The Daily Digression, which covers pop culture and beyond...
PAUL'S OTHER WEBSITES:
-My homepage is at paulliorio.blogspot.com
-My photography site is paulioriophotos.blogspot.com
- My main music site (w/lyrics) pauliorio.blogspot.com
-MP3 editons of my new albums pauliorio.vox.com &
sittinaroundalbum.vox.com & pauliorio480.vox.com/
NEW! Audio excerpts of Paul's interviews with pop culture icons
myspace.com/pauliorioo & myspace.com/paulioriooo
All posted text on this website written solely by Paul Iorio.
____________________________________________________________________
Some sort of software glitch is stopping me from
posting new material to this site. Until it's
fixed, I'll be posting new Daily Digressions at
www.dailydigression1.blogspot.com. Please visit
there for all the latest. Paul
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 8, 2010
New Paul Iorio Song Censored by Microsoft
Is "Draw Me a Picture" Too Hot for Bill Gates?
[more to come; my site has apparently been hacked into]
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 8, 2010
I've just finished writing and recording four brand new
songs; will be posting lyrics and MP3s as soon as I
solve website software problem (Feb. 8, 2010).
___________________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 2, 2010
The other day I mentioned (in this space) a humorous
feature story I'd written and reported for Details
magazine in 1994 called "Choosing My Religion," and
some are wondering how they can get a copy
of the piece.
Well, look no further. Here is the story I wrote, as I
originally wrote it, for the magazine. Enjoy!
http://iorioonreligion.blogspot.com/
* * * *
As many of you know, I was the first journalist anywhere to
have conducted an audiotaped interview with Phish bandleader
Trey Anastasio (it happened in January 1989).
One reader wonders how certain I am that my interview
with Anastasio was conducted in January 1989.
My answer is: I'm 100% sure that it was done in January 1989.
How do I know? Easy. In the taped interview, you can clearly
hear Trey talking about shows that he and has band have
just performed and concerts that are coming up. So, for example,
he says, last week we performed at the so and so cafe (and
research shows that gig happened in January 1989). And
Trey says, next week we'll be performing at the so and so club
in Boston (and research shows that gig happened in
February 1989).
Thankfully, the Q&A is loaded with such date references, which
make it easy to figure out when I did the interview.
My Anastasio interview was ultimately published in the
December 25, 2003, issue of Miami New Times (so it, of course,
went through a rigorous level of fact-checking and verification
by the editors at New Times before it was published).
I've posted an edited transcript of the interview at
http://www.paulliorio.blogspot.com and have some of
the audio posted at http://www.myspace.com/paulioriooo.
* * * *
As some of you know, my main music website is at
www.pauliorio.blogspot.com. But I've just launched
another music site that has more informal, day-to-day
info and messages about my music. It's at
http://latestonpaul.blogspot.com
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 1, 2010
exclusive
The Death of J.D. Salinger
What the Townspeople in his Hometown Thought About Him
J.D. Salinger has died, at age 91, meaning he lived
in the tiny U.S. town of Cornish Flat, New Hampshire, in
seclusion for 57 years. By all accounts, he was as
reclusive in the end as when he was when
he first moved to town on January 1, 1953, back
when President Truman was still in the White House.
The author moved there around 17 months after the release
of his first and only full-length novel, “The Catcher in the
Rye,” at a time when he was “tremendously relieved that the
season for success of ‘The Catcher in The Rye’ is over,”
as he told the Saturday Review magazine in 1952. Little did
he know the season had just begun.
The townspeople of the Cornish Flat area grew
accustomed to him and usually left him alone to live
his day to day life with his wife, a quilt and
tapestry designer around half his age, in a house
near a covered bridge (how fitting it's a covered
bridge!) that leads to Vermont. (He moved down the
road to his current Cornish house after divorcing
his previous wife in 1967.)
Most people in the area do not talk about him,
but some do. Or at least they did in
2004, when I conducted the interviews
for this story, unpublished until now.
"People know who he is, yet he acts like nobody
knows who he is," says Lynn Caple, who runs the
nearby Plainfield General Store, where Salinger
and his wife occasionally used to stop in to buy the
New York Times and other items.
"Very straight-faced guy," says Caple. "I've only seen
him smile once. I've been here four years."
Other neighbors, like Jerry Burt of Plainfield, have
actually been to his house, which he says is at the
end of a long driveway and atop a hill on hundreds
of acres owned by the author. "We would
go over to watch movies in his living room and have
dinner with him," says Burt, who claims he hasn't
seen the author since 1983.
"He's got a big living room with a deck that looks out
over the hills of Vermont, way up high, very private,"
he adds.
Burt recalls one dinner party at Salinger's house
twenty-some years ago at which Salinger, who is said
to enjoy health food, served meatloaf. "No Julia
Child," he says of Salinger's cuisine. And
the conversation was rarely literary. "He talked
about movies and the gardens and his children," he says.
The books Salinger usually talked about were not novels
but non-fiction works related to “health, being your own
health provider -- and gardening."
Of course, none of the guests dared to mention
“Catcher.”
"You'd never even think to do that if you were around
him," he says. "He'd just give you a look. He's a
very tall man and stern looking. You just know not
to do that. He'd probably show you the door and
say, 'Don't come in.'"
“He never talked about his work except to say he wrote
every morning faithfully,” he says. “And he said if I was
ever going to be a writer, I would have to do that.”
He also says Salinger had a big safe -- like a "bank
safe" -- where he kept his unpublished manuscripts. "I've
seen the safe, I've looked in it. And he told me that he kept
his unpublished [work] there....It's huge," says Burt. "You
could have a party in there."
At one get-together in the 1980s, Salinger screened Frank
Capra's 1937 film "Lost Horizon," about a group of people
who find a paradise called Shangrila tucked in a remote
corner of the Himalayans. "He liked all those old things,
those old silents, Charlie Chaplin," he says. (His
description of the Salinger party almost resembles the
scene in the 1950 movie “Sunset Boulevard” in which a
has-been screens old movies for friends in a remote house.)
Another neighbor, this one in Cornish, is much more
circumspect about what she says about Salinger and
takes great pains to defend him. “He has been a wonderful
neighbor,” says Joan Littlefield, who lives close to
him. “The minute we moved into the neighborhood, he
called and gave us his unlisted number and said,
‘We’re neighbors now.’”
Littlefield spontaneously defended the author against
some of the allegations in the memoir by Salinger’s
daughter Margaret A. Salinger, “Dream Catcher: A Memoir”
(2000). That book claimed, among other things, that
Salinger was involved in offbeat health and spiritual
practices, such as drinking urine and Scientology.
“This thing about telling him to drink his own urine
or something that I heard that somebody wrote about,”
said Littlefield. “...I think that if any of these
reporters did some research into Ayurvedic medicine
or the medicine of China or the Far East, they would
probably find out that the medicine people over
there recommend this sort of thing.” (Ayurvedic
medicine provides alternative health treatments -- including
urine drinking -- that have origins in ancient
India.)
Littlefield defends Salinger on smaller issues, too.
“Absolutely ridiculous things have been written about
him, like that they had two Doberman attack dogs,”
she says. “For Pete’s sake, they had two little
Italian hounds of some kind that looked like Dobermans,
and they were skinny and tiny as toothpicks!”
(My request for an interview with Salinger went
unanswered over the years, though I did speak
with his wife, who was not at all pleased that I was
writing this story.)
The author was, of course, famous for not granting
interviews and gave only around six interviews,
some of them brief and grudging, to reporters since
the release of “Catcher."
Most other people in the area saw Salinger only when
he was out in public, if at all. “He’s great looking for his
age,” says photographer and area resident Medora Hebert,
who has spotted him twice. “He’s dapper, very trim.”
“It was a long time before I could actually recognize him
because he looked so ordinary,” says Ann Stebbens Cioffi,
the daughter of the late owner of the Dartmouth Bookstore,
Phoebe Storrs Stebbens.
But Salinger himself once said that he thinks others don’t
see him as ordinary. "I'm known as a strange, aloof kind
of man," Salinger told the New York Times in 1974. And
some agree with him: "He's a very strange dude," says
Hanover resident Harry Nelson. Burt agrees: “He had a
weird sense of humor,” he says.
What emerges as much as anything is that the
author was a serious book lover and serial browser
who shopped at places ranging from Borders Books to
the Dartmouth Bookstore. “He was uninterrupted
during his hour or two of browsing for books,” says
a person answering the phone at Encore! Books in West
Lebanon, New Hampshire, describing his own Salinger
sighting.
“He does come in reasonably frequently,” says someone
who answered the phone at the Dartmouth Bookstore in
Hanover, New Hampshire, around 20 miles north of Cornish.
“He’s a pretty good customer here but doesn’t really
say anything to us.”
"He frequented the Dartmouth bookstore," says an
employee of Borders Books Music & Cafe in West Lebanon.
"I talked to people who worked over there one time;
they say he wasn't very nice, wasn't the most cordial
person. So I kind of keep my eye out for him
here, go my own way."
Adds Medora Hebert, "One of my daughter's friends
was a cashier at the Dartmouth Bookstore. And they warned
him, 'If J.D. Salinger comes in, don't talk to him,
don't acknowledge him.'"
And there had been many reports of Salinger
browsing the stacks at the Dartmouth College
library. “I’ve talked with people who have met
him in the stacks and whatnot,” says Thomas
Sleigh, an English professor at Dartmouth College.
Salinger was also said to enjoy the annual Five-Colleges
Book Sale at the Hanover High School gym, a springtime
sale of used and antiquarian books that raises money
for scholarships.
In Hanover, as in Cornish, he kept to himself. "My
wife [says] Salinger always said hello to Phoebe
and no one else," says Nelson, referring to Phoebe
Storrs Stebbens, who was a year older than
Salinger (and incidentally shares the same first
name as a major character in “Catcher”).
And area booksellers say Salinger’s books are
displayed just as prominently as they would be
if he were not a local.
Then again, Salinger didn't have many books to
display, since he published only three besides
“Catcher,” all compilations of short stories or
novellas that had been previously published, mostly
in The New Yorker magazine. His last book,
“Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and
Seymour, An Introduction,” was released in
January 1963. His previous books were the bestsellers
“Franny and Zooey” (1961) and “Nine Stories” (1953).
By the way, The New Yorker magazine actually
rejected "The Catcher in the Rye" when Salinger
submitted it as a short story/novella that was
substantially similar to the novel, according to
Paul Alexander's book "Salinger: A Biography."
In 1997, he had planned to publish a fifth book,
essentially a re-release of his last published
work, “Hapworth 16, 1924,” which appeared in The
New Yorker in June 1965. The book’s publication
was ultimately scuttled.
But “Catcher” eclipses everything else he’s
done -- by a mile. It’s one of the most
influential 20th century American novels, a
coming-of-age odyssey about high school student
Holden Caulfield, who wanders around New York
after being kicked out of prep school. And
it's arguably the first novel to convincingly capture
the voice of the modern, alienated, American
teenager.
"Catcher" was successful in its initial run but not
nearly as successful as it would become by the end
of the 1950s, when it started to turn into a
freakish cult phenomenon. To date, it has
sold more than 60 million copies worldwide and
continues to sell hundreds of thousands more each year.
Over the decades, the book has appealed to a wide
range of readers that even includes certified
wackos (John Lennon’s killer had a copy on him
when he was captured). So it’s not surprising that
Salinger had to fend off obsessive
fans even at his private Shangrila in Cornish
Flat, which has a population of under 2,000.
“People approach him a lot,” says Burt. “And they
stole clothes off his clothesline. They stole his
socks, underwear, t-shirts. And they’d come up on
his deck. It’s a huge picture window that
goes across the front of the house looking out to
Vermont...And he said he’d get up and open the
drapes and people would be standing there looking in.
It really pissed him off.”
And there was also a much publicized scuffle outside the
Purity Supreme grocery store (which he used to jokingly
call “the Puberty Supreme,” according to two biographies)
in 1988, in which Salinger reportedly mixed it up with
a couple photographers who tried to take his picture.
But for the most part, people in the area didin't bother
him.
“People in Cornish are quite protective of him,” says
Cioffi. “I can’t think of anyone who will tell you
a word about Salinger,” says a woman who answered
the phone at the Hannaford Supermarket in Claremont.
Apparently, Cornish is the perfect place to go if you
vant to be alone. “This is also a part of the country
where [writer Aleksandr] Solzhenitsyn lived in his
enclave -- and his kids went to public
schools,” says Bob Grey of the Northshire Bookstore
in faraway Manchester Center, Vermont, referring to
the Nobel laureate’s former home in Cavendish,
Vermont, which is around 20 miles from Cornish.
“It’s the kind of place where, if you’re going to move
to be left alone, it’s not a bad place to be.”
_________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 30 - 31, 2010
It's official: my song "Love's The Heaven You Can't Reach"
is the song of mine that (lately) is most ripped-off by other
songwriters. I wrote the song in 2008 and it first got
radio airplay some weeks alter (for which I'm grateful! My spiel
here, by the way, is not at all directed at the great radio people
who have played my stuff, and I hope they continue to play it).
Currently you can hear the song for free on MySpace here:
http://www.myspace.com/paulioriosongs
Look, I don't wanna be a spoilsport and name names (which I'm
not gonna do). But hey, I'm the small fish here. And when
better-known musicians steal one of my ideas, it devalues my
original tune. Someone who is more affluent than I am ends
up making money off of my idea without compensating me. And I
don't know how you call that fair.
As I said, I ain't naming names but the most prominent people
who have ripped that song off are: a late night TV talk show host
and his house band (stealing it so flagrantly that I could probably sue
them, but I won't); and a singer-songwriter I admire, who merely took
my idea and modified the song's main line. (Even one of my old
friends is sort of trying to rip the song off retroactivbely,
trying to make it look like one of his own old songs was
kind of about the same theme (when in fact his own song had
nothing to do with the theme of love-being-out-of-reach and
was merely a psychedelic tableau).)
There are other songs of mine that have been nicked by other
recording artists in recent years (I'm not going to go through
the litany, but suffice it say that the idea for my
2000 song "Wait for Girls" was stolen by (you can guess
that one!) and my 2008 song "Bang, Bang, Shoot, Shoot" was ripped
of by (I bet you can guess that one, too). I generally post
my songs online as I write them so that people can enjoy
'em, but I might have to rethink giving out cyber-freebies
in the future. I mean, my music site is apparently becoming
a backwater where some musicians-on-deadline feel they
can easily steal an idea or two.
Three reasons songwriters and performers shouldn't steal
from my songwriting catalog are: 1) I have a good attorney,
and if anyone crosses the line and lifts a substantial
part of one of my songs, that person will be sued; 2) if anyone
steals one of my songs but cleverly does so in a way that
is just outside the boundary of formal copyright violation,
I'll merely publicize the theft on this website and
elsewhere, and you'll have the reputation you deserve; 3) it's
not fair.
Here's an idea: next time a performer likes one of my songs,
write to me at pliorio@aol.com and arrange for permission
and payment to use it. What a concept!
Thankfully, I have had a longstanding habit of
sending my songs to myself in an email shortly after
I've written them (I've been doing this via email since '97). Hence, I
know exactly when I came up with almost all of
my songs. And my email and hard drive say: I finished
"Love's The Heaven" on August 9, 2008, at around 9:30 AM.
(Studio version is from an August 19, 2008.) For anyone
interested, here's the top of the email I sent to myself:
The song is about my belief that we fall in
love with those who are just out of reach,
probably because they are just out of reach,
and (absent first-hand contact with the person)
we tend to imagine that she (or he) is heaven.
* * * * *
Exposing an Apocryphal Story
One of the great things about blogs is you can
address persistent nasty rumors or false stories
about yourself (or others) in a way that one never
could before the invention of the Internet.
So I'd like to clear up one particular false and irritating
story about me that I've heard echoed over the years.
In 1987, when I was a writer/reporter for a music trade
magazine in New York, I struck up a conversation with a
publicist who had recently been fired from her job. She
seemed to be unusually loquacious, which might have been
motivated by the fact that she trying to get me to say
something embarrassing that she could later quote (I think
she was pissed about something I had written about one
of the artists she represented).
Anyway, the talk turned to my schedule for that evening. In
those days I would regularly attend a couple concerts a
night -- a night -- in between attending an industry party
or conducting an interview. Very busy sked in those days.
That night there were around two concerts and another event
I had to cover in Manhattan, where I was based. And that
meant I had to miss a big David Bowie concert out in New
Jersey that night. (That particular Bowie tour had already
been reviewed by the L.A. bureau of my magazine some time
earlier, so (for obvious reasons) I wasn't going to cover it.) But
this publicist hooked on to the fact that I wasn't attending
the Bowie show. Why not?, she asked. And I explained that
the magazine had already covered his tour -- and besides, I
joked, it was going to rain and I might melt.
Admittedly, not a good joke. But a joke nonetheless.
Ever since then, a willfully distorted version of that story has
gotten around in order to make me look like 'Paul's-not-a-hardy-reporter,
he can't even brave a rainstorm.'
Well, excuuuuuse me! For the record, I've covered stories during
bomb threats, death threats, blizzards and earthquakes.
Besides reporting on an unsolved murder that almost cost me my
life, and venturing alone behind the Iron Curtain during
the Cold War, I've also braved more ordinary inclement elements on
the job (like getting a bad case of clinical frostbite while
reporting "Choosing My Religion" for Details magazine in
late December 1993, as I had to walk around from church to church
in Manhattan when it was 30 below zero. And, by the way,
I'd gladly get frostbite again to do a story as humorous
as that; thanks to the people who were at Details then
who understood what I was doing and let me do it!)
Twenty-three years later, I can finally put an end to a
distorted little story that misleads people about who
I am.
But I digress. Paul
________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 27 - 28, 2010
Underwear Bomber's Islamic Group Once Posted Pro-Jihadist Writings
Muslim Organization More Extremist Than First Thought
Before he decided to become an international underwear model -- burned
in his first turn in the spotlight, alas -- Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab was an
Islamic top banana at University College London (UCL). Elected president --
president -- of the college's Islamic Society in 2006, he ran the
organization until 2007, even organizing an extravagant week-long
conference on the war on terror at one point.
Today, of course, he stands accused of trying to blow up a plane that had
nearly 300 passengers on it -- and of doing so in the name of Islam.
In the wake of the attempted bombing, there has been a widespread
perception that UCL's Islamic Society was a moderate Muslim
group devoted almost solely to humanitarian causes, academic issues
and charity.
But this reporter has uncovered postings on the Islamic Society's website
that contradict that impression and show the group has posted
pro-jihadist commentary over the years. In 1999 and thereafter, the
Society posted an editorial advocating religious warfare, leading
with this unambiguous line: "With respect to Jihad, O my brother, in
this time and before this time it is fard ayn." (The phrase "fard ayn" means
individual duty and obligation. )
Elsewhere, the author -- identified as "Al-Albaanee" -- advocates driving
Israel "into the sea." "For here we have neighbouring us, the Jews who
have occupied Palestine, and not a single Islamic country has moved
to establish the obligation of making Jihad with them, and evicting
them and throwing them in the sea...," he writes on the site of the
group that Abdulmutallab once ran.
This sort of extremism is consistent with reports from The Guardian
newspaper and others that fundamentalist Muslims (and Christians) at
University College London have been virtually insisting that professors treat
religious myth as if it were scientific fact and on the same
level as scientific explanation.
As The Guardian reported in 2006, noting that both
Muslim and Christian students were advocating the teaching of
creationism in science classes: "There is an insidious and growing problem,"
said Professor [Steve] Jones, of University College London. "It's a step back
from rationality. They (the creationists) don't have a problem with science,
they have a problem with argument. And irrationality is a very infectious
disease as we see from the United States."
Of course, the Islamic Society's site has also published material
on many other subjects over the years, ranging from
restaurant guides for Muslims and information on where to go for Happy
Hour after Friday prayers to explanations of why women are
deprived of rights under Islamic law.
Interestingly, the postings during Abdulmutallab's tenure seem to emphasize
a Lonely Guyish pre-occupation with social activities. (Even a
charity walk for earthquake victims is (almost callously) billed as
"a great excuse to have a fun day out with sisters to see
the famous sites of London..." And the site abruptly juxtaposes an
announcement about the deaths of two colleagues with a notice
about a Paintball event.)
Here are some excerpts from UCL's Islamic Society website during
Abdulmutallab's tenure and before. (All punctuation and spelling is
exactly as it appears on the site; some of the material quoted here
was posted directly on the site, some was linked to it.)
"With respect to Jihad, O my brother, in this time and before this time it is fard ayn."
(The phrase "fard ayn" means individual duty and obligation. ) (titled: "Al-Albaanee on Jihaad," '99)
-- "Brothers: Happy Hour after Jumu'ah [Friday prayers] in Conference room, 2nd Floor
Bloomsbury." (main website, 2004 and beyond)
-- "For here we have neighbouring us, the Jews who have occupied Palestine, and
not a single Islamic country has moved to establish the obligation of making Jihad with
them, and evicting them and throwing them in the sea..." (titled: "Al-Albaanee on Jihaad," '99)
-- "Always keep in mind the reason we are here studying, and remember that every
action we perform should be for Allah." (main website, 2004 and beyond)
-- "It is obligatory upon the father when [his daughter] reaches the age of nine or greater
that he asks for her consent [before marrying her off]."
("Fataawa (Legal rulings) for women," '01, also posted on Univ. of Essex Islamic Society site)
-- "Any woman who perfumes herself and passes by some people that they smell her scent,
then she is an...adulteress." (from "The Obligatory Conditions For An Islamic Hijab," with the
quote attributed this way: "On the authority of Ad'Diya Al-Maqdisi, the prophet (pbuh) said...", '01)
-- "Brothers please do not use the toilets in the Henry Morley Building, these are for
SISTERS ONLY" (main website, mid-Oughties)
\
-- "[Smoking] is most spread among the low-class immoral people. It reflects blind imitation o
f the non-Muslims. It is mostly consumed in bars, discos, casinos, and other: places of sin. A
smoker may beg or steal if he does not have the money to buy cigarettes. He is ill-mannered
with his friends and family, especially when he misses taking his necessary "dose" at the usual time."
. ("Smoking: A Social Poison," by Muhammad al-Jibaly, posted in '01)
-- "Cut the moustaches and grow your beards. Be different from the Magians (followers of a religion
that dominated in Persia)."
("Shaving the Beard: A Modern Effeminacy," by Abu`Abdillah Muhammad al-Jibaly, posted in '01)
-- "The fast is valid for any person who wakes up in a state of sexual defilement "
(from "The Rulings of Ramadaan: A Comprehensive Guideline, adapted from the Hudaa magazine; posted in 2001.)
-- "Smoking refers to the action of lighting a cigarette, a pipe, a cigar...The object is then
sucked on with the lips to extract smoke...'Smoking' is now used to refer to the action
of producing this smoke in English, Arabic, and other languages."
("Smoking: A Social Poison," by Muhammad al-Jibaly,posted in '01)
-- "Ankaboot...A MUST try restaurant for every muslim." (main website, 2004 and beyond)
-- "The beard is defined as the hair which grows on the cheeks and the jaws."
("Shaving the Beard: A Modern Effeminacy," by Abu`Abdillah Muhammad al-Jibaly, posted in '01)
-- "Downloadable Quran recitations from around 50 choices of Sheikhs." (main website, mid-Oughties)
-- "Dua [Prayer] for Distress:...Do not leave me in charge of my affairs even for a blink of
an eye..."(main website, mid-Oughties)
-- "Dua [Prayer] After Studying: "Oh Allah! I entrust you with what I have read and have
studied..."(main website, mid-Oughties)
-- "You are a former British heavyweight boxer. The women are chasing after you, you've got
the muscles, you've got the money and the cars, you're making the back page headlines.
Why turn around and become Muslim?" (main website, 2006)
-- "Stairway to Heaven - Cruciform Lectrue Theatre 2...A solo tab for Led Zeppelin's
guitar hit? Nope, think again! This is an uplifting talk by Abu Aaliyah...Come down
and let's take the stairway to Heaven." (main website, 2006)
-- "thank Allah for a successful year, and pray that this coming year will follow in similar vain [sic]".
(main website, posted '01)
-- "He who raises his hands during the prayer, there is no prayer for him."
("The Prophet's Prayer," by Shaykh Muhammad Naasir-ud-deen al-Albaanim posted in '01.)
-- "Are the rulings for wiping the same for women as for men? Or is there a difference?"
("Rulings regarding wiping over the socks," by Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih 'Aal-Uthaymeen, posted in 01)
-- "I was suffering from haemorrhoids (piles), so I asked the Messenger of Allaah...and he
said, Pray standing; if you are not able, then sitting down; if you are not able to do so,
then pray lying down." ("The Prophet's Prayer," by Shaykh Muhammad Naasir-ud-deen al-Albaanim posted in '01.)
-- "Anyone who ridicules any aspect of the religion of the Messenger of Allaah [saw],
or any of its rewards or punishments, becomes an unbeleiver."
("Ten Things Which Nullify Ones Islaam," undated, no author credited, on main site.)
-- "The beard is a major distinction between men and women. Shaving it removes
this distinction, and is thus a means of imitating women."
("Shaving the Beard: A Modern Effeminacy," by Abu`Abdillah Muhammad al-Jibaly, posted in '01)
-- "More than 5,000 people were killed, and thousands injured by the earthquake
that struck Yogyakarta, South Central Java [in[ 2006....UCLU Islamic Society has
organized a sponsored a walk around central London to raise money for this
deperate cause. This is a great excuse to have a fun day out with sisters to see
the famous sites of London..." (main website, 2006)
The new logo of University College London's Islamic Society?[all writing, reporting, research by Paul Iorio. Graphic by Paul Iorio
based on UCL ISOC logo and Kurt Westergaard drawing.]
* * * *
essay
A Fresh Look at Islam, Circa 2010
In the spirit of Edward R. Murrow's "Harvest of Shame,"
in which Murrow both reported his findings and provided
commentary on his subject, here is what my reportage
tells me about Islam...
When it comes to Islam, I'm with the late Norman Mailer.
Mailer once appeared on Charlie Rose and, as usual, made
clear and audacious sense, saying -- as Rose tried to
shush and sanitize him -- that the whole posture of Islam
is completely wrong, that to have your ass in the air
and your nose on a floor is such a negation of all
the beauty of existence.
It was liberating to hear Mailer, a leftist and progressive,
say such a thing flat out, not caring what the consequences
were, speaking without fear or favor, the way good
journalists do.
I had seen Mailer in person earlier, shortly after the fatwa
against Salman Rushdie in February 1989. And I was impressed,
even energized by his bravery in the face of a bomb
threat that temporarily emptied the pro-Rushie rally at
the Manhattan venue where he was speaking. Quoting Jean Genet,
Mailer addressed the person who made the threat: "Blow out your farts."
But getting back to Mailer's opinion of Islam, I have to admit
that the posture of Christians and Jews to the world -- on their
knees, with their eyes closed -- is no better. Why not celebrate
and worship the world by standing upright in a forest,
or in a great city, amidst a beautiful landscape, or enjoying
sex face-to-face with another person? Why negate all the
beauty out there by having your face on the floor or your
knees on the ground. (They have a song about pants on the
ground; how about a tune about how you look with your
nose on the floor?)
I used to think there was a larger centrist faction of
Islam in the world, but my recent research has taught me
that faction is smaller than I thought. In researching the
case of the underwear bomber, I read the past editions of
the University College London's Islamic Society website (UCL ISOC)
and realized that even there -- where you would expect a more liberal
and secular Muslim viewpoint -- it was virtually the 15th century.
On the UCL ISOC site were postings (that I've
compiled above) advocating jihad, giving advice about forced
marriages to girls who are nine years old and older, etc.
Backward stuff. And this is what passes for progressive
academic Islam in 2010? (Wanna see for yourself how
backward some of these postings are? Here's one -- posted
on the websites of at least two academic Islamic
Societies, where one would expect (in vain) a more
modern version of Islam. Read for yourself (if you can
stomach it) here how they defend "forced marriages"
to girls as young as nine years old: http://womensrightsissues.blogspot.com.)
I can only conclude that the difference between moderate
Islam and orthodox Islam is that the former is only 150 years
behind the times (before Darwin, the abolition of slavery,
women's rights, etc.) and the latter is around 500 years
behind the times (even reaching back before Galileo and Copernicus).
According to newspaper reports, Muslim and Christian
fundamentalist students in the U.K are bringing
their religious irrationalism into the classroom,
posing a problem for professors. For example,
students who are Christian and Muslim literalists are
answering science questions on exams with religious
answers -- and are rightly being flunked as a result.
On science exams, students are asked questions like:
The earth is around _______ years old.
The correct answer, of course, is 4.5 billion years old.
But devout Muslim students are answering:
"5,000 years old, according to Allah (pbuh)."
A professor would of course have to mark that answer wrong.
The professor might also suggest that the student save his religious
beliefs for religion courses, and apply his scientific knowledge in
science classes.
After all, you don't teach astrology in astronomy class in the
name of diversity. (You might however include a (brief)
discussion of astrology in a course about, say, Hindu folk
traditions.) And one wouldn't teach that the earth-is-flat
is an alternative scientific theory that some believe is true.
Problem is, many fundamentalists, both Christian and Muslim,
come to college expecting a church or mosque, not a classroom.
They expect a preacher, not a teacher. They want dogma,
not verifiable knowledge or dialectic.
And isn't there an implicit intimidation factor involved
when a student answers "the earth is 5,000 years old,
according to Allah (pbuh)," an answer that is hostile to
what the professor is teaching and doing? Will
intimidation tactics cause more than a couple professors to, maybe,
tamp down their teachings of Darwin or Copernicus? Isn't this
a dangerous slippery slope?
First, the fanatics try to murder a novelist (Rushdie)
because they are offended by his novel. Then, they
murder a van Gogh because they are offended by his
film making. Then, they try to kill Kurt Westergaard
because they are offended by one of his cartoons. The
other week, in Malaysia, fundamentalists decided to
forbid non-Muslims from using the word "Allah." How long
before they start targeting professors who have the
nerve to teach that the earth is around 4.5 billion years old?
I must say, what a sensitive bunch, these religious fanatics.
Let me get this straight: these religulous souls are not the
least bit offended by burning people jumping to their deaths
from skyscrapers (see: 9/11) but they're suddenly reduced
to tears and anger over a mere cartoon.
Of course, Muslims (and Christians and Jews) have every right
to be offended by whatever they want to be offended by. Nobody
is saying they don't have the right to be offended by anything
or everything. What I am saying -- and emphatically -- is that
mass homicide is not the way to respond to being offended. Killing
is not only immoral and unacceptable in this context, but very
illegal, too. It's not a culturally protected practice or
defensible because of cultural relativism.
You see, when you're offended by something, you can respond
with lots of different tools. One tool is a boycott. Another tool
is civil disobedience. Another is picketing. Another is publishing
an essay in a newspaper (or on a blog).
But Muslim extremists, when offended, too often reach for only
one tool: homicide. They don't boycott Rushdie; they try to
kill him. They don't picket van Gogh, they murder him.
And that is precisely where the problem is with regard to
the Westergaard, Rushdie and van Gogh situations and
other similar ones. The problem is not that some Muslims are
somehow being offended or disrespected (everybody gets dissed
every now and then); the problem is the tool that the
devout use to respond to a perceived insult.
As I said before, Muslim extremists have the right to be
offended by whatever offends them. But they do not have
the right to get violent about it. An entire subculture,
it seems, needs anger management.
Let's not feed the sickness of religious literalists by
giving in to their irrationality. It truly is a slippery
slope. If they force us to ban a cartoon (or to self-censor),
then why not also ban (or discourage) non-Mulims from saying
"Allah"? It offends many of them, after all. And (using the
logic of the self-censors), why not encourage professors
to pass students who flunk tests because they have given
religious answers to scientific questions?
In most of the U.S. and in Western Europe, we try to let a
thousand flowers bloom. But absolutists want only their
own flowers to grow. And they want the flowers of others to
be replaced by their own flowers. They return our tolerance
and our attempts at diversity with no reciprocity.
Still, it's important to lead by example, to show Islam that
we don't silence voices that we disagree with. That's why it
was a correct decision by the Obama administration to grant
Swiss Islamist Tariq Ramadan a visa for entry into the U.S.
Though I disagree with Ramadan, and am even offended by
him a bit, I say, let him speak.
Now will you fundamentalists reciprocate and allow Kurt
Westergaard to express himself freely and live in peace?
If not, why won't you respect diversity and practice
reciprocity?
(By the way, I encourage questions, answers and comments
from my Muslim readers (and others) at pliorio@aol.com.)
* * * * *
Again, a few people are wondering about how I came up
with particular songs, namely "Hey There, Watcher,"
"You Know It Shows" and "If One Rainy Night."
I wrote "Hey There, Watcher" alone in my Berkeley, Calif.,
apartment one afternoon in August 2009. It came to me at
the end of a four or five hour solo jam session in which I
was coming up with riffs and ideas, and suddenly the
main chord progression of "Watcher" came flowing out.
I began singing whatever came into my head, which was
"Hey There, Roger," about a long-time pal, but then I
started thinking of that 1960s hit "I'm a Girl Watcher"
and changed it to "Hey There, Watcher," with lyrics
about an urban street tableau. That one eruipted very
quickly.
I wrote both "You Know It Shows" and "If One Rainy Night"
in the late fall of 1980 and early winter of 1981, while I
was living on the Upper West Side of Manhattan and working
for Delacorte Press. I penned and developed both songs
on the rooftop of the Beacon, 26 stories above NYC. "You Know
It Shows" has not changed a bit in the decades since I
wrote it. From the opening chords (influenced by a G.E. Smith
album I was listening to then) to the hook "and I'll show you why,"
the song has remained as I wrote it at the Beacon.
Even though I wrote it almost 30 years ago, I could probably
pin down the hour that I came up with"If One Rainy Night."
Because its genesis came after I watched a Dick Cavett
show in late '80 or early '81 on which Cavett said to a guest,
Oh, you protest too much!" That phrase stuck in my mind and
I immediately went to my guitar -- it must have been close to
midnight -- and wrote: "Don't protest too much/You'll give
yourself away/you still love that girl/no matter what you say."
And then I came up with the rest of the song, about an
off-and-on girlfriend I had at the time. That one also
hasn't changed at all in 30 years.
_
BE AWARE! An ex-friend from my long-ago high school days threw some money at my music career a few years ago and now appears to be
going around dishonestly trying to grab credit for little bits of a few
of my songs that he didn't have anything to do with writing. For
the record: he wrote exactly zero percent of my stuff.(By the way,
by "my songs," I'm referring to the more than one hundred songs
that I've posted on my website pauliorio.blogspot.com (plus every
song on the "About Myself" albums, and many other songs I've not
yet posted), all of which were written solely
by Paul Iorio [click here http://www.pauliorio.blogspot.com
While I'm appreciative of the person's financial backing, there never
was a deal to give him credit for material he didn't write. We've never
jammed together, much less written a song together. And, further,
his memory is fine, and so is mine; he's merely lying. Those who
know who I'm talking about: please don't let this person's lies go
unchallenged. It's irresponsible (and unfair to me) for people to
tolerate this guy's dishonesty. Anyone who lies (the way he appears
to be lying) needs psychotherapy. Guide him to that, please.
