread,
with much more complex consequences.
Also, saved for future study:
PS: Although I started this back on Saturday, in anticipation
of posting late Sunday evening. Actually got the introduction written
on Sunday, but the miscellaneous links just dragged on and on and on --
finally cut them off on Wednesday, October 31. After which I still had
a Music Week post due on the intervening Monday, and a Streamnotes
wrap up by the end of the month (i.e., today). Of course, it's my
prerogative to backdate if I wish. But while I didn't make an effort
to pick up late stories, inevitably a few snuck in here. So pretend
I just had a long weekend. Feels like one.
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Daily Log
Started this, but found it was chewing up too much time for too little
value:
I was going to say that I've never seen any of these things
accompanied by a coherent personal argument, but I found one today
(from a cousin-in-law):
Please quit using the word IMMIGRANT to describe people trying to
force their way into our country illegally. It is an insult to my
mother and the millions of other law abiding CITIZENS who studied
hard and followed all the rules of our country to become legitimate
Immigrants. They learned English and swore to uphold our country
and its laws and to support themselves and be productive citizens.
We aren't "afraid" of immigrants, we aren't "racists," we simply
can distinguish right from wrong which makes us rational adults.
Some things I would disagree with here, and some I'm simply
unclear on. America has lots of immigrants who aren't naturalized
citizens but have all the necessary documentation (e.g., "green
cards") so aren't "illegal" (an unfairly charged term that most
often refers to someone who simply didn't have the foresight to
negotiate the proper bureaucracy). Before 1924, such paperwork
didn't even exist, so none of my ancestors ever had visas or
work permits, and few were officially naturalized (although I
know that a great-great-grandfather from Sweden was). I should
also point out that the much-reported "caravan" of refugees
from Central America haven't done anything illegal (at least in
the US). They actually have a legal right to present themselves
to US border officials and apply for refugee (or other immigrant)
status.
Another fragment I gave up on:
I mentioned above how obnoxious right-wing memes are,
but I saw a centrist one yesterday that was every bit as wrong-headed. It
posed as a "memorandum from the American people": "You are no longer allowed
to talk about your opponent in any way, form or fashion. You are only allowed
to tell us why YOU are right for this position and NOT why your opponent is
not." . . .
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Daily Log
Birthday Thursday, 68. Got a fairly good examination by my cardiologist
on Wednesday, although in most regards I'm in worsening shape. Mostly
aches and pains moving around. Eyesight worse. Allergies as bad as ever.
Having trouble getting to bed before 6AM, or sleeping past Noon -- but
I do get a pretty solid five hours.
Spent all day cooking for my big Birthday Dinner tomorrow night. This
year's theme is French country cooking. I ordered two cookbooks for the
occasion: Dorie Greenspan's Around My French Table, and Anthony
Bourdain's Les Halles Cookbook. The only proper French cookbook
I had before this was Julia Child's Volume 1, which I'm should
mention I have yet to cook anything out of yet. I have cooked a handful
of French dishes in the past, but never made a point of cooking a whole
French dinner.
When I came up with the idea, I thought I'd fill up the entire week
with cooking, starting with things I could keep around a few days. As
it turned out, although I had made a couple of early scouting trips, I
didn't do any serious shopping until Wednesday. Even then, my menu was
still a rough sketch of possible ideas. What I wound up serving Friday
was:
- Ready-to-bake French baguettes, with several spreads:
- Mme. Maman's chopped liver (Greenspan)
- Salmon rillettes (Greenspan)
- Duck rillettes (Peterson)
- Lyonnaise garlic & herb cheese (Greenspan)
- Tapenade (Jenkins)
- Cold trout in orange marinade (Hazan)
- Boeuf bourgoinon (Bourdain)
- Veal marengo (Greenspan)
- Whole duck cassoulet (Bittman)
- Ratatouille (Jenkins)
-
- Gratin dauphinois (Bourdain)
- Bittersweet chocolate-almond cake with amaretti cookie crumbs
(Greenspan)
I bought stuff to make several other smaller dishes, but they fell
by the wayside. I thought about making my own bread, but ultimately
figured it would be too much work and pretty risky. The ready-to-bake
loaves seemed like a nice compromise, although they actually turned
out not to be very good. Only dish I was even moderately disappointed
by was the beef, which barely made the two hours the recipe calls for --
I suspect another 30-45 minutes would have helped, if nothing else to
concentrate the sauce. By contrast, I wound up cooking the veal a lot
longer than called for, and it was spectacular.
Did pretty much all of the shopping on Wednesday. Thawed the duck
out and cut the breast and legs off, reserving them for later use. I
then roasted the rest of the duck along with an onion, carrots, and
celery for an hour, then dumped them into the stock pot, simmering the
stock for another 3-4 hours. I collected the fat for future use. Both
steps could have used more time -- not least because I needed more fat.
I wound up salvaging the loose boiled meat, and tried slow-frying the
skin and any bits of fat I found, like I've done making gribenes. I
wound up throwing the skin away, but did get a few more tablespoons of
fat.
I also covered four cups of white (great northern) beans with cold
water, soaking them overnight rather than following Bittman's recipe
and soaking them one hour in boiling water. (Bourdain's recipe called
for soaking overnight, and that's what I've usually done.)
Next day, Thursday, I was able to skim a bit more fat from the stock
(though not as much as I expected). First thing I did Thursday was to
make duck confit from the reserved legs and fat. Didn't quite have enough
fat to cover the legs, so I added some from a jar I keep handy: originally
started with duck fat, but mostly had bacon drippings added since. Confit
cooks in the fat, ideally between 190-200F, for 90 minutes. I monitored
this closely, but had a tough time keeping the temperature down. I expected
the meat, once cooled, to come out softer than it did, but I'm not expert
enough to really judge the results.
I made the spreads on Thursday. I had originally wanted to do Bourdain's
pork rillettes recipe, but on re-reading I discovered it called for three
days refrigeration before serving, and I didn't start soon enough to do
that. Howver, I noticed a duck rillettes recipe in Peterson's book. Sure,
it called for starting with confit legs, but I had about a cup of scrap
meat (mostly neck and wings, bits from the back, and giblets) so I added
some duck fat and spices, and it turned out to be really delicious.
I made the trout and all of the other spreads. Brief notes:
- The trout came from an Italian cookbook (Hazan), but always struck
me as a rather French recipe. Sprouts has trout filets, so I'm always
tempted to pick them up -- they make a nice little dinner for two. I
thought of using them for a main fish dish, but then I remembered the
Hazan recipe, and figured it would be better to cook them sooner, and
get the dish stored away. Basically: flour and sautee the filets. Make
a sauce from olive oil, shallots, orange peel, vermouth, orange and
lemon juice. I ran out of vermouth, so filled out the deficit with
white wine.
- The salmon rillettes were made from a piece of fresh salmon, poached
in wine, and a similar-sized chunk of smoked salmon, all mashed up with
butter.
- Mme. Maman's chopped liver is you basic onions and chicken liver
mash up. I added a little cognac (not called for in the recipe), two
hard-boiled eggs, and blended it in the food processor (recipe seems
to want you to chop by hand).
- I made the cheese with whole milk ricotta, drained, with garlic
and various chopped herbs (chives, parsley, tarrogon, maybe thyme).
- I used black Greek olives for the tapenade, along with capers and
a can of ventresca tuna (albacore belly). The olives didn't pack much
taste, but but it got better (and blacker) when I added some Moroccan
oil-cured olives.
I decided to only make a half-recipe of ratatouille, although I had
bought two eggplant and four red bell peppers for a full recipe. The
ratatouille recipe calls for peppers to be roasted and peeled, but the
eggplant is simply cut into cubes and brined. I decided I'd roast one
eggplant along with the peppers, and possibly make another spread of
"eggplant caviar," but in the end didn't use them. Other little things
I managed to get done on Thursday include making a couple cups of bread
crumbs (from a nice loaf of herb bread), boiling and peeling pearl and
cippoline onions for the beef and veal dishes. Finally, I cooked the
ratatouille, and baked the cake.
The ratatouille half-recipe calls for the vegetables to be cooked
one by one, then collected in a bowl: the red bell peppers roasted
and peeled, the onion sliced, the eggplant cubed and fried, the two
zucchini chunked and fried, then a can of fire-roasted diced tomatoes
with a bit of sugar and corriander. When the latter had thickened, I
dumped the rest back in, added capers, and let it simmer much longer
than called for.
The cake recipe called for an 8-inch round cake pan, but my smaller
springform pan was 9-inch, so I did some math and decided to scale the
recipe by 25% (close enough that 3 eggs became 4). Exotic ingredient
was amaretti cookies, which I found at World Market, ground with almonds
in the food processor. Added butter, eggs, cocoa (Hershey's Special Dark),
sugar, salt, and 5 oz. bittersweet chocolate (70%). Scraped it into the
pan and baked it. Came out with a large bubble raising one-third of the
cake, so I pushed that back down with a spatula. Came out thinner and
denser than I expected, looking like my recent Prague Cake disaster --
until I cut and served it, I fretted that I had made my second straight
cake faux pas. I left the glazing until Friday, and wound up barely
getting it done, but by then I had some space in the refrigerator to
chill the glaze (2 oz. bittersweet chocolate, 1/4 c heavy cream, 1 tbs
sugar, 1 tbs water; I forget now whether I poured the heated cream into
the chocolate, as the recipe directed, or vice versa, as recommended
by Bakewise). I ground up two more cookies and scattered the
crumbs over the glaze before popping it into the refrigerator.
I got up Friday around noon, with three large pots left on the stove:
the beans, the lamb mixture, and the ratatouille. I reheated them. The
ratatouille was done, so when it was hot, I scraped it into a serving
bowl. I cut the meat into chunks, and got the mandoline out to slice
the potatoes (which worked pretty well, for once). I figured my smaller
(chicken-sized) roasting pan would suffice for the cassoulet, but before
I could assemble it, I had to fry the sausage and warm up the duck stock.
