The Quiet Revolutionary (for J.G.)

a postscript to the excerpt I posted here about Jimmy Giuffre:

Our longest run of work was a European tour of close to three weeks; I think the approval we found there caused the music to advance considerably. Shortly after our return to New York, we began a residency in a coffee house on Bleecker Street, playing for whatever money was collected at the door. We disbanded on a night we each made 35 cents.

--Steve Swallow, in the liner notes of the CD reissue of Free Fall.

Why Bother

Michael Pollan, in "The Green Issue" of the NYT Magazine:

The “cheap-energy mind,” as Wendell Berry called it, is the mind that asks, “Why bother?” because it is helpless to imagine — much less attempt — a different sort of life, one less divided, less reliant. Since the cheap-energy mind translates everything into money, its proxy, it prefers to put its faith in market-based solutions — carbon taxes and pollution-trading schemes. If we could just get the incentives right, it believes, the economy will properly value everything that matters and nudge our self-interest down the proper channels. The best we can hope for is a greener version of the old invisible hand. Visible hands it has no use for. *** Going personally green is a bet, nothing more or less, though it’s one we probably all should make, even if the odds of it paying off aren’t great. Sometimes you have to act as if acting will make a difference, even when you can’t prove that it will. *** The idea is to find one thing to do in your life that doesn’t involve spending or voting, that may or may not virally rock the world but is real and particular (as well as symbolic) and that, come what may, will offer its own rewards.

He suggests we should grow "some — even just a little" of our own food.

Anyone know where I can get a pizza tree?

ps - Pollan's "Unhappy Meals" (now expanded into a book) is a must-read; more here.

Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been caught will we realise we cannot eat money.
--Cree Indian Proverb

Mor[e]on Media Make-Believe

"Story behind the story: The Clinton myth" [via DHinMI at Kos]:

One big fact has largely been lost in the recent coverage of the Democratic presidential race: Hillary Rodham Clinton has virtually no chance of winning.

Her own campaign acknowledges there is no way that she will finish ahead in pledged delegates. That means the only way she wins is if Democratic superdelegates are ready to risk a backlash of historic proportions from the party’s most reliable constituency.

Unless Clinton is able to at least win the primary popular vote — which also would take nothing less than an electoral miracle — and use that achievement to pressure superdelegates, she has only one scenario for victory. An African-American opponent and his backers would be told that, even though he won the contest with voters, the prize is going to someone else.

People who think that scenario is even remotely likely are living on another planet. * * * In other words: The notion of the Democratic contest being a dramatic cliffhanger is a game of make-believe.

The real question is why so many people are playing. The answer has more to do with media psychology than with practical politics. * * * One reason is fear of embarrassment. * * *

One important, if subliminal, reason is self-interest. Reporters and editors love a close race — it’s more fun and it’s good for business.

Abracadabra REDUX

One more time:

Yet the mainstream media continues to promote Clinton's strategy of coup-by-superdelegate.

Even the lefty media can't quite get it right: The Nation begins an otherwise spot-on editorial with this erroneous statement:

Hillary Clinton's commanding Democratic primary victories in Ohio and Rhode Island and her narrow win in Texas....

(sigh)

Mainstream Values

While a prominent Democratic politician gets caught with his pants down, we must once again ask this question:

The man in the White House invades a nation that didn't threaten us, kills 4,000 Americans, hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, destabilizes an entire region and it was all based on blatant lies and he gets to stay in office, while Spitzer wanted to have sex, admittedly in an unthinking way, and he has to resign?

Abracadabra: Loss = Win

From: Jason Guthartz
To: New York Times
Subject: correction to "Obama Wins Wyoming Caucuses"

I am writing to correct the second sentence in the above-referenced article, published on March 9, 2008:
"The [Wyoming] victory, while in a state with only 18 delegates, was welcome news for the Obama campaign as it sought to blunt any advantage Mrs. Clinton might gain from her victories in Ohio and Texas on Tuesday."

This statement regarding Clinton's "victory" in Texas is inaccurate. While Clinton won more delegates from the Texas primaries, neither candidate can be said to have won Texas, since -- as the Times' own "Election Guide" shows -- the state's caucus results are not final. Indeed, most informed opinion expects Obama's gain in delegates from the caucuses will give him the overall delegate "win" in Texas.

The Times is not alone in conjuring up a Texas "win" for Clinton:

Clinton scored campaign saving victories in Ohio and Texas last Tuesday after 11 straight losses to Obama.

To recap:

Last Tuesday night, mainstream media bandied about the story that Hillary Clinton had won Texas; but it wasn’t true. Responsible journalism would have necessitated qualifying the Texas call, given the partial results of Tuesday night; but they didn’t. Texas has a two step contest- a primary and a caucus- much like a few other states. And now the Texas democrats have given a preliminary account of both the primary and caucus results, which shows that overall: Obama won at least three more delegates than she did. And also, that he won at least 100,000 more votes when both contests are combined. She won the primary in the day and he won the caucus in the night. This is a fact, and yet mainstream media perpetuates the myth that Hillary won Texas. What could be their motivation here?