Problem is, this guy wanted to be a songwriter when
he was a teenager, but failed at it as an adult. Now he wants to
piggyback on my own late-breaking musical work.
I've thanked this person over the years for financially putting in motion my long-ago (now-shelved) "About Myself" album of '05; but, frankly, I never would have allowed him to invest his money in my music if I had known he would try to take credit for bits of material he had nothing to do with writing. As I've said before, every song on my site -- from its initial idea to its finished version and everything in between -- was written solely by me.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________
for January 22, 2010
Late Notes on the Remastered Beatles Albums
Things You Might Not Have Noticed
Wanna hear something on a Beatles album that you
almost certainly haven't noticed before? Check out
the recently remastered "Rubber Soul" album and
put on "Norwegian Wood." Listen to the part
right after John Lennon sings the cleverly
suggestive line, "She asked me to stay and she told
me to sit anywhere."
A couple seconds later you'll hear somebody cough -- yes,
somebody is heard coughing in the background -- as if
to underline the cleverness of the preceding line (the way
Warren Zevon sort of grunted after the great lyric
"His hair was perfect" on "Werewolves of London"). On
the previous edition of the CD, superfluous handclaps
covered up the cough.
There are lots of little discoveries like that on the
remastered mono Beatles albums, which were released last
fall (though I'm just now getting around to them).
The full impact of the mono remasters comes through only if
you're as familiar with the band's work as you are with
your own face (as I am) and if you're able to contrast
the new versions with the previous CDs. And then you can
hear how radically different some of the production is.
My main questions are: who made the final production
decisions about the remasters? Was it George Martin,
or the surviving Beatles, or a combination of both?
Would those decisions have been different if John Lennon
and George Harrison were still around? Would Harrison, for
example, have insisted that his sitar-playing on "Norwegian
Wood" be remixed at a volume level equal to Lennon's
vocal? Is Ringo's drumming given greater prominence
on certain tracks because he is still around to influence
the final decision?
I'm assuming that by "remastering" they mean remixing
as much as remastering. By that, I mean, for example,
making sure the French horn on "Penny Lane" (analog
track overdub #3, let's say) is recorded at a higher
volume for the new final master. Or seeing that the overdubbed
cowbell on "Drive My Car" (analog track #2, maybe) is
reduced in volume to near-inaudibility on the final
master. (I've read that the masters were "cleaned up,"
but doesn't "cleaned up" really mean remixed? Doesn't it
amount to a de facto remix if, for example, a cowbell is
reduced to inaudibility or a harpsichord is put in
higher relief?)
Whatever they did and whoever made the decisions, this
feels like a masterful restoration of a great painting
by Leonardo or Raphael. The remastering does not correct
errors in sound (thankfully) but restores what is already
there, putting all the elements in the best mix and balance.
Highlights are everywhere. (I've only listened to three
of the mono CDs so far, but here goes!) The harpsichord track on
"Fixing a Hole" is higher in the mix, creating brand
new textures and interplay. The bouzouki-like guitar playing
on "Girl" is now beautifully marbled into the sound. The second
orchestral cacophony on "A Day in the Life" sounds different
from the first cacophony, the former sounding like the
gathering of a swarm of locusts in the sky, the latter recalling
the acceleration of a powerful jet. Vocal harmonies on many
tracks are a cooler smoother blend (check out "In My Life"
and "You Won't See Me," for example).
The remastering also makes flaws more evident.
Yes, the blunt cowbell on "Drive My Car" is now
either gone or reduced in volume, a good thing.
But that means we can hear the very uncertain
tambourine playing (and I bet the cowbell
was used to blot out the flawed tambourine,
which was probably part of a track they
couldn't get rid of). There is overuse of
unison clapping on "With the Beatles" and
overuse of tambourine on "Rubber Soul." And
is there too much reverb on Lennon's guitar
on "I Wanna Be Your Man"? And I wonder whether
putting the harmonica higher in the mix -- maybe
even distorted, Little Walter-syle -- might
have elevated "Little Child"?
The remasters also provide a good excuse to relisten
to this stuff again, and the Beatles oeuvre just
gains gravity with time. Those who compare Lennon and
McCartney to Gilbert and Sullivan, underrating the Beatles
in a back-handed way, are way off. McCartney is more
like Irving Berlin or even Franz Schubert, though I'd be
hard-pressed to cite a Schubert melody as beautiful
as "Hey Jude" or "For No One." (And name
one Gilbert and Sullivan composition that comes
within fifty miles of even "Mother Nature's Son" or
"Golden Slumbers.")
I've said it before and will say it again: McCartney
is the world's greatest living composer. In any genre.
The magic of the Beatles is partly explained by the
fact that they came of age in the first full decade in which the
possibilities of what used to be called sound-on-sound (now called
overdubbing) were available to the human race. And they
were the first group with multiple brilliant composers
to fully benefit from overdubs.
Keep in mind that 90 years before "Sgt. Pepper," Thomas Edison
hadn't yet recorded sound for the first time. There might have been
95-year-old codgers in 1967 who had first-hand memories of the first
recording of sound and of the release of "Sgt. Pepper," that
massive triumph of the overdub.
I can't help but think of all the McCartneys and Lennons
of the 19th century and before who couldn't preserve
their musical inspirations on tape. Imagine all the
"Hey Jude"s and "If I Fell"s that were lost because
the composer didn't know musical notation and couldn't
save his or her ideas. Remember: the greatest pop
composers of the last 75 years, from Berlin to Dylan,
couldn't read or notate music -- and neither could
McCartney and Lennon.
Paradoxically, tape recorders (and higher tech recording equipment)
have brought composers closer to more low-tech natural writing. What I
mean is: a melody comes into your head as you hike through
the hills; you hum or sing the melody into a tape recorder.
Prior to the 20th century, that melody would have disappeared
into the air like smoke (unless you knew notation). Thanks
to recording devices, the magnificent melodies of "Eleanor
Rigby" and "In My Life" survive forever. And because of
overdubs, we have "A Day in the Life" and "Strawberry
Fields Forever" -- and not just from the more formal
sorts of composers who happen to know notation.
But getting back to my point about McCartney's
place in the pantheon of composers. Perhaps
comparisons to even Mozart aren't out of line.
Look at the greatest opera of all time, Mozart's
"Don Giovanni." If you see it fresh, it's just a
series of two and three minute songs (they call 'em
"arias"), inspired discrete bits unified, sometimes
tenuously, by lyrics (they call it a "libretto")
written by a guy named Da Ponte (so why isn't it
called Mozart/Da Ponte's "Don Giovanni"?).
So hail the two-minute song! Even Mozart did.
Were Da Ponte's "lyrics" of sexual braggadocio really
superior to the lyrics of "A Day in the Life" or
"Eleanor Rigby"? Were Mozart's best melodies ("Gio vinette
che fate...," "la ci darem la mano...," etc.) greater
than the Beatles's best, or were they just as great?
That's up to future generations to decide. The oldest
of Lennon and McCartney's songs were written only
fifty years or so ago. But every indication says
they'll last for centuries.
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 21, 2010
My list of the top ten films of 2009 (below) won't be complete
until I see "Me and Orson Welles," which I haven't had a chance
to catch yet. Everyone tells me it's excellent. By the way,
I saw Claire Danes, who stars in the film, on Letterman
last night and couldn't help but think she seems to get more
desirable with the years. Reminds me of a great cathedral.
All the more reason to see "Welles."
* * * *
Watched "Up" again last night and enjoyed it even more
the second time. It may be the most moving animated
feature ever made.
* * * *
Woody Guthrie's "This Land" seems to be the most ubiquitous
folk song of 2009/10. It's at the end of the docu "Food, Inc.,"
opens "Up in the Air," and was covered at a few concerts I've
attended in recent months (Adam Duritz sang it at the Greek
Theater in Berkeley, Calif., last summer; Tom Morello sang it at
the Hardly Strictly fest in San Francisco last October). I wonder
when people are going to petition to make it our national
anthem.
* * * *
Google should be praised for refusing to censor
Internet search results in China. Bravo. All the more
reason to use Google instead of Bing.
* * * *
Looking forward to the new graphic novel by Daniel Clowes,
"Wilson," due in May. I'm told this is completely
new material that has never been serialized in "Eightball."
* * * *
Conceptual artist Jonathon Keats, whose exhibitions are
almost always fascinating and novel, is about to unveil
his latest work, this time in NYC: a movie theater for
house plants, a cinema where "house plants can watch
foreign travel documentaries." Read more
about it at www.artcurrents.org.
* * * *
Here's a cartoon I recently came up with:
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 19, 2010
No, the Daily Digression is not going 3-D...
* * * *
Many thanks to Hollow Earth Radio in Seattle for playing
one of my new songs, "I Was Young (Until Fairly Recently),"
and for writing about it on its website a week or so ago. If
you haven't heard Hollow Earth, you're in for a treat;
here's a link to their site: http://www.hollowearthradio.org
And here's what they (very generously) wrote about
my new song:
And thanks -- again -- to Marshall at KALX for playing my
new song "Something in the Sky" a few weeks ago.
(His show, The Next Big Thing, always features great
music by obscure artists, and last night's NBT
was no exception: he played some amazing stuff by
a new band called For Fear the Hearts of Men are
Failing. I might even check out their upcoming show
at the Super Secret Circus in Berkeley, Calif.)
Also, thanks to the bloggers who have been enjoying my
songs and writing about them! Recently a blogger from
Bristol in the U.K. wrote this very nice review of my '09
song "Kim Jong-il":
Wanna hear my latest batch of songs? Here's a link:
* * *
* * * * *
Things are so bad at NBC that there are rumors that Haitians
are now texting donations to Jeff Zucker.
But seriously....Zucker did appear on Charlie Rose last night
and actually insisted to Rose -- and he was emphatic about
this -- that the situation at NBC was not as bad as what
was happening in Haiti. Which I'm sure reassures everyone
at the network.
One of the things (that nobody has brought up) that contributed
to the Leno-O'Brien imbroglio is that NBC abandoned the
practice of having guest hosts on the Tonight Show after
Johnny Carson's tenure. The guest host idea worked so well
under Carson, allowing everybody to see who was most
successful in the Tonight format, who filled the chair --
and soon NBC had more than a couple contenders who
could sub well. And with repeat guest hostings, you could
even become acclimated to the replacement, almost
preferring him or her to Carson.
Whatever happens -- and nobody is bringing this up either -- Leno
is near retirement anyway and -- as funny as he is -- is not
the future of late night (or prime time) television. NBC is now in the
process of reinstating a host (Leno) who it will have
to replace (yet again) within five years, probably within three.
So perhaps NBC should stop being so short-sighted and
cut to the chase: get rid of both Leno and O'Brien,
and then immediately and decisively hire Jon Stewart as
the new host of Tonight. Make him an offer he can't refuse
(to coin a phrase).
Meanwhile, I feel sorry for Conan. In television history
he goes down as the first failed host of The Tonight Show
since the dawn of television. What worked at 12:35 didn't
work at 11:35. NBC is letting him go so easily because it
now knows what it didn't know in early '09: Conan doesn't
work in the 11:35 slot. So let Fox have him, NBC thinks;
why would he work any better there? Viewers attracted
to quirky and less mainstream late night humor will tune
into Letterman, who does it better than Conan.
If O'Brien had been allowed to guest host Tonight several
times over several years, everyone would have seen it
was a bad fit. As it turns out, "Late Night" was
his destination, not his stepping stone.
By the way, I predict...Conan will grow a beard in the
near future.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- OK. folks, I posted that joke (above) about
Jeff Zucker getting charity from Haitians at
8:45am (PT) on January 19, 2010. Let's see
how long it takes before someone rips it off
without crediting me!
___________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 17, 2009
.
[the story I posted on today's Digression is generating unusual interest; I am temporarily taking it down from the site pending discussions with people who are interested in it.]
____________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 13, 2009
Still haven't seen "Crazy Heart," "Me and Orson Welles,"
"A Serious Man" or "Star Trek," so this list might
still change. For now, here's my top ten of '09:
The Ten Best Films of 2009
1. Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds"
(Number one only because the first twenty
minutes stand as the greatest film making
by anyone last year -- and it's Tarantino's all-time best,
too. The rest of the film, unfortunately, not so much.)
2. Pete Docter's "Up"
(The vivid balloons alone are enough cause to fall
in love with this one.)
3. Lee Daniels's "Precious"
(Number three because it changed the way I view
people I pass on the street.)
4. Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story"
(Moore has been ahead of his time for some time, and history
proved him right last year. Here's his victory lap.)
5. "Nirvana Live at Reading"
(This never had a theatrical release but I'm
including it anyway because I enjoyed it immensely.)
6. Neill Blomkamp's "District 9"
(The imagery is startlingly original and
believable -- and it takes nothing from "Dances with Wolves.")
7. Michael Mann's "Public Enemies"
(Last summer in this space, I called this
a "symphony of violent light," and it is.)
8. Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker"
(It has everything a great movie
should have -- except well-drawn characters. Still, it's
better than every feature that I've ranked ninth or lower.)
9. Kenny Ortega's "This is It"
(This will take you by surprise. A terrific concert,
and inadvertently revealing about MJ, too.)
10. Steven Soderbergh's "The Informant!" I hesitate to put this on the list, and it'll
probably end up being replaced by "Crazy Heart" or one of the
others I haven't seen yet, but the first forty minutes are
fantastic. The last half is unwatchable.
But I digress. Paul
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 9, 2010
I finally got to see the movie "Up in the Air"
this afternoon, and here's my review:
Ivan Reitman's "Up in the Air"
It may well be the most overrated film of 2009.
This is a movie for people who are more impressed
with immaculate craft than with genuine expression or artistry.
It's so scrubbed and neat and scripted to within
an inch of its life that it makes me want to rent a
couple of untidy semi-improvised movies by John Cassavetes
or Robert Altman to counteract its effects.
And the film also presents a jarringly pre-9/11 vision
of air travel as a cozy and completely safe ride, with
almost no hint that jetliners are the flashpoint of a war being
waged against us by religious lunatics. (American
Airlines, featured prominently on screen here, is
(coincidentally, I'm sure) promoting that very point of view,
too! American Airlines wants to assure its passengers
that there hasn't been an attempted terrorist attack
on a U.S. jetliner since, uh, well...a few weeks ago!)
In the wake of the failed bombing over Detroit last
Christmas, this film seems like even more of a throwback.
(Yeah, I know the odds of a bomb blast are long.
But in this era, anxiety about such an attack accompanies
every single flight. In fact, it is the main fact of
air travel in the 21st century. None of that is on screen.)
It sometimes feels like a late-1990s dotcom-boom comedy,
despite its clever use of various 21st century tech gadgets.
And despite the downsizing theme, the film, oddly, doesn't
capture the spirit of this recession. In fact, sometimes
the firings feel like they're played for yucks by rich film
makers far removed from the nasty realities of the
job market. In that sense, Reitman's timing couldn't
be worse.
The tantrums and tears of the fired start to seem formulaic.
And the film doesn't truly capture the outrageous unfairness
in the marketplace. (Among the truths left out or
glossed over in this film: brilliant players are dismissed
while the untalented nephew of the boss gets to keep his job;
rich employees who are fired don't face any of the
financial trauma that fired poor employees do; corrupt
bosses who should have been dismissed remain to slander
the honest employees who have been downsized; the
truth does not always out in the workplace (never
forget: Jayson Blair came shockingly close to getting
away with his malfeasance and, if he had, probably would
be virtually running the paper right now, in a position to
smear the ethical people trying to expose him); very often,
a boss will write a letter-of-recommendation because
he or she fears the employee knows too much dirt
about him or the company; a letter-of-recommendation
is often withheld for petty or vindictive reasons
(hey, Jayson Blair wouldn't have written a LOR for
a subordinate who had (rightly) accused him of plagiarism);
employers break contracts whenever it is expedient for
them to do so; an employer will assure you your job is
safe on Thursday and fire you on Friday; if a
company wants to fire you because of, say, a merger,
it will first try numerous dirty tricks and set-ups
to besmirch your reputation, so that axing you
seems more defensible to other professionals; the pension
you were counting on may have disappeared, etc.).
If you want to see, without Reitman's corporate
gloss, how job loss really affects people, check
out Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story,"
"Sicko" and "Roger and Me," and watch the unemployed
get evicted on Christmas eve, watch them lose
their teeth, watch them die prematurely.
And this film shows almost none of the after-effects
of the firings, how the lives of the downsized play out.
Reitman misses a huge opportunity to ingenuously
weave their lives into Clooney's. (There could have been
a plot twist in which someone who Clooney fired ends
up becoming Clooney's boss, or a finale in which Clooney
himself is downsized and has to take a job working for
someone he once fired, or scenes in which one
of Clooney's victims targets him for revenge. A lot of
promising plot possibilities weren't explored.)
Then, suddenly, at the one hour mark, the downsizing theme
disappears and the flick becomes something like
"Rachel Getting Married," with an irrelevant and
unintegrated sub-plot about a wedding.
Don't get me wrong: I liked some of this, and Clooney
is generally fun to watch. But all told, "In the Air"
comes off like the airline food served in first class:
tasty in a bland sort of way, but overcooked, unmemorable
and without much nutritional value.
* * * * *
The other day I posted my list of the best films of
the past decade, but I neglected to include three
that I absolutely loved: Larry Charles's "Borat: Cultural
Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious Nation
of Kazakhstan"; Larry Charles's "Religulous";
Michael Moore's "Sicko"; and Paul Haggis's "Crash."
I've integrated the three films into the mix, expanding
my list to 19 films, and here it is:
The Nineteen Best Films of the Decade
1. Steven Soderbergh's "Traffic"
2. Roman Polanski's "The Pianist"
3. Rodrigo García's "Nine Lives"
4. Woody Allen's "Match Point"
5. Richard Linklater's "Before Sunset"
6. Woody Allen's "Small Time Crooks"
7. Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler"
8. Andrew Jarecki's "Capturing the Friedmans"
9. Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds"
10. Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood"
11. Larry Charles's "Borat: Cultural Learnings of America
for Make Benefit Glorious Nation of Kazakhstan"
12. Alexander Payne's "About Schmidt"
13. Joel and Ethan Coen's "No Country for Old Men"
14. Larry Charles's "Religulous"
15. Michael Moore's "Sicko"
16. Paul Haggis's "Crash"
17. Clint Eastwood's "Mystic River"
18. Noah Baumbach's "The Squid and the Whale"
19. "Nirvana Live at Reading"
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 5, 2010
The Fifteen Best Films of the Decade
With the decade done, the Oscars nearing and the
critics summing up the Oughties, I've
finally decided what the best films of the past
decade were. Here's my list:
1. Steven Soderbergh's "Traffic"
2. Roman Polanski's "The Pianist"
3. Rodrigo García's "Nine Lives"
4. Woody Allen's "Match Point"
5. Richard Linklater's "Before Sunset"
6. Woody Allen's "Small Time Crooks"
7. Darren Aronofsky's "The Wrestler"
8. Andrew Jarecki's "Capturing the Friedmans"
9. Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds"
10. Paul Thomas Anderson's "There Will Be Blood"
11. Alexander Payne's "About Schmidt"
12. Joel and Ethan Coen's "No Country for Old Men"
13. Clint Eastwood's "Mystic River"
14. Noah Baumbach's "The Squid and the Whale"
15. "Nirvana Live at Reading"
Coming soon: my best films of '09 list.
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 4 - 5, 2010
I've just seen a few new movies and here're
my reviews:
Nancy Meyers's "It's Complicated"
This is a smart and funny -- sometimes very funny -- romantic
comedy that will make you laugh, tear up and become wiser
about the joys and pains of adulterous (and non-adulterous) affairs.
It's sort of like a late-Oughties variation on Woody Allen's
great comic love stories of the Eighties and Nineties, and it
succeeds in a way that will probably have audiences
coming back to theaters for seconds.
And Meryl Streep -- is there a more intelligently attractive
woman on the planet? -- is as great as ever, playing the
role of a divorced mom (having an affair with her ex) so
naturally and effortlessly that she'll likely be
nominated for a best actress Oscar.
The script and plot are very knowing about
relationships and their afterlives. When
Streep's character and her former husband (played
memorably by Alec Baldwin) re-unite, the
same patterns and cycles of their past start
to repeat themselves. And she soon discovers why
she wanted him in the first place and, ultimately, why
she left him.
And Steve Martin had me laughing out loud at several
points, particularly in the scene when he's stoned
on pot at a party and can't find a way to
control his laughter.
As a sidenote, the flick explores baby boomers's
relationship to marijuana more entertainingly than
any film since "American Beauty." (Like most boomers,
the characters here had a lot of fun smoking pot decades
ago but haven't touched the stuff since. Until a
magic joint arrives in their social circle. "I
don't know what they've done to pot in the last 30
years," says a very stoned and happy Streep.)
The movie is a good ride. And anyone with an appetite
for romantic comedy will come out of the theater
fully satisfied.
* * * * *
Ang Lee's "Taking Woodstock"
It's no wonder this movie flopped with both moviegoers
and many critics. It's -- what's the technical term
for it? -- awful.
Up until the one-hour mark, "Taking Woodstock" could easily
pass for a film about preparing for Bethel's outdoor LGBT
Film Festival rather than for the Woodstock rock fest (and
not because there's a mini-concert subplot).
Characters are more enthusiastic about a live Judy Garland
album than about any of the performers who actually
played at Woodstock -- and that's typical of Lee's
failure to authentically capture much of the true spirit
and zeitgeist of the era. (FYI, Garland wasn't really
a gay icon until years after her death.)
This is revisionist counter-culture history, sort of like
making a movie related to the Stonewall uprising of '69 that
focuses almost exclusively on, say, the drug-dealing
subculture at the periphery of that community. Or like
telling the story of the Stonewall riots from the
angle of Italian-Americans involved in the San Gennaro
festival in Little Italy -- with Stonewall seen as a struggle
against anti-Italian defamation.
Or like telling the story of Stonewall from the
angle of the feminist movement, emphasizing figures
like Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan to the exclusion of
gay activists -- with Stonewall seen merely as part of the
overall struggle for women's liberation. Call it
"Taking Stonewall."
After all, Lee is not blending cultures
here -- that would have been admirable -- but
artificially superimposing his own
culture atop Woodstock, which, contrary to the
wishful distortion seen on screen here, had
virtually nothing to do with the gay rights movement.
In terms of Lee's own oeuvre, the director captured
the 1970s in "The Ice Storm" so much more realistically and
poignantly than he has evoked the Sixties here. In terms
of gay-themed cinema, "Taking Woodstock" makes "Milk"
seem like "Citizen Kane." (Hey, I know of only one
person who absolutely loves this film, and he's
also a fan of Charles Nelson Reilly's and has a bit of
a fetish for the mediocre.)
This flick ranks with "Pirate Radio" as one of the great
missed cinematic opportunities of the year -- and as one of
the worst films of '09 made from a promising premise.
But I digress. Paul
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 29, 2009
Thanks to Marshall and KALX radio for playing
my new song "SOMETHING IN THE SKY" last night.
(I'm proud to say it was the Next Big Thing's
final song of '09!)
And I also love the fact that people are
connecting with a song whose chorus
I wrote completely unconsciously (the
chrous was running around my head, fully
formed, when I woke up one morning in
late October '09). That has happened several
times before in recent years, but it doesn't
occur often. (For the record, I wrote the rest
of the song awake!)
You can listen to "SOMETHING IN THE SKY" right
here for free: http://ioriopaul.vox.com
I must confess Marshall's show spurs me
to write more and better new songs than I
normally would. Hope I'm able to write new
stuff in 2010 that's right for the
NBT and for all the other great radio stations
that have aired my stuff. Happy new year!
Paul
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 28, 2009
Farther below are my film reviews of "Avatar," "The Blind Side,"
"Up," "Fantastic Mr. Fox" and other pictures.
But for now, let me show you some photos that I shot
in 1976 and haven't shown to anyone in decades.
* * * *
I Traveled Alone Behind the Iron Curtain During
When I traveled alone by local train behind the Iron Curtain
thirty-three years ago, I shot several pictures from the
train -- and developed them as slides, unfortunately. Because
they were slides, I haven't been able to share them with others
over the decades the way I would a set of prints.
Until now. The other day I found a way to convert the
slides to digital prints (and you can try this at home, too!).
Just scotch tape the slide next to a white light bulb and then
shoot the transparency with a digital camera, using the close-up
feature and with flash off. Then print out the digital
snaps. Voila!
Granted, the quality of the pictures would be considerably
better if I had a professional transfer the image from
slide to print, which I will do some day. But for now, you
can get a fair idea, via pictures, of what I went through
in my trek behind the Iron Curtain when I was a teenager.
I've since incorporated the pics into my story about
my journey, and you can read that here: ironcurtaintravels.blogspot.com/
But in this space, let me share several of the new photos
that I shot in 1976:
My trip began here in Florence, Italy, and here I am around the time of my trek.
* * * *
This is how downtown Belgrade, Yugoslavia, looked in '76 from my vantage point on the train (you can see the word "Beograd" on the building to the left). [photo by Paul Iorio]
* * * *
Deep behind the Iron Curtain, August 1976. Here is downtown
Sofia, Bulgaria, which I shot from my train (even though
Bulgarian soldiers warned me not to take pics). [photo by
Paul Iorio]
* * * *
Just before I crossed into Bulgaria, five
Serbian guys absolutely insisted that I take their
picture! This was shot in southern Serbia, south of
Belgrade, west of Bulgaria, east of Kosovo. [photo by
Paul Iorio.]
* * * *
After the gray Balkans, western Turkey came alive in
Technicolor. Bright yellow sunflowers stretched for what seemed
like miles in this part of Thrace, and here's one patch of
sunflowers, west of Istanbul. [photo by Paul Iorio.]
* * * *
A wooden neighborhood in Istanbul. [photo by Paul
Iorio] After I shot this photo, the man in this
picture in the street chased me with a stick,
apparently because my shot partly included a
veiled woman (she's at right).
In retrospect, I now see that the larger risks of my trip
came not behind the Iron Curtain but in Islam (not only
did that guy chase me with a stick, but another man
almost became violent when I didn’t bow and scrape
at Istanbul’s Pavilion of the Holy Mantle, where
the Muslim Prophet Muhammed’s hair and teeth are
on display).
But what's also interesting is the diversity within
an Islamic city like Istanbul. The same neighborhood
-- the Sultanahmet district -- that included this
poor wooden fundamentalist section also
included a far smarter neighborhood slightly to the
east, centered around the legendary Pudding Shop
(which, as many of you know, was not primarily
known for selling pudding in the swingin' Seventies,
if you know what I mean). There, more liberal
and secular Muslim hippies would listen to banned
music like Cem Karaca and talk about western rockers like
Clapton and the Beatles.
* * * *
Istanbul's Galata Bridge, over the Golden Horn, featuring
a staggering parade of diversity. [photo by Paul Iorio]
* * * *
* * * *
OK, how about a few more shots, these with nothing
to do with the Iron Curtain or Istanbul? Here goes:
The Palio horse race in Siena, Italy, from the front
row. I was so close to the track that clogs of dirt
from the horses hit me in the face. If I could have
transferred the slide better, you would see that the
blurriness creates a nice effect. [photo by Paul Iorio]
* * * *
Olympia, Greece, with sunrise streaming through the
ruins. (By the way, my trip to Greece was completely
separate from my Iron Curtain/Istanbul trek and
occurred three or four months later in 1976.)
Again, if I had been able to transfer
this from slide to print properly, you'd probably
appreciate this one more. [photo by Paul Iorio]
____________________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 27 - 28, 2009
I've just seen a few new movies and
here're my reviews (posted below: reviews
of "Avatar," "Up" and "Fantastic Mr. Fox"):
James Cameron's "Avatar"
Overpraised, overpriced and unsatisfyingly
convoluted, James Cameron's "Avatar" is like
a film version of Roger Dean's cover art
for pompous 1970s albums by the prog band
Yes. Albums like "YesSongs" and "Tales from Topographic
Oceans" (see below). In fact, the resemblance to Yes
album art is so striking that one hopes Cameron
has paid him for his inspiration before Dean sues.
If you're into that sort of very detailed
fantasy stuff, gorge yourself here. But
if you're looking for something truly
original in a new sci-fi flick, go see
"District 9," which has a lot more wit,
a livelier imagination and more plausibility.
When "Avatar" is not busy imitating a
Yes album, it sort of resembles an
extraterrestrial version of "Dances
with Wolves," in that parts of its plot are about a
soldier going native and joining the army of an
enemy he is supposed to be fighting against
(even the blue skin of the aliens looks
like the face paint of Native American warriors).
Further, Cameron's anti-war allegory is trite,
obvious and heavyhanded.
As for the 3-D gimmick, it's now obvious, if it
wasn't before, that 3-D is not the future of
cinema or of anything else. It has cropped up
in almost every decade since the 1950s,
always pretending to be the new wave of cinema --
and flopping each time out. I have never been to
a 3-D movie in which the extra dimension added
anything except the feeling that I wanted
to take off the damn glasses and pop an
Advil for an oncoming headache.
Think for a moment: Can you imagine how tacky it would
have been had Stanley Kubrick turned "2001: A
Space Odyssey" into a 3-D feature? He
could have done it that way (and was probably
advised to do so by crass movie execs), but he didn't
need to do it in 3-D because his visuals were so
brilliant that they required no such enhancement.
That said, there are moments of visual magic
here (e.g., glimpsing, from Pandora, the planet that
Pandora orbits around; birds that look like
jellyfish in the sky; and mountains floating like clouds
over Pandora).
But the flaws are numerous, too: the dialogue sounds
written not spoken; the last half-hour is packed
with tedious battle scenes that look like
generic summer blockbuster action fare;
Sigourney Weaver's bossy persona is annoying and
not very interesting; Stephen Lang's character
is a cliche; etc.
All told, this is more a work of extravagance than
of imagination. And a few top critics should
explain their inexplicably excessive praise of this film.
Look familiar? Is it a Yes album cover or is it "Avatar"?
* * * *
Pete Docter's "Up"
Is "Up" the best movie of 2009? It may well be. At
the very least, the film includes the single cinematic
visual image of '09 (outside "Avatar") that is most likely to
resonate down the decades: thousands of vividly
multicolored balloons that lift a house across a
magical and amusing animated landscape.
It's the most beautiful collection of balloons I've ever
seen, onscreen or off, well worth the price of admission
just to see them. Like candy in the sky.
One of the most gorgeous creations in the history
of animated features.
I don't know if that makes it the best movie of 2009.
But keep in mind that this praise is coming from someone
who didn't like "Wall-E" at all (which, of course, was
also created by the folks at Pixar). "Up" has everything
"Wall-E" does not, particularly fully humanized cartoon
characters (and humanized animals) instead of automatons.
And what a bunch of characters! There's Russell the stowaway
kid, Kevin the bird, a dog who's the most adorable cartoon
canine since Huckleberry Hound and, of course, the main
character: codger Carl Fredricksen (voiced by Ed Asner),
a lovable grump reminiscent of both Asner and late
Spencer Tracy.
I wouldn't be surprised if, in future decades, scenes
from "Up" are considered as iconic and indelible as
classic moments from the "Wizard of Oz" and "E.T."
* * * *
Wes Anderson's "Fantastic Mr. Fox"
Not so fantastic.
The animation is clunky, stiff, not fluid at all. Most of
the time, it's like the director simply filmed a series of
stuffed dolls and teddy bears (a la Mr. Bill on SNL). Even
the best of the celebrity voices (Meryl Streep's) can't
save this, as the film weaves in and out (mostly in) of boring
material.
If you must see it, wait for the DVD and watch
only the good parts (and there are around three minutes
of 'em!) at the 63 and 30 minute marks, and at the end,
when the great Marshall Crenshaw's "Let Her Dance" plays.
(By the way, when is Crenshaw going to be inducted into
the Rock 'n' Roll Hall of Fame?)
But I digress. Paul
____________________________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 20 - 21, 2009
Just saw a few new flicks -- here're my reviews:
John Lee Hancock's "The Blind Side"
This is like a two-hour version of those soft focus,
warm glow dramatizations in television commercials for
long distance phone service, Hallmark cards
and the Seventh Day Adventists. You've surely seen
those ads, the ones where there's always
a manipulative, heartwarming scene of incredible
altruistic generosity, forgiveness or camaraderie,
a depiction of a thoroughly idealized, retouched
and unrealistic view of reality. As in
"reach out and touch someone." "Because your dreams
matter to us." Such ads are also seen during the
Sunday morning talk shows ("Night baseball?! That'll be
the day!") Or in corporate commercials
that reenact the moment when Pitney first met Bowes
at the polo grounds, or when Merrill met Lynch at
the friendly neighborhood pawn shop.
Watching "The Blind Side" is also, at times, like
watching Yuletide logs burn in the fireplace on tv.
Or like listening to Christian rock that tries too
hard to be bad.
And occasionally, the movie is like "Precious"-lite, very
light, with lotza cream and way too much sugar and sticky
molasses.
Meanwhile, Sandra Bullock, playing the main character, looks
and acts so much like Kathie Lee Gifford that I caught
myself wondering where Hoda was.
Yeah, it's all very heart-tugging that Bullock's character
takes in some poor homeless kid named Mike. But one has to
wonder why Mike seems to have none of the behavioral
problems or mal-adjustments associated with such a hard
scrabble background. He seems way too un-angry and
un-neurotic for someone subjected to a broken home,
abuse and abject poverty. I don't buy it. The film makers
seem to be glossing over the flaws and imperfections
that a character like Mike, coming from his background,
would surely have. (See "Precious" for a far more
realistic take on this.) True story or not, it doesn't
feel true here. (This is a feature not a documentary,
after all.) And Bullock even trusts him with her
kids -- with no supervision. (I don't know a
parent who would -- or should.)
To their credit, the film makers take some unpredictable
turns and keep your attention throughout. And it features
Bullock's most memorable performance to date, particularly
when she morphs into Sarah Palin later in the flick and
spouts dialogue that sounds like the lyrics
of a Gretchen Wilson song ("I'm in a prayer group with the D.A.,
I'm a member of the NRA, and I'm always packin'").
To be sure, the anti-racism of this movie is satisfying
and, obviously, very welcome. But this is 2009. One
has to wonder where these sorts of people -- the Mitt
Romney types, the white holy-roller suburbanites (aka,
the modern-day cultural equivalents to those who
opposed Martin Luther King back when) -- were in 1972
or 1962, when the civil rights movement really could
have used their help.
All told, this is the sort of thing the "Friday Night Lights"
TV series does so much better and more artfully. (There's
more truth in any two-minute scene featuring Buddy Garrity
(Brad Leland) on "FNL" than in the whole two hours of "Blind Side,"
whose secondary characters are mostly just smiley faces.)
And it left me with an appetite for a feature film based on the
new "FNL."
* * * *
"Nirvana Live at Reading"
This may be the most exciting movie I've seen this year, showing
as it does Nirvana in fullest bloom, performing a concert from
start to finish near the end of its "Nevermind" tour. Like
a dream concert. Just the great stuff from the second album
with very little of "In Utero," which, frankly, doesn't wear
so well today.
With just three players and a stack of amps, Nirvana had
as much force and power as Led Zeppelin and the Stones
in their primes, using basic elements more resourcefully
and magically than any band since the Ramones.