A proper cassoulet sausage is thin, pork, with a lot of garlic. I looked
at a lot of alternatives, but couldn't find anything uncooked that came
close, so I bought a couple of cooked sausage candidates. I wound up
going with Silva Bourbon, Uncured Bacon and Black Pepper Sausage, cut
into half-inch slices and browned in duck fat. I don't particularly
recall them in the finished dish, but they certainly didn't hurt. I
assembled the cassoulet, starting with a layer of beans, then sausage
and the slab bacon I cooked the beans with, then more beans, then the
lamb-duck-tomato mixture, then more beans. I added two cups of duck
stock, and covered the top with my bread crumbs.
I tried to work out a chart of when various things had to be done
for the four hot dishes to come out at 6:30. The boeuf bourguinon had
the longest cooking time (2 hours), and I barely got it on by 4:30.
In retrospect, I think it could have used another hour. I also didn't
quite believe that the 1 cup of red wine called for was enough, so I
doubled that. I also added the pearl onions, which Bourdain didn't
call for (but most other recipes do).
There were several things about the veal marengo recipe I didn't
like -- especially the part where you put the dish in the oven to
cook, as I wanted to do it all on the stove top. I used a large,
deep skillet, figuring that was the right geometry. I floured and
browned the veal (using inch-thick veal chops, so my cubes were
around 1 inch). Set them aside, then sauteed the onions, added the
tomatoes and tomato paste, and white wine, returning the meat. I
covered it, and let it all cook gently. Meanwhile, I put the sliced
potatoes (Yukon gold) into a pot of cream, garlic, and herbs, and
simmered them for probably two times the 10 minutes the recipe
called for. In another skillet, I tossed the cippoline onions in
butter, added some wine, covered and steamed, then added the white
mushrooms and boiled the vegetables dry. The recipe also called
for boiling potatoes on the side, but I decided to skip that part,
figuring them redundant next to the gratin dauphinois. I folded
the onions and mushrooms into the veal pan, kept it covered, and
let it all slowly cook together. Meanwhile, I put the cassoulet
into a 375F oven for 30 minutes. I poured the potatoes and cream
(picking out most of the green bits) into another baking dish,
and topped with 8 oz. grated gruyere. I lowered the oven to 350F,
and put the gratin in next to the cassoulet. Then I sauteed the
duck breasts in the pan I had used for the sausage. I cut the duck
into crosswise slices, and scraped the pan dripping over the
cassoulet. A few minutes before the cassoulet was done, I pulled
it out of the oven, tucked the duck breast in, and scattered more
parsley on top. The idea was for the breast, sauteed rare, to
still be medium rare when the cassoulet came out of the oven.
Finally, I glazed the cake, put it into the refrigerator, and
popped the baguettes into the other oven. By then most of the
guests had arrived, and things got crazy trying to set the table,
round up chairs, arrange the food, and provide drinks, while I
finished up. Zhanna brought some bread that was better than my
baguettes, and she stopped me from serving the latter underdone.
I served the cassoulet and the gratin dauphinois in their hot
baking dishes, so people had to reach to get them. I put the
beef and veal into serving dishes (only about half of the beef
fit, so most of it sat out the meal in the pot).
Having grown up as I did, I always think these meals should be
served family style: all the dishes in the middle of the table,
with people reaching and/or passing as seems best. However, it
does get awkward when you get ten people and more than ten dishes.
I doubt there is any good alternative: we don't have a good space
to organize a line, and the space is too crowded for people to
get up and around. And I've never like the idea of plating the
dishes: people should be able to pick and choose, as well as come
back for more. (I do tend to plate the desserts, which often leads
to issues about portion size.)
Everything turned out good (except perhaps the bread, but that
was there mostly as structure under the spreads, although it was
also useful for mopping up the plate). As I said, the beef could
have benefited from longer cooking, and more reduction of the
sauce. Bourdain suggests adding a couple spoonfuls of demi-glace,
which I didn't have and couldn't find. (Would be a useful pantry
project -- one technique is to freeze it in ice cubes -- but it's
pretty hard around here to find the veal bones for the initial
stock.) Among the very good dishes, the veal and the potatoes
were really exceptional. So was the cassoulet -- I had tried this
recipe once before, but was disappointed then; main improvement
this time was that I did a much better job of getting the beans
fully cooked (although I think I also did a better job handling
the duck this time, and the homemade bread crumbs were superior).
The only other recipes I had previously made were the trout and
the ratatouille.
I served the cake with two pints of Haagen Dasz vanilla bean
ice cream. No leftovers of either.
Monday, October 22, 2018
Music Week
Music: current count 30499 [30473] rated (+26), 287 [286] unrated (+1).
Forgot to include the grade for the Myra Melford album reported
last week, so I'm running it again here.
I've had a rough week, and it's left me pretty badly shaken. I used
to think of myself as fairly handy, and started the week with several
seemingly simple projects to do. One was to repair some office chairs.
They have a standard gas lift cylinder to adjust the height. Over time,
it can leak, causing the chair to sink under weight, often in startling
little bursts. I've replaced them before, and never had any problem.
The ends are slightly tapered, so the weight of sitting on the chair
presses them into the base and seat frames. You can find
YouTube videos
that show how easy it is to extract the old cylinder and replace it
with a new one. Typically, you use a hammer to tap the cylinder out of
the base. It took me a few more blows than the video shows, but I did
that part was easy enough. Separating the cylinder from the chair is a
little more awkward, so they suggest using a pipe wrench. I tried that
and failed. It was stuck so completely that my wrench cut deep gouges
in the side of the cylinder without budging it. Nor did spraying WD-40
around the interface help.
So I thought, maybe I could tap it out, like the base. I unbolted
chair from the metal frame the cylinder was stuck into, so I could hit
it from the top. I pulled a clip and moved the handle out of the way.
I clamped the unit into a WorkBench. I took a chisel I use for chipping
apart masonry that's just a bit smaller than the top of the cylinder,
centered it over the cylinder, and smashed it 20-30 times with a heavy
mallet. It didn't budge, although it did start cutting into the top.
Then I took a gear puller, wrapped it around the frame with the screw
centered on the cylinder, and started tightening it with a wrench. No
change (except perhaps that the screw, which has a point to help keep
it centered, is now drilling into the middle of the cylinder). Only
other idea I can think of would be to get a flat steel disc just a
bit smaller than the top of the cylinder, and insert that under the
screw to spread out the pressure more evenly. I thought about using
small stack of quarters, but the amount of pressure I've already put
on it would tear a hole in such soft metal. So right now, this looks
like a total failure: having bought replacement parts, nothing I can
do now but throw the chair away.
Second project was to install some covering over the gutter on the
garage. We had new gutters and covers installed when we had the house
covered with vinyl siding ten years ago, but the garage is detached
and a separate deal. I found some material that looked promising at
Home Depot, and ordered enough for my garage and my nephew's
house (at pre-sale prices, I now see). Should have been a pretty
simple installation on the garage -- one 22-foot run, not very high --
but it would up taking me three afternoons. The material had to be
bent to fit, I had to cut one piece short, and trim both ends. I
bought screws that didn't work very well. But mostly it was just
a lot of aches and pains going up and down the ladder. At least I
got that little project done. But that still leaves my nephew's
house, which will be four times as much work (hopefully, with some
help, and having learned some tricks).
The more serious problem struck Thursday evening. I figured it
was tie to upgrade my main computer from Ubuntu 16 to 18. I've done
this upgrade twice before, so expected it to be slow and disruptive,
but uneventful. To be safe, I copied all my data off onto another
computer, then shut my work programs down and ran the upgrade. It
failed, leaving the machine in "unstable" state. The specific error
concerned grub, which is the Linux boot loader. There is something
called UEFI built into the motherboard software to provide a feature
they call "Secure Boot," which will only allow kernels with certain
signatures to be booted. The install program normally creates signed
kernels, but due to a bug (reportedly since fixed, but somehow still
in the upgrade package) it detected unsigned kernels on the system,
and aborted the upgrade rather than install a boot loader that might
not be able to boot up. I'm not clear on the exact implications of all
that: basically, a bunch of stuff got installed, but not everything,
so there are possible incompatible versions. More obviously, with
the upgrade process aborted, it isn't clear how to identify and fix
the problems, and how to restart and finish the upgrade.
What happened then was basically my mind froze up and I stopped,
not knowing how to back out, and not daring to move forward. The
computer itself was semi-functional: indeed, I'm using it now to
write this post, and should be able to upload it before I'm done
tonight (but between Thursday and now I've done next to nothing).
After I'm through with this upload, I'll try rebooting, which may
or may not work. Worst case is I have to put a new disc in and do
a fresh install, then bring the old disc back and patch it all up.
Best is that it will reboot, finish installing the packages it has
downloaded, and be stable enough that it can look for updates and
finally get a complete up-to-date system installed.
Couple other problems this week, but that's enough to chew on.
My music work stopped with the computer on Thursday. Most of what's
listed below comes from the Will Friedland The Great Jazz and
Pop Vocal Albums
list. I started a
couple weeks ago having only heard one-third of the 57 albums on
the list. Now I've heard 47 of the albums: 6 I wasn't able to find
on Napster, 4 more I haven't gotten around to checking on. I don't
align very well with Friedland's taste here -- I've only rated 12
of 47 at A- or higher -- but three A- records this week all caught
me by surprise (Judy Garland, Della Reese, and Kay Starr; the high
B+ records by Anita O'Day and Maxine Sullivan were pretty much what
I expected, but my previous Garland grades were { C+, C, B, B- },
and I had nothing graded by Reese or Starr).
When I resume, I'll probably go deeper on Frank Sinatra than the
one I've missed (In the Wee Small Hours, which pretty much
everyone regards as A/A+), not least because I actually own (but
never rated) the 14-CD Capitol Records Concept Albums box).
The others I need to look up are less promising: Mel Tormé (2
rated, 1 B+, The Mel Torme Collection: U), Sarah Vaughan
(13 rated, 1 B+(*), 4 B+), and Margaret Whiting (1 rated: C+).