It seems to me that the mainstream media, having generated the conventional wisdom that they themselves have "taken it easy" on Obama, now feel obliged to prove themselves "fair and balanced" by conjuring up a false "Clinton comeback" narrative. As if this primary contest weren't dramatic enough.

Markos Moulitsas brings us back to reality:

As Clinton gears up her efforts for coup by super delegate, threatening civil war within the party, it bears noting that in her best week of the campaign since her New Hampshire victory, she actually lost ground in the race.

[It was] a +6 delegate week for Obama officially, +7 unofficially.

Keep one eye on the math, the other on the shenanigans. (see prior warning)

UPDATE by Markos:

My list was incomplete. ...officially, Obama has a 13-delegate advantage for the week even before Mississippi votes tomorrow. Throw in the unpledged delegate in Wyoming who will certainly be an Obama delegate, and unofficially, Obama notched a 14-delegate gain in this "week from hell" for him. ...

A few more "bad" weeks like this and he'll have the nomination nicely sewed up.

In any case, we need to work for every vote in the upcoming contests.

On Its Ear

Rolling Stone's Tim Dickinson on The Machinery of Hope:

...the Obama campaign has succeeded not by attracting starry-eyed followers who place their faith in hope but by motivating committed activists who are answering a call to national service. They're pouring their lifeblood into this campaign, not because they are in thrall to a cult of personality but because they're invested in the idea that politics matter, and that their participation can turn the current political system on its ear.

In reality, it already has. "We're seeing the last time a top-down campaign has a chance to win it," says [Joe] Trippi. "There won't be another campaign that makes the same mistake the Clintons made of being dependent on big donors and insiders. It's not going to work ever again."

Taibbi on "McCain Resurrected"

a new classic on the "wounded, crusading Ahab"

and something new from Robert Greenwald:

AGS @ HPAC

come on down:

TalkingPoint: Anti Gravity Surprise

6pm Monday, March 3rd at the Hyde Park Art Center
5020 S. Cornell Avenue
Muller Meeting Room
http://www.hydeparkart.org

TalkingPoint is a free monthly Monday evening series in which Chicago-based cultural producers share their ideas as a starting point for conversation in an intimate setting.

Since 2001, public art group Anti Gravity Surprise has addressed the concept of world peace in 9/11-themed multimedia project Gathering Motion; mounted a full eight-hour day of art and discussion about work with Second Shift; and hosted $election community art events to engage voters.

Co-founders Kathleen Duffy and Jennifer Karmin will speak about their collaborative approach and ongoing work Tell Us What You Think, an evolving public art project that will be distributed as a free workbook.

http://www.antigravitysurprise.org

Come down to the Hyde Park Art Center for a chance to listen, discuss, and learn. Food and drink provided.

The Sound of Fresh Chicken (for T.M.)

Miles on the August 1969 Bitches Brew sessions:

I had told Teo Macero, who was producing the record, to just let the tapes run and get everything we played, told him to get everything and not to be coming in interrupting, asking questions. "Just stay in the booth and worry about getting down the sound," is what I told him. And he did, didn't fuck with us once and got down everything, got it down real good.

p.s.:

"You got to get the chicken... you ain't gettin' the chicken."
-- Miles Davis to Lenny White, during the 1969 Bitches Brew sessions

"Bitches Brew is not a frozen chicken."
-- Wayne Shorter, 1999

UPDATE:

Phoneathon '08

Phoneathon '08 starts tonight: Call 847-491-WNUR and show your appreciation for quality noncommercial radio.

There are lots of great Jazz Show premiums, including the autographed Braxton Iridium box shown above.

(If you want a T-shirt to complement the box, you might ask if they still have any shirts left from 2000.)

Hillary the Hypocrite

let the flip-flopping begin:

Mrs. Clinton’s aides said the delegates should make their decision based on who they thought would be the stronger candidate and president. Mr. Obama argues that they should follow the will of the Democratic Party as expressed in the primary and caucuses — meaning the candidate with the most delegates from the voting.

more flopping:

Hillary Clinton will take the Democratic nomination even if she does not win the popular vote, but persuades enough superdelegates to vote for her at the convention, her campaign advisers say.

The New York senator, who lost three primaries Tuesday night, now lags slightly behind her rival, Illinois Senator Barack Obama, in the delegate count. She is even further behind in "pledged'' delegates, those assigned by virtue of primaries and caucuses.

But Clinton will not concede the race to Obama if he wins a greater number of pledged delegates by the end of the primary season, and will count on the 796 elected officials and party bigwigs to put her over the top, if necessary, said Clinton's communications director, Howard Wolfson.

Hillary on "the Will of the People"

my first DKos diary:

If Obama ends up with more pledged delegates when all the primary/caucus votes are counted (incl. any possible do-over of Florida & Michigan), will Clinton respect the will of the people and concede, or will she allow superdelegates to hand her the nomination?

