Uncanny - Looney, even

Though I abhor Christopher Hitchens' politics, especially his position on the invasion/occupation of Iraq, I agree wholeheartedly with his anti-theist views, in that "I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief, is positively harmful."

But every now and then something happens that makes me think there may be something to such metaphysical nonsense. To wit: As I was getting out of the shower this morning, for some reason I was thinking about one of my favorite pieces of recorded music: the version of Gerry Hemingway's "If You Like" on his Quintet's CD Slamadam. Lo and behold, not more than 30 minutes later, I hear the tune played on the WNUR Jazz Show (by DJ Mike B, I believe). I thought, "Maybe I heard the DJ say something before I went in the shower about Hemingway or the Random Acoustics label or something like that which would have made me think of that tune" -- but no, he didn't.

This kind of stuff happens a lot. Most memorably, one evening before bed I decided to read an article about the great filmmaker Chuck Jones -- someone about whom I'd never read anything before -- and when I woke up the next morning and turned on the radio, I heard the announcement of his death.

But instead of bending my knees and looking towards the sky, I'd rather just savor the moment, giggle, and move on, thinking "how strange and lovely."

F'n Tommy F.

A year after derailing the Thomas Friedman "globalization train" theory, Matt Taibbi chimes in on a new load of horseshit by that racist neoliberal apologist, whose misguided ideas about political economy are less nauseating than his compulsive habit of opening a Pandora's box of mixed-metaphorical worms and letting them run amok:

Friedman is such a genius of literary incompetence that even his most innocent passages invite feature-length essays. I'll give you an example, drawn at random from The World Is Flat. On page 174, Friedman is describing a flight he took on Southwest Airlines from Baltimore to Hartford, Connecticut. (Friedman never forgets to name the company or the brand name; if he had written The Metamorphosis, Gregor Samsa would have awoken from uneasy dreams in a Sealy Posturepedic.) Here's what he says:

I stomped off, went through security, bought a Cinnabon, and glumly sat at the back of the B line, waiting to be herded on board so that I could hunt for space in the overhead bins.

Forget the Cinnabon. Name me a herd animal that hunts. Name me one.

This would be a small thing were it not for the overall pattern. Thomas Friedman does not get these things right even by accident. It's not that he occasionally screws up and fails to make his metaphors and images agree. It's that he always screws it up. He has an anti-ear, and it's absolutely infallible....

Taibbi continues:

In a Friedman book, the reader naturally seizes up in dread the instant a suggestive word like "Windows" is introduced; you wince, knowing what's coming, the same way you do when Leslie Nielsen orders a Black Russian. And Friedman doesn't disappoint. His description of the early 90s:

The walls had fallen down and the Windows had opened, making the world much flatter than it had ever been—but the age of seamless global communication had not yet dawned.

How the fuck do you open a window in a fallen wall? More to the point, why would you open a window in a fallen wall? Or did the walls somehow fall in such a way that they left the windows floating in place to be opened?

Four hundred and 73 pages of this, folks. Is there no God?

C'mon, Matt -- of course not.

Workers Memorial Day

The statistics are horrifying.
Here's a good idea that will probably get nowhere with our corporatist Congress. But now's as good a time as any to spread the word.

Wall, meet Head

The Daily Show once again exposes the SCLM.

Any wonder how crap like this can happen here?

Well, at least the Head Homophobe hasn't (yet) proposed that we convert abandoned military bases into massive "gay bathhouses." No, these retrofitted facilities will not produce Holy Smoke indicating the cremation of Cher fans, but rather smoke which will merely expedite the destruction of all humankind.

Oh, screw it all -- let's party!! (and they're ruining that as well)

Directorial Range

A real NYT article discusses a new film, The Great New Wonderful, about

a handful of New Yorkers a year after the [9/11] attacks as they struggle to cope with emotions - grief, rage, helplessness - that seem inexplicable, and that have no obvious outlet. The director [is] Danny Leiner - known for the stoner movies "Dude, Where's My Car?" and "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle"....

I don't know if the director is any good, but this will certainly make a Danny Leiner retrospective rather unique -- unless someone discovers that Claude Lanzmann directed this gem.

The Real Deal and the New Pope (aka Benny Pisshitspitnfuck)

A great piece by Bob Herbert on FDR's "Second Bill of Rights" (also the subject of a book by UofC's Cass Sunstein).