Didn't even think about Weekend Roundup yesterday, although I'm
pretty sure there were some really terrible things to write about
(especially with Trump's America Only foreign policy). Moreover,
even if the computer comes back to life painlessly, I don't expect
to get much done on it next week. I still have the gutters on my
nephew's house to deal with. Also, I'm cooking "birthday dinner"
this week, so will try to come up with something fabulous for that.
Seems like that, at least, is still a project I can carry off. If
not, I'll be even more bummed next week. Doesn't look like I'm cut
out for getting old and decrepit.
New records rated this week:
- Alchemy Sound Project: Adventures in Time and Space (2016 [2018], ARC): [cd]: B+(***)
- Myra Melford's Snowy Egret: The Other Side of Air (2017 [2018], Firehouse 12): [cd]: A-
- John Moulder: Decade: Memoirs (2009-17 [2018], Origin): [cd]: B
- Tyshaw Sorey: Pillars (2017 [2018], Firehouse 12, 3CD): [cd]: B+(**)
- Brad Whiteley: Presence (2016 [2018], Destiny): [cd]: B+(**)
Old music rated this week:
- Judy Garland: Judy at Carnegie Hall (1961 [2001], Capitol, 2CD): [r]: A-
.
- Eydie Gorme and Steve Lawrence: Sing the Golden Hits (1960 [1990], MCA): [r]: B+(**)
- Dick Haymes: Rain or Shine (1956, Capitol): [r]: B+(**)
- Peggy Lee: The Man I Love (1957, Capitol): [r]: B
- Marilyn Maye: Meet Marvelous Marilyn Maye (1965, RCA Victor): [r]: B+(*)
- Marilyn Maye: The Happiest Sound in Town (1968, RCA Victor): [r]: B+(***)
- Anita O'Day: Sings the Winners (1958, Verve): [r]: B+(***)
- Della Reese: Della (1960, RCA Victor): [r]: B+(**)
- Della Reese: Della Della Cha Cha Cha (1961, RCA Victor): [r]: A-
- Jimmy Scott: The Source (1969 [1970], Atlantic): [r]: B
- Jimmy Scott: All the Way (1992, Sire): [r]: B+(***)
- Bobby Short: Bobby Short (1956, Atlantic): [r]: B+(*)
- Nina Simone: Nina Simone and Piano! (1969 [2011], RCA/Legacy): [r]: B
- Jo Stafford: Capitol Collectors Series (1944-50 [1991], Capitol): [r]: B+(*)
- Jo Stafford: Sings Songs of Scotland (1953-56 [1957], Columbia): [r]: B
- Jo Stafford: I'll Be Seeing You (1959, Columbia): [r]: B+(*)
- Kay Starr: I Cry by Night (1962, Capitol): [r]: A-
- Kay Starr: Capitol Collectors Series (1948-62 [1991], Capitol): [r]: B+(**)
- Maxine Sullivan and Her Jazz All-Stars: Memories of You: A Tribute to Andy Razaf (1956 [2007], Essential Music Group): [r]: B+(***)
- Jack Teagarden: Think Well of Me (1962, Verve): [r]: B
- Tiny Tim: God Bless Tiny Tim (1968, Reprise): [r]: B-
Monday, October 15, 2018
Music Week
Music: current count 30473 [30430] rated (+43), 286 [282] unrated (+4).
Another week with much more old music than new. One chunk of old
music was an attempt to fill in a few holes after baritone sax great
Hamiet Bluiett's death. Other A- Bluiett records my database:
- Hamiet Bluiett: Live at Carlos 1: Last Night (1986 [1998], Just a Memory)
- Hamiet Bluiett: Young Warrior, Old Warrior (1995, Mapleshade)
- Hamiet Bluiett: Makin' Whoopee: Tribute to the Nat King Cole Trio (1997, Mapleshade)
- World Saxophone Quartet: Selim Sevad: A Tribute to Miles Davis (1998, Justin Time)
- Hamiet Bluiett/D.D. Jackson/Kahil El'Zabar: The Calling (2001, Justin Time)
- World Saxophone Quartet: Political Blues (2006, Justin Time)
I didn't follow up with
World Saxophone
Quartet albums I may have missed. I didn't care for their early work --
thought they needed something extra beyond the four-sax harmonics, as
the few records I wound up liking proved. Still, Napster filed a couple
under Bluiett's name, reminding me that I was missing some.
I was pointed to the rest of the "old music" by Will Friedland's
new book, The Great Jazz and Pop Vocal Albums. I made a list
of the 57 albums reviewed at great depth there, found that I had only
heard a third of them (19/57), and vowed to improve myself. Usually
I went straight to the selected album, but sometimes I dug a little
deeper -- e.g., wound up playing all of Blossom Dearie's Verve albums,
a couple of extras from Doris Day and Rosemary Clooney, and a second
Matt Dennis album (that got compiled into a single CD with the pick).
On the other hand, I figured Nat King Cole and Ella Fitzgerald would
have turned into vast time sinks (plus I already have
15 Cole and
36 Fitzgerald
albums graded; Ella at Zardi's was a vault music album from
last year, and too good to skip). I felt more need to check out
Billy Eckstine
(4 records), but I've never been that much of a fan. As for Robert
Goulet, his is a name I remembered from my youth but hadn't heard
in as many years -- a mistake I'm not likely to repeat soon.
I'll try to knock off some more this week: Judy Garland, Eydie
Gormé, Dick Haymes, Peggy Lee, Marilyn Maye, Carmen McRae, Anita
O'Day, Della Reese, a dozen more. Friedland's list is skewed pretty
strongly to the string-drenched pop of the first few years of the
LP era -- basically the pre-rock and anti-rock I grew up rebelling
against, so it's not very promising ground for me. Also not finding
everything, so I'll probably stop close to 80% (missing so far: Lena
Horne, Barb Jungr, Bobby Troup).
I did manage a milestone on one months-long project. I've spent
a couple years now collecting bits of text from my
on-line notebook. My first pass
picked up all the capsule reviews of jazz albums, which I sorted
into two book files: one on records from 2000 forward, the other
on records recorded earlier (20th century). Those volumes added
up to 765 pp (pre-2000) and 1650 pp (post-2000). I then went back
through the notebooks and started pulling out all of the political
notes (four volumes: 1590 pp 2001-08, 1768 pp for 2009-12, 1666 pp
for 2013-16, and 858 pp since 2017), plus another file for various
personal notes (memoir, health crises, dinners, deaths, plus some
movies and tv: another 780 pp).
When I finished those, I realized that there were still a couple
of major chunks of writing unarchived from the notebook: non-jazz
capsule reviews (1863 pp) and miscellaneous music writings (e.g.,
intros to my CG posts, year-end notes, obits: 1735 pp). I finished
my initial pass on Sunday, so the total for the nine volumes is
12,685 pages, which works out to about 5.4 million words.
While most of what I've written since 2001 is either in the
notebook or accessibly linked from it, I still need to look at
other files on the website and fold them in where appropriate.
Biggest chunk here is probably the longer music reviews, but I
also have fragments of book drafts and project plans, and other
things. Would be nice if I can recover my email files -- lost
in my early-summer server crash, but perhaps not hopelessly.
Other things I need to do:
- Make a pass comparing the misc. music notes to the political
files, eliminating redundancies (e.g., political paragraphs stuck
in the middle of Music Week posts).
- Make a pass comparing the non-jazz capsule reviews with the
jazz guides to eliminate redundancies.
- I need to bring the earlier book files up to date, picking up
more recent notebooks and Streamnotes posts.
- The non-jazz capsule reviews are currently organized by date
posted. They should be reorganized by genre and artist name.
- The books currently exist as LibreWriter files, with at least
some versions available on my website. I need to straighten that
out, decide what I want to make available, and write up some sort
of introduction to all that.
- I also need to look into alternate formats. PDF files are one
possibility, but they are much larger than the LW files. Perhaps
more useful would be some sort of Ebook format. I'm aware of some
free tools for conversion, but haven't used them yet.
Ultimately, I see these files as resources for constructing
various other books and/or websites. Laura has read through the
first of the political files (2001-08), but we haven't yet had
any substantial discussions on where she thinks it should go.
I have various scattershot ideas on these things, but won't try
to develop them here and now. I understand that essentially no
one will want to sit down and read any of these "books" straight
through, I find that a fair amount of the writing has held up
over time (some still useful, some even amusing). One good thing
for me about this process is that it's given me something tangible
(and relatively non-taxing) to do over the past two year. But now
it's starting to come to a point where I need to move on: pick a
project (or two or three) and focus on that. End of the year might
be a good deadline for wrapping this up and figuring that out.
A couple more notes:
Allen Lowe (on Facebook) recommended a 20-CD box from Sony (Canada)
called The Perfect Roots & Blues Collection. This looks
like a series of CDs Sony/Legacy issued in the early 1990s. If so,
I've heard (and own) nearly all of them, and I agree that they've
been a really superb series. Even at
Amazon's own price ($93.99) it's a bargain, but they have dealers
in the UK offering it for much less.
When I looked it up, I noticed another tempting 20-CD box,
Jazz From America on Disques Vogue -- jazz recorded by American
artists in Paris late 1940s/early 1950s. RCA released a series of
these in the early 1990s. I have a dozen or more, most quite good.
I've never bought any of Sony's massive boxes, so I can't speak
as to packaging and documentation, but I did write a bit about The
Perfect Jazz Collection back in
November 2011. For me, and
possibly for you, the problem's always been owning so many of the
packaged albums the big boxes, even when quite cheap, are still not
cost-effective. Still, one can imagine others these sets would be
perfect for. Sony also has massive collections of Miles Davis and
Johnny Cash, as you can well imagine.
I also want to point out two books that came out last week, that
my wife, Laura Tillem, edited:
Both authors live here in Wichita, and are good friends of ours.