Sen. Clinton should remember her own comments from 2000:

"I have thought about this for a long time," Mrs. Clinton said at a rally in an airport hangar in Syracuse. "I've always thought we had outlived the need for an Electoral College, and now that I am going to the Senate, I am going to try to do what I can to make clear that the popular vote, the will of the people, should be followed."
***
She said she wanted "to be on the side of the democratic process working," and so would support the effort to establish direct presidential elections.
***
"I believe strongly that in a democracy we should respect the will of the people."

Suuu-perb Tuesday

Impressive.

An interesting aspect of the results is the disparity in "big" victories, i.e., states won with 60% or more of the popular vote:

OBAMA:
Alaska - 75%
Colorado - 67%
Georgia - 66%
Idaho - 80%
Illinois - 64%
Kansas - 74%
Minnesota - 67%
North Dakota - 61%

CLINTON:
Arkansas - 69%

One of the better summaries:

As with every campaign, we have to deal with the reality of where things stand today. But, sometimes it does help to take a step back. Obama was practically unknown as a serious contender a year ago. He was running against the vaunted, inevitable Clinton machine. Last year, it was the conventional wisdom, we all agreed, that Hillary Clinton would be the Democratic nominee and the race would be wrapped up on Super Tuesday. That didn't happen. Her aura of invincibility is gone. Her inevitability is gone.

Much left to do.

Can We?

the numbers are looking good



tune in
and/or chip in

& stay tuned

Scheer on Clinton

Robert Scheer nicely summarizes the Problems With Hillary:

Her supporters have accepted Clinton’s refusal to repudiate her vote to authorize the war, an ignominious moment she shares with other Democrats, including presidential candidate John Edwards, who at least has made a point of regretting it. It was a vote that has led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, 3,940 U.S. service members—five more on Monday—and a debt in the trillions of dollars that will prevent the funding of needed domestic programs that Clinton claims to support. And it doesn’t end with Iraq. Clinton has been equally hawkish toward Iran and, in a Margaret Thatcher-like moment, even attacked Obama for ruling out the use of nuclear weapons against Osama bin Laden. Clinton’s apologists include Gloria Steinem and too many other feminists, who should know better than to betray the women’s movement’s commitment to peace in favor of simplistic gender politics.

***

Hillary Clinton has made “experience” key to her claim to the presidency and tells us she will do the right thing from “day one.” The reality is that her extra four years in the U.S. Senate hardly provides better experience than Obama’s eight years in the Illinois state Senate battling for progress with the nation’s most hard-boiled politicians. And if she lays claim to her husband’s presidency, then she must also take responsibility for caving in to big media with the Telecommunications Act, selling out to the banks with the Financial Services Modernization Act, and killing the federal welfare program—a political gambit that deeply wounded millions of women and children. Her political career began with the Senate and she hit the ground running, but, as her craven support for Bush after 9/11 shows, it was in the wrong direction.

Taibbi Time

Not the first time Matt Taibbi has made the Nixon-Hillary connection. Now he elaborates:

What people forget about Clinton is that she is basically a Republican at heart. She campaigned for Barry Goldwater once upon a time and even canvassed poor neighborhoods in Chicago looking for "vote fraud" by Democrats. She was president of the College Republicans at Wellesley. In 1968, at the height of America's most intense cultural debate in a century, she only abandoned the Republican Party because it backed Dick Nixon instead of her favorite, Nelson Rockefeller.

Which is ironic, because as a presidential candidate herself, Hillary has basically run exactly Nixon's 1968 campaign. Her stump speech from the get-go was all about the "invisible Americans," a nearly word-for-word echo of Nixon's revolutionary "forgotten Americans" strategy of that year. Like Nixon, she was targeting a slice of the electorate that had chosen to stay on the sidelines during a cultural war and secretly yearned for someone in the political center to restore order; it's no accident that Hillary was on the opposite side of every issue that sent lefties to the streets in the Bush years, from the war to free trade to the Patriot Act.

Suuu-perb

We're #1! We're #1!

from the Financial Times:

US leads on deaths from treatable disease

More patients die in the US from diseases that could be treated by timely intervention than in any other leading industrialised country, a study by senior health academics showed on Monday. ....

"If the US performed as well as the top three countries in the study" - France, with 65 deaths per 100,000, and Japan and Australia, both with 71 per 100,000 - "there would have been 101,000 fewer deaths per year," the authors write in the journal Health Affairs.

via Jerome a Paris, who comments:

But Like Madeleine Albright said about the death of hundreds of thousands Iraqi kids in the 90s because of the sanctions regime, "it is worth it" - some principles are worth upholding even if it is tragically costly to do so. These hundred thousand Americans dying earlier than could have been each year (imagine: one million preventable deaths over the past decade!) are the front line soldiers in the fight for freedom and against socialism.

Thank God for them.

Ah yes, the dangers of "socialized medicine".

I guess if you haven't worked hard enough to get the right type of job with the right type of benefits, then you deserve to die.

see also here

Getting the word out, part 9.3

The Braxton Iridium box comes in at #38 in The Wire's best-of-2007 poll -- though if you eliminate non-improv titles, it'd be something like #3.

There is, however, another Braxton closer to the top of that list: Tyondai, via the (awesome) group Battles.