Other than Thomas Frank, George Lakoff offers the most insightful analysis of social/political polarization in the U.S. -- not Red vs. Blue, but Strict Father vs. Nurturant Parent, where the key distinction lies in liberals' notion of

Morality as Empathy: Empathy itself is understood metaphorically as feeling what another person feels. We can see this in the language of empathy: I know what it is like to be in your shoes. I know how you feel. I feel for you. To conceptualize moral action as empathic action is more than just abiding by the Golden Rule, to do unto others as you would have them do unto you. The Golden Rule does not take into account that others may have different values than you do. Taking morality as empathy requires basing your actions on their values, not yours. This requires a reformulation of the Golden Rule: Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.
***
...conservatives also see morality as empathy and nurturance, but they assign a lower priority to them than liberals do. The result is that nurturance and empathy come to mean something different to conservatives than to liberals. In conservatism, moral nurturance is subservient to moral strength. Thus, moral nurturance for a conservative is the nurturance to be morally strong. For conservatives, moral empathy is subservient to moral strength, which posits a primary good-evil distinction. That distinction forbids conservatives from empathizing with people they consider evil, and so empathy becomes empathy with those who share their values.
***
...[L]iberals too have the metaphor of Moral Strength, but it is in the service of empathy and nurturance. The point of moral strength for liberals is to fight intolerance and inhumanity to others and to stand up for social responsibility.
***
Strict Father morality allows one to impose experiential harm on others in the name of the abstract metaphorical principle that Morality is Strength. In short, strict father morality allows you to hurt people in the name of morality. That violates experiential morality, which is the foundation of every abstract moral system. *** [T]he foundational and empirical pathologies in strict father morality, and, hence, in conservatism, are inherent and cannot be remedied. They make strict father morality an inherently pathological moral system.

His book Moral Politics elaborates on these ideas (though I haven't read it yet). Beyond the religionists who continue to subjugate their entire lives to The Good Book, what is perhaps more problematic is the fact that the political economy infrastructure built by the strict father system (e.g., capitalist oligarchy) continues to be supported by so many people for whom religionist dogma is not the determinative Word. It's like a disease where the virus ("God") has been destroyed, yet the symptoms persist. It may just be too early in the post-telescope/microscope era to expect a full recovery.

"One must choose between God and Man, and all 'radicals' and 'progressives,' from the mildest liberal to the most extreme anarchist, have in effect chosen Man."
-- George Orwell

Speaking of Strict Fathers, it's genuinely disturbing to see and hear the reports about the choice of the new #1 Catholic (aka Old Guy in Silly Outfit): A local news report interviewed a grade school kid who said, "Since I'm a Catholic, it's really exciting to hear they chose a new pope." A 10-year-old says he "is a Catholic"?!?! This is how religionists manufacture demand for their commodities of fear and ignorance -- get 'em while they're young.

"Although the notion of one god may give comfort to those in need of a daddy, it reminds the rest of us that the totalitarian society is grounded upon the concept of God the father. One paternal god, one paternal leader. Authority is absolute."
-- Gore Vidal

Of course religionism has consequences beyond its psychic abuse of the pious and their offspring: Religionism and capitalism feed off each other, perpetuating the "Strict Father" model of oppressive patriarchy, so well exemplified by the late Pope JPII:

His commitment to the patriarchy was total. Not only would the church continue to be completely male dominated, but challenges to the patriarchal family like a woman’s right to choose when and if to have a child—including both contraception and abortion—as well as the right of lesbians and gays to same-sex relationships were to be condemned.

Terry Eagleton was dead-on about Karol Wojtyla:

The greatest crime of his papacy, however, was neither his part in [the child molestation] cover up nor his neanderthal attitude to women. It was the grotesque irony by which the Vatican condemned - as a "culture of death" - condoms, which might have saved countless Catholics in the developing world from an agonising AIDS death. The Pope goes to his eternal reward with those deaths on his hands.

The new guy appears to share JPII's opposition to the "liberation theology" movement that has preached the social gospel and worked for social justice in Latin America.

Pipecock Jackxon's take on these pious patriarchs:

Tic tic toe. Big Ben de time clock is my headmaster. Together we interpretate disaster for the popes, de deacons, and de pastor, for all who don't piss, shit and poop, and spit and fuck (makin' love like it is), hold up them hand and God will strike them with lightning, 'cause He know that they will be committing a sin, that their grandfather and grandmother did in the beginning, tempted by sin.