New records rated this week:
- David Ake: Humanities (2017 [2018], Posi-Tone): [r]: B+(***)
- Myra Melford's Snowy Egret: The Other Side of Air (2017 [2018], Firehouse 12): [cd]: A-
- Kjetil Mřster/John Edwards/Dag Erik Knedal Andersen: Different Shapes/Immersion (2014 [2018], Va Fongool): [r]: B+(*)
- Aaron Parks: Little Big (2018, Ropeadope): [cd]: B+(***)
- Marc Ribot: Songs of Resistance 1942-2018 (2018, Epitaph): [bc]: B+(***)
- Anne Sajdera: New Year (2018, Bijuri): [cd]: B+(*)
- Jared Sims: The New York Sessions (2018, Ropeadope): [cd]: B+(**)
- Alister Spence/Satoko Fujii: Intelset (2017 [2018], Alister Spence Music): [cd]: B+(**)
- Mike Steinel Quintet: Song and Dance (2017 [2018], OA2): [cd]: B+(**)
- Patrick Zimmerli Quartet: Clockworks (2017 [2018], Songlines): [r]: B+(**)
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries rated this week:
- Ella Fitzgerald: Ella at Zardi's (1956 [2017], Verve): [r]: A-
Old music rated this week:
- Fred Astaire: The Astaire Story (1952 [2017], Verve, 2CD): [r]: B+(***)
- Fred Astaire: Steppin' Out: Astaire Sings (1952 [1994], Verve): [r]: B+(***)
- Tony Bennett and Bill Evans: Together Again (1976 [2003], Concord): [r]: B+(*)
- Hamiet Bluiett: Birthright: A Solo Blues Concert (1977, India Navigation): [r]: B+(**)
- Hamiet Bluiett: Resolution (1977 [1978], Black Saint): [r]: B+(*)
- Hamiet Bluiett: "Dangerously Suite" (1981, Soul Note): [r]: B+(***)
- Hamiet Bluiett: Ebu (1984, Soul Note): [r]: B+(**)
- Hamiet Bluiett & Concept: Live at Carlos 1 (1986 [1997], Just a Memory): [r]: A-
- Hamiet Bluiett: Sankofa/Rear Garde (1992 [1993], Soul Note): [r]: B+(**)
- Hamiet Bluiett: Live at the Village Vanguard: Ballads and Blues (1994 [1997], Soul Note): [r]: B+(***)
- Hamiet Bluiett: With Eyes Wide Open (2000, Justin Time): [r]: A-
- Rosemary Clooney/Duke Ellington: Blue Rose (1956 [2008], Columbia/Legacy): [r]: B+(**)
- Rosemary Clooney: Rosie Solves the Swingin' Riddle! (1961 [2004], RCA/Bluebird): [r]: A-
- Rosemary Clooney: Everything's Coming Up Rosie (1977, Concord): [r]: B+(***)
- Rosemary Clooney: Sings the Lyrics of Johnny Mercer (1987, Concord): [r]: B+(***)
- Nat 'King' Cole: St. Louis Blues (1958, Capitol): [r]: B+(*)
- Doris Day and Harry James: Young Man With a Horn (1950 [1954], Columbia): [r]: B+(**)
- Doris Day: Day by Day (1956, Columbia): [r]: B
- Doris Day: Day by Night (1957, Columbia): [r]: B
- Doris Day: 16 Most Requested Songs (1945-58 [1992], Columbia/Legacy): [r]: B+(*)
- Doris Day/Robert Goulet: Annie Get Your Gun (1963, Columbia Masterworks): [r]: B+(*)
- Blossom Dearie: Give Him the Ooh-La-La (1957 [1958], Verve): [r]: B+(**)
- Blossom Dearie: Once Upon a Summertime (1958, Verve): [r]: B+(***)
- Blossom Dearie: My Gentleman Friend (1959, Verve): [r]: A-
- Blossom Dearie: Blossom Dearie Sings Comden and Green (1959, Verve): [r]: B+(**)
- Blossom Dearie: Soubrette: Blossom Dearie Sings Broadway Hit Songs (1960, Verve): [r]: B+(**)
- Matt Dennis: Plays and Sings Matt Dennis (1954, Trend): [r]: B+(**)
- Matt Dennis: Dennis, Anyone? (1955, RCA Victor): [r]: B+(**)
- Matt Dennis: Plays and Sings Matt Dennis: Live in Hollywood (1954-55 [2011], Fresh Sound): [r]: B+(**)
- Billy Eckstine: Billy's Best (1957-58 [1995], Verve): [r]: B+(*)
- Ella Fitzgerald: Lullabies of Birdland (1947-54 [1955], Decca): [r]: A-
- Benny Goodman/Rosemary Clooney: Date With the King (1956, Columbia, EP): [r]: B+(**)
- Robert Goulet: 16 Most Requested Songs (1960-69 [1989], Columbia): [r]: C
- Beaver Harris 360 Degree Music Experience: Beautiful Africa (1979, Soul Note): [r]: B+(**)
Grade (or other) changes:
- Blossom Dearie: Blossom Dearie (1956 [1957], Verve): [r]: [was: B+]: B+(***)
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Amu: Weave (Libra)
- Ethan Ardelli: The Island of Form (self-released): November 2
- Bobby Broom & the Organi-sation: Soul Fingers (MRi)
- Don Byron/Aruán Ortiz: Random Dances and (A)tonalities (Impakt)
- Richie Cole: Cannonball (RCP): October 26
- Randy Halberstadt: Open Heart (Origin): October 19
- Art Pepper: Unreleased Art Pepper Vol. 10: Toronto (1977, Widow's Taste, 3CD): November 2
- Lucas Pino's No Net Nonet: That's a Computer (Outside In Music): October 19
- Kristen Strom: Moving Day: The Music of John Shifflett (OA2): October 19
Sunday, October 14, 2018
Weekend Roundup
The big story of the week seems to be the evident murder of dissident
Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi. He had moved from Saudi Arabia to
Virginia, but entered the Saudi consulate in Istanbul to "finalize some
paperwork for his upcoming marriage to his Turkish fiancée." He never
emerged from the consulate. The Turkish government has much evidence of
foul play, and there are reports that "US intelligence intercepted
communications of Saudi officials discussing a plan to 'capture'
Khashoggi" -- something they made no attempt to warn Khashoggi about.
Some links (quotes above are from Hill, below):
Sarah Aziza: Jamal Khashoggi Wasn't the First -- Saudi Arabia Has Been
Going After Dissidents Abroad for Decades.
Peter Baker: In Trump's Saudi Bargain, the Bottom Line Proudly Wins Out.
Karen DeYoung/Kareem Fahim: After journalist vanishes, focus shifts to
young prince's 'dark' and bullying side.
Lee Fang: Saudi Media Casts Khashoggi Disappearance as a Conspiracy,
Claims Qatar Owns Washington Post.
Ben Freeman: The Saudi Lobby Juggernaut: Written shortly before
the Khashoggi story broke, but important background for understanding
how it's breaking.
Evan Hill: The New Arab Winter: "The US has helped nurture a new
generation of Mideast dictators, and Jamal Khashoggi's disappearance
is just the latest result."
Fred Kaplan: Trump's Saudi Delusions: "The president's defense of
arms sales to the kingdom isn't just immoral -- it's inaccurate."
Philip Rucker/Carol D Leonnig/Anne Gearan: Two Princes: Kushner now
faces a reckoning for Trump's bet on the heir to the Saudi throne.
Will Sommer: Trump Jr Boosts Smear Tying Missing Journalist Jamal Khashoggi
to Islamic Terrorism.
Jordan Tama: What is the Global Magnitsky Act, and why are US senators
invoking this on Saudi Arabia?
Ishaan Tharoor: Trump chooses Arab authoritarianism over Jamal Khashoggi.
Alexia Underwood: Saudi Arabia won't be able to sweep the Jamal Khashoggi
case under the rug.
Robin Wright: As America's Élite Abandons a Reckless Saudi Prince, Will
Trump Join Them?
Matthew Yglesias: America deserves to know how much money Trump is getting from the Saudi
government: "His corruption is a national security issue." Subhed
assumes a meaning to "national security issue" that I don't think is in
evidence. You might think that "national security" has something to do
with preventing war and other forms of hostility which cause problems
among nations, but US foreign policy doesn't work like that. Rather, it
reflects certain business and military interests, which have effectively
formed a "deep state" -- a consistent world posture largely unaffected
by popular elections. In this context, the only "national security issue"
is one which upsets this "deep state" -- e.g., one which exposes it to
unwelcome public scrutiny. Thus qualified, maybe Trump is upsetting the
"national security": for one thing, his personal corruption threatens
to expose the underlying "deep state" interests, especially where they
diverge; also, Trump's utter lack of concern for the veneer of democracy,
human rights, free speech, etc., recasts the whole project as no more
than self-interested hypocrisy.
The week started with Nikki Haley's resignation as US ambassador to
the UN, but a week later it's hard to find any mention of it. Then the
Florida panhandle got demolished by Hurricane Michael. Then there was
some sort of White House summit between Trump and Kanye West. Meanwhile,
elections are coming.
Some scattered links this week:
Matthew Yglesias: Superior ruthlessness isn't why Republicans control
the Supreme Court: "They had some good luck -- and, most importantly,
they had the votes." After their losses in 2016, all the Democrats could
do to derail the Kavanaugh nomination was to convince the public that he
was a really terrible pick, and opinion polls show that they did in fact
make that case. However, as we've seen many times before, Republicans are
fine with ignoring public opinion (at least as long as they keep their
base and donors happy), so they're eager to exploit any power leverage
they can grab, no matter how tenuous. Democrats (in fact, most people)
regard that as unscrupulous, which Republicans find oddly flattering --
backhanded proof that they hold convictions so firm they're willing to
fight (dirty) to advance them. Some Democrats have come to the conclusion
that they need to become just as determined to win as the Republicans --
e.g., David Faris's recent book: It's Time to Fight Dirty: How Democrats
Can Build a Lasting Majority in American Politics. Several problems
with this: one is that there are still Americans that believe in things
like fair play and due process, and those votes should be easy pickings
for Democrats given how Republicans have been playing the game; another
is that past efforts by Democrats to act more like Republicans haven't
fared well -- they're never enough to appease the right, while they sure
turn off the left. But what Democrats clearly do have to do is to show
us that they take these contests seriously. I didn't especially like
turning the Kavanaugh nomination into a #MeToo issue, but that did make
the issue personal and impactful in a way that no debate over Federalist
Society jurisprudence ever could.