And the DVD shows a group already comfortably on rock's
Rushmore, though its breakthrough album had been
released mere months earlier. We're simultaneously
watching a band just after one of the most
breathtaking and unexpected rises in recent rock
history -- "Nevermind" was expected to sell around
50,000 copies and went on to move over 10 million -- but
also a group at the dawn of a sophomore slump. After around an
hour and ten minutes, Kurt is clearly out of musical ideas
and starts repeating himself (using "Polly"'s bridge for
"Dumb," recycling the "Teen Spirit" riff to lesser
effect, etc.).
The DVD also shows Dave Grohl was being truly
underutilized by Kurt; when they harmonize or trade
vocals on "Been a Son" and "Dumb," it sounds so
terrific that one wishes they had collaborated more than
they did (and as we've since discovered, they could
have written together, too). Grohl, who powers this
stuff beautifully, would have been forever known as
the Ginger Baker of grunge, had he not eclipsed
his own fame by forming the Foo Fighters (another
unlikely, thrilling ascent) and Them Crooked Vultures
(lightning strikes yet again!).
The highlights are everywhere; the opening chords of "In Bloom"
sound like spring itself bursting out; "Lounge Act" is
irresistible; "Sliver" is funny; "Smells
Like Teen Spirit" has a strange sort of inimitable power.
And it's sort of humorous that Kurt delegates the Jaggeresque
dancing onstage to a guy named Tony, who dances expressively through
most of the show (he seems to be especially enjoying himself
during "Lithium").
Up close, Cobain, who appears to be having some sort of
problem with his jaw on this night, seems not fragile but
sturdy, though deeply angry and deeply introverted, a lethal
combination, as we now know.
All told, one of the very best live rock concerts on
DVD by anyone.
* * * *
Werner Herzog's "Bad Lieutenant"
The best American cop flick since the underrated "We Own
The Night" (and what a great double bill that would make at a revival
house).
Nicolas Cage plays a hallucinating crooked cop in
post-Katrina New Orleans, where corruption permeates
the city like stifling Gulf humidity. Cage's
performance is audacious and over-the-top and
somewhat redolent of the acting in "Chinatown" in the
sense that one sees the character, not the actor,
sweating bullets and under stress. On the downside,
Cage is, repeatedly, in perfect make-up when he
is supposed to be sleep-deprived and in a cold sweat.
Love the ending in which Cage's misconduct and
criminality result in -- you guessed it -- a
promotion to captain. Happens in journalism, too.
This should be spun-off into a television series.
* * * *
"The Jackson 5ive" Cartoon TV Series
What with all the interest in Everything Michael Jackson these
days, it's surprising the "Jackson 5ive" cartoon
TV series of the 1970s hasn't been released on DVD yet. A couple
weeks ago I was able to buy a copy of all 17 episodes of the
first season, which aired almost entirely in the Fall of 1971 (another
six episodes ran the following year as "The New
Jackson 5ive Show").
It's not as entertaining as, say, the Monkees TV show, though
it does thrive on the occasionally amusing high-concept
idea (e.g, all the members of the Jackson Five disband
and release separate albums as the Jackson One; there
is a Jackson Island; someone invents a Groov-o-tron; etc.). But
the execution is usually flaccid, the animation slightly
derivative of the Beatles's "Yellow Submarine" movie. Still, there's
at least one good joke or pun per episode.
The real value here is that the episodes are packed with
obscure tracks from the Jackson Five that aren't on
greatest hits compilations or easy to find elsewhere.
A series more fun to hear than to watch.
But I digress. Paul
________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 17, 2009
Wanna hear four brand new songs I wrote in
November 2009 and recorded a few days ago?
Just click this link ioriopaul.vox.com to
listen for free! Enjoy!
* * * *
Why "Precious" Will Win the Best Picture Oscar
It now seems clear that Lee Daniels's "Precious: Based on the Novel
'Push' by Sapphire " will win the Best Picture Oscar on March 7. Not
necessarily because it is the best picture, though you could make
a case that it is, but because of the addition of five nominees to
the best picture category this year.
What might happen in the Oscar voting is the same thing
that occurs in politics when there are multiple candidates
in a winner-take-all contest in which there is no
run-off. And that is: factional or niche dark horses, who
otherwise would never stand a chance of winning, triumph
because more mainstream contenders cancel each other out.
It's like Meryl Street running against Meryl Streep (as she
is at the Golden Globe Awards this year); there's a chance
Streep will split the Streep vote, resulting in her losing and
allowing a long-shot to win.
Analogously, if the war movie "The Hurt Locker" runs
against the war movie "Inglourious Basterds" -- and
they would have likely been the two favorites for Best Pic
under a five-nominee system -- they might
end up canceling each other out. With a ten movie
ballot, the mainstream votes might be siphoned
by several contenders, allowing a unified
bloc of avidly enthusiastic fans of (in this case)
African-American cinema to prevail. Hence,
"Precious" might well win at the Kodak.
I say "in this case" because in the future the
ten-nominee structure will surely favor other
marginal genres and subgenres. For example, there may
be a fringe horror flick or a religious movie that
will win if the other nine nominees divide
the serious cinema vote. The ten-nominee
system, after all, benefits the cult film backed
by a small but unified band of voters. The intensity of
support for a film is a larger factor.
Or, more likely, a comedy might easily sneak through
if it's running against nine dramas -- and
comedies have rarely won for best picture.
There might also be a situation in subsequent
years in which two African-American-themed
films cancel each other out (perhaps denying
poor Spike Lee a much-deserved Oscar once again!).
When ten nominees were last allowed by the Academy -- between
1936 and 1943 (and also in 1932/33) -- it caused
such travesties as the defeat of "Citizen Kane" by
"How Green Was My Valley" in 1941 and the defeat of
"A Star is Born" by "The Life of Emile Zola" in 1937.
And it also let lighter fare like "You Can't Take it With
You" win over weightier films like "Grand Illusion."
(To be fair, there were also years in which such mainstream
quality pictures as "Casablanca" and "Gone with the Wind"
triumphed.)
Further, between 1931 and 1934, the Academy tried
eight and then a dozen nominees for best picture -- and
the results? A comedy, "It Happened One Night," won over
DeMille's "Cleopatra"; and "Mutiny on the Bounty"
defeated "David Copperfield."
In recent decades, up until the current year, one
could guess with reasonable accuracy who would win
awards in major Oscar categories. All one had to
do was look at the winners of trade awards that are
traditionally predictive (e.g., the awards given by the
DGA, PGA, SAG, the Golden Globes, etc.).
Not anymore, at least not when it comes to the
best picture category. Why? Because the
Academy's ten-nominee rule is unique to the
industry and changes the chemistry of the contest.
The 10-picture idea was born in the wake
of the egregious injustice (as some saw it)
of last year's Oscars, when top films like
"The Wrestler" and "Gran Torino" were inexplicably not even
nominated for the top prize. And, of course,
many Hollywood moguls saw the new rules as providing
an easier path to a such a coveted nomination, which can
give a film lots of prestige and box office oomph.
But it appears as if the law of unintended consequences
is now taking hold. Somebody didn't think this all
the way through. Undeserving fringe contenders -- summer
action flicks, a splatter film, an exploitation pic,
a Scientology project -- could conceivably end up
with the crown some day. And future generations
of film students and scholars might read all
about how, say, "Saw 7" was the best picture
of 2012, or how the most celebrated film of
2015 was "Police Academy: Reunion."
For now, this year's expanded list of nominees may well
produce a thoroughly benign result -- and a worthy winner
(in "Precious"). But the shortcomings of the new rule
are starting to become obvious.
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 9, 2009
The Ongoing Phenomenon of Dick Cavett
Have you been reading Dick Cavett's op-ed pieces for
The New York Times? Fascinating stuff, some of it. It
would be great if a publisher compiled the best of
'em for a book (though it's hard to know who
would buy the book rather than read the individual
pieces for free via Google).
Cavett's most interesting recent column is the one about
his being targeted by President Nixon in the early
1970s. And the official Oval Office tapes do indeed
reveal that Nixon talked about Cavett, always disparagingly,
several times in 1971.
So when you're watching Cavett interview John Lennon, as
he did a few times on his ABC-TV series, you're seeing
two entertainers who the president of the United States
was actively trying to take down.
I recently re-watched Cavett's 1972 interview with
Lennon, and all I could think was: Look at how Nixon
destroyed Lennon.
By that '72 appearance, Lennon appeared to be unraveling and had
let himself go both physically (he was overweight and out of
shape) and psychologically (he was unusually defensive, insecure).
At the time, the former Beatle was understandably preoccupied
with the Nixon administration's attempt to have him
deported from the U.S. In fact, it was his main
topic of conversation.
Thanks to Nixon's Justice Department, Lennon was
no longer sure where he'd be living in coming
months and years and unable to plan for the long term.
And you could sense that Yoko Ono, who had longstanding
roots in the New York area, was not at all thrilled about
the prospect that she, too, might have to leave
Manhattan for sleepy London town for the sake of her
husband. (Child custody issues were another
complicating factor.)
A mere year earlier, in his 1971 appearance on the
Cavett show, Lennon was at peace and in good humor,
clearly enjoying his post-Beatles existence.
But on the '72 show, you could see Lennon had begun the
slide into the toilet that culminated with the 1974 incident
at the Troubador in West Hollywood, when Lennon, drunk and
out of control, punched a few people and otherwise
caused a scene during a reunion concert by the Smothers
Brothers.
Sure enough, Nixon had turned one of the great
composers of the 20th century into a puddle. Or at
least that's the way it looks from a distance.
Anyway, Cavett's interviews with Lennon (and with numerous
other pop culture icons) have been available on DVD for
years and are well worth watching and re-watching.
One of the great things about the Cavett DVDs is that
they include complete shows rather than edited clips (though
no contemporaneous commercials, unfortunately).
His ABC series of the early seventies can truly transport
you to the era of bucket seats; of people lighting up
cigarettes without even thinking to ask, "Do you mind if
I smoke?"; of the Noxzema advertising jingle being played
or sung every time someone removed an article of clothing;
of people showing up drunk on national TV.
Ah, the early 1970s! Seventy percent of what people did back
then is now considered unhealthy, taboo or illegal.
Even the second tier guests on his show are interesting
in Cavett's hands. Check out a surprisingly charming Debbie
Reynolds humorously imitating the fine difference between
the accents of Zsa Zsa Gabor and Eva Gabor. Or former
Senator Fred Harris, a sort of rough draft of what
Bill Clinton would later become (a mid-western progressive
with presidential ambitions). Or Gloria Swanson,
looking so dignified in contrast to a feral Margot
Kidder. And an impressive Dave Meggyesy, a former
football player who wrote a book about how football
is little more than organized assault that is physically
destructive to its players (here's a
link to Meggyesy's appearance; http://youtube.com/watch?v=9TrKSLQSinE).
When interviewing rock stars, Cavett came off like a
guy with an essentially pre-rock sensibility who
jibed remarkably well with rockers (who were relieved
that they no longer had to deal with a square like Ed
Sullivan). Still, I sometimes wonder whether
Cavett actually liked the music by the rockers he had
on his show or whether he preferred another genre.
I met Cavett around a decade ago in Mill Valley,
California, and interviewed him for an around an
hour for a newspaper article. I think the most
striking thing you learn about him from meeting
him (that you wouldn't really know for sure from
merely seeing him on television) is how spontaneously
funny he is. On TV, you can't always tell whether something
is scripted or staged or made to look spontaneous. But in
person, you can see how Cavett comes up with good jokes
right on the spot (for example, when an employee of a
rental car company asked to see Cavett's
driver's license, he responded with: "Can't I just
describe it? It's rectangular with my name and picture...").
Now that he's writing on a regular basis, for the Times,
I can't help but wonder what would happen if he tried his
hand at scripting a comedic feature film or play. Maybe
there's another Cavett incarnation yet to come.
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 7, 2009
The Five Best Movies of 2009 (An Incomplete List)
No feature film of 2009 that I've seen, and I've seen
most of the major ones, has been great from start to
finish. Quentin Tarantino's new one is brilliant -- for
the first twenty minutes (as I noted in my Digression
of August 27). Steven Soderbergh's latest is amazing --
for the first forty minutes (see my column of November
5). And "Precious' is riveting -- but only for an hour
or so (full review in previous Digression).
So my best-of list includes mostly fragments of
films, because those are the only things worth raving
about this year. (My list is incomplete because there
are still a few important films I've yet to see.)
1. Ari Marcopoulos's "Claremont."
This short film reminds me of one of the best
sequences in Dennis Hopper's "Easy Rider":
when Hopper and Peter Fonda imitate birds while
riding their motorcycles through the countryside
as Peter Stampfel croons his marvelously
eccentric "If You Want to Be a Bird." Almost no
other piece of cinema captures the sense of
pure frontier freedom, American style, or the
liberating spirit of the late 1960s the way
that scene does. And it also stands as the most
resourceful use of cinematic elements in an
American film since Orson Welles used hand
shadows on the wall in "Citizen Kane."
And "Claremont" captures that same feeling of
thrilling liberation and unlimited possibilities,
this time using skateboards instead of motorcycles.
The 11-minute film, which I saw at the Berkeley
(Calif.) Art Museum the other day (and is posted
online at http://www.vimeo.com/1654340), follows a
skateboarder as he rolls at high speeds through the hills at the
eastern edge of Berkeley.
Marcopoulos, known mostly as a photographer (and one-time
assistant to Andy Warhol), has a great gift for making short films
that you simply cannot stop watching, and this is one of them.
And his sense of motion and of the rhythms and shapes of motion
are masterful. Hollywood moguls should take note and hire him
to make a feature film.
2. Quentin Tarantino's "Inglourious Basterds":
Again, the first twenty minutes of this flick are
better than almost anything else released this year.
But the rest of the picture ranges from boring to obvious.
3. Kenny Ortega's "This Is It":
Surprisingly engaging and well-made documentary
about Michael Jackson's rehearsals for what would have
been his 2009 concert tour. The most consistent film
of the year and a rarity (for '09) in that it actually
gets better as it progresses.
4. Steven Soderbergh's "The Informant":
Following the cinematic pattern of 2009, this is half
of a terrific film. If only Soderbergh had been able
to sustain the brilliance of its first forty minutes.
5. Lee Daniels's "Precious":
This picture made me see everyday people on
the street in a new way, which is why it made
the list. But its first half is considerably
better than its second.
All for now. More to come after I see a few more key films.
* * * *
Blue Rondo a la Clinton
Fifty years ago, Dave Brubeck's "Time Out" album
was released -- and it's still going strong.
Last month, I went out to the Trieste in Berkeley to
hear one of my friends play with a jazz group and the
highlight of the evening was "Blue Rondo a la Turk" (my
friend played the piano figure on electric guitar and it
sounded great).
The piece makes 9/8 seem as natural as 4/4 (which, of
course, it is in Thrace and western Turkey). But my
favorite version is not on "Time Out" but on the live
album "Dave Brubeck and Paul Desmond: Live Concerts
From the Late Fifties." Hard to find disc, but worth
checking out.
Anyway, I bring this up because last night,
Brubeck, Robert De Niro, Mel Brooks, Bruuuce and
others were honored at the Kennedy Center in D.C. And
according to a report in The New York Times, Bill Clinton
is a big fan of "Blue Rondo a la Turk" (Brubeck even gave
him a chart to the song, which he reportedly still has and
proudly displays). (Brubeck, by the way, turned 89 yesterday.)
Would love to hear a band play "Blue Rondo" with Clinton
on sax, Obama on guitar and Brubeck on piano. Now that
would be a bootleggable moment!
* * * *
The Amanda Knox Case
Whether Amanda Knox actually plunged the knife
into Meredith Kercher or not, she deserves to
serve at least 10 years. At the very least, Knox
is indisputably guilty of several secondary crimes.
As for the murder itself, Knox was either nearby
plugging her ears as Rudy Guede and her former
boyfriend killed Kercher, or she helped to do it.
Knox is at least an accessory. And what she did (or tried
to do) to tavern owner Patrick Lumumba, a completely
innocent man, is unconscionable. She tried to frame him,
knowing full well he had had nothing to do with the
killing. And that sort of criminal mendacity, which
shreds lives and can get a person killed, should be
punished with prison time in most cases. (False
accusation is the great underpunished crime of
our time.)
Did Knox think Perugia was Duke University, where
she could make a false accusation and have half the
population believe her bullshit?
What would be fair for Knox? Ten years, no parole, no
transfer to an American prison. Because even under
the defense's best case scenario, she has committed
major crimes.
Keep in mind Knox would have had no pang of
conscience about causing Patrick Lumumba, who
she knew was innocent, to serve life
in prison for committing no crime. Sympathy should
be directed to Lumumba, who had to endure two weeks
of false accusation and imprisonment, and to the
Kercher family.
On another issue: I'm getting a bit sick and tired of
the anti-Italian bias and hostility of some
American reporters and anchors. Some media people
have been sounding like this lately: "Oh, those
Eye-talians have these strange laws against
such obscure 'crimes' as sadistic murder. Can you
believe it? And their evidentiary standards are so
bizarre that -- get this -- if they find your DNA
on the murder weapon, they'll put you away! Grody!"
By the way, reporting on another subject a few
months ago on "World News," ABC's Charles Gibson
actually called Italy a "permissive nation."
I had to laugh out loud when I heard that one! Truly
ignorant. Anyone who has lived in Italy for any
length of time knows the Vatican is massively
influential in most parts of the country, creating
a much more conservative climate than you might
expect.
I've also heard lots of ignorance about Italy's
siesta structure of the business day. Let me
defend it this way. At Chrysler in Detroit,
Americans have worked eight and twelve and
eighteen hour workdays at a heart-attack
pace for decades. For all their trouble, they
have created only bankruptcy and cars that no
one wants to buy.
At Fiat in Italy, Italians have worked hard, but
with a three-hour siesta in the middle of the day
(which gives them two mornings of concentrated
productivity per day). As a result, Fiat's workers
have created a prosperous company and practical cars
that people truly enjoy driving.
And last I heard, Fiat now controls Chrysler.
Nuff said.
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 2, 2009
To those who oppose the Afghanistan War, saying
Obama is trying to fight the war Bush should
have fought eight years ago, I offer this
analogy:
A bone broken ten years ago, since untreated,
remains a broken bone ten years later. It still
needs to be set and fixed. And, ten years later,
it probably comes with attendant complications
(i.e., inflammation, infection, ancillary
fractures, etc.).
The al Qaeda threat in Afghanistan is like
such an untreated medical condition (actually
more like cancer, but let's not mix metaphors
here). George W. Bush may have neglected the
broken bone in Afghanistan for eight years but
his neglect did not correct or cure the break.
Obama is saying, "That bone remains broken in
Afghanistan because Bush didn't fix it. So we're
sending in a team of doctors to set the bone,
clean up any infection and then leave."
To those who think the al Qaeda threat is not emanating
primarily from the greater Khyber Pass region, I have two
words for you: Najibullah Zazi.
To those who draw false parallels with Vietnam, I ask:
who is the homegrown mainstream populist a
la Ho Chi Minh amongst the Taliban? (Answer: there is none.)
To those who voted for Obama but oppose the
Afghanistan war, I ask: didn't you listen during
the campaign when Obama said repeatedly and
unambiguously that, if elected, he would
wind down the war in Iraq and step up military action in
Afghanistan? Did you think he was joking?
To Osama bin Laden: there is no longer
a fundamentalist in the White House who is soft
on fundamentalist criminals like yourself. You'd better run.
(And don't forget your dialysis cycler.)
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- If McCain had been elected, we'd still
be pointlessly bombing Tikrit.
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 30 and December 1, 2009
Just heard Obama's speech. All I can say is that I
agree with every syllable and word he said this time.
If I were president of the United States, I'd have
made an identical decision about the Afghanistan
War and delivered a similar speech. On this issue,
Obama is not merely 99% right. He is 100% correct.
* * * *
Let me change the subject to movies;
here're my reviews of a few new flicks:
Lee Daniels's "Precious"
The generous view of this film is that it is, quite simply,
the best picture of 2009. The ungenerous view is
that it starts like an episode of "Jerry Springer" and ends like
an episode of "Oprah."
The truth is closer to the former than to the latter. And it
probably is the frontrunner for the Best Picture Oscar in
this recession year.
It's scalding, disturbing, unflinching, relentless and will
make you see people on the street in a different way the
next day. It will grip you within the first minute and make
you wish Obama had another three terms to undo the
damage done to the underclass by decades of economic
deprivation.
The movie should also rack up at least a few
Oscar nominations in acting and writing categories,
too (there's even a surprisingly credible performance
from Mariah Carey).
If I can find fault with the film, it's that it's too
unrelentingly bleak and depressing in its first 70 minutes;
after that, it loses some of its tension and steam and
starts to resemble one of Oprah's daytime tearfests (Winfrey,
by the way, is the film's executive producer
and -- surprise! -- is even mentioned a couple times by
characters in the film).
Come February 2, I predict it'll receive at least four
Oscar nominations, probably more.
* * * *
Michael Moore's "Capitalism: A Love Story"
Michael Moore is so ahead of his time that
"Roger and Me," released twenty years ago,
could easily pass for a 2009 documentary
about economic hard times in Michigan (or Ohio,
as Bruce Springsteen calls it!) and beyond.
Having been proved completely correct by history, Moore
returns to the themes of his first film with a renewed
spirit of insurrection and righteousness. There's
something refreshingly punkish and dangerous about
this particular Moore project, as befits the tough
times in which it was made.
He has also never been funnier (Jesus, in a voiceover, says
he can't heal the sick when there's a pre-existing condition)
and is as fascinating as ever.
Highlights include: telling clips of Regan with Reagan;
Moore putting "crime scene" tape around Wall
Street buildings; an interview with Wallace Shawn (who
has aged quite well); clips of Bush Jr. that remind us
how stupid this Harvard/Yale alumnus was; and footage of
Captain Sullenberger -- the main hero of 2009 -- showing
courage in testifying before Congress about the plight
of underpaid pilots.
The message of this film is the message of this era: hey,
corporations, you've gotta split your abundant money more
equitably.
Moore makes so much sense that you sometimes
wish he'd move to Berkeley or Vermont and
win himself a seat in the U.S. Senate or House.
(Don't laugh -- Al Franken did it.)
Anyway, I'm going to see this one again and write
more completely about it later (the audio on my DVD
konked out near the end).
* * * *
Richard Curtis's "Pirate Radio"
There is a great movie to be made along these lines,
but this is not it. It's too long by half, tedious
throughout and almost unwatchable at the end
when -- like "2012" -- it decides to become "Titanic."
And it doesn't really capture 1966 -- and that's not
just because some of the songs on its otherwise
awesome soundtrack aren't from that year ("Jumpin
Jack Flash" is from '68, "Won't Get Fooled Again" is from
'71, etc.).
What is really missing here is the exhilarating sense of
radio people breaking new bands and records, the sense
of pride that someone was the first to air, say, the
Box Tops or the first to play a Beatles b-side in
the U.K. I mean, the Pirate radio people
of that era were genuinely changing pop culture -- and
there's no real feeling of that here.
That said, the soundtrack is gourmet pure pop: "Lazy Sunday,"
"Judy in Disguise," "The Letter," "The Happening," "She'd Rather
Be with Me," "Eleanor," "All Day and All of the Night,"
etc., some of the greatest pop songs of the last fifty
years. Missing in action: The Hollies's "Dear Eloise,"
Wadsworth Mansion's "Sweet Mary," The Kinks's "Picture Book,"
Herb Alpert's "Whipped Cream" and The Monkees's "You Just
May Be the One" (all '66 in spirit if not in chronology).
So buy the soundtrack CD, skip the flick.
To the film makers: I'm your target audience for
this, and you missed.
* * * *
Roland Emmerich's "2012"
With all the countless crevices and fractures of the
earth's surface in "2012," it seems this movie has
more cracks than a Swedish porno flick.
At first, "2012" is a fat greasy bag of popcorn that
you can't stop munching on. But after finishing
the first half of the bag, the thrill is gone.
Emmerich begins to run out of tricks within forty-five
minutes and starts repeating himself. We see John
Cusack's character outrun the latest crevice (again)
as he hops on another in a seemingly endless supply
of airplanes (again) made available to him to fly
above the destruction of a cratering planet. By
the fourth time an airplane barely outpaces an
erupting crevice, it becomes a bit of a bore.
Don't get me wrong, there is the occasional gap of around
twenty minutes between showing new cracks and fractures -- we'll
call that a "crack gap" -- but not many. Occasionally,
Emmerich will dutifully inject a bit of obligatory
"characterization." But then it's back to the cracks!
Even Michaelangelo's painting of the creation of man
on the Sistine ceiling is -- how convenient! -- fractured
neatly between god and man! I mean, what're the chances?
Then the movie gets sucked into an even more
derivative vortex. It suddenly threatens to turn
into "The Poseidon Adventure." And then it threatens
to turn into "Castaway." And then it threatens to
turn into "The Wizard of Oz," what with little Toto
barely escaping a crack. And then, inevitably,
it tries to turn into "Titanic."
It's a cinematic echo chamber. Or like a highlight reel
of clips from classic blockbusters. There are echoes
of "Cliffhanger"'s opener. Echoes of "Armageddon."
At the end, the film finally decides it wants to be
"Titanic," but then changes its mind and opts for
an upbeat "Apollo 13"-ish finale -- sort of an
underwater "Apollo 13" (and I, too, didn't
think that was possible!). The only element missing
from this second-hand stew is...a school of sharks.
(I'm sure that'll surface in the DVD's deleted scenes.)
Apparently, the way to create a hit film in 2009 is:
Let's combine blockbusters! Let's have a ship sink
at the end and have all the passengers ripped apart by
sharks! "Titanic" meets "Jaws"! Or let's have the
Eiffel tower toppled and add a "Slumdog"-ish
dance number as a coda! We'll call it "Armageddon
Millionaire"! "Apollo Titanic"! Or "The Wizard of the
Titanic"! Wowee! Film making is fun! Watching such
stuff -- not so much.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Because the photo of me at the top of
this website is (intentionally) blurred, a
couple people have been curious about what
I actually look like. Well, to anyone who
cares, here's a photo of me several weeks
ago, in October 2009.
* * * *
P.S. -- Suggestion to Time magazine: this year's Man of
the Year should be Sully, an unsullied model of
how to conduct your life and work with innovative thinking,
modesty, dignity and a social conscience. Plus, he saved
lots of lives, didn't he? In this era of partycrashers,
balloon boys, snoozing pilots, and reality stars grabbing
every spotlight in sight, Sully stands out as a genuine hero.
________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 27, 2009
Ambassador Salahi and his wife sure looked the part, didn't
they? His trophy wife was gorgeous enough to have
the "power to cloud men's minds," or at least the minds of
the Secret Service and of the top brass of the United
States government.
Perhaps we've found our secret weapon against
al Qaeda: a woman so attractive and persuasive that she
just might be capable of penetrating (among other things)
the inner sanctum of Osama bin Laden himself. Let's set her
loose in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas with a
budget and see what she finds and what Taliban
parties she can crash!
Keep in mind that al Qaeda has surely heard about this
party crashing incident, too, and might realize that the
the secret to getting past security anywhere in the U.S.
is...to look like a supermodel.
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 24, 2009
Here're my reviews of a few recent movies:
Nora Ephron's "Julie & Julia"
Meryl Streep continues her fairly amazing late
career resurgence with "Julie & Julia," though
this one ranks considerably beneath "The Devil
Wears Prada" and "Doubt." Here she disappears
masterfully into the role of Julia Child -- and that's
the best aspect of this film by many miles.
But the movie is fatally flawed at the conceptual level,
as it tries for a multi-generational split screen by pairing
Child's story with that of a blogger who is much younger
and much less interesting. ("Prada" came at its multi-generational
structure in a far more natural way.)
An infinitely greater film could have been made by
jettisoning the blogger half of the story and focusing
solely on Child's life -- on both her later career as a
star chef and on her earlier work as a spy for the
CIA (the OSS, as it was called then) during World
War II, a fascinating aspect of her life (involving
sharks and submarines!) that has never been fully
told on the big or small screen.
Instead, Ephron serves up a weak-minded
chick flick, Maureen Dowdism writ large
on a forty mil budget, a work that makes me
think I was wrong to have called her (in the
Eighties) the best female auteur since
Wertmuller.
In the universe of "Julie & Julia," women are
sainted and de-eroticized; men are throw pillows, cushions
to cry on, lean on, come on or punch.
The most inspired part of the movie is the
clip of Dan Aykroyd's devastatingly funny
"Saturday Night Live" impersonation of
Child from 1978. Which left me wondering
whether a far more interesting film could have
been made by casting Aykroyd in the lead role.
* * *
Robert Zemeckis's "A Christmas Carol"
There are a few moments here of Disney/Zemeckis/Spielberg
level cinematic stardust and magic, but not nearly enough.
Simultaneously overdone and underdone, it's both skimpy
(at 90 minutes) while including every bell and whistle
in the CGI stockhouse in Novato.
The last third of the movie -- after the Ghost of Christmas
Yet-to-Come shows Ebenezer his grave and how badly he's
regarded after his death -- is substantially better than
the sometimes tedious first part. And the ending does
give you a happy-to-be-alive kick, though it also left
me with an appetite for "It's a Wonderful Life"
more than for a re-watching of this film.
Not sure that this picture will do well at the
box office in relation to its production costs
(it's already in decline, having been released way
too early). Problem is it has limited use as a
family movie, its primary value, because of a couple
scary scenes that could give the kiddies nightmares.
Admittedly, seeing it on a bootleg DVD is not the
ideal way to view a movie in 3-D and performance
capture, so I may be wrong at the margins on this
one, but not by much, I bet.
* * *
F. Gary Gray's"Law Abiding Citizen"
This film is not as awful as many critics have made
it out to be, though it is awful in some ways. But it's
also interesting for what its popularity says about
the public's genuine anger and anxiety about the
shortcomings of the American justice system.
It's yet another picture in a long line, beginning (most
memorably) with "Dirty Harry" in 1971, that stokes anger
about criminals being acquitted or treated leniently
due to what are called "technicalities,"
which usually boil down to guilty people being set free
because of the exclusionary rule or Miranda
rights violations.
Don Siegel and Clint Eastwood have done this sort of
thing much better (the gold standard of cinematic outrage
over "technicalities" is the sequence in
"Dirty Harry" when Eastwood's character is told
that evidence he obtained by torture and without a
search warrant is inadmissible). Such issues are
as relevant today as ever before, what with the
case of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the renewed
debates about evidentiary standards and the use
of (ahem) "enhanced interrogation techniques."
But those who cheer the sadistic protagonist of this
film -- and who condemn acquittals because of
disqualified evidence -- miss the fact that vigilantes
would have also killed Richard Jewel, an innocent
man -- a hero, actually -- who (in the spirit of
this movie) might have been lynched by the victims
of the Olympic Park bombing. (This "wrong man"
syndrome is addressed on screen by an oppositional
cinematic subgenre (see: "The Ox Bow Incident,"
"The Wrong Man," "Mystic River," etc.)
As it stands, the role of the protagonist here appears
to have been written for Mel Gibson, circa 1998,
and the script and plot have a similar lack of
complexity. Remember: while some of Eastwood's films
expressed outrage about killers going free, he also
made movies about vigilantes jumping to the
wrong conclusions.
* * * * * *
Why The Trial of Khalid Will Damage the Reputation of Our Civilian Courts
Problem with the idea of trying Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in
a U.S. civilian court is this:
On the one hand, the Justice Department is saying,
"We're going to give Khalid the full benefits of
the American justice system." But on the other hand,
it's saying: "Don't worry, he won't be acquitted.
And in the highly unlikely event that he is acquitted,
we assure you we'll nail him for something else. "
So the Justice Dept. is being disingenuous. It's
pretending to give Khalid the full measure of due
process but is not going to allow him to be acquitted
if that's the verdict the system arrives at.
Well, that's a show trial, which is, frankly, all
Khalid deserves. And by putting such a show trial
into our civilian justice system, we're showing the
whole world that sometimes the verdicts
of our trials are determined in advance.
If we're going to have a rigged trial in which the
defendant has zero chance of being acquitted, then
let's not be disingenuous; let's move the case to
a military tribunal, where there are never any
false pretenses about a defendant being given due process
beyond a reasonable doubt.
By trying him in a civilian venue, we also risk
setting precedent that could threaten the
exclusionary rule and Miranda rights.
What I mean is that if a civilian judge allows evidence
that was illegally obtained, and Khalid appeals that
ruling, and his appeal is denied in higher courts, then
you have set a precedent that says that illegally obtained
evidence is sometimes admissible and that the Miranda
warnings are not sacrosanct. In the future,
attorneys can cite the precedent of "The U.S. v. Khalid
Sheikh Mohammed" as the basis for claiming that a search
warrant is not legally required in order to collect
evidence in a case.
So the net result of trying Khalid in a civilian court
may well be, ironically, the weakening of the
exclusionary rule and of Miranda.
There have always been circumstances in which a
defendant deserves only military justice and its
lower standard of proof, and Khalid's is surely one
of those cases. By trying him in federal court, we
risk the spectacle of a bureaucratic or biased judge
tossing out evidence against Khalid because of
the exclusionary rule or Miranda rights violations and
letting a clearly guilty mass murderer go free.
And we risk the further spectacle of the Justice
Dept. putting him in chains after an acquittal
and trying him again, as if to say, "Khalid loses
if he wins, Khalid loses if he loses."
Rather than besmirch the reputation of our civilian
courts with a trial that might make us look a bit
like North Korea, let's turn the case over to
the military, whose reputation cannot be damaged
by a trial whose verdict is a fait accompli.
* * * *
I Spoke With Fela Kuti One-on-One in 1986
A whole new generation is now re-discovering
Fela Anikulapo-Kuti, thanks to Bill T. Jones's
new Broadway show "Fela!"
Fela, of course, is the late Nigerian pop star and
political activist, probably best-known
today as the singer, saxophonist and composer
who created Afropop, which mixed jazz, rock,
funk and politics. Fela was also famous
for having fought against oppression in Nigeria;
in the early Eighties, he was imprisoned by
his country’s military regime for three
years for what was what later proved
to be a politically motivated charge.
After he was released from prison
in April 1986, he visited New York City,
appearing at a press conference
on June 13, 1986, in Manhattan before
performing on June 15th for Amnesty
International at Giants Stadium in New
Jersey.
On June 17, 1986, I conducted an exclusive one-on-one
interview with Fela, and a few lines from that talk
were published in the weekly magazine Cash Box,
in the issue that hit newsstands on June 21, 1986.
But most of the interview I conducted
for Cash Box has never been
published in the decades since. Here is
an edited version of that
conversation I had with Fela,
seven weeks after his release from prison in '86.
IORIO: IT MUST BE A BIG CHANGE FOR YOU TO BE OUT OF PRISON NOW.
FELA: Yeah, it's a big change for me. It's a good change.
IORIO: DID YOU WRITE A LOT OF SONGS IN PRISON?
FELA: No. I just kept my brain blank. I left my mind blank in prison.
IORIO: YOU WERE TRANSFERRED TO KIRIKIRI. WAS THAT NIGERIA'S TOUGHEST
PRISON? AND WAS IT TOUGH ON YOU?