As George Bernard Shaw said, "Why should we take advice on sex from the pope? If he knows anything about it, he shouldn't!"

Speaking of patriarchy, invisible guiding forces, and oligarchical imperialism, Mike Wallace (not the "60 Minutes" guy) wrote an interesting review of a book by Steve Fraser, Every Man a Speculator: A History of Wall Street in American Life. Seems like a timely read, given the attempt to destroy, via crisis-mongering, the most successful social welfare program in history:

...there must be many Americans who see the privatizers' ugly effort to divide children from parents for what it is--a menace to contemporary family values. Most people know full well that Social Security has not only been a lifesaver for the old but has provided a measure of independence to the young, shifting some of the burden of caring for aged parents to the country's broad collective shoulders. *** [Fraser's] sweeping historical reconstruction is a powerful reminder that our current economic arrangements are the product of centuries of debate and struggle, not the inevitable legacy of invisible "market forces."

No, those forces are not invisible -- they're very much corporeal. This NYT Magazine piece lifts some rocks to shine the light on the radical anti-democratic ideologues taking over the federal judiciary, including some candidates for the Supreme Court who make Tony Scalia look like a moderate.

"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
-- John Kenneth Galbraith

How 'bout some good news, for a change:
-- Maryland Stands Up to Wal-Mart
-- Union Blues Lift in Chicago
-- Bush Admits Errors, Reaches Out to Global Community... well, maybe not.

"What is objectionable, what is dangerous, about extremists is not that they are extreme, but that they are intolerant. The evil is not what they say about their cause, but what they say about their opponents."
-- Robert F. Kennedy

And, oh yeah, Americans are still killing and being killed in Iraq for no good reason -- especially not the hollow excuse, perpetuated in the military-industrial media, that the U.S. military is there to protect Iraqi civilians from insurgents:

attacks on military occupying forces, and by extension mostly US military forces, accounts for 75% of all attacks. Meanwhile, civilian targets comprise a mere 4.1% of attacks. This reality is at striking odds with the general picture painted in the press of a narcissistic, mindless and sinister insurgency simply bent on chaos and destruction.

Maybe Robert Wilson has a better explanation than George Lakoff for all of this retrograde, destructive behavior:

The Bible tells us to be like God, and then on page after page it describes God as a mass murderer. This may be the single most important key to the political behavior of Western Civilization.

The sun may be shining and the air may be warming, but these are dark days indeed. Forecast: mostly fucked.

"The less reasonable a cult is, the more men seek to establish it by force."
-- Jean-Jacques Rousseau

"The tyranny of a prince in an oligarchy is not so dangerous to public welfare as the apathy of a citizen in a democracy."
-- Baron De Montesquieu

"When one man is dying of hunger near another who is ill of surfeit, he cannot resign himself to this difference unless there is an authority which declares, 'God wills it thus.' Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet."
-- Napoleon Bonapart

Best Video Ever: contestant #2

Can you guess which decade this video comes from?
I like how he seems to pull the microphone out of his ass.

Corporate Media: "White Woman in Peril!"

The Daily Show, as usual, nails it.
As does pissed off patricia.

You Know Who Rocks?

Lewis Black.

Best Video Ever

Just when you thought it was impossible to love Björk even more, here comes the video for "Triumph of a Heart"

The Crackers

funny

Derek vs Ella

the meeting that never was

Recent reading

Thom Hartmann on fascism, then and now:

Today, as we face financial and political crises, it's useful to remember that the ravages of the Great Depression hit Germany and the United States alike. Through the 1930s, however, Hitler and Roosevelt chose very different courses to bring their nations back to power and prosperity.

Germany's response was to use government to empower corporations and reward the society's richest individuals, privatize much of the commons, stifle dissent, strip people of constitutional rights, bust up unions, and create an illusion of prosperity through government debt and continual and ever-expanding war spending.

America passed minimum wage laws to raise the middle class, enforced anti-trust laws to diminish the power of corporations, increased taxes on corporations and the wealthiest individuals, created Social Security, and became the employer of last resort through programs to build national infrastructure, promote the arts, and replant forests.