Other Yglesias pieces:
Trump's 60 Minutes interview once again reveals gross ignorance and wild
dishonesty.
People don't like "PC culture" -- not that many of them can tell
you what "PC culture" means (only that it consists of self-appointed
language police waiting to pounce on you for trivial offenses mostly
resident in their own minds). Refers to
Yascha Mounk: Americans Strongly Dislike PC Culture, which doesn't
much help to define it either. To me, "PC culture" is exemplified by the
God-and-country, American exceptionalist pieties spouted by Democratic
politicians like Obama and the Clintons -- a compulsion to say perfectly
unobjectionable things because they know they'll be attacked viciously
by the right (or for that matter by center/leftists wanting to show off
for the right) for any hint of critical thought. On the other hand, on
some issues Republicans are policed as diligently -- racism is the one
they find most bothersome, mostly because catering to the insecurities
of white folk is such a big part of their trade. Of course, if we had
the ability to take seriously what people mean, we might be able to get
beyond the "gotcha" game over what they say.
Trump's dangerous game with the Fed, explained.
Trump's USA Today op-ed on health care is an absurd tissue of lies.
The case for a carbon tax: A carbon tax has always made sense to me,
mostly because it helps to counter a currently unregulated externality:
that of dumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Two key ideas here:
one is to implement it by joint international agreement (Yglesias suggests
the US, Europe, and Japan, initially, but why wait for the US?), then grow
it by charging tariffs against non-members; the other is to start low (to
minimize short-term impact) and make the taxes escalate over time. Yglesias
contrasts a carbon tax to
David Roberts: It's time to think seriously about cutting off the supply
of fossil fuels. This reminds me that major oil players have every
now and then "advocated" a carbon tax, specifically when threatened with
proposals like Roberts'. Unfortunately, it looks like the only way to get
a carbon tax passed is to threaten the oil companies with something much
more drastic. No one has much faith in reason anymore.
Immigrants can make post-industrial America great.
Trump's successful neutering of the FBI's Kavanaugh investigation has
scary implications: Trump evidently got the rubber stamp, ruffle
no feathers investigation of Brett Kavanaugh he wanted, showing that
Comey replacement Christopher Wray can be trusted to protect his
party.
The White House got away with stamping on an FBI investigation. Think of
it as a dry run for a coming shutdown of special counsel Robert Mueller's
investigation.
It's easy to forget, but the existence of a Russia inquiry isn't a
natural fact of American life. Barack Obama was president when it began,
and then in the critical winter of 2016 to 2017, many Republicans,
particularly foreign policy hawks, were uneasy with Trump and saw an
investigation as a useful way to force him into policy orthodoxy. When
Comey was fired, enough of that unease was still in place that many
Republicans pushed for a special counsel to carry things forward.
Trump, however, has clearly signaled his desire to clean house and
fire Mueller after the midterms. And the Kavanaugh fight has shown us
(and, more importantly, shown Trump) that congressional Republicans
are coming around to the idea that independence of federal law enforcement
is overrated. His White House, meanwhile, though hardly a well-oiled
machine, has demonstrated its ability to work the levers of power and
get things done.
If the GOP is able to hold its majority or (as looks more likely,
given current polling) pick up a seat or two, a firm Trumpist majority
will be in place ready to govern with the principle that what's good
for Trump is good for the Republican Party, and subverting the rule of
law is definitely good for Trump.
Stavros Agorakis: 18 people are dead from Hurricane Michael. That number
will only rise. Category 4, making landfall with winds of 155 mph,
the third-most intense hurricane to hit the continental US since they
started keeping count (after an unnamed Labor Day storm in 1935 and
Camille in 1969) -- i.e., about as strong as the hurricane that the
Trump administration couldn't cope with in Puerto Rico.
Ryan Bort: The Georgia Voter Suppression Story Is Not Going Away.
Juan Cole: 15 Years after US Occupied Iraq, it is too Unsafe for Trump
Admin to Keep a Consulate There.
Joe Klein: Michael Lewis Wonders Who's Really Running the Government:
Book review of Lewis's The Fifth Risk, which looks at what Trump's
minions are doing to three government bureaucracies: the Departments of
Energy, Agriculture, and Commerce. Mostly they are shredding data, and
purging the departments of the workers with the expertise to collect and
analyze that data. Lewis explains why that matters -- a welcome relief
from those journalists who are satisfied with reporting the easy stories
about stupid Trump tweets and hi-jinks.
Paul Krugman: Goodbye, Political Spin, Hello Blatant Lies: I try
my best to avoid political ads, but got stuck watching a jaw dropper
for Wichita's Republican Congressman Ron Estes, who spent most of his
30 seconds talking about how hard he's been working to save Medicare.
Wasn't clear from what, since the only imminent threat is from his
fellow Republicans, and his key votes to repeal ACA and cut corporate
taxes and saddle us with massive deficits sure don't count. Estes
isn't what you'd call a political innovator -- the main theme of his
ads last time was that a vote for him would thwart Nancy Pelosi's
nefarious designs on the Republic -- so most likely his ads this time
are being repeated all across the nation. Also by Krugman:
The Paranoid Style in GOP Politics.
Dara Lind: The Trump administration reportedly wants to try family separation
again.
Anna North: Why Melania's response to Trump's alleged affairs was so
weird:
In some ways, it's a relief that the first lady is rarely called upon
to perform the thankless task of trying to convince the country that
her husband respects women. But it's also a sign of something darker:
Plenty of Americans know the president doesn't respect women, and a
lot of them don't care. They may even like it.
Sandy Tolan: Gaza's Dying of Thirst, and Its Water Crisis Will Become
a Threat to Israel.
Daily Log
Been compiling my last two "books" from the notebook, and finally caught
up to the present moment. Miscellaneous Music Writings comes to 1735 pages
(718k words). Non-Jazz Capsule Reviews is 1863 pages (806k words). I need
to make a second pass through the book files, and weed out bits from the
music writings that really belong in either the political or personal books.
Also cut out any jazz reviews from the capsule book. (I was pretty sloppy
about that in the beginning, when the review posts were more scattershot).
That will probably knock a hundred pages off each. I also need to take
another look at the lists and such I dropped from the Misc. book, and be
more consistent about what I include and what I don't. That'll probably
add some material back.
Next step beyond that would be to go back to the non-notebook writings
that should be considered. I figure I'll add the pre-2000 stuff in the
appendix.
Monday, October 08, 2018
Music Week
Music: current count 30430 [30390] rated (+40), 282 [280] unrated (+2).
Everything below is jazz. Most of it is new stuff I wasn't serviced
on (unless someone sent me a download link which I didn't open; i.e.,
it was streamed, either from Napster or Bandcamp). Only a couple of CDs
I did receive, mostly because I took so long making up my mind about
the Jonathan Finlayson record (A-, but just barely). Most of my tips
came from Phil Freeman's monthly
Ugly Beauty column at Stereogum. Biggest find there was the trove
of Japanese jazz from the 1970s (for once, the sampler is the place
to start). The only old music was a Penguin Guide 4-star I had
missed, by a saxophonist who showed up on at least three of this week's
new discs (to best effect with Matt Penman).
I've walked Freeman's columns back to March, which gets increasingly
into things I've already heard. One thing I didn't know was that Buell
Neidlinger died back on March 16. He was the bassist in Cecil Taylor's
1956-61 groups -- in at least one case the album was initially under
his name (New York City R&B). My database credits him with
four A- records from the 1980s: Swingrass '83, Across the
Tracks, Rear View Mirror, and Locomotive (all recorded
1979-87, but most got delayed releases -- Swingrass '83 was the
first I noticed, and fell in love with.
The great baritone saxophonist Haimet Bluiett also died last week.
I need to take some time and dive into his dicography -- I see, for
instance, that Napster has Birthright, a PG 4-star from
1977. Some A- records I have heard: Live at Carlos I: Last Night;
Young Warrior, Old Warrior; Makin' Whoopee: Tribute to the
Nat King Cole Trio; The Calling. Bluiett also batted clean
up in the World Saxophone Quartet, and he was particularly prominent
on their best-ever Political Blues.
I did a little work on my project of collecting the last bits from my
on-line notebook into book form. I'm up
to February 2015 with a volume of miscellaneous music notes (1343 pp)
and another of non-jazz capsule reviews (1515 pp). I doubt the former
(which largely consists of introductions like this one) will be
of any real interest, but think it would be handy to get it into searchable
form. It turns out that 2011-13 were big years for misc. notes, mostly
because that was when Robert Christgau's Expert Witness at MSN encouraged
comments, and that resulted in a lot of community commentary. I jotted
down pretty much everything I contributed -- often answering questions
on recommended CDs, or extemporaneously venting on subjects like Charlie
Parker.
I always figured my non-jazz capsule reviews were too spotty for any
sort of reference book/website, but it turns out that there are enough
of them to provide a decent starting point if other people got interested
in adding to them.
I interrupted work on this to post another batch of Robert Christgau's
Xgau Sez questions
and answers. At some point I'd like to adapt that framework to offer a
similar service here. I've struggled for many years to crank out pieces
I think might be of public interest. It might be a relief to let other
people direct me for a while.
I noticed this week that Tom Smucker has finally published a whole
book on what's long been one of his favorite topics:
Why the Beach Boys
Matter. I have a copy on order. Ironically, my own original foray
into rock criticism came from arguing with Don Malcolm over the Beach
Boys. I'm surprised he never got around to writing his own book. Also
noticed and ordered a copy of a new edition of Vince Alletti's
The Disco Files 1973-78. I actually knew both Vince and Tom during
my few years in New York, so I consider them old friends.