FELA: Kirikiri is one of the toughest prisons but it was not tough on me. I lived through it. It was tough on the body.
IORIO: DO YOU THINK YOUR SPIRIT IS STRONGER BECAUSE OF THIS EXPERIENCE?
FELA: Much more stronger.
IORIO: THERE WAS A PERIOD WHEN YOU WERE IN THE HOSPITAL AND THEY
TRANSFERRED YOU OVER TO MAIDUGURI PRISON. AT THAT POINT,
NOBODY HEARD ANYTHING FROM YOU FOR ABOUT SIX WEEKS. WHAT
HAPPENED TO YOU?
FELA: They just took me to the prison...And it was very very uncomfrotable, very far away from everybody. And visitors weren't allowed for me for about five months.
IORIO: WERE YOU AFRAID FOR YOUR LIFE?
FELA: No, no, no. I was never afraid for my life....We just try to face the government...
IORIO: ARE YOU STILL SPEAKING OUT AGAINST THE NIGERIAN GOVERNMENT?
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BACK DOWN?
FELA: No, I'm not going to back down. I still intend to [protest the government]. I'm not
backing down...
IORIO: WOULD YOU EVER CONSIDER GETTING INVOLVED IN NIGERIAN POLITICS
FELA: Yes, definitely.
IORIO: YOU MENTIONED AT A PRESS CONFERENCE THAT SOME OF THE MILITARY
PEOPLE HAVE YOUR RECORDS AND LIKE YOUR MUSIC.
FELA: Oh, yes. Everybody in Nigeria likes my records.
IORIO: DO YOU THINK AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL HAD A LOT TO DO WITH
GETTING YOU OUT OF PRISON?
FELA: Not much. They tried to make people aware of it. But there's not much they could do...
IORIO: WHILE YOU WERE IN PRISON, WHAT WAS THE WORST THING THAT
HAPPENED TO YOU?
FELA: The worst thing that happened to me [while I was in prison] was that my record was produced by somebody else -- Bill Laswell. And that really fucked me up in prison.
IORIO: THAT WAS "LIVE IN AMSTERDAM"?
FELA: No, "Army Arrangement." Destroyed me completely. F----- my mind up...When
you're in prison, you can’t do anything about what’s happening outside.
IORIO: BUT AT THE SAME TIME, PEOPLE WERE BEING CARTED OUT DEAD
EVERYDAY, THERE WERE BEATINGS.
FELA: Oh, yes.
IORIO: BUT IT NEVER HAPPENED TO YOU?
FELA: No.
IORIO: WAS THAT BECAUSE EVERYBODY KNEW WHO YOU WERE?
FELA: Yes, exactly.
IORIO: YOU WERE MORE THAN DISAPPOINTED WITH ARMY ARRANGEMENT.
FELA: Yes, Bill Laswell’s production. I had a production before I went to prison. So they abandoned my production and put in a new one. They knew that [I’d given] instructions that it not be produced by anyone. They knew how I felt about it.
HOW ABOUT “LIVE IN AMSTERDAM”? DO YOU HARBOR ANY BAD FEELING
THAT EMI RELEASED THAT INSTEAD OF RELEASING “PERAMULATOR”?
FELA: EMI did so many bad things. They didn’t look out for my interest at all. They just wanted to rush something out....”Live in Amsterdam” wasn’t a good recording. I only [made] it happen because the system wanted it, because the comapny complained...and demanded a live album.
IS THERE A FELA RECORD THAT YOU BELIEVE IS YOUR BEST?
FELA: No, I don’t.
DO YOU THINK THAT YOU COULD LIVE A BETTER LIFE AS A MUSIICAN IF
YOU WERE TO LEAVE NIGERIA?
FELA: I could never leave my home....It inspires me a lot.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________________________
for November 21, 2009
I went down to the demonstration
Police in riot gear stand in front of Wheeler Hall on the campus
The occupation of a building on the campus of the
University of California at Berkeley came to an end last
night, following a few hours of tense confrontation
between police and protesters.
The 41 people who had seized a room in the building were
arrested, charged with misdemeanors and not jailed. Bathed
in blue light, they were led out of the west side of Wheeler
to wild cheers from the crowd after 7:30 pm.
Though there were reports of sporadic violence, and though
the stand-off between demonstrators and police was quite
edgy in the six o'clock hour, the occupation was resolved
without major incident. At various times, however, it seemed
as if violence was imminent. It was not known why police
chose to evict the protesters during dinner hour on a
Friday night, when one would expect the greatest
number of demonstrators, rather than wait until, say, 3am,
when few would be around.
The activists were protesting a 32% tuition increase
and layoffs throughout the UC system.
But I digress. Paul
________________________
for November 20, 2009
Protesters took and occupied a room in Wheeler Hall on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley this morning. Here's how the occupation looked at around eight o'clock this morning. [photo by Paul Iorio]
Here's a tight shot of the protesters, shown here on the second floor of Wheeler. They're protesting an unusually steep tuition increase for students at the University of California. [photo by Paul Iorio]
Two protesters at a second floor window of Wheeler Hall in the 8am hour today. [photo by Paul Iorio]But I digress. Paul
____________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 18, 2009
I was in Chinatown in San Francisco yesterday and
saw a new form of enthusiasm for President
Obama on store shelves in that neighborhood (perhaps
because of his recent visit to China).
Anyway, on sale in Chinatown, just in time for
Christmas: a Barack Obama action figure -- dubbed
"an action figure we can believe in" -- on sale for
the low, low price of only $14.95!
It also offers this caveat: "Warning: Choking Hazard"
(though I don't think they're referring to what some
perceive as his hesitation in putting forward an Afghanistan
policy!).
The ObamaDoll: now on sale in Chinatown!
[photo by Paul Iorio]
Detail of the ObamaDoll ("choking hazard," it says).
[photo by Paul Iorio]
* * *
As the Golden State Goes Broke,
California Campuses Erupt in Protest Over Tuition Hikes
How the protests looked this afternoon atthe University of California, Berkeley.
[photo by Paul Iorio]
Here's how the angry protests looked this afternoon
at the University of California at Berkeley, where
student fees are about to be hiked 32%.
Another shot of this afternoon's rally in Berkeley.[photo by Paul Iorio]
But I digress. Paul
__________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 17, 2009
Many thanks to Marshall and the NBT for playing
my new song "Tweet Number One" last night.
If I'm not mistaken, it may well be the very
first Tweeter-themed pop song aired on the radio
anywhere. (Is it? ) But I betcha it won't be
the last!
Anyway, you can hear "Tweet Number One" -- which I
wrote, performed and produced last month -- right here
for free. Enjoy! Click here: pauliorio480.vox.com
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________________
for November 13, 2009
Heirs to the Warhol Legacy: Keats, Marcopoulos
Ari Marcopoulos's "White Room, Dizin, Iran,"now on display at the Berkeley (Calif.) Art Museum.
The last time I saw Andy Warhol in person was on a boat
in New York Harbor in the shadow of the Statue of Liberty,
July 4, 1986. Just before ZZ Top performed a private
concert for the small crowd on the boat, Warhol
emerged from the upper deck and walked down the stairs,
causing almost everyone onboard to stop and stare.
Warhol, accustomed to that sort of attention, had a characteristically
novel response: he pulled out a camera and started taking
pictures of partygoers as if they were the celebrities and
main attractions. Very, uh, Warholesque.
Sadly, around seven months later, Warhol was dead at age 58,
the victim (as some see it) of a botched gallbladder
operation that he should have survived by a mile. If he
were still around today, he'd be 81, with perhaps
several more years to live.
I must admit I never got to know him (I was a full-time
magazine writer at the time), but he was an
ubiquitous presence at the parties I attended in
New York in the 1980s, ranging from a bash
for the rock band Ratt to an MTV party.
Since his death, no one in the art world has
yet attained the nearly unanimous level of stature
and respect that Warhol had and still has.
Among the post-Warhol artists who might one day develop
into true heirs to Warhol are two whose art has his
same spirit of audacious and effective originality:
Jonathon Keats, a conceptual artist; and Ari Marcopoulus,
a photographer and former Warhol assistant.
Keats -- who unveiled his new conceptual art
work last night at the Modernism Gallery in
San Francisco -- is (as I put it in a previous
Digression) sort of a 21st century combination of
Wittgenstein and Warhol, specializing in "thought
experiments," as he calls them, that dwell at the
intersection of art, philosophy and humor. (For
example, he once sold his thoughts to
museum patrons and has literally copyrighted his
own mind.)
Marcopoulos -- whose work is currently on display
at the Berkeley Art Museum in Berkeley, Calif. --
shoots photos that are as fascinating and
original and striking as those by any other photographer
of his generation. As I wrote in a previous Digression,
I was so taken by his pictures that I went through
the collection once and then walked through a second
time just for the enjoyment; there are dreamers in
bedrooms, surreal ice, complexity in simplicity,
Alaska and Iran as you've never seen them and, everywhere,
people, characters you care about, as close as you can come
to photographing a pysche, in some cases.
Google both of them up and enjoy their works in
Google Images and elsewhere (and check them out when
their works come to a museum near you).
Jonathon Keats talking to his fans last night about
his latest work, "The First Bank Of Anti-Matter," at
the Modernism Gallery in San Francisco. [photo by
Paul Iorio]
* * *
A previous work by Keats: the OuijaVote balloting
system. [photo by Paul Iorio
* * *
A Marcopoulos photo currently on display at BAM.
(I think it's called "Juneau, AK.")
[photo of photo by Paul Iorio.]
* * *
Warhol's "Race Riot," an adaptation of a
photo of a 1963 riot in Birmingham, recently
at BAM. [photo by Paul Iorio]
* * * *
The Obama Administration's First Huge Mistake
Look, I voted for Barack Obama in 2008. And I'm very high
on his administration right now.
But let me state unequivocally: if Khalid Sheikh Mohammed
walks and is acquitted at his upcoming trial, I will not vote for Obama
for president again. Under any circumstances. Period.
Why? Because his administration could have easily
put Khalid's case into the military courts, where it
belongs and where "preponderance of evidence" is the
standard of proof. The much-respected Nuremberg Military
Tribunals worked just fine in bringing German fascists
to justice in the 1940s; a similar (domestic) military tribunal
would surely work just as well in bringing Khalid and other
Islamic fascists to justice today. (And remember:
Khalid was collared by the military, not by civilian cops, as
some have noted.)
Instead, a civilian judge might well throw out Khalid's
case because of technicalities related to the harsh interrogation
techniques used on him years ago. If that were to happen, a truly
evil and dangerous guy, who committed one of the worst
acts of unprovoked warfare against U.S. civilians since the
Second World War, and who has confessed to those war
crimes, would be set free -- free to commit similar atrocities
in the future. And if that happens, I will be casting my vote in
2012 for someone other than Obama.
* * * *
Khalid, Who Rose From a 2-Bit Mass Murderer to Become a 3-Bit Mass Murderer
Khalid sez: "your pizza delivered in 30 minutes or your jihad is free!"But I digress. Paul
___________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 10, 2009
Exclusive
New York Times Praised al-Awlaki in 2001 Article
So how did The New York Times size up Anwar al-Awlaki in print back in
2001? No media outlet (except this website) has yet written about
a report about al-Awlaki that the Times published eight years ago.
Al-Awlaki, of course, is the imam who, on Monday, emphatically praised
gunman Nidal Hasan for killing 13 people and injuring another 42 last week
at the Fort Hood military base in Texas.
By the time The New York Times interviewed him in 2001, al-Awlaki
had already been under investigation for a couple years by the
F.B.I. for suspected al Qaeda ties, according to
the Times of London, and had admitted meeting with one of
the 9/11 hijackers, Hawaf al-Hizmi, several times.
The idea that he was somehow a moderate then and has only
recently turned radical appears to be a myth.
When he was praised by the Times in '01, al-Awlaki had also admitted
meeting Al-Hizmi's roommate and fellow hijacker Khalid al-Mihdar, who
was part of the team with Hani Hanjour (another attendee at al-Awlaki's
mosque) that crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the
Pentagon. In fact, the three hijackers and Hasan were all
attendees at the mosque where Al-Awlaki was an imam in 2001 -- the
Dar al-Hijrah mosque in Falls Church, Virginia.
Even though al-Awlaki had such a history, New York Times reporter Laurie
Millstein characterized al-Awlaki as "a new generation of Muslim
leader capable of merging East and West."
Here's what she wrote in an article that ran in The Times on
October 19, 2001:
"Mr. Al-Awlaki, who at 30 is held up as a new generation of Muslim leader
capable of merging East and West: born in New Mexico to parents from
Yemen, who studied Islam in Yemen and civil engineering at Colorado State
University."
A close read of the article and al-Awlaki's quotes in it reveal
a sneaky ambiguity in al-Awlaki's words, a kind of plausible
deniability -- or perhaps, al-Awlaki was playing Millstein for a fool,
feeding her quotes that she thought meant one thing and he
intended as something else.
In the article, Millstein first summarizes, in her own words, the criticism aimed
at America by Muslim hardliners:
"Their most frequent grievances were sexual promiscuity, movies and media perceived
as anti-Muslim, racial prejudice and American foreign policy of supporting Israel,
blockading Iraq and bolstering what they perceived as corrupt Middle Eastern regimes
in Saudi Arabia and Egypt."
Then she quotes al-Awlaki's very ambiguous remarks, which I'm presenting here with
my own annotations in capital letters:
''In the past we were oblivious. [NOTE THAT AL-AWLAKI DOESN'T SAY
OBLIVIOUS TO WHAT. HE MIGHT HAVE MEANT "OBLIVIOUS
TO ALL THE BLASPHEMY OUT THERE."] We didn't really care
much because we never expected things to happen. [NOTE HE
DOESN'T SPECIFY WHAT HE MEANS BY "THINGS TO HAPPEN."]
Now I think things are different. What we might have tolerated in
the past, we won't tolerate any more." [HIGHLY AMBIGUOUS.
IS HE SAYING, WE USED TO TOLERATE LIBERAL WESTERN
MOVIES AND THE LIKE, BUT NOT ANY MORE? OR IS HE
SAYING, WE USED TO TOLERATE MUSLIM EXTREMISTS,
BUT NOT ANY MORE?']
Millstein quotes al-Awlaki again in her story (and I've added
annotations in caps once more):
''There were some statements that were inflammatory [STATEMENTS
BY WHO? STATEMENTS BY THE INFIDEL OR STATEMENTS BY
MUSLIM RADICALS?], and were considered just talk, but now we
realize that talk can be taken seriously and acted upon in a violent
radical way,'' [AGAIN, VERY AMBIGUOUS. HIS MEANING COULD
JUST AS SOON BE: NOW WE REALIZE THAT BLASPHEMY
AND ANTI-ISLAMIC TALK CAN BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY AND
SHOULD BE COMBATED WITH VIOLENCE.]
After his time as imam at the Dar al-Hijrah, Al-Awlaki left the
U.S. in 2002 and moved to Yemen, his parents's birthplace.
He currently runs a popular jihadist website, Anwar al-Awlaki On-line
(at www.anwar-alawlaki.com), where he writes the blog that, today (11/9),
praised Nidal Hasan, saying:
“Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to
Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of
what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically
justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to
follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.”
“The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American
community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would
either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are
choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful
chorus condemning Nidal’s operation.”
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- It continues to amaze me that my song
"Kim Jong-il" is creating a bit of a buzz among
bloggers I've never met and among people emailing me.
Listeners seem to really enjoy that one!
Yesterday one blogger corrected my
pronunication of "Juche" -- and I stand
corrected. For those who haven't heard the
song yet, listen here for free:
http://ioriosong.vox.com/
[P.S. -- Inevitable. A jealous irrelevant friend
from my long-ago high school years had his
suggestions about my music rejected by me
a few years ago and so now is trying to interfere
with my music activities. What he doesn't
understand is this (and let me explain by
analogy): if I were to say to, say, Eric
Clapton, that he should do "Layla" as a reggae
song, and Clapton doesn't use my suggestion,
that doesn't make me a co-writer of "Layla."
Get the picture?)
If I had used Bill Epps's suggestions in
my music, I would have fully credited him.
But I did not use any of his suggestions at all,
not one of them, so I'm not going to credit
him for things he didn't do. It's that simple.
* * * *
P.S. -- Unsolicited advice for President Obama:
What's the best way to get the public option health
care plan through the U.S. Senate with a healthy
margin?
Find and kill Osama bin Laden.
After that, you could probably get single payer
passed in a landslide.
______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 9, 2009
I've just seen a couple more recent movies and here are
my reviews:
Kenny Ortega's "This Is It"
At least as electric as "Shine a Light," almost
as revealing as "Gimme Shelter," "This is It" is
as great as some of the best reviews make it out to be.
It's more akin to a rock musical like "Rent" (the play,
not the film) than to a concert film or docu,
what with the dancing and choreography and
sets and pyrotechnics counting for almost as much
as the music at times.
If this footage is any indication, Jackson was
preparing for what would have been a pop cultural
behemoth, the O2 concert series in London. And he was
readying all the good stuff, too, with opening night
a mere couple weeks away.
Highlights here include...almost every song:
the showstopping opener, "Wanna Be Startin'
Somethin'"; "Billie Jean," with its extended
percussion coda so Jackson could work his
magic on the dance floor; the unexpectedly
haunting "Earth Song"; the glimpse of him refining
his sound to perfection in "The Way You Make Me Feel."
At some points his dancing is fluid like water, like
Jagger; he had the moves and energy and grace of
someone half his age.
And then there are the personally revealing
behind-the-scenes bits, particularly during rehearsals
for the Jackson Five mini-set. As the reunited
brothers launch into a seismic "I Want You
Back," Jackson effortlessly falls into his old
voice.
But watch carefully; he seems emotionally
uncomfortable, uncharacteristically so, during the
Jackson Five segment, as if he's been exposed to
kryptonite, and afterwards complains
about an earpiece that "seems like somebody's fist is
pushing in my ear."
Pause that for a moment. Interesting that when he has
to get back into his Jackson Five persona, he's
suddenly talking images of being assaulted ("Like
somebody's fist is pushing in my ear"). And then he
repeats the "fist in the ear" image. (I know, he was
referring to something that was making him physically
uncomfortable, but he also appeared to be, unconsciously,
referring to something else entirely.)
No doubt about it, Jackson's memories of the
Jackson Five period were associated with being
physically abused and assaulted by his father.
In order to perform Jackson Five material,
Jackson had to work through some deeply unpleasant
and traumatic memories and links.
Hence, at the end of "I Want You Back" he
seems distraught and is talking about being hit
with a fist. Sad.
All told, this is a movie you can dance to, that's
for sure. But, as always, the fun was on Michael
Jackson's dime.
* * * * *
Kevin Greutert's "Saw VI"
Sadism that connects to no plot, characters or wisdom
worth watching. This sixth installment is a recession-era
artifact (health insurance execs get, uh, skewered),
though the franchise itself could only have come
into being in the years after 9/11 (the nightmarish
reality of people in the twin towers who had to
choose between burning to death or jumping to
their deaths seems to have created the climate
for "Saw"). The best I can say is it's not boring.
* * * * *
Conceptual artist Jonathon Keats, whose ideas never
cease to be fresh and amazing, has a new work he's
unveiling in San Francisco on November 12th at the
Modernism Gallery (685 Market St.). It's called
"The First Bank of Antimatter," his plan to restore
the global economy with antimatter! His work is always
worth checking out.
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 5 - 6, 2009
Here are my reviews of a couple movies currently in theaters:
Oren Peli's "Paranormal Activity"
In the movies-made-with-a-credit-card subgenre, this one ranks
a couple notches below "The Blair Witch Project," "Tarnation" and
"Open Water." But it shares with "Blair Witch" the same somewhat
deceptive appeal of a faux documentary that doesn't draw
too much attention to the faux part. I bet a good portion of its
(and "Blair Witch"'s) success is due to some moviegoers
initially thinking they were seeing real docu footage
of a rare mystery.
The obscure mystery in this case is that a house, and the
twentysomething couple who live in it, seem to be haunted
by some sort of invisible paranormal spirit. But within
ten minutes, as soon as we see the couple consult a psychic
about their problem, we realize the film makers are playing
this premise straight and unironically, thereby missing a
major opportunity to create a smart campy horror film
that works on both a meta and literal level.
That said, the thrills and chills do kick in at around the
70-minute mark, and the finale is a skillful bit of film making that
recalls the end of Antonioni's "The Passenger" (in which
we see a tragedy unfold from a fixed point of view that creates
uncertainty about what is actually happening in unseen parts
of the house).
"Paranormal" is also the first example (that I can
recall) of a hit film that seems to have been
heavily influenced by reality TV shows, which it
resembles even though it's a scripted thriller. (Then
again, much reality TV is partially scripted, too.)
Instead of making a sequel, which is reportedly already in
the works, the film makers should spin it into a
reality TV series about several couples living in an
old abandoned villa they think is haunted. They can
call it "Micah and Kate Plus Eight."
* * * * *
Steven Soderbergh's "The Informant!"
Without its upbeat Marvin Hamlisch score --
which gives the film the feel of an antic, zany
early Woody Allen comedy -- Steven Soderbergh's
"The Informant!" would be as sober and
earnest as "The Insider" or "Silkwood," for the
mosr part. To be sure, superimposing music on
a picture is a chintzy way to establish a
tone that is mostly unearned, as this is
largely serious material about a case of
real-life corporate malfeasance, its dark comedic
undercurrent not as sustained or consistent as
it should be. Hence, the Hamlisch, which tries to
give the film what isn't already there organically.
If Soderbergh had sustained the tension and inspired
brilliance of the first forty minutes, "The Informant!"
would be the best American film released so far this year.
Its first half is minutely-observed, very knowing about
the psychology of some corporate executives, subtly funny (a lonely
whistleblower who is being wiretapped says he enjoys
talking to the F.B.I. because "they're good listeners"),
marvelously acted by Matt Damon and others, and
wonderfully aphoristic ("Paranoid is what people who try
to take advantage call you when they're trying to get
you to drop your guard").
But unfortunately, the last half has no fizz, no
electricity, little focus, slack tension. Too bad.
Soderbergh almost created a classic.
* * * * *
[above, graphic by Paul Iorio.]
* * * * * *
Guide People to Moral Behavior?
"Allahu Akbar!," shouted Nidal Hasan as he shot dozensof innocent people yesterday. He did this after saying his prayers, of course.
[photo of Hasan/Ft. Hood carnage by The Telegraph.]
Am I the only one getting mighty sick of the endless
parade of devoutly religious people committing
unspeakable crimes? Just in the last several months
the religulous Hall of Shame and Evil has included: Sunday school
teacher Melissa Huckabee, who apparently raped and
murdered a little girl earlier this year in California;
holy roller rapist and kidnapper Phil Garrido, who
followed in the footsteps of religious fanatic kidnapper
Brian David Mitchell; and, of course, Najibullah Zazi,
the Muslim fundamentalist who was plotting to bomb
New York City with a peroxide explosive a couple
months ago.
I'll tell ya, religion really guides people to the path
of righteousness, doesn't it?
The latest religious nut to surface from the
fundamentalist sewers (a world where people have to
actually consult a book before they know whether it's
right or wrong to kill an innocent person) is Nidal Hasan,
a devout Muslim who prayed many times a day and even
shouted "God is great!" as he murdered innocent people.
The truth about the killings -- that it was fueled
by religion to a significant degree -- was downplayed by some
reporters even after that fact had become obvious.
As late as seven this morning Pacific Time, a few journalists
were still saying Hasan had committed mass murder
primarily because he was [pick the characterization
that flatters yourself and denigrates your adversary]:
mad about the war, mad about not getting a raise, mad from PTSD,
blah blah blah, (add your own motivation that dovetails
with your personal pet peeve or cause)!
Truth is, when someone bases his life on an
irrational belief system (i.e., religion), irrational
acts are likely to follow (with "God told me to do it"
always the justification).
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 4, 2009
New on DVD: "Whatever Works"
I was going to call "Whatever Works" Woody Allen's
worst movie ever, but then images from the
film hit me and stuck the next day, much like the
aftertaste of a distinctive but ultimately unsatisfying
and unpleasant meal. Even so, I still had the feeling
that, forty years after his directiorial debut, he had
finally invented a new brand of Woody Allen film:
a comedy that's 100% laugh-free!
But is it really his worst? Might there
be another that has slipped my mind that truly takes
the cake? The candidates for worst Allen movie, of
course, were all released in succession between
"Hollywood Ending" and "Whatever Works," between 2002
and 2007, with the one shining exception being "Match
Point" ('05), which is actually a plot-driven Hitchcock
film in spirit, very uncharacteristic for Allen and
thin in retrospect (do we remember the main character
Wilton for anything but his crime?). And Allen
has always called Hitchcock "second drawer," and for
good reason: Hitchcock is a "conscious" director, more
craft than art, and those are the same reasons "Match
Point" is the least of Woody's top tier works.
Then again, "Match Point" did have that
very, very clever moment when the murderer, planning his
crime meticulously, decides to kill someone in the most
discreet way possible: by talking his way into his target's
apartment in broad daylight, clumsily assembling a shotgun
in that person's living room and then shooting his
victim with the shotgun in the middle of
downtown London, where, of course, nobody would hear it.
In "Whatever," there are no such diabolically plotted
murders, though he does come down hard on all that loud
yeah-yeah-yeah moptop "music" the kids listen to nowadays.
I soon began to draw a blank when thinking about
"Cassandra's Dream" (was that the one where a woman
tries to replace a valuable piece of jewelry with a fake
but then loses track of which is which?) and
"Anything Else" (that was Biggs doing the Allen-like role,
right? Or was it Ferrell?). Lately, there always seems to be some younger
actor, or more marketable older actor (Larry David, say),
doing what would have been the Woody role in an earlier
era -- and sometimes, embarrassingly, doing the Allen
accent, too. (Who can forget Kenneth Branagh speaking
Allenesque in whatever that film was?)
So, is "Whatever Worse" appreciably worse than
"Hollywood Ending"/"Anything Else"/"Melinda and
Melinda"/"Scoop"/"Cassandra's Dream," the other
five contenders for worst Allen flick? It may well be.
It certainly proves that you can put two of the funniest
guys on the planet together in a movie and create
nothing worth laughing at.
* * * *
Muhammad and Man at Yale -- and in Hollywood
Funniest joke I've heard out of Hollywood this week is this:
some movie mogul is making a picture about the
Muslim Prophet Muhammad that will not actually show
Muhammad on the screen!
Hilarious, huh? The stuff of parody, right? 'Cept it's true.
And to add to the outrageousness, a few journalists, evidently
biased in favor of deism, are writing about it by going on at
length about peripheral issues without even noting the main
fact: you can't make a biopic without showing the subject of
the biopic. Never been done. Shouldn't be tried.
I mean, you'd have to stretch yourself out of shape to find
a precedent for this. Let's see: there's that Humphrey Bogart
film where we don't see the main character's face (played by
Bogart, in bandages after plastic surgery) for the first hour or
so. And then there's "Jaws," where we don't see the shark
until the middle of the film.
But in those cases, the film makers make the absence of the
central character work. And we do see the two protagonists -- the
shark and Bogart -- later in those movies. In any event, neither
flick is a non-fiction biopic.
Barrie Osborne ("Matrix," "Lord of the Rings") is the cowardly guy
behind this ridiculous idea, and a coward he truly is.
Cowed by militants, bowing to religious totalitarians, Osborne
is basically saying to the absolutists: "You've won, we'll adopt
your own right-wing suppression of free speech as our own
standard because, frankly, we're a-scared of you militants."
There's a wicked lack of reciprocity in the U.S. between western
liberals and Muslim reactionaries. We say to the religious, with
bottomless respect: "Come to America, build your mosques and
temples here, pray ten times a day if you wish -- and you
can also forbid any pictures of deities within your mosque. In
fact, if someone shows up at your mosque with a picture of
Muhammad or Khadya, you can have your own security guards
escort him or her from the premises."
So we allow them that freedom and then they turn around and
say: "The rules of our mosque must apply to the secular world
outside, too. Our religious rules say, no pictures of deities
can be shown in our mosque and we want that rule to apply
outside our mosque and to your secular newspapers and to
your Hollywood films, too."
And too many editors and movie people say, "Fine, we'll
surrender without a shot and agree to your censorship."
And that's precisely what religious totalitarianism is:
someone applying the parochial rules of the church to the
greater world.
The absolutists show no respect for the great diversity out
there, for those who believe, for example, that we should
be free to portray figures from history as we see fit. And
by bowing to their standards, we are reducing ourselves to
the ignorant, profoundly uneducated level of the madrassas and the
madrassas-schooled.
History will not look generously or kindly on guys like
Barrie Osborne or John Donatich, the similarly cowardly
editor of Yale University Press, who has published a book
about the so-called Muhammad cartoons that doesn't show the
cartoons themselves. History will look on them as reactionaries
motivated by cowardice.
The case of Donatich at Yale is even more dangerous than
Osborne's film, because the adverse implications for intellectual
inquiry and academic freedom are staggering.
Suppose a contemporaneous drawing of Muhammad
was unearthed by archaeologists and turned over to Islamic scholars.
Should the drawing be suppressed, censored, not taught in
classes on Islam at Yale and elsewhere, not included
in scholarly and other journals?
In college classes on Islamic civilization, should students
not be allowed to discuss the fact that Muhammad
had around a dozen wives -- and what that implies about him? Is it
out of bounds in an academic setting to discuss the
morality of someone who has had an unusually large number
of wives? Was Muhammad sexually aberrant? He's called
a "prophet," but was he really one? Didn't a lot of people and
pundits at the time predict the same obvious things about the
Battle of Badr and the Battle of the Confederates that
Muhammad did?
Can students even ask such question in a classroom, or must
they just accept the myths-as-written? Have the rules of the
madrassas now become the rules of the Ivy League, to some
extent?
Isn't the core reality this: we suppress such questions
and analysis about Muhammad because we're afraid
such ideas might offend people who like the guy. Should
we expand that over-cautiousness to the study of other
public and historical figures, too?
Should scholars and students be forbidden from asking whether
the translators of the Old Testament might have been incompetent
translators? Can we not ask whether Governor Pontius Pilate of
Judea might have had reasonable justification for giving
Jesus [The?] Christ the death penalty -- justification that we're
unaware of because we've never fully heard Pilate's side of the
story? Are these questions off-limits because they might be
offensive to people who admire Jesus?
Should we extend that excessively deferential approach to other academic
disciplines as well? When studying, say, Frank Sinatra in a course on
popular culture, should professors and students not bring up certain
criminal aspects of his life and career because that might
upset violent people? Should we use that same cowardly guide
when studying and teaching the mafia, "The Satanic Verses"
and Scientology?
Osborne's upcoming film is only the latest bit of proof that Muslim extremists,
using asymmetrical means, are enforcing the same sort of censorship that
used to be imposed only by governments and kings. Academia, and now Hollywood,
have embraced the new tyrant without even putting up a fight.
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 3, 2009
Obama has energized the Palin wing of the GOP, which is purging moderates at its peril.
First, let it be known that a day before last year's
elections, I correctly predicted the outcome of all
eleven competitive U.S. Senate races (see my election
day 2008 Digression).
Which, of course, qualifies me to put forward predictions about
today's election contests!
Here's what I think might happen later today:
NEW JERSEY
Corzine will win, but barely and only because
Daggett is draining votes from Christie.
VIRGINIA
McDonnell, by a mile.
NEW YORK'S 23rd CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
Hoffman over Owens. (If Scozzafava had really wanted
to help Owens, she should have stayed in the race
to siphon votes from Hoffman.) This pattern might
well play out in next year's races, particularly
in the GOP primary for the US Sen in FL.
MAINE'S REPEAL OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE
I can't imagine that Maine will be more
liberal than California was last year when
the Golden State passed Prop 8, a similar
measure.
IN NEW YORK CITY
Bloomberg over Thompson, easily.
IN BOSTON
Menino, by a healthy margin.
ATLANTA
Norwood will lead but fall short of
50%, will face Reed in a run-off.
[ABOVE PREDICTIONS POSTED AT 11:45am PST
ON NOVEMBER 3, 2009]
But I digress.
_______________________________________-
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 3, 2009
Now that Jerry Brown has become the front-runner in
the race for California governor, a job he held in
the 1970s, and Roman Polanski appears to be on his
way back to Los Angeles for the first time since 1978,
I couldn't help but think that the Golden State, circa
2011, might end up looking a lot like the California
of thirty-plus years ago. And so I came up with this
graphic:
[graphic by Paul Iorio; photo of highway by unknown photographer]
But I digress. Paul
______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 2, 2009
The National Zeitgeist of the Fall of 2009 is:
No One is in Charge.
In the film phenomenon of the season, "Paranormal Activity," the
main characters try to find and capture an adversary they
cannot see or catch. For much of the movie, the camera focuses
on subjective shots of...nothing. Empty rooms with nobody
in them. The camera is pointed at a subject that is not there.
Similarly, in America's current real-life war, we're pursuing a
vicious enemy in Afghanistan and Pakistan that doesn't
have a fixed location and could be anywhere, including in
America, right now.
In television news, one of the highest rated -- if not the highest
rated -- news event of the year was the phony
drama of a boy flying in a balloon without a pilot. For hours,
the whole nation was transfixed, watching an imperiled little boy
who was not there. There was literally nothing at the center of
that drama. In essence, we all shared a national fantasy that
seemed to be rooted in a national anxiety that nobody is
at the wheel in America.
Likewise, another huge recent story that caught the public's attention
was the saga of the commercial airliner that, for around ninety
minutes, flew with nearly 150 passengers without a pilot at the controls.
And in Washington, there is criticism in some quarters that
no one is at the steering wheel in the White House when it comes to
the Afghanistan war, and that everybody is trying to grab the steering
wheel when it comes to health care reform policy. (I don't happen
to agree with people who think that; I think Obama's drone strategy
in Afghanistan and public option health care plan are exactly
the way to proceed; but many are starting to believe nothing's
getting done in D.C., which is probably the fault of a system
that has served a plutocracy for too long. But I digress.)
No one person seems to be in charge anymore anywhere. Or
at least that's the way a lot of people seem to feel. And that zeitgeist
appears to be creating nervous fascination with pilotless balloons
and pilotless airplanes, both fictional and non-fictional, and fear of an
all-too-real enemy that is not based in any one place.
The center is gone. Centralized control is dead. Nobody is
in charge. On the Internet, we buy from stores that have
no physical location and chat with people who
are based nowhere but in cyberspace. We get our news
(in this very un-Cronkite age) from an uncountable
number of Internet, cable, broadcast and print
outlets. In top videogames like Guitar Hero, no one
is in charge of the music -- because everybody is
and anyone can be.
The trend toward decentralization can also be seen in
big rock concert tours of 2009. The Counting Crows
tour of this year was structured as a sort of variety
show -- dubbed The Saturday Night Rebel Rockers
Traveling Circus & Medicine Show. -- in which the headliner
was de-emphasized and two other acts gave performances
interspersed throughout the concert. Likewise, Jason Mraz's
concerts of '09 also had a de-centralized
structure that featured a host -- the lively Bushwalla -- who
not only introduced the opening acts and Mraz, but
became something of a central presence of the show
with his humorous patter and his own musical
performances, sprinkled throughout the concert.