Lee Drutman & Charlie Cray:

A consequence of the hyper-commercialization of our culture is that instead of organizing collectively, we often buy into the market-based ideology of individual choice and responsibility and assume that we can change the world by changing our personal habits of consumption. ***
The personal choices we make are important. But we shouldn’t assume that’s the best we can do. We need to understand that it can’t truly be a matter of choice until we get some more say in what our choices are. True power still resides in the ability to write, enforce and judge the laws of the land, no matter what the corporations and their personal-choice, market-centered view of the world instruct us to believe.

plus: Paul Krugman on Social Security and healthcare, and the Phillip Longman article he refers to; an important supplement is Joanne Laurier's article on the drug industry -- it fills in the gaping holes in mainstream news reports about healthcare costs ("prescription drugs will be the fastest-growing sector of the health care industry, accounting for 14.5 percent of all health spending in 2014, up from 11 percent last year" -- numbers merely reported without answering the question Why?).

"America... just a nation of two hundred million used car salesmen with all the money we need to buy guns and no qualms about killing anybody else in the world who tries to make us uncomfortable."
--Hunter S. Thompson

Ol' Dirty Dmitri

Several weeks ago I opened the case of my copy of Shostakovich's string quartets to find disc #1 missing.
I found it yesterday, in the sleeve of my Ol' Dirty Bastard's greatest hits CD.
I must've been in an eclectic mood that day.

Beyond Meaning

I had purchased a used copy of David Bordwell's Ozu and the Poetics of Cinema a while ago and it sat on my bookshelf unread as I waited for an opportunity to actually see a few Ozu films. One could not ask for much more than the 25-film Ozu Yasujiro retrospective currently in progress at the Film Center, so I cracked open the Bordwell book -- and it is a revelation. Beyond offering vivid, eye-opening analyses of Ozu's formal strategies, Bordwell provides some cogent arguments against prevailing modes of art criticism. If I had to boil his argument down to a single sentence, it would be: Art criticism should be less concerned with what a work means, and more about what it does.

Bordwell defends his historical poetics model by arguing that a film should not be treated as a "text" to be "read," but as

an artifact to be used by the spectator to produce certain effects, of which 'meaning' in its most elevated sense (themes, implicit messages) is only one. The work prompts a range of perceptual, emotional, and cognitive effects -- guidance of attention, establishment of expectations, thwarting of hypotheses, retroactive reconsideration of information -- which are essential to the work's uniqueness.

Bordwell's approach contrasts with critical models based in semiotic or thematic analysis, hermeneutical models which attempt to reveal a work's message or meaning. Such models, he astutely observes, take an "atomistic and vague approach to style" and thereby "refuse the art work its full range of stylistic novelty and power." In other words, in the endless process of interpretation and exegesis, the experience(s) of encountering and engaging with the art work is overlooked.

Of course the preoccupation with meaning is not confined to film or art criticism. It's symptomatic of antiquated religionist ideologies, of a world in which texts written centuries ago are still valued despite their irrelevance to contemporary understandings of the world and its various phenomena. Many keep trying to find ways of reconstructing and refurbishing the House of Meaning instead of razing it and enjoying the unobstructed view.

"I don't think we're here for anything, we're just products of evolution. You can say, 'Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don't think there's a purpose,' but I'm anticipating a good lunch."
-- James D. Watson

"People say that what we are all seeking is a meaning for life. I don't think that's what we're really seeking. I think that what we're seeking is an experience of being alive...."
-- Joseph Campbell

For Susan Sontag (1933-2004).

"The aim of all commentary on art now should be to make works of art - and, by analogy, our own experience - more, rather than less, real to us. The function of criticism should be to show how it is what it is, even that it is what it is, rather than to show what it means."
-- Susan Sontag, "Against Interpretation" (1964)

On Time & In Time (in Jive & in Fudd)

This is really ridiculous but pretty funny.
Below are two results of translating part of my previous post through The Dialectizer:

(1) English-to-Jive:

Jedidiah Woodcock writin' on "Th' Tyranny of th' Clock" provides an impo'tant note on th' political economah of mechanical time:

Modern, Western man [] lives in a wo'ld which runs acco'din' t'th' mechanical an' mathematical symbols of clock time. Th' clock dickates his movements an' inhibits his ackshuns. Th' clock turns time fum a process of nature into a commodity thet kin be measured an' bought an' sold like soap o' sultanas. An' on account o', wifout some means of exack time keepin', indestrial capitalism c'd nevah haf developed an' c'd not corntinue t'sploit th' wawkers, th' clock represents an element of mechanical tyranny in th' lives of modern min mo'e potent than enny indivijool sploiter o' enny other machine.
***
Th' problem of th' clock is, in juneral, similar t'thet of th' machine. Mechanical time is valuable as a means of co-o'dinashun of ackivities in a highly developed society, jest as th' machine is valuable as a means of reducin' unnecessary labour t'th' minimum, dawgone it. Both is valuable fo' th' contribushun they make t'th' smooth runnin' of society, an' sh'd be used insofar as they assist min to co-operate efficiently an' t'eliminate monotonous toil an' social cornfushun. But neifer sh'd be allered t'dominate mens lives as they does today.

Now th' movement of th' clock sets th' tempo men's lives - they become th' servant of th' concepp of time which they themselves haf made, an' is held in fear, like Ole Man Frankenstein by his own monster. In a sane an' free society sech an arbitrary dominashun of man's funckshuns by eifer clock o' machine'd obviously be outta th' quesshun. Th' dominashun of man by th' creashun of man is even mo'e ridiculous than th' dominashun of man by man, as enny fool kin plainly see. Mechanical time'd be relegated t'its true funckshun of a means of reference an' co-o'dinashun, an' min w'd return agin t'a balance view of life no longer dominated by th' wo'ship of th' clock. Shet mah mouth! Complete liberty implies freedom fum th' tyranny of abstrackshuns as fine as fum th' rule of men, as enny fool kin plainly see.

(2) English-to-Elmer Fudd:

Geowge Woodcock wwiting on "De Tywanny of the Cwock" pwovides an impowtant note on the powiticaw economy of mechanicaw time:

Modewn, Westewn man [] wives in a wowwd which wuns accowding to the mechanicaw and mathematicaw symbows of cwock time. De cwock dictates his movements and inhibits his actions. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! De cwock tuwns time fwom a pwocess of natuwe into a commodity that can be measuwed and bought and sowd wike soap ow suwtanas. Oh, dat scwewy wabbit! And because, without some means of exact time keeping, industwiaw capitawism couwd nevew have devewoped and couwd not continue to expwoit the wowkews, the cwock wepwesents an ewement of mechanicaw tywanny in the wives of modewn men mowe potent than any individuaw expwoitew ow any othew machine.
***
De pwobwem of the cwock is, in genewaw, simiwaw to that of the machine. Mechanicaw time is vawuabwe as a means of co-owdination of activities in a highwy devewoped society, just as the machine is vawuabwe as a means of weducing unnecessawy wabouw to the minimum. Bof awe vawuabwe fow the contwibution they make to the smoof wunning of society, and shouwd be used insofaw as they assist men to co-opewate efficientwy and to ewiminate monotonous toiw and sociaw confusion, uh-hah-hah-hah. But neithew shouwd be awwowed to dominate mens wives as they do today.

Now the movement of the cwock sets the tempo men's wives - they become the sewvant of the concept of time which they themsewves have made, and awe hewd in feaw, wike Fwankenstein by his own monstew. In a sane and fwee society such an awbitwawy domination of man's functions by eithew cwock ow machine wouwd obviouswy be out of the qwestion, uh-hah-hah-hah. De domination of man by the cweation of man is even mowe widicuwous than the domination of man by man, uh-hah-hah-hah. Mechanicaw time wouwd be wewegated to its twue function of a means of wefewence and co-owdination, and men wouwd wetuwn again to a bawance view of wife no wongew dominated by the wowship of the cwock. Compwete wibewty impwies fweedom fwom the tywanny of abstwactions as weww as fwom the wuwe of men, uh-hah-hah-hah.

I like how "life" becomes "wife" :)
ow wather, I wike how "wife" becomes "wife"
Oh, dat scwewy anawchist!

On Time & In Time

Britannica.com has an historical overview about time and its measurement.