Posting of this got delayed as I was trying to figure out when I was
done with
Weekend
Roundup. I had started intending to write something different
on Brett Kavanaugh, but never really got past the preface. I have
some sympathy for the argument that something that happened over
35 years ago shouldn't permanently tar a person. I think that many
interactions between the sexes are confusing, and best forgotten.
I think we should be more tolerant and forgiving of what are often
just human foibles. On the other hand, I'm not sure that of my
general sensitivities actually offer Kavanaugh much benefit. I
could see why a normal person might not recall details or motives
of the charges, but such a person would at least recognize the
horror and pain behind the charges, and sympathized with the
victim. Kavanaugh didn't do that. His blanket denial effectively
repeated the original attacks. And his insistence that the charges
were purely political, a "hit job" ordered by the Democrats, pure
"borking," effectively said that he thought he should be exempt
from his actions and consequences purely because of his politics.
As it turned out, Kavanaugh's final testimony was one of the most
disgusting performances I have ever seen -- something that should have
disqualified him all by itself. Before you can forgive sins, you first
must recognize them and make amends. Kavanaugh didn't come close to
doing that. Indeed, his entire career, and the broader agenda of the
political movement he furthers, offers little more than repeated
examples of the strong trampling the weak and the rich abusing the
poor.
New records rated this week:
- Joey Baron/Robyn Schulkowsky: Now You Hear Me (2016 [2018], Intakt): [r]: B+(**)
- Jakob Bro: Bay of Rainbows (2017 [2018], ECM): [r]: B+(**)
- Mike Clark & Delbert Bump: Retro Report (2018, Ropeadope): [r]: B+(**)
- Drums & Tuba: Triumph! (2018, Ropeadope): [r]: B+(*)
- Espen Eriksen Trio With Andy Sheppard: Perfectly Unhappy (2018, Rune Grammofon): [r]: A-
- Jonathan Finlayson: 3 Times Round (2018, Pi): [cd]: A-
- Nick Finzer's Hear & Now: Live in New York City (2018, Outside In): [r]: B+(**)
- The Vinny Golia Sextet: Trajectory (2017 [2018], Orenda/Nine Winds, 2CD): [r]: B+(***)
- Devin Gray: Dirigo Rataplan II (2016 [2018], Rataplan): [cd]: B+(***)
- Hofbauer/Rosenthal Quartet: Human Resources (2017 [2018], Creative Nation Music): [cd]: B+(***)
- José James: Lean on Me (2018, Blue Note): [r]: B+(*)
- Mark Kavuma: Kavuma (2017 [2018], Ubuntu Music): [r]: B+(*)
- Shai Maestro: The Dream Thief (2018, ECM): [r]: B+(**)
- Dave McMurray: Music Is Life (2018, Blue Note): [r]: B+(**)
- Ryan Meagher: Lost Days (2017 [2018], Fresh Sound New Talent): [r]: B+(*)
- Ryan Meagher: Evil Twin (2018, PJCE): [r]: B
- Allison Miller/Carmen Staaf: Science Fair (2018, Sunnyside): [r]: B+(*)
- Joe Morris/Ben Hall/Andria Nicodemou: Raven (2016 [2017], Glacial Erratic): [bc]: B+(*)
- Moskus: Mirakler (2016-17 [2018], Hubro): [r]: B+(**)
- Wolfgang Muthspiel: Where the River Goes (2018, ECM): [r]: B+(**)
- Matt Penman: Good Question (2017 [2018], Sunnyside): [r]: A-
- Madeleine Peyroux: Anthem (2018, Decca): [r]: B+(*)
- Mikkel Ploug/Mark Turner: Faroe (2018, Sunnyside): [r]: B+(**)
- R+R=Now: Collagically Speaking (2018, Blue Note): [r]: B
- Cécile McLorin Salvant: The Window (2018, Mack Avenue): [r]: B+(*)
- Christian Sands: Reach Further EP (2017-18 [2018], Mack Avenue): [r]: B+(**)
- Christian Sands: Facing Dragons (2018, Mack Avenue): [r]: B+(**)
- JP Schlegelmilch/Jonathan Goldberger/Jim Black: Visitors (2018, Skirl): [r]: B+(*)
- Elliott Sharp Carbon: Transmigration at the Solar Max (2018, Intakt): [r]: B+(***)
- Chad Taylor: Myths and Morals (2018, Ears & Eyes): [r]: B+(*)
- Mark Turner/Ethan Iverson: Temporary Kings (2017 [2018], ECM): [r]: B+(**)
- Steve Turre: The Very Thought of You (2018, Smoke Sessions): [r]: B+(*)
- Jeff "Tain" Watts: Travel Band: Detained in Amsterdam (2017 [2018], Dark Key): [r]: B+(***)
- Walt Weiskopf: European Quartet (2017 [2018], Orenda): [r]: B+(**)
- Chip Wickham: Shamal Wind (2017 [2018], Lovemonk): [r]: B
Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries rated this week:
- Tohru Aizawa Quartet: Tachibana Vol. 1 (1975 [2018], BBE): [bc]: A-
- Takeo Moriyama: East Plants (1983 [2018], BBE): [bc]: B+(***)
- Calm Waters Rolling Swells & Roiling Seas: A Whaling City Sampler (2004-17 [2018], Whaling City Sound): [cd]: B
- J Jazz: Deep Modern Jazz From Japan 1969-1984 (1969-84 [2018], BBE): [r]: A-
- Ralph Thomas: Eastern Standard Time (1980 [2018], BBE): [bc]: B+(***)
Old music rated this week:
- Mark Turner: In This World (1998, Warner Brothers): [r]: A-
Grade (or other) changes:
- The Internet: Hive Mind (2018, Columbia): [r]: [was: B+(**)] B+(***)
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Claus Hřjensgĺrd/Emanuele Mariscalco/Nelide Bendello: Hřbama (Gotta Let It Out)
- Jacobson/Friis/Maniscalco + Karlis Auzixs: Split: Body/Solo (Getta Let It Out): advance
- Kyle Nasser: Persistent Fancy (Ropeadope)
- Nikita Rafaelov: Spirit of Gaia (Gotta Let It Out)
Sunday, October 07, 2018
Weekend Roundup
Story of the week:
It's official: Brett Kavanaugh just became the least popular Supreme
Court justice in modern history. The Senate vote was 50-48, almost
a straight party vote. The Republican advantage in the Senate is 51-49
(counting Angus King and Bernie Sanders as Democrats). Trump's first
Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch, was confirmed by 54-45, with all
Republicans and three Democrats (Manchin, Heitkamp, and Donnelly).
Opposition was clearly political: Republicans had made it so by their
refusal to even hold so much as a hearing on Merrick Garland, Obama's
moderate nominee for the seat, turning it into a spoil for the 2016
election winner. But other than being cut from the same political cloth,
Gorsuch had no personal baggage that made his nomination controversial.
Republicans have dreamed and schemed of reversing the Court's
"liberal bent" -- really just an honest belief that the Constitution
protects individual and minority civil rights -- ever since Nixon's
"southern strategy" nominated Clement Haynsworth and, failing that,
G. Harrold Carswell in 1969. The Republican campaign took an even
more extremist turn when Reagan nominated the blatantly ideological
Robert Bork in 1987 (after having slipped Antonin Scalia by in 1986).
But only with GW Bush did Republicans consistently apply a rigorous
ideological litmus test to their nominees. (Bush's nomination of
Harriet Myers was quashed by hard-liners who didn't trust her to
be conservative enough. They were still livid that his father's
appointment didn't turn out to be as reliably reactionary as Scalia
and Clarence Thomas.)
Kavanaugh turned out to be a very different story (from Gorsuch),
yet the result was nearly the same. Only one Democrat (Manchin) voted
for Kavanaugh, while one Republican opposed the nomination (Murkowski,
who wound up not voting in an offset deal with an absent Republican
senator). The first problem Kavanaugh faced was that he would replace
Anthony Kennedy, who's run up a dreadful record in recent years but
was still regarded as a moderate swing vote between the two polarized
four-member camps. Kavanaugh would tilt that balance 5-4, allowing
conservatives to rule almost arbitrarily for their political sponsors.
Second, he was a person whose entire career was spent as a political
operative: most notably as part of the Ken Starr prosecution of Bill
Clinton, and later in the Bush White House where he argued for ever
greater presidential power (at least for Republicans). A big part of
the early debate over his nomination concerned discover of the paper
trail of his partisan activities against Clinton and for Bush. His
supporters in the White House and Congress made sure that those
documents were never made available, and as such the extent of his
partisan corruption was never properly aired.
His record as a DC Circuit Court judge was also largely unexamined,
although his ruling, since overturned, against a detained immigrant
girl who wanted to obtain an abortion, is a pretty clear signal that
his views on abortion show no respect for "settled law." This case
also shows his contempt for immigrants and refugees, his willingness
to apply the law differently for different classes of people, and his
reticence to restrain abuses of government power (at least against
some people). I've long believed that the proper role for the Supreme
Court is to build on the best aspirations of the Constitution to make
government serve all the people, to protect the rights of minorities
and individuals from the all-too-common abuses of power. Through much
of my life, the Court at least leaned in that direction -- often not
as hard as I would like, but their rulings against segregation, to
defend a free press, to establish a nationwide right to abortion and
most recently to marriage, have been major accomplishments, consistent
with the understanding of America I grew up with, as a free, just, and
egalitarian nation (ideals we haven't always achieved, but that we
most often aspired to).
So, when I'm faced with the question of whether a given person should
be given the responsibility of serving on the Supreme Court, the only
question that matters to me is whether that person will understand and
shape the rule of law in ways that promote greater freedom, equality, and
justice, or not. After a fair investigation, I see nothing whatsoever
that suggests to me that Brett Kavanaugh is a person who should be
entrusted with that responsibility. In fact, what evidence I've seen
suggests that he would actually be worse than any of the four partisan
conservative judges currently on the court. To my mind, that should
have been enough to settle the matter -- although between the fact
that Republicans tend to vote as an arbitrary pack, and the tendency
of many "moderate" Democrats to defer to Republican leadership, that
wouldn't have been enough to defeat Kavanaugh.