And another top tour of the year, the Chicago
and Earth, Wind & Fire double bill, had a
different focal point almost every night, as
the two bands regularly swapped headlining spots
and played together at the beginning and ending
(while sometimes covering the songs of the
other group).
Apparently the trend in rock concerts is toward
presenting an evening of entertainment without a clear
center.
This is, of course, an era in which we've had to readjust
our minds to thinking of America's biggest city, New
York City, without its symbol and visual center, the
twin towers.
William Butler Yeats was more prescient than he knew
when he wrote, in 1919, in "The Second Coming":
"The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the center cannot hold."
Ninety years later, the center not only doesn't hold, it seems
to have been completely eliminated. And the falcon
still cannot hear the falconer (and I'm not talking about
Falcon Heene, though maybe I am).
The Symbol of this Era-Without-a-Pilot:
"The falcon cannot hear the falconer..."
.
* * * *
Blogger (and former S.F. Chron editor) Phil Bronstein accused
The New York Times of plagiarism
the other day, and that doesn't surprise me at all.
When I was a staff writer at the San Francisco Chronicle
years ago, many of the editors there didn't seem to know
when something was plagiarism and (just as important)
when something was not plagiarism. In the case of the
New York Times, it's obvious the Times reporter hadn't
plagiarized (he merely interviewed a source, and that
source used the same words in a subsequent interview).
No wonder the Chronicle almost went out of business
earlier this year (and probably will be reduced to an
online publication in the very near future). And
frankly, that's not necessarily a bad thing for the world.
Because though there are some talented journalists there,
and though I'm very pro-union, there are also some
dishonest, even fraudulent editors at the top ranks (see:
David Wiegand, for example) who remain in their jobs despite
legit complaints about them over the years.
To all you bright college grads looking to get a start
in journalism: don't take a job at the Chronicle. Try
another publication. And not just because the paper
won't be lasting very long (it's losing something like
a million bucks a week), but because some of the editors
there are not honest or ethical.
Further, if you expose the unethical behavior of an editor
there, Hearst/Chronicle has a lot of money with which they
can try to turn that accusation against you. (And don't listen to
anyone who says "Paul's just disgruntled, blah blah."
Anyone who says the "disgruntled" line is doing so
because they either know, or work with, or think they will
work with the editor I'm referring to, or they think said editor knows too
much about them. Or they're uninformed about the situation.)
Do you think I'd be talking this way -- accusing people of
"fraud" and malfeasance in print -- if I didn't have the primary
documents to prove it in a court of law tomorrow if I had to?
But I digress. Paul
______________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 30, 2009
OK, folks, I've just written and recorded some brand
new songs for you to listen to, all penned, performed
and produced by Paul Iorio (yours truly!).
I wrote all four tracks between August and September 2009
and recorded them a couple days ago at my home
studio in lovely Berkeley, Calif.
Just click here to listen to and enjoy the tunes for free!
pauliorio480.vox.com
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 26 - 27, 2009
The So-Called Afghanistan War
(Shouldn't We Re-Name It the Al Qaeda War?)
First, some clarity.
War is the practice by which the teenagers of one nation
shoot, kill and maim the teenagers of another nation
on a battlefield at the behest of a government. (At least
most of the soldiers are teenagers in most wars.)
The goal, at least at the ground level, is to
intentionally inflict health problems (or death) on
opposing soldiers who don't retreat or surrender.
When you're on a battlefield, and aiming your rifle at a
person from the opposing side, you're killing or wounding
that person without assembling a jury, summoning a judge
or providing the target with legal counsel. The soldier
is summarily, almost unilaterally, making a decision
to kill or wound (or not kill or wound) another combatant.
Further, the soldier's bullet might well miss its target
or ricochet and kill a completely innocent person.
And a soldier's training in killing usually amounts to
around three months of basic training, not even the
equivalent of a single semester at a university. Combat
is, to some extent, such a semi-unskilled task that we
put it in the hands of uneducated privates who aren't old
enough to legally buy a beer.
I bring all this up because Jane Mayer's piece in The New
Yorker on America's covert drone war in the FATAs questions
whether the CIA has the training to do the killing that
the armed forces usually do. And she also questions whether
the targets of the missiles deserve to be targets, whether
they have gotten adequate due process before being bombed.
To which I say, when has that ever been the case in war?
When has the enemy, in the midst of combat, ever had the
benefit of due process?
Further, a missile attack can be more surgically precise
than a machine gun barrage. True, missiles, like bullets,
occasionally miss their targets and hit innocents, and
that's tragic, but, unfortunately, unavoidable in some
circumstances. C'est la guerre.
As for the CIA not having the training to kill, I say: in a
high-tech war, the real skill required is expertise
in missile guiding and targeting systems. Sure, I, too,
see the dangerous possibilities of a war waged
by an agency that cannot always be held publicly
accountable for its actions, but sometimes covert
operations are the only way to accomplish a necessary maneuver.
The existence of the CIA itself is an implicit admission
that there are some foreign policy actions that cannot be
executed explicitly. (And I don't hear anybody in the
mainstream calling for the abolition of the CIA.)
More and more, I think people are coming around to the position
that the enemy that we once fought in Afghanistan has now moved
shop to the North-West Frontier Province in Pakistan, where they
remain as deadly and adversarial as ever. Our logic must follow
the enemy. We cannot fight a war in the Tens based on the
reality of the Oughties. Rather than re-fight the previous war in
Afghanistan, we should shift combat to where the war has shifted: to
the FATAs. And the most efficient, effective, and least bloody
way to do that is with the missile strategy currently underway.
With bin Laden and his comrades probably in the Bajaur Agency,
and the worst of the Taliban around South Waziristan, the U.S. would
be wasting resources and time focusing on Afghanistan as the
central front. In fact, the "Afghanistan War" is now a bit of a misnomer
and probably should be re-named the Al Qaeda War.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- When John Paul Stevens retires next year,
Obama should nominate Hillary Clinton for the Court.
And tap John Kerry to head State. Both would be
better suited to those jobs.
* * *
P.S. -- Lesson from the Heene balloon episode: whenever
someome sets up a camera to take footage of himself, be very,
very wary of the footage, because it's often intended to
manipulate or deceive. Look at how everybody was fooled
by Richard Heene "losing his temper" on camera -- a camera
shot he set up -- when his balloon flew away. What a two shot,
as they say.
_________________________
_________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 24, 2009
International Response to My Research on bin Laden's Whereabouts
I've received email from Pakistan and elsewhere on my article
(see, below, "Where bin Laden is Hiding," Daily Digression,
Oct. 20), and let me share some of it.
Today I received an email from Zafar Hijazi, the main editor at
the Pakistani daily newspaper the Daily Mahasib. The Mahasib
is an Urdu-language paper that became a bit of a cause celebre in
certain circles several years ago when it was shut down by
the government for around six weeks, four of its editors
charged with blasphemy, jailed and threatened with the death
penalty.
Their crime? Publishing a story that questioned whether
a beardless man can become a good Muslim.
The newspaper was eventually exonerated and continues to
operate today, publishing out of Gilgit/Baltistan (though
Hijazi lists a Rawalpindi address).
Anyway, Hijazi sent me an email that provides a fascinating
perspective on bin Laden as seen from inside a particular
faction of Pakistan.
I don't agree with some of what he says, but...let's hear him out.
First, Hijazi's desire to capture and kill bin Laden is as intense
as most Americans's.
"We wish we could trace Bin Laden and hang him," Hijazi wrote
in his email to me.
Second, he believes the U.S. is not really sincere about finding
bin Laden. In fact, incredibly, he seems to think America is
somehow in cahoots with bin Laden.
"If u americans know about his exact hide outs pl do tell us," Hijazi wrote
in his email to me (which I'm presenting here exactly as he wrote it).
"It appears america is itself sposoring/protecting Bin Laden
and his cronies. Recently when our forces entered Waziristan,
why from other side nato forces wre withdran allowing terrorist flee
and re emerge. This big question before us and u should carry
out research on this too."
So there you have it, straight from a respected editor in Rawalpindi
who actually thinks America is somehow protecting bin Laden.
Never mind the covert drone war we're conducting in the FATAs
against al Qaeda. Never mind the lives we're putting on the line
on the battlefield in Afghanistan. Somehow this Pakistani editor,
who leads a paper with a courageous reputation, thinks the American
government doesn't want bin Laden dead.
And, to support his theory, he cites an incident that I'm admittedly
unaware of: a recent military skirmish in Waziristan in which NATO
forces supposedly retreated, allowing al Qaeda forces to flee.
I wrote back to Hijazi, thanking him for his email, and saying:
"Though I am a mere journalist and do not speak for the
U.S. government, I must say that the U.S. government -- at
least under President Obama -- is absolutely determined
to capture or kill bin Laden. It has been a national goal
since 9/11."
Anyone who would like to respond to any of this can write to me
at pliorio@aol.com, and I'll try to include your comments in
an upcoming Digression.
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 23, 2009
Of all the many songs I've written this
year, there have been a few that people seem
to like more than others, obviously. But
the big surprise, for me, is how much some
listeners are genuinely enjoying my song
"Kim Jong-il," which I self-released last
July and is still going strong since it was
first aired (by KALX) on July 13.
A couple days ago, a blogger who I've never met
posted this flattering comment about my song:
"Y'all gotta get over here and listen to
the parody propaganda song "Kim Jong Il"
by songwriter Paul Iorio.
You'll be singing it to yourself all day and
getting strange looks from other people on
the bus when you do."
Thanks to the VM blog for your kind words! Glad you enjoy
the tune. For those who haven't heard "Kim Jong-il" yet,
click here and have some fun: http://ioriosong.vox.com/
* * * *
The Most Intelligent, Most Surgically Precise War
in American History?
Have you been reading David Rohde's report in the New
York Times about his seven months as a captive of the
Taliban in Pakistan? Absolutely riveting. I bet it'll
first win a Pulitzer and then an Oscar, once it's made
into a feature film, which I hope happens (Kathryn Bigelow
could create a classic).
Rohde's account of being caught in an American drone missile
attack nearly ranks with Kurt Vonnegut's story of being a
POW in Dresden when Allied planes bombed the city (a less
justifiable bombing than the one in North Waziristan,
by the way). His story of his escape is an outright thriller.
And his tale of singing the Beatles's "She Loves
You" with his Taliban captors is both hilarious and sad,
surreal while ringing absolutely true.
Rhode's story also, inadvertently, reveals rare valuable
info about the Taliban. Telling that they had Nestle
bottled water and other western products, which implies
they're able to afford premium brands and clearly
not hurting for money in parts of opium poppy country.
And his report on the drone attack reveals how smart the
American tactics against al Qaeda and the Taliban are. It's
interesting that only Taliban leaders and soldiers (and no
innocent civilians) were killed in that bombing of Miram
Shah, which contributes to the impression that President
Obama is handling this war as intelligently
and surgically as any war in American history.
I then read Jane Mayer's piece in The New Yorker about
America's covert drone war in the FATAs. Though I don't
think she intended to have this effect, her piece left me
feeling almost exhilarated that Obama was pursuing such
a course. It's what I've been advocating in this column
and elsewhere for some time -- an emphasis on covert
warfare against al Qaeda in the tribal border region -- and
I think it's brilliant, effective strategy.
And the strategy is soo Obama, too: smart,
effective, necessary.
What I didn't read in Mayer's piece was a source putting
forward another alternative plan against the Taliban that
would work nearly as well. (Perhaps because there isn't one.)
Commanders and leaders like the Mehsud brothers and
Osama bin Laden cannot be easily replaced
or replaced at all. When such leaders are gone, so
goes the efficacy of the murderous movements they lead,
in most cases (as history teaches us time and again).
Killing the leadership of al Qaeda and of the extreme
elements of the Taliban is essential to eliminating
people like Najibullah Zazi, who was evidently planning
another 9/11-style attack last month at the behest of his
al Qaeda trainers in the North-West Frontier Province,
where our drones are rightly aimed.
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 21, 2009
Thanks to everyone who has sent email to me about
my feature film screenplay "The Buzz." Last week,
I finally posted the definitive online version of the
script and have been heartened by the response. I must
say that I gave it a re-read the other day, after not
having read it for around six years, and found myself
getting caught up in the story all over again.
You might enjoy it, too. Read it here at: thebuzzscript.blogspot.com
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- "The Buzz" is a fictionalized story of a real-life
murder case that I solved in 1990 as an investigative
reporter, thirteen years before law enforcement solved it.
But it's also about a set of characters who I think would
be interesting even if they weren't caught up in such
a plot. (I wrote it in 1994 and 1995, and revised the
ending in 2003.)
________________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 20, 2009
Where bin Laden is Hiding.
What My Own Research Shows.
In all likelihood, Osama bin Laden is hiding inthe Bajour border area of Pakistan (above),
around 50 miles from Peshawar. [map from the
government of Pakistan; not available online,
except here.]
According to my own independent research and reporting,
Osama bin Laden is probably currently around fifty
miles north of the Khyber Pass near the Afghanistan
border in Pakistan. The best evidence places him near
the Bajaur River in the Bajaur Agency section, one of
the Federally Administered Tribal Areas in the
North-West Frontier Province.
It makes more sense than all other theories. The best
information says bin Laden was -- was -- living
in South Waziristan until recently. But a couple
years ago he was seen with bodyguards in
a single truck (not a convoy) traveling north to the Bajaur
region, according to the Asia Times Online.
Which also makes sense. That's where many of his comrades and
buddies from the Soviet-Afghanistan war are -- and they (more
than any group on the planet) regard him as a near deity who
they'll protect to the death. That's also the area from which
bin Laden and his soldiers staged many of their most brazen
and effective military maneuvers into Afghanistan against the
Soviets in the 1980s.
Bin Laden knows that turf very, very well, knows how to
fight (and to hide) in those mountains and passes and
valleys -- and he can use that knowledge and
experience to aid Taliban soldiers on both sides of the
border. (Being in Bajaur would also explain why
bin Laden's videos and audiotapes are always
promptly delivered -- by breathless courier! -- to
the Islamabad bureau of al Jazeera, a mere 90 miles
to the east. Bajaur would also give bin Laden
proximity, via Islamabad, to the medication and medical
equipment required to treat his kidney ailment.)
Further, Bajaur -- opium poppy country -- is one of seven
Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) in Pakistan,
which grants the region a good deal of autonomy from
the Zardari government in Islamabad. And that means
Zardari can't get at bin Laden the way he could if he were
hiding in, say, Karachi.
That's because the leaders in the Bajaur Agency -- it's not a
province, not a district -- technically report to the Governor
(or the Chief Minister) of the North-West Frontier
Province (NWFP), one of the four provinces in Pakistan,
not to the president of the country. (Hence the term
"agency," as the governor is the president's agent
in the region.)
According to the loose rules of the game in the
FATA -- how much "autonomy" is granted to the
tribal areas is always a matter of dispute -- President
Obama should (arguably) be negotiating with the
governor of the NWFP, not with Zardari, to have
bin Laden arrested or killed.
Other theories about bin Laden's hiding place (put forward
by the CIA, academics and journalists) aren't quite
as convincing.
Intelligence experts and newspapers have recently
speculated that bin Laden is in Chitral. Not likely.
Chitral -- in Pakistan's far north, nestled in mountains
almost as tall as Mt. Everest -- is too far from bin
Laden's support network and has a population not nearly
as loyal to him as the mujahideen in Bajaur.
And for all its remoteness, Chitral still answers directly
to the Zardari government and its legal system, unlike
Bajaur. The roads and passes to Chitral may be closed
(by snow) for seven months of the year, and it may be
a long fifteen hour drive from Peshawar under good
conditions, but it's still closer to the long arm of the
federal government than is Bajaur.
There's another interesting theory, this one from two UCLA
geography profs -- Thomas Gillespie and John Agnew -- who
published their findings in an MIT journal; they try
to find quantifiable criteria by which to pin down bin Laden's
location (e.g., Osama's 6' 4", so he he'd need a building with high
ceilings; how many tall buildings in such and such tribal area
are there?; etc.).
Unfortunately, that analysis ignores, among other
things, the fact that he could well be hiding in an
underground bunker, a la Saddam Hussein. And the
UCLA/MIT study also leaves out the human element: bin
Laden, first and foremost, would want to be among
people who are fiercely loyal and will protect him; he certainly
wants close proximity to his support network; and,
psychologically, he's likely attracted to the area where
he achieved his greatest triumphs in the
Soviet-Afghan war. That place is Bajaur.
The UCLA team pins bin Laden's location to
Parachinar in the Kurram agency area, southwest
of Peshawar, another FATA. But in my view,
that's likely where bin Laden was, not is.
Why? First, there's too much internecine fighting in that
area for bin Laden to be as safe as he would be in Bajaur.
Second, as I mentioned above, bin Laden was seen leaving
that area a few years ago -- in a single vehicle, not in a
convoy -- and that might well have been when he relocated from
there to Bajaur. (Using a single truck, instead of
a more conspicuous multiple-vehicle caravan, suggests he's
risk averse and doesn't travel often; the witness
who supposedly saw him traveling probably saw him
relocating.)
One of the problems with capturing bin Laden is the nature
of the Federally Administered Tribal Areas themselves. They're
sort of mini-states, rogues that are not really answerable to
a central government anywhere. How long will it be before
one of them decides to secede from Pakistan altogether?
With plenty of poppy money in areas like Bajaur, secession might
be an easy move.
Zardari should move the trendline the other way and begin
the process of integrating the FATA regions into the NWFP, so
that there is greater federal control and accountability
in those areas -- and greater federal control of outlaws
like bin Laden who hide there.
It's not likely, as one theory speculates, that
bin Laden is hiding in Chitral, Pakistan (above).
His main support network is to the south. And medication
and medical equipment to treat his kidney disease
are not as accessible there.
* * *
The Olde Days of "West Pakistan," when
it was a 19-year-old nation (and 9-year old
bin Laden lived elsewhere). [Esso map from 1966]
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- This column involves original research and
fresh thinking about where bin Laden is hiding. If
you are going to echo some of my ideas in print or
on television, please credit "freelance writer/reporter
Paul Iorio." Thank you.
__________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 15 - 18, 2009
Someone recently asked why I shelved by 2005 album
"About Myself."
Easy. It was recorded way too quickly. I learned
real fast that I can't record 52 songs in ten hours
and get the level of quality that I want.
Nowadays, I spend around a week on a single track!
Anyway, most of the songs I wrote for that album
I've since re-recorded for my "75 Songs" triple-CD (2008).
And since "75 Songs," I've released, in 2009, three
albums of brand new material: "The Riot Noise (Off
Avalon Green)," "Banned Music" and "Sittin' Around."
So 2005 is really ancient history for me, musically.
Still, if you're interested in the origins of the discontinued
"About Myself" album (and its quickie follow-up "Make a
Noise," aka, "Lime Green Celery"), here's the 411.
In 2005, an old pal from my high school days Bill Epps, who I
hadn't seen for 30 years, came to visit me -- and I played him
the cassette tape version of the "About Myself"
album, which included 52 of my own songs and which
I'd released in late '03 and early '04.
Well, he was knocked out and offered to finance a recording
session so that I could release my album on CD, and those
two sessions happened in Sept. 2005. In anticipation of
those sessions, I sent him tapes and lyric sheets of the
songs I'd written, and here're those letters (the first letter
was written to Bill in July '05, the second in August '05):
So there's the info (for anyone curious!). The lesson? Don't
try to record 52 songs in two short recording sessions! And
hope against hope that the guy who says he'll finance
your recording sessions isn't actually a swindler! (If Epps
is claiming (behind my back) that he wrote one note or
one word of any of my songs, he's a swindler.)
But I digress. Paul
[P.S. -- Inside baseball for a moment: the questions some smart
people are failing to ask (and the tell-tale clues, too):
"Bill, why don't you play us your own solo music? Why
isn't Bill focusing on his own stuff instead of on the
songs of others?" Hmm. I wonder why that would be. Maybe
that's because: as a writer, Bill is a terrific tech
support guy! If that's not true, then where's his own
good material? (Look, I wouldn't have to be so blunt if
he weren't being so dishonest behind my back.)]
P.S. -- I also long ago shelved my quickie follow-up to
"About Myself," 2007's "Make a Noise" (aka, "Lime Green
Celery"). Originally I released it on cassette tape
(and even in its cassette tape version, it was getting some
radio airplay!). Some of my 3-song single of '07 --
"Rich and Dumb"/"The Overwhelming Weight"/"You, Walking
Away" -- was getting radio airplay before it was even
on CD! Again, most of the songs I wrote for that album
I've since re-recorded for my "75 Songs" triple-CD (2008).
How did "The Overwhelming Weight (of the Water Blue Sky)" come
into existence? The title (and the rest of the song) came
to me on the way back from grocery shopping, and I wrote
the lyric on the back of a Safeway receipt dated October
21, 2006 (see below), the day the song was born! As I carried
home my groceries, this line went through
my head: "When the overwhelming weight of the water
blue sky comes crashing down." For months, all
I had was the chorus, and then a chord progression
emerged for the verses, and lyrics emerged from the melody.
Here is the grocery store receipt on which I wrote my
first inspiration for "The Overwhelming Weight" (below):
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 13, 2009
As a journalist who has written and reported about
free speech and censorship issues for
newspapers and magazines since 1985, I find it
encouraging to see PEN and others join
to oppose Yale University Press's disgraceful
and cowardly censorship of Jytte Klausen's book
“The Cartoons That Shook the World" (see The Daily
Digression, August 14, 2009, below).
Now that Yale is letting religious
fundamentalists have partial editorial
control of the books the university publishes,
I've come up with a new, more appropriate
logo for Yale, which I'm presenting here (above).
* * * *
The Madrassas High School Yearbook Parody
The other day I was flipping through The National Lampoon's
landmark parody "The 1964 High School Yearbook Parody" (1974),
one of the funniest pieces of print humor published in the last 50 years.
As I re-read it, I began thinking how hilarious it would be to
create such a high school yearbook for a madrassas, showing how
various ancient deities and modern militants looked in their
teenage school years.
So here's a taste of what I came up with (using text and photos
from the '64 parody):
^ ^ ^
But I digress. Paul
____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 12, 2009
Dylan's new album, "Christmas in the Heart," will be released tax deductible charity organizations!)
Bob Dylan's second consecutive show in Berkeley, Calif., last
night focused more on his latest album, "Together Through
Time," which he played half of. Unexpected stand-out was
the evocative "This Dream of You," setting the mood for
a show that was a bit more subdued and nuanced
than the previous night's gig (this was only the second
time he had ever performed that song).
Concert opened with a double blast of "Blonde on Blonde" --
an enjoyable "Leopard Skin Pillbox Hat," an exciting "Stuck
Inside of Mobile" -- and then went into "Time Out of Mind"'s
"Trying to Get to Heaven," which didn't work as well as the
previous night's fabulous "Cold Irons Bound."
Also notable was an electric "A Hard Rain's a-Gonna Fall," which
had people on the stairs in the hills above the theater (where I
heard the show) dancing; that song is nearly a half-century old
yet it still sounds as modern as any new folk tune, its lyrics
about the threat of nuclear war as timely as ever.
The tour continues with three nights in Los Angeles starting
tomorrow before making its way to the east coast, with
final shows in New York next month, and it's well worth
seeing.
I know people tend to take his shows for granted these
days -- he hasn't taken a full year off from touring since
1985, after all -- but they shouldn't, because he
wasn't always (and, one day, won't be) so ubiquitous.
My age group lived through a time -- let's call it The
Great Dylan Drought (oh, what youthful deprivation!) -- when,
for seven-and-a-half years (the equivalent of two
presidential terms, virtually), Dylan performed
almost no concerts. And there will surely come a
time -- certainly by the 2020s, if not before -- when he'll
simply be too old to perform. So enjoy him while you can!
But I digress. Paul
____________________________
for October 11, 2009
Last Night's Bob Dylan Concert
Above, my very first Bob Dylan concert (April 1976)! Here, Dylan jamswith Roger McGuinn on the Rolling Thunder Revue.
[photo by Paul Iorio]
Pop music does not get any better than the
stuff played last night at the Greek Theater in
Berkeley, Calif., by Bob Dylan and his band.
It was, without a doubt, the best concert I've heard
by anyone since Radiohead's gigs in 2006 and the Rolling
Stones' shows of '05.
I was, frankly, very pleasantly surprised. Over the decades, I've
seen my share of unremarkable Dylan shows, but this was
not one of them. At times, the music was nothing short of 100% fun.
The joys here were considerable, among them:
Dylan's first performance in over six years of "Mama, You Been
On My Mind," an outtake from "Another Side of Bob Dylan"
(though better choices from "Another Side" would have been
the unjustly forgotten "Black Crow Blues" and "Spanish Harlem
Incident," the only two I ever go back to on the 4th album).
Another highlight was "The Man in Me," which was upbeat
here, though so mournful (or at least melancholy) on "New Morning."
But this show made me re-think that 40-year-old track
and why it was mournful in the first place,
given the uplift in the part that goes,
"Oh, what a wonderful feeling..." Last night I
realized it's not a downbeat tune, after all.
Fascinating that a lot of his snarly, bitter
songs of the past are now infused with a sort of
good-timey, satisfied vibe that was notably absent
from the original recordings.
In recent years, let's face it, Dylan has
clearly discovered happiness, or at least
he gives that impression in his music.
I mean, the peak of the night was arguably
the pure fun of "Spirit on the Water," an unexpected
delight and outright triumph that had almost
everyone smiling and tapping their feet
-- and breaking into spontaneous applause
during the verse "You think, I'm over the
hill/Think, I'm past my prime." (Crowd
enthusiasm was everywhere, even in the
hills above the theater where I heard the show.)
.
And "Spirit" is, of course, not a Sixties classic but
from his astonishingly fertile post-1997 period,
a late career comeback that has completely
re-written the book on his oeuvre.
Almost 50 years after he arrived in the Village from
Dinkytown, we can now see the nearly final shape of Dylan's
Picasso-esque career, and there are four distinct peaks:
his first eight albums, where most of the classics are; his
1970s resurgence, from "Planet Waves" to "Street Legal,"
his second best period; his gospel and post-gospel period,
from "Slow Train Coming' to "World Gone Wrong," his least
satisfying years; and his post-'97 resurgence, from
"Time Out of Mind" to "Christmas in the Heart," a holiday
album being released this Tuesday.
Inexplicably, it's his 1970s work that is
missing-in-action on this tour. Dylan has performed
nothing from the "Planet Waves"/"Blood on
the Tracks"/"Desire"/"Street Legal" albums since
July (except for a single performance of "Forever
Young" last August). Yet that's some of his very
best work; you'd think "Forever Young" and
"Tangled Up in Blue," at the very least, would be
permanent parts of his setlist.
Meanwhile, he has re-worked some of his Sixties
classics in the style of his post-'97 material;
"Ballad of a Thin Man," for example, fits well with his
new style of creating verses by splitting simple lines in half
for maximum impact (as shown on such recent
tunes as "Highlands" and "Nettie Moore");
"Thin Man" almost sounded like a "Time Out of Mind" track,
not a bad thing.
Dylan's 2009 concerts have been structured something like a Rolling
Stones show; sets by both acts end with a fixed batch of five or six
classics ("Satisfaction"/"Jumpin' Jack Flash," etc. in the Stones's
case; "Like a Rolling Stone"/"All Along the Watchtower," etc. in
Dylan's).
But both acts always reshuffle the deck in the first half,
adding and subtracting obscurities and surprise selections to sometimes
thrilling effect ("All Down the Line" instead of "Bitch," in the Stones's case;
"The Man in Me" instead of 'Visions of Johanna," in Dylan's).
And the structure works, with the best parts being
the less predictable ones in the first half.
All told, I came away from the show in a terrific mood,
as if I had just seen a great ball game that my
team had won. And I woke up wide awake this morning.
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 10, 2009
Last Night's Jason Mraz Concert
Last night's concert by Jason Mraz was his second
at the Greek Theater in Berkeley, Calif., in a year,
and since I covered the previous one (see the Nov. 3, 2008,
Digression, below) I won't go on at length here about
last night's gig.
This show was sort of Mraz's victory lap for the
success of his latest album, "We Sing. We Dance. We
Steal Things," now a year-and-a-half old. When he was
at the Greek last November, his breakthrough hit, "I'm
Yours," was at number ten on the Billboard charts, and
the shrieks of fans were wild when he played it.
He performed that one here, too, and the fans still shrieked
a bit (even in the hills above the theater, where I heard the
gig); the tune already has the familiarity of a song that's
been around for decades.
Elsewhere, Mraz's predilection for the great pop singles
of around 40 years ago was also in evidence once more;
last year he did an exuberant cover of The Foundations' "Build
Me Up, Buttercup"; last night he performed a terrific
version of Norman Greenbaum's "Spirit in the Sky" (a very
seductive pop song, except for those lousy religious lyrics!).
Opening for Mraz was folk-rocker Brett Dennen,
whose influences range from Paul Simon's "Graceland" period
to Dave Matthews and Counting Crows; his best song here was
"Heaven," from his "Hope for the Hopeless" album, which he
also performed on last night's David Letterman show (an
appearance he plugged from the stage last night).
Starting out the evening was the promising singer-songwriter
Robert Francis whose songs at times recalled Arcade Fire circa
"Funeral."
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Regarding today's assault by Hakimullah Mehsud's
Taliban on Pakistan's army headquarters: I told
ya so (see: the Digression, "The Joker is Wild...and Alive,"
October 6, below). As today's attack shows, the real
threat in that region is the possibility of a coup
by Mehsud. Today's takeover was almost a rough draft
of a coup. If that were to happen, and it could,
the U.S. would be in a nuclear conflict in Pakistan within
weeks. Zardari had better examine the backgrounds of the
officers in his military and root out those with strong
Taliban loyalties (the fact that they are helping him
in Kashmir should not blind him to the reality that they
are also trying to wrest power from him). President
Obama: save your surge for the day when we will have
to use American troops to extract Mehsud from power in
Islamabad.
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 9, 2009
To those who say President Obama is undeserving of the Nobel
Peace Prize, I ask....compared to who? (Morgan Tsvangirai?
Bono?)
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 6, 2009
The Joker is Wild -- and Still Alive!
Roll over, bin Laden, there's a new
deadly new snake in Waziristan.
Yeah, he's as dangerous as he looks. Two years ago, he captured 300 Pakistani
soldiers (and officers) and held them hostage until his demands were met -- and
military experts are still trying to figure out how he pulled it off. He's
fond of driving to the edge of cliffs at high speeds, stopping inches before
a steep drop and then laughing like some celluloid villain
from an action movie, according to a BBC reporter who saw such
a thing happen first-hand.
Meet Hakimullah Mehsud, the head of Pakistan's Taliban.
Still in his twenties, he would be in charge of his nation's
nukes, if he ever managed to stage a coup and topple Zardari.
Last week, newspaper reports claimed he had been
killed in a military skirmish. But over the weekend, he
proved reports of his death were highly exaggerated, as he
held a sometimes jokey press conference in South Waziristan,
showing he was not only still alive but in good humor, too (one report
said he showed reporters a laptop video of a jihadist comedian
telling jokes).
South Waziristan is Mehsud's home turf. Born there (near the
hick town of Jandola). And he's a pure product of the local madrassas,
where he wasn't taught biology or algebra or Gandhi or Galileo but
was schooled in the Koran, the Koran and -- also -- the Koran.
He learned stuff like: "God's curse be upon the infidels," "God is the
enemy of the unbelievers," "Theirs shall be a woeful punishment"
and "God does not guide the unbelievers." In short, a well-rounded
education.
One report says there are more than 12,000 Taliban jihadists, armed
like an army, in the mountains and caves of South Waziristan,
and they all report to Mehsud. Perhaps this is where the U.S.
should focus, at least covertly, while we wage explicit battle
against Mehsud's Taliban comrades on the Afghan side of the border.
The Taliban, of course, has been the traditional protector
and supporter of al Qaeda and are almost certainly
protecting and supporting bin Laden now in Pakistan.
(Remember Bob Woodward's famous 2001 report in the
Washington Post exposing the Taliban as a "wholly-owned
subsidiary of bin Laden" "owned and operated"
by al Qaeda, and noting that bin Laden helped to
prop up Mullah Omar's Taliban regime by giving it
more than a hundred million dollars.)
Right now, the U.S. seems more concerned with
Ahmadinejad developing nukes, and we shouldn't be.
Iran and North Korea are, unfortunately, the world's next
nuclear armed nations. Period. Sanctions won't
stop them. And both nations know no country would
dare use military force against them.
No, the U.S. and U.N. will have to swallow hard and
accept (either now or later) the fact that the nuclear
club has two new members. We must understand a truth:
it matters less which nations have nuclear weapons than which leaders are
running those nations. Nations are not fixed entities. They are
only as benevolent or as malevolent as their leadership.
Gemany under Merkel is a progressive ally; Germany
under Hitler was a different beast altogether. Pakistan
with nukes is not dangerous -- now. Under Zardari, the
stockpile is safe. But if Mehsud were to ascend to power
there, we would probably be seeing mushroom clouds
shortly thereafter.
The crucial question about proliferation is not whether Iran
will soon have nukes; it's whether the nukes
of Pakistan will soon be controlled by someone like Mehsud.
* * * * *
What the Zazi Plot Inadvertently Reveals About al Qaeda
The Najibullah Zazi case -- he's the militant who was
apparently planning to detonate a peroxide bomb in New York
City -- inadvertently gives us brand new information about
al Qaeda. Here are nine things Zazi's plot tells us or implies:
1. The Zazi plot tells us we were right: bin Laden is probably
in northwest Pakistan; it stands to reason that bin Laden and
his support network (the people who invited Zazi to Peshawar)
wouldn't be so far removed from one another.
2. There's a really good chance that Zazi knows damn well where
Osama bin Laden is hiding. He was at al Qaeda training camps
last Fall as a trusted recruit, talking with people who had been
in contact with bin Laden. That's why we need to be, uh, very
persuasive with this guy (though, as Jeffrey Toobin wrote in
TNY, don't go pulling out the waterboard; you'll just
jeopardize your own prosecution).
3. Al Qaeda is probably learning from the Zazi failure
right now. What must al Qaeda be thinking right now about Zazi's
arrest? Well, at first, obviously, they were surely thinking:
dammit, they caught Zazi! When that phase passed, they started
thinking: hmm, Zazi wouldn't have been arrested or even suspected
if he had been buying all those beauty supplies for the
purpose of...opening a beauty salon. Next time we do this,
if we try the same line, we'll use somebody who owns or
wants to open a beauty shop, because then he would have a
legit reason to buy gallons and gallons of explosives.
4. The Zazi plot tells us al Qaeda apparently has not been
able to bring explosives on ships into American ports (or
they would have tried it). And note that they did not
even attempt to have Zazi smuggle bomb ingredients on his
plane flight home, which suggests new airline
security measures are working, inhibiting them from trying
that route.
5. The Zazi plot suggests al Qaeda is still operating on a DIY
level. I mean, 9/11 was a really low budget affair; bin Laden
didn't have to build missiles or warheads or send boats or
troops; he simply had people use....box cutters, available
at the local hardware store for $4.99. Al Qaeda likes
to play with commonly available materials and to find
ways to game security systems.