George Woodcock writing on "The Tyranny of the Clock" provides an important note on the political economy of mechanical time:

Modern, Western man [] lives in a world which runs according to the mechanical and mathematical symbols of clock time. The clock dictates his movements and inhibits his actions. The clock turns time from a process of nature into a commodity that can be measured and bought and sold like soap or sultanas. And because, without some means of exact time keeping, industrial capitalism could never have developed and could not continue to exploit the workers, the clock represents an element of mechanical tyranny in the lives of modern men more potent than any individual exploiter or any other machine.
***
The problem of the clock is, in general, similar to that of the machine. Mechanical time is valuable as a means of co-ordination of activities in a highly developed society, just as the machine is valuable as a means of reducing unnecessary labour to the minimum. Both are valuable for the contribution they make to the smooth running of society, and should be used insofar as they assist men to co-operate efficiently and to eliminate monotonous toil and social confusion. But neither should be allowed to dominate mens lives as they do today.

Now the movement of the clock sets the tempo men's lives - they become the servant of the concept of time which they themselves have made, and are held in fear, like Frankenstein by his own monster. In a sane and free society such an arbitrary domination of man's functions by either clock or machine would obviously be out of the question. The domination of man by the creation of man is even more ridiculous than the domination of man by man. Mechanical time would be relegated to its true function of a means of reference and co-ordination, and men would return again to a balance view of life no longer dominated by the worship of the clock. Complete liberty implies freedom from the tyranny of abstractions as well as from the rule of men.

Among the funkijazzical cuts I played on my radio show last Wednesday was a wicked cover of Sly & the Family Stone's "In Time" recorded by a group led by Maceo Parker and featuring fellow funkateers Fred Wesley, Pee Wee Ellis, and Bootzilla himself, Bootsy Collins.

In preparing for the show, I discovered a tune recorded by The House Guests (the group Bootsy formed after he left James Brown and which morphed into Funkadelic) called "My Mind Set Me Free" which appears on a couple of hard-to-find funk compilations (I found it on SoulSeek; see this discography for more info). The other single by that group, "What So Never the Dance," is my favorite track from the best-of-Bootsy compilation.

Well, the countdown clock is getting close to The One, so here's to keepin' the funk alive in '05.

Heads I win, tails you lose ("How do you spell relief?")
Would you trade your funk for this? ("you deserve a break today")
Or that? ("have it your way")
A funk a day keeps the nose away; ain't it true?
I ain't gonna hold the lettuce, the pickles or the mustard.
***
Mind your wants 'cause someone wants your mind.
--George Clinton, "Funkentelechy"

Holy Ghost

Last November marked 34 years since the 34-year-old body of Albert Ayler was found in NYC's East River. Revenant's spirit box is a wonderful tribute to the late musician, and a bargain: 7 (+1) discs of music, 2 discs of interviews, and a book of insightful essays which by itself would be worth $20.
The track of Ayler performing with Cecil Taylor's trio in 1962 is, as Mats Gustafsson calls it, the "missing link" in the Ayler discography, the key which opened the door to Ayler's revolutionary "Spiritual Unity" trio. As Marc Chaloin notes in his essay, Ayler had not "thoroughly integrated the pianist's universe" (as had Jimmy Lyons) but rather "appears like a precious fellow-traveler to Taylor -- who in turn provided him at a crucial juncture with just the congenial musical environment he needed to fully come into his own." (An interesting parallel is the 1958 recording of John Coltrane with Thelonious Monk at the Five Spot -- also poorly recorded -- in which we can hear Trane develop certain aspects of his music heard in full bloom in the "Kind of Blue" and "Giant Steps" recordings of 1959. But the Ayler-Cecil meeting led to a much more radical restructuring, centered around Sunny Murray's expansive rhythms.)

A couple of weeks ago, as I was starting to dig into the Ayler box, I caught a screening of Michael Snow's film "New York Ear and Eye Control," which has a soundtrack by an expanded version of Ayler's group. I had seen the film once before, years ago, but forgot about the sequence of musicians posed before the camera, including Ayler in shadows, his luminous eyes cutting through the image to give the sense of an inner light shining through. (This footage is included on the "Digital Snow" DVD-ROM.)

This is "angry" music? The man wore a green leather suit!!

"I'm going to give the American people another chance."

-- Albert Ayler, 1970

Here's that chance.
Ho, ho, ho.