However, Kavanaugh's confirmation didn't solely hinge on whether
he'd be a good or bad Justice. It wound up turning on whether he was
guilty of sexual assault, and whether he lied under oath about that
charge (and ultimately about many other things). With these charges,
Kavanaugh's confirmation wound up recapitulating that of Clarence
Thomas back in 1991. The charges are slightly different. Thomas was
accused of making grossly inappropriate office comments, which was
especially grievous given that he ran (or mis-managed) the Reagan
administration office responsible for regulating such matters. The
initial charge against Kavanaugh was that as a high school student
he had committed a drunken assault on a girl, which stopped barely
short of rape. (Others subsequently came forward to charge Kavanaugh
with other acts of drunken, sexually charged loutishness, but none
of those women were allowed to testify or further investigated.)
You can read or spin these charges in various ways. On the one
hand, sexual assault (Kavanaugh) is a graver charge than sexual
harassment (Thomas); on the other, Kavanaugh was younger at the
time and the event took place at a party when he was drunk, whereas
Thomas was at work, presumably sober, and effectively the boss of
the person he harassed. It is unclear whether this was an isolated
incident for Kavanaugh, or part of a longer-term pattern (which is
at least suggested by subsequent, uninvestigated charges, plus lots
of testimony as to his drinking). Still, the one thing that was
practically identical in both cases is that both nominees responded
with the same playbook: blanket denials, while their supporters
orchestrated a smear campaign against the women who reluctantly
aired the complaints, while trying to portay the nominees as the
real victims. Thomas called the charges against him a "lynching."
Kavanaugh's preferred term was "hit job." Neither conceded that as
Supreme Court nominees they should be held to a higher standard than
criminal defendants. In the end, in both cases, marginal Senators
wound up defending their vote as "reasonable doubt" against the
charges. There was, after all, nothing admirable about being charged
or defending themselves in such a disingenuous way. Both cases have
wound up only adding to the cynicism many of us view the Courts with.
I'll tack on a bunch of links at the end which will round up the
details as we know them, as well as other aspects of the process,
not least the political rationalizations and consequences. But one
thing that I think has been much less discussed than it should be
is that neither Thomas nor Kavanaugh promoted or defended themselves
on their own. I don't know who was the first Supreme Court nominee
to hire lawyers and publicists to coach in the confirmation process,
but the practice goes back before Thomas. I was reminded of this
when John Kyl was appointed to fill the late John McCain's Senate
seat. At the time Kyl was working for a DC law form representing
Kavanaugh for his confirmation, so Kyl instantly became Kavanaugh's
most secure vote. That nominees need help managing their egos and
loose tongues was certainly proved by Bork, who managed to alienate
and offend 58 Senators (almost all of whom had previously voted for
Scalia, not exactly known for his tact). Mostly this handling means
to make sure that the nominee doesn't say anything substantive about
the law that may raise the hackles of uncommitted Senators, so the
handlers only get noticed in the breech of an inadvertent gaffe.
However, when something does go wrong, the first decision is whether
to fight or flee -- since Nixon fought for Haynsworth (and lost),
over a dozen nominees have simply withdrawn, often when faced with
far less embarrassing charges than Thomas or Kavanaugh. As we saw
with Myers, a nominee with no natural Democratic support can be
brought down by a handful of vigilant Republicans, allowing the
fringe of the party to insist on a harder candidate.
With a 51-49 majority, it wouldn't have taken much more than two
Republicans to force Trump to withdraw Kavanaugh, but in the end
only Murkowski opposed, and she was offset by Manchin (not that
Pence wouldn't have been thrilled to cast a 50-50 tiebreaker). A
couple of Republicans waffled a bit, but Collins and Flake have a
long history of feigning decency then folding, and most simply
don't care how bad a candidate looks (e.g., they voted for Betsy
DeVos). They're quite happy to win with a bare minimum of votes,
even when the polls are against them (e.g., their corporate income
tax giveaway), figuring they can always con the voters again come
election day. The problem with replacing Kavanaugh with a less
embarrassing candidate came down to timing: restarting the process
would have pushed it past the election into lame-duck territory,
and possibly into the next Congress, which will likely have fewer
Republicans (although not necessarily in the Senate). Never let
it be said that the Republicans have missed an opportunity to
gain an advantage -- and there are few prize they covet more than
control of the Supreme Court.
Further links on the Cavanaugh Nomination:
Perry Bacon Jr: Republicans Rescued Kavanaugh's Nomination by Making It
About #MeToo: Interesting thesis, but the only chance it had of
working was within the confines of a 51-49 Republican majority in the
Senate. Within that framework, an issue that increases Republican
solidarity works, even if it also increases Democratic solidarity --
in fact, the two are complementary. Doesn't mean that they made the
Kavanaugh nomination more popular among the people, but that's not
the sort of thing Republicans worry about. Nate Silver also asked:
Is Kavanaugh Helping Republicans' Midterm Chances? His data isn't
very persuasive one way or the other. It has been widely reported that
the Republican base has been raised from its torpor by the Kavanaugh
fight -- blowback against the Democratic Party "hit job" that will
cost the Democrats in the end. That sounds like pure hype to me, but
Republicans found lots of gullible press to get the message out.
Jonathan Chait: Why Bret Kavanaugh's Hearings Convinced Me That He's
Guilty.
Jill Colvin: Trump Says His Decision to Mock Blasey Ford Was Turning
Point for Kavanaugh.
David Corn: The Real Reason the White House Told the FBI Not to Interview
Christine Blasey Ford? They were worried that if the FBI interviewed
Kavanaugh, he'd wind up being caught in a lie.
Garrett Epps: Requiem for the Supreme Court: "Through the 20th century,
the Court stood as an independent arbiter of the rule of law. It is a
unifying, national institution no longer." Some earlier Epps pieces:
A Judge Who Can't Be Vetted Shouldn't Be Confirmed;
Kavanaugh's Unsettling Use of "Settled Law".
Megan Garber: The Most Striking Thing About Trump's Mockery of Christine
Blasey Ford; also wrote:
The Pernicious Double Standards Around Brett Kavanaugh's Drinking.
.
Josh Gerstein: Kavanaugh's first vote could be in Trump executive power
fight.
Ryan Grim/Akela Lacy: Sen. Susan Collins and Brett Kavanaugh Are Both in
the Bush Family Inner Circle. That Helps Explain Her Vote. Some other
pieces from
The Intercept:
Paul Krugman: The Angry White Male Caucus. It's certainly true that
Kavanaugh didn't do any favors for people who are prickly about their
status as white males, but I still think the high dudgeon he took at
being questioned and doubted is more rooted in class privilege than in
race or sex. Actually, Krugman sort of admits this: "during my own time
at Yale . . . I did encounter people like Kavanaugh -- hard-partying
sons of privilege who counted on their connections to insulate them
from any consequences from their actions." Being one, Krugman gets
that there are exceptions to every generalization. The difference
between born elites like Kavanaugh and Krugman isn't who they are or
where they came from but whether they managed to outgrow the limits
of their upbringing or simply surrendered to it.
Charles Ludington/Lynne Brookes/Elizabeth Swisher: We were Brett
Kavanaugh's drinking buddies. We don't think he should be confirmed.
Jane Mayer/Ronan Farrow: The FBI Probe Ignored Testimonies From Former
Classmates of Kavanaugh. Authors also wrote:
Senate Democrats Investigate a New Allegation of Sexual Misconduct,
From the Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh's College Years.
Dana Milbank: Susan Collins' Declaration of Cowardice. Title
refers back to Sen. Margaret Chase Smith's 1950 "Declaration of
Conscience" when she broke with and denounced Sen. Joseph McCarthy.
Sen. Mitch McConnell made the connection, with Sen. Lindsey Graham
piling on, accusing the Democrats of "mob rule" and saying "this is
as close to McCarthyism as I hope we get in my lifetime." Ignorance
must be bliss. Not only was McCarthy a Republican, his assistant,
Roy Cohn, went on to mentor the young Donald Trump. Indeed, Trump's
favorite tactics, from decrying fake news to turning everything he's
charged with into a slur against the Democrats, is straight from
Cohn and McCarthy's playbook.
Nathan J Robinson: How We Know Kavanaugh Is Lying. Very long
and detailed, nails him coming and going. Robinson also wrote:
If the Rule of Law Means Anything, Kavanaugh Must Be Impeached,
asking "If a federal judge can get away with lying to Congress, why
do we even have sworn oaths?"
James Roche: I Was Brett Kavanaugh's College Roommate: "He lied
under oath about his drinking and the terms in his yearbook."
Jennifer Rubin: Is the Supreme Court salvageable? For one thing,
I don't for a minute buy the argument that we can depoliticize the
Supreme Court by restoring the 60-vote Senate filibuster, or even
that, having packed the Court from the right, we even can begin to
see it as anything but political. On the other hand, Rubin is right
here:
They left no doubt what they think of women.
Elana Schor/Burgess Everett/Nancy Cook: A GOP 'disaster' averted: The
final harrowing hours of Kavanaugh's confirmation.
Adam Serwer: The Guardrails Have Failed: "The conflict over Trump's
Supreme Court nominee exposed the fast-eroding institutional barriers
to the president's authoritarian instincts."
Avi Selk: The junk science Republicans used to undermine Ford and help
save Kavanaugh.
Rebecca Solnit: Brett Kavanaugh's many lies should disqualify him from
holding any office.
Amy Davidson Sorkin: Brett Kavanaugh and the GOP's Bargain With Trump.