Such was also the case with the Zazi plot. Zazi was not
trying to assemble a nuclear weapon or a dirty bomb when
he was caught. If his al Qaeda trainers in Peshawar
had access to radioactive material, can you imagine they
wouldn't have found a way to supply him with it?
6. Al Qaeda is now reduced to recruiting young,
unskilled amateurs. Clearly, they couldn't enlist a
professional chemist or engineer for the
peroxide bomb project. Zazi was sloppily going on the
Internet trying to learn how to mix peroxide with acetone.
(Keep in mind that eight years ago, the 9/11 hijackers
took time to develop a technical skill, piloting, that
enabled them to carry out their plot.)
7. Yes, unfortunately, our worst fears are true about mosques
harboring militants in America. If there is another al
Qaeda cell in the U.S. right now, it is, sad to say, probably
being protected by members of a mosque somewhere. Which
means the JTFF should probably -- sensitively -- step
up its infiltration and scrutiny of mosques in America.
8. New York City remains the main target for al
Qaeda, because they can easily rack up a large body count
with an attack on such a huge vertical city.
9. The eight years since 9/11 haven't diminished al
Qaeda's obsession with killing Americans on U.S. soil.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Almost every week, it seems, somebody asks me about
or comments on a song I've written, and I'm very glad when
my stuff connects with someone. In the last few days,
someone has been curious about "BAYONET SKY," which
I wrote in 1998 in Los Angeles, first released in 2003
on cassette tape, released on CD in 2006 (for my
now-discontinued "About Myself" album), and then
released (for good!) on my "75 Songs" album last year.
How did I come up with it? My influences were two:
the Who (that's where I got the anger!) and Lawrence
Ferlinghetti (one of his poems had the word "bayonet"
on one line and the word "concrete sky" on the next
line, I think, and so my mind suddenly created
"bayonet sky"). It has not changed a bit since I wrote
it on my couch on Detroit Street in Los Angeles in
'98, and I still enjoy playing it.
Another song of mine people have been curious about
is my more recent tune "THE DAY WHEN THE EARTHQUAKE COMES"
(and some seem to like my line "stocking up on tuna and low
vegetation").
How did that one come about? Since I always email my songs
to myself right after I write them, there is no mystery about
its evolution. I came up with "Earthquake" on July 24, 2009,
after having a couple beers and playing guitar alone in my
apartment. I was in a loose mood, hit a Ray Davies-ish groove,
and the song came tumbling out, almost whole. My original
line was "stocking up on tuna and more vegetation." Then,
on July 25, I changed it to "stocking up on tuna and no
vegetation," and it stayed that way until August 12, 2009, when
I finally changed the line to "stocking up on tuna and low vegetation."
And it works nicely, I think. Glad some people enjoy it.
_____________________________________
for October 5, 2009
Also at BAM: Warhol's "Vote McGovern." If you're in Berkeley, Calif., run, do not walk, to
see the exhibition of photography by Ari Marcopoulos at
the Berkeley Art Museum (BAM). This former assistant to
Andy Warhol shoots photos that are as fascinating and
original and striking as those by any other photographer
of his generation. I was so taken by his pictures
that I went through the collection once and then walked
through a second time just for the enjoyment. There are
dreamers in bedrooms, surreal ice, complexity in simplicity,
Alaska and Iran as you've never seen them and, everywhere,
people, characters you care about, as close as you can come
to photographing a pysche, in some cases. Check it out
at BAM (through Feb. 7, 2010).
* * *
Speaking of Andy Warhol, BAM has a couple obscure and
unusual works by him on display: "Race Riot," an adaptation
of a photo of a 1963 riot in Birmingham, Ala.; and
"Vote McGovern" (1972) (above).
* * *
While I'm on the subject of photography, here's one of
my own that I shot a few weeks ago in San Francisco
(that's Alcatraz in the distance):
San Francisco, split by a traffic sign. [photo by Paul Iorio]
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Just caught tonight's Next Big Thing on KALX. As
always, interesting stuff via Marshall Stax. Enjoyed
iamoneiamoneiamone. Loved the title "Swinger's Wig."
NBT is must-hear radio (particularly for A&R people -- and
for anyone else who likes to hear new and emerging
acts before everyone else hears 'em!).
__________________________
for October 3 - 4, 2009
Is the Hardly Strictly Fest More Popular Than Jesus?
There were so many people at the fest thatthis was the closest I came to seeing John Prine!
[photo by Paul Iorio]
Back when the annual Hardly Strictly Bluegrass music fest in San
Francisco (which, by the way, is not a strictly bluegrass fest)
was an insider secret, it was even more fun than it is now. In
the old days -- up until last year, in fact -- you could
saunter right up to the stage in Golden Gate Park on a
lazy Friday afternoon and see and photograph folk and pop
icons like Robert Plant, Alison Krauss, Elvis Costello,
John Mellencamp and Jeff Tweedy. As if they were playing
in your own backyard.
But then word got out. Suddenly, this Garbo of music
fests -- mostly unadvertised, the brainchild of banjo playing
entrepreneur Warren Hellman, and (best of all) free of charge
to all -- became (what's the word?) crowded. Somewhere
along the way it turned into the Can't-Hardly-See-the-Stage fest.
I mean, last year I walked right to the front of the stage and
saw every bead of sweat on Robert Plant's face. This year, from
a distance, on my toes, I saw John Prine in what I think was a
black jacket.
That said, Prine, kicking off this year's fest with Lyle Lovett,
was in fine voice yesterday, singing some of his greatest
songs ("Paradise," "Angel from Montgomery," "Picture Show,"
etc.), as some boomers in their fifties and sixties in the
crowd sang along to every single word as if they were
singing along to hymns.
Concert reminded me what a terrific writer Prine is,
his ability to cut-through-the-crap almost punkish
lyrically, though musically I sorta wish he'd consider
collaborating with a more unconventional musical
partner like, say, Jeff Tweedy, who might move him
into more formally unpredictable musical
turf.
Preceding him was Tom Morello, who performed an
interesting, partly-hip hop version of Woody Guthrie's
"This Land," calling it the alternative national anthem
(which is also what I said in my Digression of August
3, 2009 (below), and what others have noted, too). And
truly, Guthrie's tune resonates like few others. (It
seems every concert I attend these days -- from last
summer's Counting Crows's gig in Berkeley (which
closed with "This Land") to Wilco's show a couple
months ago (featuring "California Stars") -- includes
something by Woody.
By the way, what's the formal procedure for changing
the national anthem in the U.S.? Do citizens petition
the Congress or does the president introduce a bill to
change it? Whatever the route, perhaps we should seize
the national zeitgeist right now and take the opportunity
to give ourselves a first-class anthem instead
of that god-awful unsingable "Star Spangled Banner."
(But I digress.)
Anyhoo, regrettably, I couldn't stay to hear Lyle Lovett,
though I do hope to check out some of the rest of the fest,
which runs through Sunday (upcoming highlights include Marshall
Crenshaw, Nick Lowe, Dar Williams and World Party, all
on Saturday!).
Here's how big the crowd was in the hour before Lovett's set!
[photo by Paul Iorio]
* * *
Some people listened to the music from this pond near
the stage in Golden Gate Park [photo by Paul Iorio].
[By the way, I snapped this pic yesterday evening, after Prine's
set, and am presenting it here without any adjustment or
enhancement (not even contrast adjustment). The light in the
park was unusual late yesterday.]
* * * *
Re: Rio's Win
Perhaps Denmark thought America, with its strange new
priorities in extradition, might have been too dicey
a place for international athletes to congregate.
* * * *
When the Workplace Turns From a Meritocracy to a Fellatio-tocracy
Yes, it's sad and bad that David Letterman was the
victim of an extortion plot, which all
reasonable people condemn. And this distraction comes
at a time when Letterman is, frankly, funnier than
he has ever been. I watch him almost every night
and laugh and laugh.
But -- hate to bring this up -- the fact that he had
affairs with staffers who reported to him
is not an insubstantial thing. And not for the predictable
reasons either.
Have you ever worked in an office where a colleague is
sleeping with the boss? I have. Many years ago I worked
for a company (which will go unnamed) where the top person
was screwing a female staffer, and everybody knew it,
and everybody knew how unfair it was.
It wasn't unfair to her -- she was having a high ol' time
as the beneficiary of the boss's favors, in and out of
the bedroom. It was unfair to staffers like me, whose
work was bumped in favor of her substandard stuff,
who never had business trip expenses paid the way
hers were, etc. (People would look at her writing and
say, "She sucks!" And she did suck -- the boss!)
I mean how do you fairly handle issues like employee performance
evaluations if it's well known that the boss is having sex with
that employee? Imagine the manager who is charged with writing
up an evaluation on such a staffer; there would obviously be
implicit pressure to give the person an A rating when
she merits a C.
What if Birkitt came in chronically late and missed
meetings? Imagine the implicit pressure on the manager to not
report that for a performance evaluation.
Imagine the talented "Late Show" writer who has paid his
dues, worked his butt off, and wants a shot at writing
a "Top Ten" list, only to find that his funny "Top Ten"
lists get scuttled in favor of mediocre stuff by an intern
who Letterman is screwing?
That's who the victims are in this case: the staffers
whose careers were put at a disadvantage because of
advantages given to Letterman's paramours.
It creates an atmosphere of favoritism and unfairness, a
tendency to grant someone like Birkitt advantages that
others aren't getting, because there's
always the unspoken threat in an affair that the woman
will start talking. So if Letterman had angered Birkitt
by, say, rejecting one of her on-camera sketch proposals,
there would be a risk that she might be mad enough to
leak word of the affair. Hence, she almost certainly
got more airtime than worthier contenders who
weren't given such a shot onscreen.
Further, suppose Letterman had made a sexual pass to
one of the female writers, and she said, no, thank you,
Dave. In the wake of such an interaction, all decisions
regarding that employee become tainted, suspect; it
would be impossible to see pure and professional
motives when the woman's sketches and "Top Ten" lists
start getting rejected and performance evaluations
about her become transparently unfair or excessively harsh.
Such affairs transform the workplace from a meritocracy to
a fellatio-tocracy!
Most of the talk about the Letterman affair has, wrongly,
been about whether such actions violate some code of
workplace etiquette. And his supporters note, irrelevantly,
that Birkitt and the others have not filed a lawsuit or
even a complaint against Letterman. (I can imagine
that Birkitt would not see herself as a victim; she
got a lot of airtime (that she wouldn't have otherwise
had) out of the relationship.)
But that's not the point. The people who should be filing
lawsuits are the other staffers whose careers were
stunted because Letterman was giving preferential
treatment to his lovers.
That said, to be honest, I'm not entirely sure that I would
fare better than Letterman if I were in Letterman's
position. Let's face it: some women are incredibly
desirable, downright irresistible -- and nobody's
immune to desire.
* * * *
People really seem to be picking up on my song "Paradox"
lately -- thanks to all who have emailed me praising it.
(I like it, too!) It began life as an instrumental I wrote
in January 2009 (the instr is on my "Banned Music" album,
in fact). Then in the spring of '09, I wrote a melody
and lyric about various everyday paradoxes, and that's
how the song came about. I should note that in 2003, I
wrote another song with the same sort of theme called
"Backfire" and released the song on a cassette tape album
in '03. I was going to put it on my now-defunct "About Myself"
album in '05, but decided against it. Instead, I plan
to release "Backfire" on the much-delayed fourth disc
of "75 Songs," which I've been recording for awhile.
(Probably 2010 for that one; I'm too busy writing
brand new songs.)
But I digress. Paul
______________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 30, 2009
Listen to Paul Iorio talking with Roman Polanski at myspace.com/pauliorioo
More on Polanski
Prosecuting the Swingin' Sixties? Not Quite, But...
Well, it's now quite obvious that Obama is not going to
grant clemency to Roman Polanski. No way, no how. And
it's also obvious that he would be a political pariah
if he did.
But that just shows what a sorry state we've come to in
the U.S.A. It's hard to believe that a president would
be less of a pariah for releasing a guilty terrorist
at Guantanamo than for releasing a world class
film director for a crime committed a third of a century ago.
The other day in this space I wrote that
Polanski should get the same level of leniency
given to released Guantanamo detainees. Another
writer, in a thoughtful but wrongheaded commentary,
subsequently offered another Polanski-Gitmo analysis,
saying the U.S. can't tell the Swiss to ignore the
law just as America is insisting on enforcing the
rule of law at Gitmo.
That analysis is off. Truth is,
the U.S. is applying excessive leniency at
Guantanamo by not applying the "preponderance of
evidence" standard of proof for the inmates there,
who are being released and are, in way too many
cases, returning to the battlefield to fight
for al Qaeda.
The law should always conform to common sense,
not vice versa. There is something wrong on a
very basic level with releasing a Gitmo inmate
like Abdullah Mehsud, who, mere months later,
returned to his job killing innocent civilians for
al Qaeda (he went on to bomb a hotel, for crissakes!).
And the legal experts who get too deep in the details and
urge the release of a Mehsud because of some
technicality -- because an affidavit wasn't signed
on time and in triplicate -- are ignoring
a central fact: the man is guilty of homicide.
And worse than that, he's a continuing threat to society.
Polanski, on the other hand, is no threat to society and
makes brilliant artworks that move culture forward. Further,
his victim insists she was more a victim of the judge
than of Polanski's actions.
What practical purpose would be served by
reconvening the tabloid circus in L.A.?
What Polanski did in the 1970s to Samantha Geimer was
indefensible, no question about that. But, truth be told,
such misbehavior was not considered nearly as serious
in 1977 as it is today. (It's almost a metaphor: in 1977,
you could smoke in your office at work; in 2009, you
can't even smoke outside your office building.)
It's almost -- almost -- like we're prosecuting an era, the
Swingin' Sixties. If one lives long enough, it seems, almost
everything one did decades ago will gradually become
illegal, even felonious. If Thomas Jefferson had lived
to 110, he might have been prosecuted (or at least persecuted)
for having had slaves in the early 19th century, even though
everybody, even progressives, were backward in that same way
in those days. If baby boomers live long enough, almost
everything they did recreationally in the Sixties and
Seventies will be bumped up to the felony level.
For a moment, let's take ourselves out of both the 1970s and
the 2000s and imagine the Polanski case as seen from the
year 2209. Let's assume that Polanski is considered, as he
is now, one of the seminal visual artists of his century, on par
with such Renaissance masters as Caravaggio and
Botticelli.
Let's look at the case of Caravaggio. He killed and assaulted
people. He was incorrigibly violent. Nobody then or now
would seriously suggest that Caravaggio shouldn't have been
imprisoned for a long time -- whether he was an artistic genius
or not.
On the other hand, Leonard da Vinci had an affair with an
underaged model at Verrocchio's studio early in his career,
and the Florentine authorities were going to put him in
prison for sodomy, which would have ended his career early
and deprived the human race of major works of art and science.
But instead, in a decision that history has
applauded for centuries, the powers-that-be in Firenze
declined to press charges against him, and Leonardo
went free.
Polanski's crime was far closer to Leonardo's than to
Caravaggio's. And the people of the 2200s will probably look
back at the olde days of 2009 and at how we treated one of
our greatest artists and say, "Yes, they did the right thing in
letting him live his final years in freedom, the way the
Florentines freed Leonardo." Or they might say, "They were
way too harsh with someone who had done so much to move
culture forward."
And his contributions to society and to his profession
do matter in considering this case. (If an oncologist
on the verge of curing melanoma had an affair
with a 17-year old student, he would (and should) be
treated differently by the court than an unemployed
drunk who committed the same crime. For obvious reasons.)
If Polanski's crimes were as serious as Caravaggio's, his
artistic stature wouldn't matter a bit. He would have to
go to jail, no matter what the mitigating factors. But
his transgressions are more like Leonardo's, and
because his talent is far bigger than his crime (and for
other reasons), there should be leniency.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Today is the 2,941st day that Osama bin Laden has eluded
arrest for the mass murders of 9/11.
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 29, 2009
Here's is an editorial on the Roman Polanski case that appears
in tomorrow's edition of The New York Times; my comments on
the editorial are in red caps:
Roman Polanski was arrested on Saturday at the Zurich airport
on an American-issued warrant. But to hear the protests from the
French, the Poles and other Europeans, you might have thought the
filmmaker was seized by some totalitarian regime for speaking truth
to power.
“Judicial lynching,” said Jack Lang, the former French culture minister.
“Absolutely horrifying,” echoed the current French culture minister,
Frédéric Mitterrand. “Provocation!” shouted Andrzej Wajda and other
Polish filmmakers. From across Europe, nearly 100 representatives of
the entertainment industry, including Pedro Almodóvar and Wim
Wenders, signed a petition declaring themselves “dismayed” by the arrest,
especially since it happened at the time of the Zurich Film Festival.
But hold on a moment. After being indicted in 1977, didn’t Mr. Polanski,
now 76, confess to having sex with a 13-year-old girl after plying her
with Quaaludes and Champagne? Didn’t he flee the United States when
the plea bargaining seemed to fall apart, raising the prospect of prison time?
Isn’t there a warrant for his arrest? [WARRANTS ARE NEVER
ENFORCED EQUALLY. LAW ENFORCEMENT ALWAYS PRIORITIZES
WHICH CRIMINALS IT WILL GO AFTER AND WHICH IT WON'T.
GENERALLY, THE AUTHORITIES TEND TO GO AFTER PEOPLE
WHO POSE A CURRENT THREAT TO OTHERS, WHICH MAKES
SENSE. POLANSKI CLEARLY DOESN'T FALL IN THAT CATEGORY.]
There was something strange about the Swiss deciding to arrest the
director now, after having let him freely move in and out of the country for
three decades. And a 2008 documentary by Marina Zenovich, “Roman
Polanski: Wanted and Desired,” raised some troubling questions about
the bizarre way a celebrity-hungry judge in California, Laurence Rittenband,
handled the case.
Yet where is the injustice [WHERE IS THE VICTIM?] in bringing to justice
someone who pleads guilty to statutory rape and then goes on the lam,
no matter how talented he may be? [YOU ACT LIKE THE JUSTICE
SYSTEM IS JUST A MECHANICAL PROCESS DIVORCED FROM
COMMON SENSE THAT MUST GO FORWARD ON OLD, DEAD
CASES, EVEN WHEN THERE ARE FAR MORE PRESSING ISSUES TO
DEAL WITH. BUT YOU'RE BEING DISINGENUOUS AND YOU'RE
TIMES'S EDITORIAL PAGE INSISTING THAT PROSECUTORS BRING,
SAY, CRYSTAL GAIL MANGUM TO JUSTICE IN THE DUKE UNIVERSITY
DEFAMATION CASE, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS SHOWN WITHOUT A
SHE HAD ALMOST CAUSED VIOLENT RIOTS WITH HER LIES, BUT,
NO, NOT EVERY FELON CAN BE PROSECUTED, SOME PROSECUTIONS
ARE UNWISE, PRIORITIES MUST BE SET. AH, SELECTIVE
CREATED REAL VICTIMS! SIDENOTE: HOW COME LEVI JOHNSTON CAN CONFESS TO
HAVING UNLAWFUL INTERCOURSE WITH BRISTOL PALIN
(HE WAS 18, SHE WAS 17, WHICH MAKES IT STATUTORY
RAPE) WITHOUT PEOPLE CALLING IT "A VERY SERIOUS
CRIME" THAT SHOULD BE PROSECUTED?]
In Europe, the prevailing mood — at least among those with access to
the news media — seemed to be that Mr. Polanski has already “atoned
for the sins of his young years,” as Jacek Bromski, the chief of the Polish
Filmmakers Association, put it.
We disagree strongly, and we were glad to see other prominent Europeans
beginning to point out that this case has nothing to do with Mr. Polanski’s
work or his age. [POLANSKI'S WORK AND STATURE AS AN ARTIST
ARE RELEVANT IN THIS CASE; THE AMERICAN JUDICIAL SYSTEM
RELATED TO WHETHER THE ACCUSED IS OTHERWISE DOING
GOOD FOR SOCIETY AND POSES NO THREAT TO ANYONE,] It is
about an adult preying on a child [A CHILD WHO HAS SINCE GROWN
INTO A MIDDLE-AGED ADULT WHO ADVOCATES THE DROPPING
OF CHARGES AGAINST POLANSKI (AND WHO, BY THE WAY, DOESN'T
WANT TO BE VICTIMIZED ALL OVER AGAIN BY ANOTHER ROUND IN
THE SPOTLIGHT -- YOU'RE IGNORING THE HUMAN ELEMENT
account for it [AGAIN, YOU TAKE THE BUREAUCRATIC ATTITUDE
THAT THE LAW IS A MECHANICAL CREATURE THAT MUST
MARCH FORWARD INTO THE BIG MUDDY EVEN WHEN
COMMON SENSE SAYS OTHERWISE] .
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Today is the 2,940th day that Osama bin Laden has eluded
arrest for the mass murders of 9/11.
________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 27, 2009
Editorial
Why Obama Should Grant Clemency To Polanski
Why Shouldn't Polanski Receive the Same Leniency Given to
Scores of Released Gitmo Detainees?
The Swiss authorities may have overstepped in arresting
film director Roman Polanski last night on a 31-year old
warrant but that doesn't mean President Obama has to go
along with it. Obama could step in right now and grant
clemency to Polanski, ending the further
victimization of a cinematic genius who has suffered
more than enough in his lifetime, first at the hands of
the Nazis and then via the Manson gang.
Already I hear the talk, justified or not, in the Hollywood
community: shouldn't Polanski be granted
the same level of leniency that Obama is giving to the scores
of released detainees at Guantanamo (who -- and I hate to
mention this -- are returning to the al Qaeda fold
in too many cases)? [Oh, I know, I can hear it now: "there's
a huge difference yada yada yada." Yeah, there is a
huge difference: Polanski poses no threat to society,
most of the Gitmo detainees do.]
The reasons for clemency (if not an outright pardon)? The case
against Polanski is deeply flawed, and new evidence has
recently come to light about malfeasance committed by
the disqualified judge in the case. Plus, Polanski is
advanced in years and -- far from being a threat to
anyone -- is a pillar of the film community, as the
presidents of both France (his home) and Poland
(his birthplace) have noted since his arrest.
Extradition itself would be a disproportionate punishment
in this instance.
Obama can and should correct this injustice and allow
Polanski, who has contributed so much to the cultural
richness of the world, to live his final years and decades
in freedom.
* * * *
How long will it be before we start seeing these bumper stickers?
* * *
P.S. -- By the way, since I mentioned Guantanamo: what do
I suggest we do with the detainees at Gitmo? We should close
Gitmo, transfer each detainee to either a civilian or military
court in the U.S. and try them using the "preponderance of
evidence" standard of proof we use for mililtary cases,
rather than the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. Because
the alleged crimes are too serious to allow even one
guilty inmate to go free. The U.S. is currently in the absurd
position of releasing guys like Abdullah Mehsud and Mohammed
Ismail, only to find that they're now on the battlefield
near Kandahar killing our troops.
* * *
By now, everyone knows new SNLer Jenny Slate accidentally
used the word "fuck" on the air last night when talking
to Kristen Wiig (which has been my dream for a long
time -- just joking!). But seriously, folks, isn't it
time we changed the rules about late-night free speech?
This is 2009. Maybe it's time to revise the FCC rules
a bit. I mean, what would be wrong with allowing people
to say the word "fuck" on broadcast television after, say,
midnight and before 5am? Maybe Slate's slip will
spur changes in the Standards & Practices dept.
But I digress. Paul
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 26, 2009
The Grand Central Bomber
Naji, who seems to have come real close to detonating
a bomb at Grand Central Station, lives at 22959 E. Smoky
Hill Road in Aurora, Colorado (in case someone wants to
help him move his stuff from his apartment).
Do you realize how close we came to a newspaper headline
reading: "Grand Central Station Bombed; Over 1,500 Feared
Dead, Thousands Injured; Al Qaeda Link Probed"?
Do you realize how close this came to happening on President
Obama's watch?
One of the most progressive regimes in American history
is now in power, and yet the jihadist threat to the U.S.
homeland remains undiminished, even inflamed.
It seems there is no amount of conciliation that could
possibly placate religious absolutists who think
all non-believers are infidels who must be either
converted or killed.
The latest jihadist plot rivals 9/11 -- and it almost happened.
The facts seem to point unmistakably to the following scenario:
A guy named Najibullah Zazi (nicknamed "Naji") and several of
his religulous buddies were prepariing to park a U-Haul
truck, with a peroxide bomb in it, next to Grand Central Station
in New York. And then they were going to set it off, killing
or wounding everybody at Grand Central, including (but not
limited to) mothers carrying their babies, underpaid office
workers, cripples on crutches, janitors, and probably a few
devout Muslims and pro-Palestinians, too.
Naji even traveled to the Muslim-redneck city of Peshawar
last fall for a few months, learning from al Qaeda members
how to build and detonate such a bomb. When he came back
to America last January, he moved from Parsons Blvd. in
Flushing to East Ontario Drive in Aurora, Colorado, before
finally moving to his current residence on East Smoky
Hill Road, from which he is now being evicted.
But while in Flushing, Naji made friends who helped him in his
mass murder plot. Friends like cabbie Naiz Khan (I think his
address is 3720 81st St. in Jackson Heights, Queens) who
was seen trying to rent a U-Haul truck around the time Naji
was a-drivin' into town from Aurora to spend the night
with Khan in Queens.
Another Flushing bud of Naji's was an imam at a Queens
mosque (address: 141 - 47 33rd Ave., in Flushing) named
Ahmad Wais Afzail, who tipped off Naji that the FBI was
suspicious of him. (I tried to call the president of the
mosque, Abdul Rahman Jalili, to ask him
why he hired such an imam, whether he would condemn the
actions of Afzail and of Naji if the accusations were proved
true. I also wanted to ask if he is investigating whether
others in his mosque are involved in such plots. But, alas,
the mosque's phone answering machine had reached its limit
of messages.)
* * *
As If Spinal Tap Never Happened
First things first: I personally like Sammy Hagar. I spoke
with him at length in the 1980s when he had just replaced
David Lee Roth in Van Halen. Very natural, amiable
fellow.
But his new band Chickenfoot should really consider
changing its name to Chickenshit. Because, judging from
the part of the concert I heard last night in Berkeley, Calif.,
it's a terrible band, its music packed with the most generic
metal and hard rock cliches.
At times, it sounded like I was listening to an
industrial noise site where workers were screaming
over the din, the overamplification being as bad
as anything I've experienced. (Don't get me wrong:
I'm a fan of overamplification, but only if what is
being over-amped is good to begin with. This wasn't.)
Even outside the open-air theater in the
hills, where I heard it, you had to shout to be heard.
I mean, the deer were putting their hooves over their
ears as they galloped away to Grizzly Peak. Even the
mountain lions were traumatized. Even terrorists
were driven away by the extreme volume. Birds started
flying south for the winter early. Smart Cal students
in their dorms probably thought Spinal Tap had
touched down on campus.
But, truth be told, the fans ate it up, every bit of it.
And at least for this one night at this one venue, my
view was not shared by many others.
* * * *
New Theory About the Finale of "The Sopranos"
Re-watched the final episodes of "The Sopranos" last week
and came upon something I hadn't seen before in the
now legendary last scene of the last episode.
If you look closely, the makers of the final episode are
playing with numbers near the end. They show a picture
of a football player with a jersey that reads number 38,
and the camera lingers on it (at the fifty-four minute
mark). Then, a couple minutes later, when we see Meadow's
car, we see her license plate, cropped tightly to show
the number 39 (at the fifty-eight minute point).
As we know, David Chase doesn't use his camera shots
loosely. He obviously wanted to convey some sort of meaning
by showing the numbers 38 and 39 in sequence like that.
Could he be alluding to the 38th and 39th episodes of "The
Sopranos," in which Jackie Aprile is murdered? Could he
be implying that retribution for Jackie's killing was in
the works at that diner? (There are other echoes of
the 38th and 39th episodes in the finale, as
when Carmela discourages her son from joining the military
(in #38 they were considering putting him
in military school.) There's also the Gloria subplot
in 38/39 (in which a hitman says, the last face you'll see
is mine, not Tony's). And the last face we see is Tony's.
What does all this mean? Dunno. The finale remains a
mystery.
But I digress. Paul
____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 23, 2009
OK, I've just finished compiling another batch
of interviews that I've conducted with pop culture
icons over the decades. I've posted the
Q&A excerpts here for all to hear:
myspace.com/paulioriooo
In this group are my one-on-one interviews with:
1. Lawrence Ferlinghetti (in 2000, in North Beach)
2. Ray Davies (in 1986, in Manhattan)
3. David Johanson (in 1986, in NYC)
4, Frank Zappa (in 1988, talking to me about
politics)
5. Robert Goulet (in 1999, and he actually
breaks into song while talking!)
Wanna hear more of my interviews? Just go to: myspace.com/pauliorioo
On that site are my Q&As with Mel Gibson, Tom Hanks,
Woody Allen, Heath Ledger, Barry Manilow, Trey Anastasio,
Roman Polanski, Abbie Hoffman and Geena Davis.
Enjoy!
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Of course, all interviews were on-the-record and
recorded with the permission of the interviewee.
______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 22, 2009
Many thanks to Marshall and KALX for playing
two of my brand new songs, "Hey There, Watcher"
and "Sittin' Around," last night (9/21/09). I must
admit it never ceases to be a thrill to hear my
tunes featured on The Next Big Thing!
And if you ever want to be amazed and dazzled by
great new music, just turn on KALX and the NBT. I mean,
some of the stuff I've heard on KALX over the last several
months is truly inspired: the other week, Marshall
played a guy with a song called "Rock 'n' Roll Emergency"
(great title!) and last night aired the catchy "I've Got ADHD"
by a band called Baptiste. Elsewhere on the station, I've
been knocked out by Man's "2 Ozs of Plastic With A Hole In
The Middle," a magical violin piece called "Patterns of Plants"
and Polly Scattergood's "Please Don't Touch," among many others.
Hear for yourself at 90.7 (or on the Net!).
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 19 - 20, 2009
Audio Excerpts of Paul Iorio's Interviews with Pop Culture Icons!
For the first time, you can hear my interviews with
Woody Allen, Heath Ledger and other pop culture icons
online. [photo of Woody Allen by Paul Iorio;
I happened on them by chance when I lived in that
neighborhood in '84.]
Well, I finally have gotten around to organizing scores
of audiotaped interviews with pop culture icons that I've
conducted over the decades and am starting, as of
right now, to post the conversations online for all to hear.
Here's my first group of interview snippets, featuring
(very uncensored!) audio excerpts from my Q&As with the
following people:
1. Mel Gibson (from 2000, in West Hollywood)
2. Tom Hanks (a brief funny interchange I had with Hanks, 1999)
3. Woody Allen (my one-on-one interview with Allen,
December 3, 1999, in Beverly Hills)
4. Heath Ledger (my one-on-one Q&A with Ledger, in which he loses
his temper a bit, 2000)
5. Barry Manilow (a very, very candid
Manilow, in my one-on-one
with him, Dec. 2000, in San Jose)
The second MP3 includes excerpts from these interviews:
6. Trey Anastasio (no less than the very first
audiotaped interview with Anastasio conducted by anyone anywhere, in
January 1989, when I intro'd Trey to Widespread Panic).
7. Roman Polanski (my rare one-on-one interview with
Polanski, two days before 1999, in which he talks in-depth
about "Chinatown")
8. Abbie Hoffman (I talked one-on-one and
in person several months before his suicide, and you can
actually hear him unraveling as he loses it on tape)
9. Geena Davis (a funny moment I had with
Davis in 2000).
Just click here to listen for free: myspace.com/pauliorioo
More excerpts will be coming soon!
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Of course, all interviews were on-the-record and
recorded with the permission of the interviewee.
_______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 17, 2009
Impressions of Mary Travers
I met Mary Travers in 1986 for an interview for
Cash Box magazine and remember, above all else, her
genuine kindness -- or at least she was nice to me.
We talked one Fall afternoon in New York, in the
season of her 25th anniversary with Peter,
Paul and Mary, and I remember being fascinated by her
personal history, how she was a Greenwich Village
kid who grew up (at least in her high school
years) above (or was it next door?) to the Gaslight.
For her, the Wha? and Gaslight and Bitter End were
the familiar neighbors next door (in
the years after she relocated to the Village from
the heartland, that is). What a folk education
she had by just walking out the door!
After the interview, I remember my editor at Cash Box, Steve,
a terrific person and editor who died way too young,
seemed wowed that I had scored an interview with her, saying
something like, "Wow, you actually got to talk with Mary
Travers!," and he wanted to hear every detail about her.
(Let's face it: in her day, she was not just a natural
effortless singer who almost never overdid it, but was
also a sort of incredibly sexy folk goddess.)
I must confess that when I listen to "Blowin' in the
Wind," I always listen to the Bob Dylan original
on "Freewheelin'"; but most of the world only knows
the song from PP&M, who offered a sugar-coated
version of Dylan to tens of millions of people
who might not have otherwise discovered him.
I enjoyed talking with Travers and am sorry she's gone (and
I'll post my interview with her, if I'm ever able to find
the tape!).
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 15, 2009
Anybody know Urdu out there? Received this email
from a newspaper in Islamabad about my bin Laden
annotation article (below). It may just be some
automated email or they may be weighing in on my piece.
Would like to know what it says. Email me at
pliorio@aol.com if you know. Thanks! (Online Urdu
to English translation services aren't
much help.)
آپ نے اپنے قیمتی وقت سےنوازا؛ ہمیںآپ کی میل مل چکی ہے انشااللہ ہم بہت
جلد آپ سے رابطہ کریں گے
--
نصیر احمد ظفر
ایڈیٹر
اردو پاور ڈاٹ کوم
* * *
“All praise is due to Allah who created [the] creation for His servants and commanded them to justice, [YOU'RE PRAISING ALLAH FOR MAKING PEOPLE SERVANTS AND COMMANDING THEM (AS OPPOSED TO SUGGESTING THINGS TO THEM)? WHY? YOU AND YOUR MUJAHIDEEN PLANTATION OWNERS SEEM TO REALLY BE INTO THIS
"SERVANT" THING (AS LONG AS OTHERS ARE THE SERVANTS, OF COURSE). BY THE WAY, YOU DON'T EVEN GET FIFTEEN WORDS OUT OF YOUR MOUTH BEFORE YOU'RE SAYING THE WORD "SERVANT," WHICH IS TELLING AND SUGGESTIVE OF THE RICH SPOILED KID THAT YOU ARE.] and who permitted those who have been unjustly treated to carry out similar vengeance against their oppressors…”
“O’ people of America, my speech to you is a reminder of the reasons behind [September] 11 [SOUNDS LIKE YOUR CONSCIENCE IS BOTHERING YOU, OSAMA. THIS IS -- WHAT?! -- YOUR 90TH JUSTIFICATION FOR THE 9/11 ATTACKS? AND EACH OF YOUR JUSTIFICATIONS IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PREVIOUS ONES. AT FIRST, YOUR RATIONALE WAS PURELY RELIGIOUS. THEN YOU MADE A VIDEO BLAMING EVERYTHING FROM ANTIETAM TO HIROSHIMA. HAVEN'T SETTLED ON A REAL REASON YET, HAVE YOU?] and what took place in its aftermath in the form of wars, and claims, and the path to escape from its causes. Specifically, I draw attention to the families of those who were killed during these events, and those who have recently called for open investigations to determine the causes that led to them—this is your first step in the right direction [NOBODY IS DEMANDING SUCH AN INVESTIGATION EXCEPT NUT CASES] amongst many steps that deliberately missed the path throughout eight years of little prosper that have passed you by.