Voices of Sanity, Wages of Fear

Stan Hister in an important addendum to Thomas Frank's analysis of the problems with contemporary liberalism:

A long time ago, as the popular image of the worker went from Tom Joad to Archie Bunker, the left stopped caring much about the plight of the working class. Identity is what came to matter: politics became increasingly personalized (and almost as niche-marketed as cable tv), while economics receded into the background. But this shift away from class was also a shift away from any challenge to the system. In the old left-wing paradigm, the fight against racism or the oppression of women was seen as integral to the fight against capitalism. But with identity politics the goal isn't revolution anymore but inclusion. Which is why identity politics has never been radical in any meaningful sense - because its goal is fundamentally conformist.
The issue of same sex marriage illustrates the larger problem: gays and lesbians want 'in' - to a reactionary institution that is collapsing all around them. Of course they should have that right and of course the right wing campaign against it should be opposed. But the problem isn't inclusion as such but making a virtue of it. Same sex marriage isn't just about spousal benefits or adoption rights (which could be accommodated outside the framework of marriage), but above all about 'acceptance'. But acceptance of what and for what? Why should gay marriage be any less "legalized prostitution" than straight marriage, why should it be any less emotionally stifling, any less prone to abuse? The larger social critique, however, all but disappears in the battle for inclusion.

Arundhati Roy in a piece adapted from a book based on an earlier speech:

If you think about it, the logic that underlies the war on terror and the logic that underlies terrorism are exactly the same. Both make ordinary citizens pay for the actions of their government. Al Qaeda made the people of the United States pay with their lives for the actions of their government in Palestine, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Afghanistan. The U.S. government has made the people of Afghanistan pay in the thousands for the actions of the Taliban and the people of Iraq pay in the hundreds of thousands for the actions of Saddam Hussein. *** One does not endorse the violence of militant groups. Neither morally nor strategically. But to condemn it without first denouncing the much greater violence perpetrated by the state would be to deny the people of these regions not just their basic human rights, but even the right to a fair hearing. People who have lived in situations of conflict know that militancy and armed struggle provokes a massive escalation of violence from the state. But living as they do, in situations of unbearable injustice, can they remain silent forever? *** Terrorism is vicious, ugly and dehumanizing for its perpetrators as well as its victims. But so is war. You could say that terrorism is the privatization of war. Terrorists are the free marketers of war. They are people who don’t believe that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.

An interesting, if useless, statistic from William Blum, quoted in an article by Mickey Z, about the $400 billion spent annually on the U.S. military:

One year's military budget in the United States is equal to more than $20,000 per hour for every hour since Jesus Christ was born.

The U.S. has 4% of the global population and accounts for 45% of global military expenditures. The U.S. military budget accounts for 51% of discretionary spending, followed by education ($55B, or 7%) and health ($49B, or 6.3%). In a true free market, capitalists would bear the full costs of security for their imperial adventures, but we know their game is to socialize costs and privatize profits while promoting ignorance, fear, and passivity through their ministry of propaganda (the mass media).

“A criminal is a person with predatory instincts who has not sufficient capital to form a corporation.”
--Clarence Darrow

The current temperature is 10 degrees Fahrenheit, or 261 Kelvin. Here's a tip on overcoming frozen balls.

Chastity Belts Under the Christmas Tree

One thing (the only thing, really) I miss after cancelling my cable TV service is The Daily Show. Thankfully the occasional great clip is posted at onegoodmove, and one doesn't need a subscription (yet) to The New York Times to read Paul Krugman and Frank Rich. Rich's article (also here) on the no-nothings is on target, though he should have put a little more emphasis on the degree to which the religionists' moralizing is less about protecting children and more about defending patriarchal (i.e., authoritarian/capitalist) order. Richard Goldstein gets it right as well, though I've never seen the show he discusses:

Religious conservatives are perfectly willing to be entertained by immorality; they only require that it be punished, at least eventually.

Since those who suffer most from the theocrats' ignorance-only approach to sex ed tend to live on other continents and have a darker epidermal hue, it won't be long before "African HIV Survivor" becomes the next hit reality show, the latest way for one community to feel superior to another while denying its own problems and their actual causes.

The feudalists set up these fictitious culture wars, propping up theocrats as straw men, while they do the dirty work behind the scenes to keep a few men fat and happy and all others begging for gifts. "Women and children first," they all say, repeating the same old story: "It's OK, my dears, everything will be all white if you place your trust in the heavenly master and his invisible hand."