Kay Steiger/Andrew Prokop/Dara Lind/Ella Nilsen/Li Zhou/Tara Golshan/Zack
Beauchamp: 8 takeaways from the knock-down, drag-out fight over Brett
Kavanaugh's confirmation: Vox reporters. Also on Vox:
Laurence H Tribe: All the Ways a Justice Kavanaugh Would Have to Recuse
Himself: Assumes, of course, that Kavanaugh has a sense of decency
and legal propriety, which he has shown no evidence of thus far. Also,
most likely, if Kavanaugh has learned anything from Trump, it's never
recuse yourself.
Jessica Valenti: Kavanaugh is the Face of American Male Rage.
Benjamin Wittes: I Know Brett Kavanaugh, but I Wouldn't Confirm Him.
Richard Wolffe: Brett Kavanaugh's confirmation isn't democracy. It's a
judicial coup.
Some scattered links this week:
David Barstow/Susanne Craig/Russ Buettner: Trump Engaged in Suspect Tax
Schemes as He Reaped Riches From His Father: Long article on the
various schemes Trump's father used to funnel wealth to his children,
especially to Donald -- the article pegs the total there at $413 million,
often through tax-avoidance schemes of dubious legality. This should be
a big story, even if it does ultimately melt into numerous other stories
about Trump's business affairs. Some related pieces and commentary:
Christopher R Browning: The Suffocation of Democracy: Alt title
(from Paul Woodward): "How the Republican Party is gradually killing
American democracy." Browning's specialty is "the Holocaust, Nazi
Germany, and Europe in the era of the world wars." Trump has managed
to gain the attention of quite a few Nazi-era scholars lately.
Umair Irfan: A major new climate report slams the door on wishful
thinking.
Fred Kaplan: Trump Calls Out Election Meddling -- by China: "This
looks like an attempt to shift the blame if the Republicans lose badly
in November."
Jane Mayer: How Russia Helped Swing the Election for Trump:
Based mostly on a new book by political scientist Kathleen Hall
Jamieson: Cyberwar: How Russian Hackers and Trolls Helped Elect
a President -- What We Don't, Can't, and Do Know. The most
comprehensive piece I've seen on this subject.
David E Sanger: US General Considered Nuclear Response in Vietnam War,
Cables Show: Gen. William Westmoreland's initiative, overruled by
Lyndon Johnson. Still, the failure of politicians to take nuclear
weapons "off the table" is what allows general to think they may be
viable options.
Adam Serwer: The Cruelty Is the Point: "President Trump and his
supporters find community by rejoicing in the suffering of those they
hate and fear." That's about as apt a one-line definition of Trump as
a political actor and movement as you can come up with. Sure, doesn't
cover everything: not the rampant corruption, the abuse of government
to increase private profit-taking, the efforts to undermine law and
justice both at home and abroad, but that's just boilerplate for the
Republicans these days. Trump's "added value" is his ardor for cruelty
and violence. When people talk about Trump's cult as Fascism, that's
exactly what they have in mind. By the way, if you want an alternative
term to Trump's Fascism, Matt Taibbi suggests Nihilism:
Why Aren't We Talking More About Trump's Nihilism?
Adam Serwer: Something Went Wrong in Chicago: "A white policeman was
convicted of murder in the killing of a black teen -- an outcome that
goes against the many forces aligned to prevent the officer from facing
consequences."
David Sirota: America's new aristocracy lives in an accountability-free
zone: "Accountability is for the little people, immunity is for the
ruling class. If this ethos seems familiar, that is because it has preceded
some of the darkest moments of human history."
Jerry Useem: Power Causes Brain Damage: I'm not comfortable with the
notion that this is describing anything real in the way of neurological
or neurobiochemical research, but it's long been obvious that political
power changes people, often making them less able to intuit what other
people think or feel, to empathize, to sympathize, even to understand.
In a word, power tends to turn people into assholes. I've long thought
that the New Left's undoing as a political movement was our critique
and wariness of power, which made it difficult to consolidate and
defend gains.
Robin Wright: Did the Saudis Murder Jamal Khashoggi? Also:
David Hearst: Jamal Khashoggi: A different sort of Saudi;
James North: Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, lionized by US
pundits and politicians, is a -- suspected murderer.
Matthew Yglesias: Family structure matters, but can we do anything about
it? This was kind of a weird thing to write about, especially touting
the presence of dads this week. I don't doubt that the research Yglesias
cites is valid. Indeed, for any given individual, to get ahead or just
make the best of a raw deal, I'd suggest embracing as many conservative
personal platitudes as possible. Still, that doesn't mean the conservative
preference for patting themselves on the back and shaming everyone else
is a policy perscription -- it's more like a dare to class revolution.
Yglesias also wrote:
Monday, October 01, 2018
Music Week
Music: current count 30390 [30365] rated (+25), 280 [273] unrated (+7).
Week got wiped out several different ways. Helped a friend fix a
huge Russian dinner on Friday. Shopped for that on Wednesday, having
to hit up nine (or was it eleven?) stores along the way, then spent
from Thursday afternoon to something like 4AM doing prep for another
6-7 hours of cooking on Friday. Wound up with way too much food, but
much of it was magnificent. Only the dessert disappointed, an attempt
at Prague cake which I now understand doesn't resemble the real thing
at all.
Then Saturday I developed a fever with no other symptoms, and I
basically shut down over the weekend -- so no Weekend Roundup, even
following one of the more outrageous weeks of the Trump era. (Not
like there won't be plenty more as bad or worse.) I started reading
Jill Lepore's massive (or schematic, depending on your point of view)
These Truths: A History of the United States. She starts by
quoting the preamble to the US Constitution, and I realized it to
offer not a practical description of the federal government but a
vision statement of what that government should aspire to. The same,
of course, could be said of the first lines of the Declaration of
Independence, which Lepore also mentions.
What I then realized is that the standard for all three "separate
and equal" branches of government should be their efforts to achieve
these founding aspirations. We were fortunate, at least for the first
half of my life, to have a Supreme Court that took those aspirations
seriously, especially in its assertion of civil rights even while the
other branches dragged their heels. Since Nixon, the right-wing has
made a determined effort to overturn those rulings and to strip us of
our rights, not least by stacking the courts with people who oppose
the aspirations the nation was founded on. With the hearings on the
Supreme Court nomination of Brett Kavanaugh, we got a good view of
just what kind of person would gladly do such things. Regardless of
whether Kavanaugh has committed sexual assault and/or perjury, he's
made it abundantly clear that he's unfit for the Supreme Court, or
for that matter for the judgeship he currently holds.
Maybe I'll write more on that later in the week. My most immediate
task is to get September's Streamnotes organized and posted. Thinking
about the dinner, then not thinking at all, I totally missed the end
of the month. I can backdate what I have, making it look like I did it
on time and before doing this. The latter, at least, is mostly true.
I'm not sure what comes next. I can always return to compiling my
last two books from the notebooks (non-review music notes, non-jazz
reviews; I'm currently stalled in May, 2013). I could take a look at
Pitchfork's
The 2000 Best Albums of the 1980s -- the music decade I paid the
least attention to at the time. Another possible source of unheard
records is Will Friedland's latest book, The Great Jazz and Pop
Vocal Albums. I picked up the book at the library, and while
there is zero chance that I'll read it through, the actual album
list isn't prohibitively long (probably 40-50 albums, half already
heard). On the other hand, the new jazz queue has grown a bit (26
albums at the moment), so I should pay some attention to that.
New records rated this week:
- Dmitry Baevsky/Jeb Patton: We Two (2018, Jazz & People): [r]: A-
- Tony Bennett & Diana Krall: Love Is Here to Stay (2018, Verve/Columbia): [r]: B+(**)
- Black Art Jazz Collective: Armor of Pride (2018, HighNote): [r]: B
- Geof Bradfield: Yes, and . . . Music for Nine Improvisers (2018, Delmark): [r]: B+(**)
- Jonathan Butler: Close to You (2018, Mack Avenue): [r]: C+
- Noname: Room 25 (2018, self-released): [bc]: A-
- Eddie Palmieri: Full Circle (2018, Ropeadope): [r]: B+(***)
- Portland Jazz Composers Ensemble: From Maxville to Vanport (2018, PJCE): [cd]: B+(**)
- Ned Rothenberg/Hamid Drake: Full Circle: Live in Lodz (2016 [2017], Fundacja Sluchaj): [r]: B+(*)
- Steven Taetz: Drink You In (2018, Flatcar/Fontana North): [cd]: B
- The United States Air Force Band Airmen of Note: The Jazz Heritage Series 2018 Radio Broadcasts (2018, self-released, 3CD): [cd]: C
- Fay Victor's SoundNoiseFUNK: Wet Robots (2017 [2018], ESP-Disk): [r]: B+(**)
Old music rated this week:
- Gene Ammons: The Gene Ammons Story: Gentle Jug (1961-62 [1992], Prestige): [r]: B+(**)
- Gene Ammons: Gentle Jug Volume 2 (1960-71 [1995], Prestige): [r]: B+(***)
- Gene Ammons: The Boss Is Back! (1969 [1993], Prestige): [r]: B+(**)
- Bud Powell: Jazz Giant (1949 [1957], Verve): [r]: B+(***)
- Bud Powell: Piano Interpretations by Bud Powell (1955 [1959], Verve): [r]: B+(**)
- Bud Powell: The Amazing Bud Powell, Vol. 4: Time Waits (1958 [1999], Blue Note): [r]: A-
- Bud Powell: Strictly Confidential (1964 [1994], Black Lion): [r]: B+(***)
- Bud Powell: Salt Peanuts (1964 [1988], Black Lion): [r]: B
Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:
- Don Byron/Aruán Ortiz: Random Dances and (A)tonalities (Intakt)
- David Dominique: Mask (Orenda): November 9
- Michael Formanek Elusion Quartet: Time Like This (Intakt)
- Aaron Goldberg: At the Edge of the World (Sunnyside): November 16
- Aaron Parks: Little Big (Ropeadope): October 19
- Subtone: Moose Blues (Laika): October 26
- Harry Vetro: Northern Ranger (T.Sound): October 19
|
Sep 2018 |
|