And it is correct that the american people should have sympathy for them, because the longer it takes you to recognize the real causes, the higher a price you will pay, needlessly. Thus, since the administration in the White House—one of the sides in this struggle—has appealed to you for years that war is necessary to ensure your security, then, to understand the truth, a wise man would want to heed and listen to both sides of the struggle, so lend me your ears.”
“First, I say: we have shown and declared many times over more than two and a half decades that our dispute with you [is based on] your support of your allies; the Israeli occupiers of our land in Palestine. [PALESTINE HAS HARDLY BEEN YOUR LIFELONG CAUSE. IN THE EIGHTIES, THE SOVIETS WERE YOUR OBSESSION. IN THE NINETIES, INFIDELS OF ALL NATIONS WERE YOUR OBSESSION. YOU'VE ALWAYS BEEN STRETCHING TO FIND A CAUSE TO JUSTIFY YOUR RELIGIOUS-MOTIVATED HOMICIDE.] It was this stance—along with other injustices—that moved us to carry out the events of September 11.
If you realized the extent of our suffering caused by the injustices of the Jews backed by your administration [SINCE WHEN HAVE YOU BECOME A MAN OF EMPATHY AND FEELING, YOU WHO ATTACKED THOUSANDS OF NON-POLITICAL CIVILIANS ON 9/11, CAUSING HUNDREDS TO JUMP WHILE ON FIRE TO THEIR DEATHS?] , then you would understand that both of our nations are victims of the policies laid down by the White House, which in reality is nothing but a puppet in the hands of powerful interest groups, specifically big corporations and the Israel lobby.”
“And, the best voice who has tried to explain to you the reasons behind [September] 11 is one of your own citizens, the veteran former CIA agent whose conscience awoke in his eighth decade [of age] and he decided to tell the truth despite the pressure against him, and explained for you the message behind September 11. Thus, he carried out some actions for this purpose
specifically, from within that is his book titled, ‘Apology of a Mercenary.’
Similarly, with regards to the suffering of our people in Palestine, Obama recently confessed in his speech in Cairo to the suffering [AGAIN, SINCE WHEN HAVE YOU BECOME MISTER SENSITIVE WHEN IT COMES TO THE SUFFERING OF OTHERS?] of our people there [in Palestine], under occupation and sanctions. And the matter becomes even clearer if you read what your former president Jimmy Carter has written about the Israeli discrimination against our people in Palestine, or had you listened to his statement some weeks ago, while visiting besieged and ravaged Gaza, when he said, ‘the people of Gaza are treated more like animals than human beings’…” “And here we should pause for a moment, for anyone with an atom’s weight of mercy is compelled to sympathize with the suffering of the elderly, women, and children under the fatal siege, while above them the Zionists pour down burning American-made white-phosphorus bombs. [AGAIN, IT'S LAUGHABLE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO BE A MAN OF EMPATHY WHEN YOU'VE CAUSED SUCH PAIN AND MISERY YOURSELF.] Life there is miserable beyond any conception, such as the number of children who are dying in the hands of their fathers and doctors because of a lack of food, medicine, and basic electricity. [AND YET YOU SEEM TO HAVE NO SYMPATHY FOR, SAY, THE INNOCENT PEOPLE WHO WERE FORCED TO JUMP TO THEIR DEATHS ON 9/11.]
It is truthfully a stain of shame on the forehands of all world politicians who facilitate this, and the people who ally with them with prior knowledge of their intentions—along with the influence from the Israeli lobby in America. The details regarding this have been clarified by two of your citizens, they are John Mearsheimer and Steven Walt in the book ‘The Israel Lobby in the United States.’ Upon reading these various suggested works, you will discover the truth and you will be terribly shocked by the scale of the deception that has been used against you. You will also discover that, even today, those who issue statements from inside the White House and claim that your wars against us are necessary for your security are the same ones who worked under the regime of Cheney and Bush, and marketed their former policies of fear to safeguard the interests of large corporations at the expense of your blood and economy. Truthfully, those are the ones responsible for forcing war upon you, not the mujahideen—as we are [merely] defending the right to liberate our land.” [MERELY DEFENDING THE RIGHT TO LIBERATE THEIR LAND? IS THAT WHAT YOU CALL AIDING AND ENABLING THE AL QAEDA PLOTTERS OF 9/11?]
And should you consider your situation at some depth, then you will discover that the White House is actually occupied by interest groups, and that it [the White House] should have been liberated, instead of fighting to liberate Iraq as Bush claimed. The role of a White House leader in today's atmosphere, regardless of his name, is like a train conductor who has no choice but to move forward on the rails laid down by interest groups—or else its path will be obstructed—and who lives in fear that his fate will be that of the former president [John F.] Kennedy and his brother.” [SHOULDN'T YOU BE THE ONE WORRIED ABOUT YOUR OWN MORTALITY? ARE YOU AWARE THAT THE AMERICAN MILITARY WILL SURELY SHOOT YOU DEAD AS SOON AS THEY FIND YOU?]
“The conclusion of my speech: it is time to liberate yourselves from the fear and mental terrorism that the neo-conservatives and the Israeli Lobby have used to manipulate you. Put the issue of your alliance with the Israelis up for debate and ask yourselves what your stance is: is your own security, blood, children, money, jobs, homes, economy, and reputation more important to you, or do you prefer the safety of the Israelis, their children, and economy? If you choose your own security and bring the war to a halt—and this is what the opinion polls have shown is most popular—then you must work and replace the hands of those from amongst you who have endangered our safety, and we are ready to respond to this decision in accordance with sound and just principles that have been previously mentioned. And here, there is an important point that requires attention regarding the war and stopping it: when Bush took power and appointed a secretary of defense who had assisted in killing two million suffering villagers in Vietnam, intelligent people predicted on that day that Bush was preparing for new massacres during his term in office, and this is what occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then, Obama took charge and kept Cheney and Bush's men [HILLARY WAS ONE OF BUSH'S MEN?! BIDEN WAS ONE OF BUSH'S MEN?! HOLDER WAS ONE OF BUSH'S MEN?! GATES WAS NOMINALLY A BUSH APPOINTEE, BUT HAS SINCE PROVED TO BE EVEN-HANDED AND FAIR-MINDED; HE WAS PART OF THE REACTION AGAINST RUMSFELD.] —those from the senior leadership in the Pentagon—like Gates, Mullen, and Petraeus. Intelligent people understand that Obama is a weak man
[THE ONLY REASON YOU'RE SAYING HE'S WEAK IS BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO GOAD OBAMA INTO TAKING RASH MILITARY ACTION THAT WILL THEN TURN MAINSTREAM MUSLIMS (WHO PRESIDENT OBAMA HAS WON OVER, MUCH TO YOUR CHAGRIN) AGAINST HIM. SPEAKING OF WEAK, YOU'RE THE ONE WHO'S HIDING SCARED IN WAZIRISTAN.]
who cannot stop the war like he promised [OBAMA IS IN FACT WINDING DOWN THE IRAQ WAR AS HE PROMISED IN THE CAMPAIGN AND IS NOW INCREASING FORCES IN AFGHANISTAN, WHICH HE ALSO PROMISED TO DO IN THE CAMPAIGN], but instead, he will postpone it to the greatest possible degree. If he was really in control, then he would have handed over leadership to the generals who have opposed this foolish war—like the former forces commander General Sanchez and the head of Central Command who was forced by Bush to resign shortly before leaving the White House because of his opposition to the war. Instead, he [Bush] appointed someone else who would press on after him.”
“Furthermore, Obama—under the pretext of his willingness to cooperate with the Republicans—has tricked you with a big fraud, as he kept the most important and most dangerous secretary—Cheney’s man—to continue the war. [AS I SAID, GATES HAS PROVED TO BE SURPRISINGLY FAIR-MINDED AND WISE] It will become clear to you over the coming days that you have changed nothing in the White House except faces—the bitter truth is that the neo-conservatives [A MEMBER OF THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT IS TALKING ABOUT "CONSERVATIVES"? THAT'S A LAFF.] are still heavily shadowing you.” “Returning back to the original point, if you stop the war, then so be it. But otherwise, it is inevitable that we will continue our war of extermination against you on all possible fronts, just as we annihilated the Soviet Union for a decade until it was dismantled, by the grace of Allah.[THE SOVIET UNION COLLAPSED BECAUSE IT RAN OUT OF MONEY. KEEP IN MIND THAT WE TOOK DOWN YOUR FORMER PUPPET MULLAH OMAR IN A MATTER OF WEEKS IN THE FALL OF 2001.] So, go ahead and prolong this war as long as you want, but you are engaged in a miserable losing war for the interests of others [WE'RE WAGING WAR FOR THE INTERESTS OF OTHERS? NO, IT'S FOR U.S. INTERESTS THAT WE FIGHT IN AFGHANISTAN. WE DON'T WANT TALIBAN-RELATED TERRORISTS TO ATTACK US AGAIN.] that seems to have no end in sight. The Russian Generals—who were shaken by the battles in Afghanistan—warned you what the outcome of the war would be before it began [AGAIN, WE HAD A RELATIVELY EASY TIME REMOVING OMAR FROM POWER IN '01], but you refuse to listen to those who advise you. This war is being financed through ghoulish interests [THE AMERICAN TAXPAYERS ARE GHOULISH INTERESTS?], the morale of your soldiers is collapsing, and they are committing suicide on a daily basis to escape it. It is a failed war, Allah willing.” “This is has all been prescribed for you by the doctors Cheney and Bush as medicine for the events of September 11, yet, the bitterness and loss this has caused is worse than that of the events themselves. The accumulated debt alone has almost led to the collapse of the entire American economy. It has been said, some illnesses are tolerated more than their medicine. And we, by the grace of Allah, continue to carry our weapons slung over our shoulders, fighting the evil powers in the east and west for thirty years, and in all that time, we have not recorded a single incident of suicide [ARE YOU TRYING FOR COMEDY HERE, BIN LADEN? YOUR HIJACKERS ON 9/11 COMMITTED SUICIDE -- AND FOR DELUSIONAL REASONS (THE PROMISE OF VIRGINS AFTER DEATH). SUICIDE SEEMS TO BE THE JIHADISTS' MAIN TACTIC!] despite the global pursuit targeting us, praise be to Allah. This should tell you something about the righteousness of our doctrine and the justice of our cause. Allah-willing, we are moving forward on our path to liberate our land; patience is our weapon and we seek victory from Allah, and we will not abandon Al-Aqsa Mosque, as our grasp on Palestine is greater than our grasp onto our souls… Thus, you can lengthen the war as you desire, [but] by Allah, we will not compromise in the least over it.[THE U.S. IS NOT ASKING YOU AND AL QAEDA TO COMPROMISE; WE ARE ORDERING YOU TO SURRENDER AND WILL KILL YOU IF YOU DON'T.]
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- As some of you know, I wrote and recorded a song
last year about bin Laden titled "I Shot Osama bin Laden,"
and I thought now would be a good time to share it again.
Here's the tune:
bin Laden." http://www.paulioriosong.vox.com/
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 14, 2009
I liked Jim Carroll's music more than I should have,
probably. I mean, some admired "The Basketball Diaries,"
some appreciated his poems, some liked Carroll's daring,
but I confess: I loved "Catholic Boy."
I played that LP until the grooves cut through to
the other side, and then, not having the money to
buy a replacement copy, I continued playing it,
scratches and cracks and all, probably wrecking
new turntable needles everywhere I went with it.
When he played his "Catholic Boy" gig at the Bottom
Line -- December 22, 1980, a Christmas season show
that, at least for a couple hours, took everyone's
minds off the recurrent nightmare memory of John Lennon's
murder uptown a couple weeks earlier -- I was at
the concert and enjoyed it immensely.
So now comes word that Carroll died the other day,
at age 60, not quite the mythic early death expected
of him back in the 1980s, but still on the young
side of old. I've met a lot of rock stars and
musicians over the decades but never met Carroll; the
closest I got was backstage at some New York Music
Awards ceremony in the 1980s, where I saw Carroll, looking
alarmingly pale, rushing to some place with Lou Reed.
Musically, Carroll never topped "Catholic Boy," which, today,
still sounds thrilling, even if it's also flawed in obvious
ways that could've been easily corrected in the studio.
But I still listen to it every now and then, so Carroll
lives on, for me.
the season of "Catholic Boy"-mania!* * * *
Just posted four brand new songs that I wrote over the
last couple months and recorded last week at my home
studio in Berkeley, Calif. You can listen to the tracks here
(for free) at: sittinaround.vox.com.
Enjoy! Paul
____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 11, 2009
A day to remember a national and personal trauma
and to be reminded why we are in Afghanistan and
why a substantial covert presence in Waziristan (preferably,
though not necessarily, with Zardari's knowledge) is
equally necessary.
[photo by Paul Iorio]
_____________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 8, 2009
Is "District 9" the Best Picture of 2009 So Far?
Finally got around to seeing "District 9." Very
impressive. An instant midnight movie cult classic
and one of the freshest sci-fi films in many years.
Instead of following the path of most flicks about
extra-terrestrials that predictably show the
breathless moment when aliens first make
their appearance on Earth, "District 9" takes a
much more novel approach, starting its narrative
in mid-stream, at a point when humans have
already become acclimated to the presence of
extraterrestrials and are working out the
everyday practical problems of providing them
with civil rights, legal aid and housing. Issues
here also involve inter-species prostitution and alien
diseases transmitted to humans (causing black fluid
to stream from a guy's nose, for starters!).
And the main character, Wikus (Sharlto Copley), is
a unique cinematic creation, a skittish protagonist
who responds to crises with a mix of manic bemusement
and amused panic. Also love the fact that humans
can't budge the massive alien spacecraft from the
sky (it hovers over Johannesburg like a mini-city,
even after the extraterrestrials have disembarked).
South African director Neill Blomkamp has made one
of '09's best films and is reportedly already
working on a sequel ("District 10," perhaps?).
* * * *
Sunday Night's John Legend/India.Arie Concert
"I was still struggling to pay my rent," John Legend
said at his show last Sunday night in Berkeley, Calif.,
talking about his early career. "But I had a vision
that one day I'd be in a place just like this [the
Greek Theater]...And I'm gonna celebrate
tonight, Berkeley! I feel good tonight! I'm gonna
live it up tonight!"
And then he launched into the last and best part of
his show, which included the unexpectedly seductive
"Save Room"; the Beatles' "I Want You (She's
So Heavy)," a surprising choice; encore "Ordinary
People"; and "Good Morning," for which he was joined
by India.Arie.
Inda.Arie opened the show with an hour of her own material;
it was her last night as part of Legend's tour, and she
saved the high note for her finale, a knock-out version of
"Ready for Love," from her '01 debut album (everybody
in the area where I heard the show, in the hills above
the Greek, listened to that one as if entranced).
All told, it was a night of 21st century r&b (neither
singer released any material in the 20th century), post-rap
that looked back to pre-rap styles (e.g., the more mild
formal elements of Al Green and Earth Wind & Fire, mixed
with a piano style not unlike very early Elton John -- in
Legend's case).
On this night, a mere few months before the start of
a new decade, with ten percent of the 21st century
already gone, the music wasn't pre-9/11 so much as
pre-World Trade Center.
* * * *
Looks like some Muslim extremists are finally coming
around to the view that irreverence about sacred
things and other forms of free expression should be
tolerated. Evidence of that comes in a thoroughly
tasteless (and unfunny) editorial cartoon by one Abdoul
Mouthalib Bouzerda on the Arab-European League website
that has the insensitivity to poke fun at
the Holocaust. (Here's a link to the offensive 'toon:
http://niqnaq.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/omstredencartoon2.jpg)
Sure, the cartoon is disgusting. But censoring it would be
even more disgusting. My feeling is this: let them publish
the cartoon -- it only shows how completely uneducated and
callous they are. Nobody serious would take such a person
seriously.
Unfortunately, the government and judicial system in the
Netherlands has unwisely decided to prosecute the cartoonist
for insulting and disrespecting an ethnic or religious
group. The Netherlands is foolishly playing into the hands
of Muslim militants who are trying to show that the West
is hypocritical when it comes to free speech.
The way I see it, if the Arab-European League website
can joke about the genocidal murder of six million people,
then surely that frees me to joke about, say,
the dozen or so wives of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad,
a far less sensitive topic.
So, in this new spirit of irreverence, here's my own
parody of the Arab-European League cartoon (the words
are mine, the drawing by Bouzerda):
But I digress. Paul
[Sept. 8 column updated.]
__________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 3, 2009
VANITY FAIR EDITOR: Hi, Levi. You know, we're really interested
LEVI JOHNSTON: Uh, let me stop you right there. 'Cause I'm sort of
VANITY FAIR EDITOR: Ohhh, you're shoppin' it around.
LEVI: Yeah, I'd sorta like to tell it myself, in my own words -- in
VANITY FAIR: Feather in your tractor. Cool. Cool. Thing is about
LEVI: Track record.
VANITY FAIR: We tend to use people who've done this sort of thing before.
LEVI: I know what ya mean. I mean, VF is, like, up there. But I did do
VANITY FAIR: The Eagle?
LEVI: The school paper, before I dropped out. In fact, I think I
VANITY FAIR: I've got an idea. How about we collaborate? Maybe
LEVI: Hash out. Might be right.
VANITY FAIR: Did you know Maureen Dowd is interested in
LEVI: Was she, like, that woman on "CSI"?
VANITY FAIR: She's a writer. And we can get Annie Leibovitz for the shoot.
LEVI: No, no, I usually hunt alone or with my own partners.
VANITY FAIR: No, we mean photo shoot. To take pictures of you.
LEVI: Cool. I bet "G.I. Joe" takes Best Picture. I just saw
VANITY FAIR: Sure. Lemme give ya my cell.
LEVI: Might work out.
Levi then calls his agent.
AGENT: Look, Levi, the book idea isn't selling. You really have
LEVI: That's what I'm shooting for.
AGENT: But for now, even HarperCollins isn't going for it.
LEVI: Even HarperCollins. Sheesh! That means no one'll take it.
AGENT: Don't know if you're interested, but I was talking with an
LEVI: I'll think about it.
AGENT: But I think your best offer is Vanity Fair, though they really
LEVI: OK, I'll go with VF. I wanna talk with 'em directly tomorrow.
The next day, Levi calls Vanity Fair.
LEVI: I talked with my agent and we're gonna guy with you guys.
VANITY FAIR: Welcome aboard. Look forward to working with you.
VANITY FAIR ASSISTANT (heard in the background): You've got a call
VANITY FAIR: Oh, that guy. [rolls his eyes] Uh, tell him I'll call him
LEVI: So you'll work out the paycheck details with my agent and all?
VANITY FAIR: Yeah, we'll handle that. I think we're goin' more
LEVI: 'Cause we were shootin' for seven figures and all, but that's cool.
VANITY FAIR: Cool. Let's get to work.
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 2, 2009
Time for a Surge in Afghanistan
Don't be fooled by George Will's faux peacenik column in
The Washington Post calling for a U.S. withdrawal from
Afghanistan. Will and other conservatives just want President Obama
to fail and so are giving him advice that will cause him to
to do so. In 2012, they want to be able to say that
America is less safe because of Obama's policies. They want
to be able to point to a brand new terrorist attack that
emanated from Afghanistan and say, "Time to bring in
a President Gingrich to clean out the Taliban once and for
all." They know full well that a surge would probably work
in Afghanistan, which is why they are advising against it.
And don't listen to the critics of the Afghanistan war
on the far left, either. After all, most of them weren't for
the original Afghanistan War in '01, which almost everyone
now agrees was necessary. They were the same ones who
were angrily protesting in the streets against war in
Afghanistan weeks before the war actually began, before
the blood had even dried in the rubble of the World Trade
Center (and they didn't even have the sensitivity to hold
a single placard condemning Osama bin Laden or hold a
candle for the victims of his murders). Their judgment has
always been profoundly unwise on foreign policy.
How soon we forget how radically wrong some
pundits -- on the left and on the right -- were about
the Afghanistan War in 2001. It seems like every
time I turned on "The NewsHour" on PBS back
in late September 2001 (and I'm a big fan of "The
NewsHour"), there was somebody from the Nepotism
Research Center or the Institute for Overthinking
Central South Asian and South Asian Policy repeatedly
saying the following: We'll never be able to topple
Mullah Omar's government, bin Laden is
setting a trap and luring us in, there will be
violent backlash throughout Islam if we wage war
there, Afghanistan is the graveyard of empires,
it will be our next Vietnam, etc.
Well, those career pros were wrong on every count
in '01. Turns out Mullah Omar was a pushover, his
right-wing regime easily toppled. There were no
major riots in Islam over our involvement in Afghanistan,
because most Muslims understood we were the aggrieved party
after 9/11. The Taliban has no homegrown Ho Chi Minh who
serves as a rallying point. And if those overthink-tankers had
prevailed, Mullah Omar would still be running things from Kabul
and making new attacks on the U.S. possible (while oppressing
Afghan women and continuing to force Hindus to wear yellow
stars on the streets of Kabul).
If Bush had kept his eye on the ball, and not been diverted
by his personal animus toward Saddam Hussein, we wouldn't have
to go back there now to clean up his unfinished business.
The flaws of Bush's Afghanistan war were these: we didn't
get in soon enough and didn't stay long enough.
Now Obama has to wash out the infection that Bush
allowed to fester while he was waging an unnecessary
war in Iraq.
With a surge to 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, Gen. Stanley
McChrystal has an excellent chance of wiping out
rogue power centers of the Taliban and disrupting any
new plots against America by jihadists there.
The Taliban and Mullah Omar, as you might recall, were
the main allies of bin Laden, who was protected and supported
by Omar's government as bin Laden organized his
intricate attacks on the U.S. in '01.
Bin Laden, need I remind you, is still at large, as
are his lieutenants and Mullah Omar himself. In other
words, the top plotters of the 9/11 attacks are still
free and able to plan brand new mass murders, which they're
highly motivated to do. (Imagine if Charles Manson
and his gang were still living free in the mountains
around L.A. Do you think for a moment they
wouldn't be planning new atrocities?)
And bin Laden and his cohorts are still fully
functional enough to film videos every
several months and distribute them to
Al-Jazeera and other broadcast outlets, which then air them.
In other words, they ain't eatin' berries in the wild,
struggling for survival; they're even makin' movies.
The main allies of bin Laden in the region are
the Taliban, and that's why we're waging war
against them in Afghanistan. On ABC's "This Week," George
Will said that we would be as justified in attacking
Somalia as we are to be in Afghanistan -- a comment
that is so easy to rebut that you wonder whether
Will is dangling that comment in order to provoke
a response for which he has a ready-made retort. Or
maybe he was just being thoughtless. Do we actually
need to explain to Will that Somalia wasn't the host
country of the terrorists who attacked the U.S.
on 9/11?
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for September 1, 2009
Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi is making his
very first visit to the United States in a few weeks, so what
a better time to bone up on the oeuvre of Col. Qaddafi!
Many of Qaddafi's writings are available in his
three-volume "Green Book," sort of his answer to
Mao's "Little Red Book," and on his official website
(www.algathafi.org/html-english/index.htm), which
includes fresh material along with excerpts from the
"Green Book."
Turns out the really interesting and edgy Qaddafi
writings are actually on previous editions of his
site that are now no longer online -- though they
are available via The Wayback Machine search engine,
which manages to find and resurrect long lost
web pages.
Here are excerpts from some of Qadaffi's vanished
writings, posted on his website in 2006 and 2007,
but gone now. In these passages, he writes about
Jesus Christ (March 30, 2007) and rants angrily
against soccer and the World Cup (March 6, 2006):
ON THE WORLD CUP SOCCER COMPETITION: "First,
beware the deadly diseases caused by The World Cup. Medical
research has proven, and will prove further in
the future, that those who have [soccer] mania, and
those addicted to the game are most at risk of
psychological and nervous disorders. Those disorders in
turn are the leading causes of heart attacks, strokes,
diabetes, hyper-tension and premature aging. Human
physical activity has diminished due to the overuse of
technology. People have become more lethargic, lazy and
obese. At the same time, sport which should be an
individual activity that cannot be delegated to
others just like prayers, or a collective one
exercised by the all the masses has been
transformed into an exploitative activity
monopolized by the rich dominant elite like the
World Cup. The masses are reduced to playing the role
of the idiotic spectator.
Second, beware the hatred, enmity and racism generated by
[soccer]...The games in 1970 led to war between El Salvador
and Honduras that left more than 30,000 people either dead
or wounded. It also left a wound that will never heal....[The
World Cup] leads to problems, difficulties, disorders,
hatred and enmity. It causes the spread of degenerate
behavior and collective recklessness and irresponsibility.
Socio-psychological studies have proven that the manic,
fanatical addicts of the World Cup are below normal
in intellectual capacity and psychological
development."
ON JESUS CHRIST: "...Why does the calendar
start with the birth of Jesus and not the
death of Muhammad? The reason is that Muslims are weak and
defeated....It is indeed a miracle that Jesus was
born without a father....[An] error that has long
misled the uninitiated is that Jesus allowed himself
to be crucified to atone for the sins of his followers.
Jesus was neither crucified nor killed...The person
crucified 2,000 years ago was a man who resembled Jesus,
not Jesus himself. Jesus was not crucified....[The
Bible] states that Mary, Mary Magdalene,
Joseph the Carpenter and maybe some Apostles were
present at the Crucifixion. They all knew that
the crucified was not Jesus but pretended otherwise
to allow the real Jesus to escape."
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 31, 2009
The Truth About the War Movies of 2009
"Inglourious Basterds" continues to open at number one in
country after country during its international roll-out. "The
Hurt Locker" still has critics raving more than a month
after its domestic release. And the much-panned "G.I. Joe:
Rise of Cobra" is one of the top dozen grossers of '09
so far, and has already spawned a sequel-in-the-works.
War is very hot on the big screen right now.
But how good are these films? Here's my own look at the
three biggest war movies of the summer '09 season:
"The Hurt Locker'
I really do admire many of the critics who admire
Kathryn Bigelow's "The Hurt Locker," but I have to
disagree with them -- and I think critical consensus
is more mistaken on this one than it has been on
any other film since the unjustly overlooked
Rodrigo García picture "Nine Lives" (2005).
"The Hurt Locker" has everything a great movie should have --
except one thing: well developed characters, the
essential ingredient. Characters here are typical,
generic, unmemorable; we know very little about them
and so care very little when they're, inevitably,
blown to bits in some Iraqi wasteland.
For a movie dealing with lots of high tension
bomb-defusing situations, the flick has very
little tension or suspense. Very often, when
a character is disabling a bomb, all we see are tight
shots of fingers on wires -- we don't see the
face of the person doing the dangerous work, which
is telling; this movie is situation-driven, not
character-driven.
Oh, sure, Bigelow tacks on a ten-minute
segment around an hour into the picture
in which the characters horse around and
talk about themselves, but it feels tacked
on and, further, they reveal mostly
unremarkable things about themselves (one
guy is separated from his wife, another
has a wife who wants more kids, etc., yawn).
And in the midst of danger, the squad members
don't distinguish themselves; there's one guy
who's just bossy and bureaucratic, another
who's a sort of good ol' boy, etc. And the
enemy often appears as nothing more than a smudge
or spot in the far distance.
Contrast this with the unforgettable people in
some of the great war movies of the past. Remember
the vivid capsule descriptions of the characters in
"Apocalypse Now"? Each one was thoroughly drawn
before they ended up dead or wounded. Ditto with
"Platoon." And in "Born on the 4th of July," you knew
Ron Kovic intimately before he took his first bullet.
"Hurt Locker" is also too repetitive, with one scene
after another in which we see someone fiddling with
red wires and orange wires and yellow wires, plus
a lot of "Danger at two o'clock," "roger that," and
bossiness substituting for leadership.
And let's face it: it's not very easy to care about
soldiers fighting a war as pointless as the Iraq War.
I mean, if you're watching a film about the Second
World War, you know that taking, say, Iwo Jima will
change the world for the better. But it's hard to
cheer the taking of, say, Nablus, when you don't
really care about the overarching objective of the
conflict. If you win Nablus, or a block in
downtown Baghdad, you win virtually nothing (and
you come no closer to capturing Osama bin Laden,
either). [I know, I know: "Locker" is about
a bomb defusing squad. But the squad does engage
in open combat in the film.]
Has there ever been a great war movie about an inconsequential
or minor war? I don't think so. Look at all the major war films:
"Platoon" (about Vietnam), "All Quiet on the Western Front" (World
War One), "Paths of Glory" (World War One), "Saving Private
Ryan" (World War Two), "The Longest Day" (World War Two),
"Letters From Iwo Jima" (World War Two).
All the top-tier war films are about the Big Wars, not "off" wars
like, say, the Falklands conflict or Grenada or even the Korean War.
And Iraq falls into that sort of minor, useless-conflict category.
If you don't care about the real Iraq war, it's even harder
to care about a fictionalized account of it.
And it's no mystery why the film is a commercial failure
and why the industry isn't getting behind it: we see
the real Iraq war in all its gruesome glory on CNN and
"Nightline" and CBS every night, and embedded reporters
telling tales are not very rare.
* * * *
More Notes on "Inglourious Basterds"
I wrote at length on "Inglourious Basterds" in my
previous column (below), so I'm not going to
reiterate what I said before. But after seeing
"Basterds" a second time, I noticed new things about
it.
First, let's hope closet Hitler-ites aren't seeing some
sort of justification of genocide in the Nazi SS officer's spurious
logic in this opening sequence dialogue:
SS OFFICER: If a rat were to scamper through your front
door right now, would you greet it with hostility?
FARMER: I suppose I would.
SS OFFICER: Has a rat ever done anything to you to
create this animosity of you toward him?
FARMER: Rats spread disease.
SS OFFICER: Rats were the cause of the bubonic plague,
but that was some time ago. I propose to you
any disease a rat could spread, a squirrel could equally
carry. Wouldn't you agree?
FARMER: Right.
SS OFFICER: But I assume you don't have the same
animosity you have with squirrels you do
with rats, do you?
FARMER: No.
SS OFFICER:...They even rather look alike, don't they?
FARMER: That's as interesting thought.
OK, now the rebuttal (that is not in the film), from a
guy with a philosophy degree (me): squirrels don't
infest households, rats do. If squirrels burrowed into
interior walls in your home and started multiplying inside
your house, you would have the same animosity and
repulsion toward squirrels that you have with rats, and
you would set squirrel traps instead
of rat traps.
Also, the plotters in the film want to use a
highly-flammable substance to burn down a movie
theater, and decide to use nitrate film because
(as Samuel L. Jackson says in a VO): "Nitrate film
burns three times faster than paper." Well, guess
what? Gasoline is even more flammable than either!
Why didn't they simply put a match to a gas can?
* * *
"G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra"
I'm still trying to figure out what a moviegoer
might see in this tedious, predictable, cliche-packed
crappy film. I mean, I watched it all the way through
and still couldn't begin to give you a coherent plot
synopsis. This picture isn't for movie fans but for
video game fans. And the 9/11ish destruction of the
Eiffel Tower suggests, on a pop culture level,
there still is considerable 9/11-anxiety in the
mainstream, eight years later.
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 27, 2009
Paul Iorio on "Inglourious Basterds"
The twenty minute sequence that opens "Inglourious Basterds"
features some of the very best film making Quentin Tarantino
has ever done -- and it's probably the best movie sequence
of the year so far by anyone. From the moment the SS soldier
enters the French farmhouse, the tension is nearly
unbearable, though no gun is drawn, no threat is made. And
when the camera pans downward, beneath the floorboards, for a
breathtaking POV shot, the sense of impending tragedy and
violence has a depth of both feeling and craft Tarantino
hadn't shown before.
And the scene also has all the elements of a great thriller,
as we watch Melanie Laurent's character run away (and escape)
from the Nazi gunman (though it's too bad Laurent didn't have
a gun of her own; imagine the SS bullets through the floor
being answered by return fire from below).
If Tarantino had sustained the tension of the first 20 minutes,
"Inglorious Basterds" would be his crowning masterwork. But,
alas, he doesn't, and the opener is, by far, the best part of
the flick, which sags and becomes astonishingly ineffective in
the long middle part, before turning into a sort of "Carrie"
of The Third Reich.
Part of the problem is lack of focus and inconsistent tone;
what starts poignantly is later played for cheap laffs;
the middle of the film, which resembles outtakes, could've
easily been set in a Los Angeles frat house without
missing much.
If you were to put "Basterds" on a double bill with
Polanski's "The Pianist," "Basterds" would float away
like a silly helium balloon. If you were to put "Basterds"
on a double bill with Pasolini's "Salo," Tarantino's SS would
look like nice cops in a bad mood. ("Nice?!," you say. To
which I retort, "Have you seen 'Salo'?" I'd describe the
sadistic things the Nazis did to prisoners in "Salo" but I don't
want to spoil the shock for those who haven't seen it yet.
Suffice it to say that Lando is a sweet boy, by contrast.)
"Salo," by the way, is where Nazi scalping was first seen on
the big screen and is the film that probably comes closest
to capturing the almost unwatchable nightmare of being
tortured by Hitler's thugs. ("Salo" is not a depiction of
trauma, but an infliction of trauma.) If Pasolini
or Polanski, who experienced the hell of the Third Reich
first-hand, had created "Basterd"'s opening scene,
we would have seen the full measure of cruelty on earth (the
farmer would have looked out the window and found his daughters
missing, for starters).
In "Basterds," Brad Pitt is back to fulfilling his promise as
this generation's Steve McQueen, after misstepping a bit
last year with the conceptually confused "Benjamin Button" (the
reverse aging idea only works at the beginning and
ending, because in the rest of the picture Button is the
same age as he would have been if he had aged normally). Here,
Pitt acts sort of like Kris Kristofferson's sumbitch
in "Lone Star," or like a more brutal version of Tommy Lee
Jones's character in "The Fugitive").
Lately, Tarantino seems attracted to projects in which the
moral lines are big and broad and unambiguous (he has
talked frequently of developing a picture about John Brown,
for example). I mean, who (besides a ridiculous pacifist)
would see a moral problem with the killing of a Nazi in
the thick of World War II?
But the greatest films ever made are almost always those
in which there is enormous moral ambiguity and
complexity, where the enemy is sometimes in the mirror
(e.g., "Platoon," where U.S. soldiers are fighting themselves
as much as they're fighting the enemy; "Letters From Iwo
Jima," a kind of sympathy for the devil).
And, of course, that goes for non-war movies, too: the
greatest film of all time -- the first two "Godfather"
films -- causes us to empathize with and cheer and love some
really evil folks. And "Chinatown" shows us, as Noah Cross
so memorably put it: "Most people never have to face the fact
that, at the right time and the right place, they're
capable of...anything!"
If the Basterds had been developed beyond the cartoon
sketch level, we would have had a movie in which they
were truly the white hot focus from start to finish;
we would have seen the Basterds fighting amongst themselves
in a significant way, we would have seen some Basterds
memorably arguing for leniency -- and some for
execution -- when it came time to kill the Nazis
they had captured. Instead, the individual Basterds
(other than Pitt's character) don't make the sort of
indelible impression that, say, the gang members in
"Reservoir Dogs" make.
Still, the audience in the theater where I saw the film
had a rollicking good time watching it, so I bet "Basterds"
has legs. My advice to moviegoers on a budget is this;
by all means, go see the first 20 minutes of the film;
but then quickly leave the theater, go to the
box office and get your money back.
But I digress. Paul
____________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 26, 2009
It's sad that he's gone but there is one saving
grace in that he lived long enough to see his
dream come true: the election of Barack Obama,
who carries with him the best ideals and
instincts of the Kennedy brothers. He made it
to the mountaintop, a sort of terrestrial
heaven (the only kind there is).
_____________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 21, 2009
I just found out about producer Jim Dickinson's death and am
sad to hear he's gone. I was fortunate enough to have interviewed
him one-on-one back in 1987, when he had just finished
producing what some consider to be the best album released
that year: The Replacement's "Pleased to Meet Me."
Of course, by the time I'd met him, he had already
had a significant impact on pop music, shaping the so-called
Memphis sound, collaborating with the likes of
Aretha Franklin and the Rolling Stones, producing
the legendary Big Star (idols of the Mats's Paul
Westerberg), and recording his own substantial solo
work.
Dickinson struck me as a natural born artist, sort of
like Sam Phillips, who I also interviewed and who also
said things that have stuck with me for decades.
In this era of auto-tuners and drum machines that
never miss a beat, Dickinson was a reminder that
music is stuff made by human beings -- with flaws
being (to some extent) part of the point.
Somewhere in a box in my closet is a cassette of
my interview with Dickinson, but I can't find it
right now. Instead, let me remember Dickinson by
posting an article I wrote -- and for which Dickinson was
one of my quoted (and unquoted) sources -- about the making of
"Pleased to Meet Me." It appeared in the May 2, 1987,
issue of Cash Box magazine and was published just before
the album's release.
Too bad I can't print some of the off the record material
but I will say that he liked to dish about musicians,
talk about them, and he had an instinct for sizing people up
exactly, with 20:20 vision. He knew who the genuine artists
were and who the merely artsy or merely competent were
(for the record, he considered Paul Westerberg an artist of real
substance, and he sure didn't say that about everyone
he worked with).
Anyway, here's the article I wrote about the making
of the "Pleased to Meet Me" album:
[page one of article; click to enlarge]
--
[page two of article; click to enlarge]
---
[page three of article; click to enlarge]
But I digress. Paul
______________________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 20 - 21, 2009
a huge generator of income for the
Scottish government, which,
unforgivably, released
the Lockerbie bomber today.
You know, Americans are so angry over the release of
the Lockerbie bomber that I wouldn't be surprised if
the manifests on shipments of Scotch Whiskey
to U.S. ports start mysteriously disappearing
or suddenly get changed to private front residences.
I wouldn't be surprised if shipments of Scotch Whiskey
in U.S. warehouses ended up unexplainably smashed (as
security cameras inexplicably slept). I wouldn't be
surprised if there were big Boston tea parties,
featuring -- you guessed it -- Scotch Whiskey,
at major domestic ports. And I wouldn't be surprised
if police across America assigned a very low priority
to solving all those crimes against Scotch Whiskey.
* * * *
* * * *
Rush Can't Get It Up
If Rush had grown up under the Obama health plan, he
might not have become impotent (or at least in need of
Viagra), thanks to free doctor's visits that would have
kept him healthy.
Sarah Palin sez: "Put health care in the hands of the
same private sector that has given us AIG and Bernie
Madoff!"
In the health care debate, it's easy to get
too mired in the details of co-pays and deductibles and
premiums and lose sight of the big picture, which is this:
Britain and Canada, two non-Socialist countries very much
like our own, provide health care free of charge for its
people, and they're not going broke doing it!
It really is no more complicated than this: if you break your
knee in America, it costs around $75,000 to fix it. If you
break your knee in the U.K. or Canada, it costs zero dollars
to fix it.
I mean, c'mon: what's not to like?
Yet rich right-wingers, many associated with Big Pharma and
insurance companies, show up at town hall meetings screaming,
"Please charge me $75,000, not zero dollars, to fix a broken
bone!'"
And conservatives also shout about how they think the
public option will run private insurance companies out of
business. (The hecklers, by the way, resemble nothing so
much as the "Brooks Brothers rioters" who helped rob Al Gore of
the presidency in '00.)
To which I say: have public schools run private schools out of
business? Has the postal service run Fed Ex and UPS out of
business?
And it is analogous. The affluent, if they feel they can
get a better level of health care from a private insurance company,
can choose the private option, just as the rich can now choose
to by-pass the free education available to them through the
public school system. Under the Obama plan, private insurers
will surely be kept profitable by affluent folks who think
their insurance is superior to what the government is offering.
Also, the hecklers always say the government isn't good at
running things and will screw it up, if given a chance. To
which I say: do you really think the private sector is
preferable? Do you you want the same private sector that
has given us AIG and Bernie Madoff to handle health care?
At least the government (unlike the private sector) is
accountable to the people -- and anyone who screws up
can be voted out of office.
Truth is, if there is no public option, health care will remain
unaffordable for tens of millions of Americans. The
idea of establishing non-profit health cooperatives
wouldn't work -- unless they were at least partially funded
by the government (and then that would be a reinvention of the
public option).
Under the co-op plan, the non-profits would get their
start-up money from the government; and once they
started failing financially, as they probably would, they
would be backed by government bail-outs (in which
case, again, you've re-introduced the public option through the
back door).
If the non-profit co-ops did start failing, do you
think for a moment the government would (or should)
deny them a bail-out? After all, it bails
out banks and car companies, so why wouldn't it
save non-profit health care co-ops?
Maybe that is the solution, in a roundabout way. Pass a
plan that says: the government will provide seed money
for non-profits that will then try to make it on their
own, but will be bailed out by the taxpayers if they
fail. From that base, the Democrats can later build a less
disingenuous, more robust and explicit public option.
Death panels are alive and well and working
for Blue Cross and other private insurers who make
it too expensive for the sick to get the medical care they
need to save their own lives.
* * * *
* * * *
Don't Wanna Be a French Idiot!
Jean-Marie Bigard: Life ain't easy for a boy named Marie.
France may have been the birthplace of the brilliant "Being and
Nothingness," but the current French president is not nearly as
rational or wise as Jean-Paul Sartre. Otherwise Sarkozy
wouldn't be pal-ing around with a comedian, Jean-Marie Bigard,
who openly claims that 9/11 was an inside job.
And their relationship goes beyond just pal-ing around.
In fact, when Sarkozy visited the Pope a few years ago,
who did he bring with him? A Kierkegaard scholar? A
Catholic philosopher? No, he brought the crass and boorish
Bigard, essentially saying to the Pope, "Honey, let me
introduce you to my redneck friend."
Of course, Bigard, a devout Catholic, still
believes all the religious tall tales of the Bible,
including the howlers about Jonah living in a whale,
dead peeps coming back to life, etc.
A person raised on such tall tales probably finds it easy later
in life to believe in other supernatural things -- like the
idea that 9/11 was an inside job -- which partially explains
Bigard's "thinking."
It's a bit unsettling to know that the best bud of president
Sarkozy is a nut who thinks the 9/11 attacks
were planned by the U.S. government. (Sarkozy's housing minister
up until very recently, Christine Boutin, also said she
thinks Bush might have been behind the World Trade Center
and Pentagon murders.)
Who exactly is this Bigard? A corny comedian who packs 'em in
at Paris theaters but probably couldn't half-fill the
Fillmore in America. Bigard looks and acts something
like a stroke victim with a bad hangover, or like someone
who has been driven clinically insane by decades in prison.
On YouTube, you can hear him joke coarsely about the
Congressional 9/11 report (a real laff riot, that!) and
about how it's suspicious that U.S. fighter pilots weren't
in the air after the first plane crashed into the
World Trade center (which ignores such common sense
questions as: how could we have known the first crash
wasn't an accident before the second plane crashed? To what
specific target would fighter planes have flown?). All
that, he says to his many French fans, is proof
that the U.S. government was in on the 9/11 plot.
Let me put this nicely: It's hard to imagine how
imbecilic you have to be about evidence
evaluation in order to think what Bigard thinks. I mean,
you might be a genius in mathematics or a musical
savant, but if you believe 9/11 was an inside job, then
you quite literally have an idiot's aptitude when it
comes to evaluating evidence.
Even the most extreme jihadist newspapers don't deny 9/11
was a bin Laden plot. And bin Laden himself openly claims
credit for the attacks.
What's disturbing is that I can't find any record of Sarkozy
condemning or renouncing Bigard or Bigard's remarks. (The
comedian himself backed off his kooky theory for
a time, but has recently publicly reiterated his belief
in the conspiracy theory.)
Has Sarkozy made it clear that he accepts
the factual record of the 9/11 attacks, that he fully
understands that bin Laden's al Qaeda gang hatched the
mass murder plot? Has he separated himself from Bigard on
this issue?
If he thinks there's some sense to what Bigard says, that
would put Sarkozy in league with Ahmedinejad in terms of
ignorance and defective thinking.
No wonder France hasn't deployed any combat troops for
the Afghanistan war; why fight people who you don't
believe carried out the crimes of 9/11?
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 16, 2009
Also, How I Was Able to Be the First Journalist Anywhere to Interview Trey Anastasio on Tape (Oh, yes I was!)
Photo of Phish that the band sent to me in 1988.
As a pop culture phenomenon, Phish is one of the
most inextinguishable. Every time the band disbands,
fan demand is so great that it has had to come back just
one more time.
Remember Phish's final break-up of 2004? Its Great
Hiatus of 2000? All history. As everyone knows,
the band has reunited again, at least for now, with
a new studio album, "Joy," due on Sept. 8, and
concerts at Festival 8 in Indio, Calif.,
scheduled on and around Halloween.
I must say that the Phish I remember, however,
is not the Phish almost everyone else knows,
because I was the first journalist to have
conducted a taped interview with bandleader
Trey Anastasio.
Of course, that claim is sometimes met with
jealous skepticism by one or two rivalrous
colleagues every time I bring it up, but
that's the nature of competition.
Fact is, I have the proof: my audiotape of the
Q&A. And on the tape, Anastasio clearly refers
to concerts that are coming up in the first
week of February 1989, so there is absolutely
no doubt about the date of the interview.
Still, if anyone can find a taped interview with
Anastasio that pre-dates January 1989, when I
conducted my Q&A, then please let me know at
pliorio@aol.com.
I've researched it: there is no taped interview with
Anastasio that happened before mine, so mine is the first,
and I'm very happy to take credit for what is called
in the journalism business "a scoop." (While it's true
that Trey does mention having talked with a reporter from
the Boston University newspaper prior to my Q&A,
that BU conversation was not audiotaped or published.)
Plus, my tape captures the moment when I first
introduced Anastasio to the band Widespread Panic,
who (with Phish) would soon go on to form the core
of the "jam band" movement of the 1990s.
And the tape of my interview couldn't possibly be
clearer about my having introduced Anastasio to
Widespread Panic; here is the verbatim exchange:
PAUL IORIO: ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A BAND CALLED WIDESPREAD PANIC?
ANASTASIO: No, I'm not
PAUL IORIO: THEY'RE A BAND FROM ATHENS, GEORGIA, THAT HAS A
FOLLOWING SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING. THEY REALLY
GO VERY FAR INTO LONG-FORM JAMS AND ATTRACT A LOT OF DEADHEADS.
So, yes, I can actually take credit for having
first told Trey about WP!
Actually, my connection to Phish goes back even
further than that, to early 1988 and late 1987. (For
the record, I've had no contact with any Phish
member since 1990; I don't claim to know the band,
I just claim to have been there first as a reporter.)
A few months after I left my staff writer position at
Cash Box magazine in New York in '87 -- where, by
the way, I was the first trade journalist to have
written about They Might Be Giants, the first
person anywhere to have written about the
Smithereens's "Especially for You," etc. -- I had an idea
to do a story on the pop music community in Burlington,
Vermont, for the East Coast Rocker, a New Jersey-based
music newspaper. And I asked dozens of unsigned Vermont
bands to send me tapes.
Among those who sent in tapes was Phish, which mailed
a 1987 demo featuring four originals ("Golgi Apparatus,"
"Fee," "David Bowie," and "Fluffhead," all of which
later appeared on "Junta") and two covers.
My first interviews with Phish's Mike Gordon date back
to an astonishingly early January 1988. Back then, we
talked on a fairly regular basis, and here is a letter he
sent to me in 1988:
I interviewed Mike Gordon a full year before I spoke with Trey,
though I didn't record those conversations; however, Gordon
did send me this handwritten letter, dated March 8, 1988 (above).
I eventually wrote about the group for the newspaper's July 19,
1989, issue, calling Phish "an unlikely combination of the
Grateful Dead and Steely Dan" in a story that stands as the
first to mention the band in a publication outside the
Burlington area (besides concert listings in newspapers).
Meanwhile, my Anastasio interview of '89 stayed in a drawer
in my desk for years; nobody wanted the interview at the time
because the band was almost completely unknown (and would
remain that way for some time to come).
My '89 interview with Trey was finally published
many years later, on December 24, 2003, in New Times,
after it had become something of a pop culture artifact
of significance to Phishheads. (Click this link to read
the New Times piece: http://www.phisharchive.com/articles/2003/miami1.html
Here's an edited version of my '89 Q&A with Trey
(one day I'll get around to posting the entire
conversation!):
PAUL IORIO: WHAT DOES THE DEMO INCLUDE?
TREY ANASTASIO: Now we've pretty much got an album. We've got almost two albums' worth of material recorded. We've only got one day left of recording. What it includes is more originals. All fairly new songs, newer than stuff on the old [six-song] tape [from 1987]. Two of them are very new; we just finished them. Two of them are things we've been playing for a while but haven't gotten around to recording. We're a lot happier with it than with the demo. When we choose stuff for the album, I think the only thing on the demo that'll make it onto the album is "Fee."
IORIO: YOU WRITE THEM ALL, RIGHT?
ANASTASIO: Yeah, pretty much. Mike [Gordon] writes songs as well. One of Mike's songs that's going to be on the album is called "Contact." Actually it might not be on the album. See, we're having a hard time deciding what to put on the album. And I think that's the first thing we're going to do is talk with record companies and tell them we have all these songs.
HAVE YOU STARTED THE PROCESS OF SENDING THE [DEMO] AROUND TO RECORD COMPANIES?
Yeah, we've only just started talking to people [at record companies]. And we haven't really sent it out yet. We wanted to finish this last song. We [are performing on] three nights -- tonight, tomorrow, the next night -- in Vermont. And then we're going to Boston. And we're doing a mixdown on "Let's Go Out to Dinner and See a Movie," another Mike song. We talked to a guy at Rounder Records, we have a connection there, and they seemed pretty interested. [The band would eventually be signed by Elektra Records, not Rounder, in late 1991, after a short time with Absolute A-Go-Go in 1990.]
WHAT ABOUT THE GRATEFUL DEAD COMPARISONS? IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE MAKE THOSE?
People are definitely starting to make the [Grateful Dead] comparisons less. But as far as those comparisons, there's nothing really wrong with it, considering that they're one of the most successful bands anywhere now. But the thing that's different about it is the kind of music we're writing now, the newer stuff is sounding less and less like that. No one in the band listens to the Grateful Dead very much.
DID YOU GROW UP LISTENING TO [THE GRATEFUL DEAD]?
I had a phase where I listened to them. I was more into Led Zeppelin in high school. I was a Led Zeppelin fanatic and so was the drummer [Jon Fishman]; he went to see them all the time and followed them around. When I got to college -- the last year of high school and into college -- I got into a little bit of a Grateful Dead phase but [grew] out of that and went into a sort of jazz phase. I mean I've seen Pat Metheny as many times as I've seen the Grateful Dead.
MIKE [GORDON] WAS TALKING TO ME ABOUT THE JAZZ ASPECT OF...YOUR MUSIC IN THE SENSE OF IMPROVISATION. DO YOU DO LONG EXTENDED JAMS?
Yeah, we've kind of been cutting [the jams] down to like one per set, two per set. But we do do that. That's definitely where the Grateful Dead connection comes in. As well as the fact that a lot of the people that come down to see us are hippie types.
YOUNG HIPPIES OR OLD ONES?
Umm ... young hippies. More like college -type hippies. You know what I mean? But actually when we play in Boston -- this is one of the great things that's happening to us in Boston right now -- it's not really that way. We're getting a different type of crowd. When we first started, we had much more of a Dead sound, even through that demo with "David Bowie," that song. So our following up here [in Boston and in Burlington] was definitely a "Deadhead" type following. And it still kind of is.
HOW DO [FANS] HEAR OF YOU?
Word of mouth.
ARE YOU GETTING PEOPLE WHO SHOW UP AT ALL YOUR GIGS?
Oh, yes. Definitely.
ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH A BAND CALLED WIDESPREAD PANIC?
No, I'm not
THEY'RE A BAND FROM ATHENS, GEORGIA, THAT HAS A FOLLOWING SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING. THEY REALLY GO VERY FAR INTO LONG-FORM JAMS AND ATTRACT A LOT OF DEADHEADS.
It's a great thing. I was talking to some girl from the BU [Boston University] paper [in a non-taped conversation], and she said the closest she had seen in crowds was actually the Radiators. I've never seen the Radiators. The word of mouth thing is working out real well. I think there's also a lot of people who like us because we do -- have you heard "Fluffhead" on the demo? -- a lot of stuff that's pretty different. [But] that's where the Dead connection really ends. A large bulk of what we do ... we don't play the same three chords over and over again. We do a lot of variety. Like last night, we did a couple jazz songs, "Take the A Train," "Satin Doll." Things like that. And then we'll do in the same set maybe a Led Zeppelin song.
BUT YOU LEAN HEAVILY TOWARD ORIGINALS.
But almost all originals. Usually not more than three or four covers.
WHAT DID YOU DO BY ZEPPELIN?
We did "Good Times, Bad Times."
SO WHAT'S YOUR NEXT STEP?
We're definitely going to keep playing live. But the album thing is important for a lot of reasons. We're pretty much done recording it. Like I said, we've got so much material recorded we could put out a double album. So I guess the next step is to try to get signed to a label, even if it's an indie. I think we'll do all right. Because if the distribution isn't that great, we've got such a big following -- we've got a mailing list now, we've got a hotline, and I think we'll be able to sell it ourselves.
My description of Phish for a newspaper in 1989,
the first mention of the band in print outside
of Burlington -- besides concert listings (above). Also,
a couple other scoops I was responsible for in the 1980s.
(Of course, I'm leaving several scoops out; was I the first to write
about guitar wiz Gary Lucas? Was I the first to write about
Matthew Sweet's debut? I probably was, but haven't yet
researched that enough to know.)
But I digress. Paul
____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 15, 2009
Exclusive!
What Really Happened at Woodstock,
From a Member of Sly and the Family Stone
Sly came thisclose to getting food poisoning from
spoiled bologna before his set.
Back in 2003, as a writer/reporter for the Reuters news
service, I reported a story about a reunion of The Family
Stone, the band that, with Sly Stone, formed Sly and the
Family Stone. I interviewed members of the Family
Stone, including trumpeter Cynthia Robinson, Sly's
one-time significant other. (She's the one who
plays, among other things, that magnificent horn riff
on "Hot Fun in the Summertime.")
Robinson spoke to me a bit about performing with Sly and the
Family Stone at Woodstock, a set that was supposed to
have taken place on Saturday night (August 16, 1969) but
was delayed until 3am on the rainy Sunday morning that
followed.
Though some sources say that much of the audience was
asleep during some of the explosive 3am set, Robinson paints a
different picture in this interview, in which
she provides a revealing look at what it was like -- really like --
for those who were actually there at the fest as performers
forty years ago this weekend.
Here is Cynthia Robinson, from my exclusive interview, in remarks
not published until now.
Cynthia Robinson, back in the day!
CYNTHIA ROBINSON OF SLY AND THE FAMILY STONE: "We got
[to Woodstock] way before we got on [stage]. And we were sitting
in the back of the trailer. When we [arrived], it was
daylight.
It was so hot that the news on the radio
said, "Do not eat any packaged meats, because
the refrigeration cannot handle this heat." And we went
into the store to grab -- you know, get baloney and
crackers and canned stuff. And Sly grabbed some baloney.
We got in the car, and [Sly] spread some mayonnaise
on some bread, and put the baloney between. And he got
ready to bite into it, and I was sitting in the back seat
and I go, "SLY, NOOO!" And he pulled [the sandwich]
back out [of his mouth], and he looked at it and the meat
was just bubbly. So just from walking out of the store
[in Woodstock] and getting into the car and making the sandwich,
[the lunchmeat] just started bubbling. It was poison, you
know.
We got over there and waited a long time. 'Cause we didn't
play till night, we didn't play till Janis Joplin -- I think
we came on after her. By then it was cold and raining, it was
pouring rain and there was no place to get under
because there was just land, open space, no trees, and
the people sat there. And I thought that was awesome. And
they got into it. It was awesome. They didn't even try to
get up and run away from the rain because there
was no place to go."
* * *
But I digress. Paul
_________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 14, 2009
Yale Bans Dante, Obeys Jihadist Stylebook
my scientific findings because they are
highly offensive to the Church and might
cause violence (and I wouldn't want blood on
my hands)." That's essentially what Yale
is saying in its appeasement of the religious right
of Islam.
Bowing to the interests of jihadist censors, the director
of Yale University Press has given Muslim militants
what they want: partial editorial control of an
upcoming book that Yale is publishing.
The book -- “The Cartoons That Shook the World," by Brandeis
prof Jytte Klausen -- is about the so-called Muhammad
cartoons published by a Danish newspaper in '05. One
would expect, of course, that a book about the cartoons would
include the cartoons that are the subject of the book.
But, no. The head of Yale University Press, John Donatich,
consulted government officials and Islamic scholars who
advised him against publishing both the cartoons and
other images of the Muslim Prophet Muhammad, including a
depiction of a passage from Dante's "Inferno" by 19th
century French artist Gustave Dore. (As The New York Times
noted, that scene from "The "Inferno," in which Muhammad is
tortured in hell, has also been portrayed in art
by Sandro Botticelli and William Blake.)
Now the hard questions. Did Donatich ask experts on
free speech and censorship what they thought about
including the pictures in the book? Did Donatich consult
the top editors of the numerous international newspapers
that reprinted the cartoons?
Did it occur to Donatich that radical Islamists
might well object to the very fact of the
publication of a book about the Muhammad
cartoons (whether the drawings are included
or not)? (After all, militants rioted and
killed people over the publication of Salman
Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses," which had no
pictures in it.) If there are riots about
the picture-less edition of the book, will
Donatich withdraw it?
Taking this further down the slippery slope:
If there is violence in Islam over Dante's
descriptions of Muhammad being tortured
in hell, should "The Inferno" be banned from
bookstores?
If radical Islamists say that paintings in the Uffizi Gallery are
highly offensive works by infidels, should the paintings
be removed from the Uffizi? If the militants
start setting off bombs to demand the removal
of paintings by Botticelli and Michelangelo
from the Gallery, should the Uffizi bow to
their demands?
One has to ask at what point a guy like Donatich
would actually fight for freedom of expression and
academic freedom. Donatich is quoted in The New
York Times saying that one of the reasons
he won't publish the cartoons is because he
doesn't want "blood on my hands."
Let's savor that statement for a moment. He doesn't
want blood on his hands in the course of protecting
a level of freedom of expression that Americans have
died for centuries to protect.
Using his own logic, Donatich would have withdrawn
"The Satanic Verses" to avoid getting blood on his bands.
Maybe Galileo and Copernicus should have
suppressed their scientific findings
because they were highly offensive to
the Church and might have caused violence (and
they wouldn't want blood on their hands,
after all).
Maybe Viking should have said,
"We're withdrawing 'The Satanic
Verses' because we don't want blood
on our hands."
Ah, remember how the French in
the 1940s so memorably said,
"We're going to allow the Nazis to take
France without firing a shot, because
we don't want blood on our hands."
Well, I'll clue you in: having blood on
your hands can be an honorable thing if you're, say,
killing Hitler or Osama bin Laden. Having blood on
your hands can be an honorable thing if you're
fighting the Ku Klux Klan. And having blood on
your hands has, unfortunately, been
necessary throughout history to protect
freedom of speech and religion.
At some point you have to realize that you're complicit
in tyranny when you accede to the demands of tyrants. And
the religious totalitarians of Islam are nothing short
of stateless tyrants who are trying to impose, through
violence and threats, their values on everyone else. And
they're finding that their tactics work (even at Yale);
all they have to do is throw a violent tantrum
and -- voila! -- they can scuttle a book (or part of a
book, or a news story).
As Norman Mailer put it, referring to the Rushdie
affair: "We can now envision a fearful time in
the future when fundamentalist groups in America,
stealing their page from this international episode,
will know how to apply the same methods to American
writers and bookstores." Very true. Anybody -- from
the KKK to Scientologists to those offended by
the Muhammad cartoons -- can use the same temper tantrum
tactics (e.g., riots, bombings, murders, etc.) to control
the content of books and journalism.
As I've said before: whether censorship comes from the
king of your country or from a stateless militant group
outside your nation, it's still censorship. And the
religious totalitarians's use of asymmetrical
warfare makes them as intimidating (and as effective) as
a government with an army and a police force. All the
more reason to stand up to them.
Yale University Press has made a cowardly
decision; free speech advocates should
make sure Yale understands there is a very
unpleasant downside to siding with religious
totalitarians in the publishing world. While
Donatich is still editor, authors should go
to competing university and independent presses to
publish their works.
The university that evaluated George W. Bush
in the 1960s and famously declared him
smart enough to earn a B.A. from Yale -- even
though Bush's verbs and nouns didn't agree, Yale's
profs did -- has made yet another very stupid
decision.
But I digress. Paul
____________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 11, 2009
Fresh Reflections on Woodstock, 40 Years On
The Woodstock fest, four (not three) days of music,
happened less than five years before the dawn of
the Ramones (you'd think there was a 30-year gap).
I was all of 12-years old when the Woodstock festival
happened, 40-years ago this week, which means Woodstock
was, for me and my friends, a 1970 first-run movie, not a 1969
concert. And my pals and I loved the flick, discussed
it endlessly in between talking about the "Let it
Be" movie and whether the Beatles/Cream/Yardbirds
would ever reunite.
Being 12-years old, I had long outgrown the Monkees
(and so had you, if you're my age) and was now into new
bands like GFR, Steppenwolf (oh, how people ten years older
than me hated those groups!) and (especially) Led Zeppelin, in
addition to my regular diet of the Beatles and the Stones,
none of whom played the Bethel fest.
In fact, for such a signal moment in pop history, it's
surprising that the very biggest and best bands of the
era (The Beatles, The Stones, Bob Dylan, the Supremes,
the Kinks, Simon & Garfunkel, Led Zeppelin, Eric Clapton's
Blind Faith, etc.) did not play Woodstock. (Dylan even
lived up the street from the concert and could have easily
joined The Band for its Sunday night gig, which featured
around a half dozen tunes from "The Basement Tapes.") And
pioneering 1950s rockers like Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis,
Carl Perkins and Little Richard also weren't there.
What's more, because of scheduling delays, Woodstock's
primetime spot -- Saturday night at around 9pm -- went to
Mountain, a very underrated band, to be sure, but not the star of
the show or a group popularly associated with the festival. (Though
they did come prepared, performing the very first major
meta-Woodstock song, the tuneful "For Yasgur's Farm.")
Most of the major bands -- the Who, Janis Joplin, Sly and the
Family Stone, Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young -- played in the
very wee hours, between 3 and 5 am, give or take, when most
of the audience was fast asleep. (I interviewed members of
Sly and the Family Stone a few years ago who told me they played
their show -- a brilliant, inspired set -- to hundreds of thousands
of sleeping people.) So the fest's best music went mostly
unheard -- until the release of the Woodstock film.
And even then it went unheard, because the movie didn't
include the top songs played by the acts featured
onscreen. I mean, Creedence Clearwater Revival performed
"Proud Mary" and many other hits, Sly and the Family
Stone did "Stand!" and "Everyday People," The
Dead played "St. Stephen," Jefferson Airplane performed
"White Rabbit" and "Somebody to Love," Santana played
"Evil Ways," and The Band did "This Wheel's On Fire" and
other Dylan collaborations, yet, inexplicably, none of
that stuff ended up in the movie.
Instead, the flick was padded with a few too many aimless
hard rock jams that were decidedly post-Beatle-esque
(sort of like the 27-minute versions of "Spoonful" and
"Morning Dew" that used to fill out lazy albums
back then).
Today, as an adult, I can see that the Woodstock docu is
flawed and flabby and ultimately unsatisfying; it used
distracting split screens when a more straightforward
approach would've sufficed, was structurally misshapen,
and featured more than a few unremarkable musical moments.
In terms of shape, the film would have done better to have
followed the chronological arc of the festival itself, starting
with the Friday night folkies that kicked things off, peaking
with the very early morning Sunday superstars and ending
with Jimi Hendrix's Monday morning rock, not a bad frame.
In other words, they should have told the story of Woodstock
as it naturally unfolded.
Remember: it was a four-day (not a three-day) gathering,
with more music spilling over into Monday than was
played on the opening Friday. The musical climax arguably
came in the middle of the weekend with a span of
consecutive performances that started with Mountain on
Saturday night and continued with the Grateful Dead,
CCR, Janis Joplin, Sly, the Who and the Airplane, who
all played on early Sunday morning.
The legendary mud came after a rainstorm on the downside
of the weekend, after Joe Cocker's set on Sunday afternoon,
and the rain was no momentary sunshower; the precip lasted
for hours and virtually doused the flame of the whole
gathering. Still, Woodstock managed to reignite after
Country Joe and the Fish took the stage with its
lively anti-war sing-along (brought to life vividly in
the film by that bouncing ball). And Hendrix's set was both
coda and climax; playing for a couple hours to
an audience that had dwindled radically, his final song was
also the last song performed that weekend: "Hey, Joe,"
whose violence pointed to the spirit of the
upcoming Altamont fest, where Joni Mitchell's
beautiful butterflies turned back into bombers.
The primetime spot at Woodstock -- around 9pm on
Saturday night -- went to Mountain, thanks to delays.
Interesting to note that the next major pop music revolution,
led by the Ramones, who tried (with some success) to
overthrow the fat hippie emperors of the Woodstock nation, occurred
less than five years later (though the Ramones seem
around 25 or 30 years removed from the "three days of
peace and music"). The two eras were so different that it
would be impossible to imagine the Ramones playing,
say, "Beat on the Brat" at Woodstock in '69 without
causing a tie-dye riot (though Pete Townshend probably
would've appreciated them).
Back then, pop culture was changing at the pace of
youth itself; it's telling that the distance between
Woodstock and the Ramones -- which seems like eons -- is
the same span between the release of, say, Green Day's
"American Idiot" and today, which seems like a blip
in time.
"We are stardust, we are golden, we don't wanna go down to
the basement..."
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 7, 2009
As might be expected, the North Korean government's version
of Bill Clinton's visit to Pyongyang differs somewhat from
the U.S. government's account of the meeting.
Here's how the DPRK's main official English-language website
described the Clinton visit:
"Clinton courteously conveyed to Kim Jong Il an earnest
request of the US government to leniently pardon [Euna
Lee and Laura Ling] and send them back home from a
humanitarian point of view. The meetings had candid
and in-depth discussions on the pending issues between the
DPRK and the US in a sincere atmosphere and reached a
consensus of views on seeking a negotiated settlement of them."
"....Clinton courteously conveyed a verbal message of US President
Barack Obama expressing profound thanks for [releasing the
journalists] and reflecting views on ways of improving the
relations between the two countries."
Contrast that with how the United States government, via the N.Y. Times,
described the Bill Clinton-Kim Jong-il meeting:
"[Obama] Administration officials said Mr. Clinton went to
North Korea as a private citizen, did not carry a message from
Mr. Obama for Mr. Kim and had the authority to negotiate only
for the women’s release."
* * * *
Of course, everyone is relieved that Lee and Ling
have been spared the horrors of the DPRK's slave labor
camps, in which prisoners are forced to work
to exhaustion on alarmingly small amounts
of food.
While researching conditions in the labor camps,
I read stories of former inmates describing what they
had eaten behind bars. Based (loosely!) on that info,
I've written this menu of ten dishes the DPRK
serves in its labor camps:
Mastering the Art of North Korean Prison Cuisine
Ten Recipes from the DPRK
1. Leather shoelace consomme
2. Raw water soup with a side of ice
3. Teaspoon of Rice, with gravel and assorted rocks
4. Tree Bark (w/fresh worm)
5. Surprise Vegetable Potpourri (a variety of leaves, grass, twigs)
6. Three kernels of corn in sauteed water
7. Organic dirt with a side of mud
8. Grass soup (served with the aroma of pine)
9. Pine cone fiesta! (all the cones you can eat!)
10. Fresh raw mouse (catch it yourself!)
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 4 - 5, 2009
Bill Clinton: President Obama's most powerful foreign policy tool.
[photo of Clinton by Paul Iorio]
Clinton's successful negotiation of the release of Laura Ling
and Euna Lee reminds us that he is still the most repsected and
effective American foreign policy player on the world stage.
My guess is that if a Cuban missile crisis were to occur, it
would be Obama's judgment plus the former president's negotiating
skill that would solve it. Biden may have extraordinary foresight,
Hillary might have a mastery of issues, but it's Bill Clinton who
has the ability to -- what's the word for it? -- get it done.
* * * * *
So great to see Laura Ling and Euna Lee walking to
freedom in Burbank this morning. I've been
fascinated by this case for months, and have even
written about it as a journalist (click here:
http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=8500),
and I think part of my fascination with it has to do with
the fact that when I was much younger -- barely 19 --
I traveled alone by local train behind the Iron
Curtain during the Cold War and was even briefly detained by
the Yugoslav authorities in Zagreb before traveling on into the
most Soviet of Iron Curtain countries, Bulgaria.
So I definitely understand what it's like
to cross a tough Communist border and to be detained
in a country at odds with the U.S. You can read
my account of the journey (based on my own
contemporaneous journals) at:
http://ironcurtaintravels.blogspot.com/
But I digress. Paul
____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 4, 2009
Palin's New Life: Divorcee, Crusader Against 1st Amendment?
Sarah Palin's attorney emailed this pdf (above) to
a small-fry blogger/kindergarten employee a couple days ago,
threatening legal action if he didn't remove
info about her from his blog. [click it to
enlarge it]
To hear the blogs tell it, and the reports are astonishingly
widespread, Sarah Palin is about to divorce husband Todd
and move to Montana, where she will probably spend a lot of
time denying stories that both she and Todd had extramarital
affairs that led to the breakup.
At this early stage -- the reports started emerging just
last Saturday -- it's hard to confirm much of this stuff.
But it should be noted that some of the blogs reporting
the info have been highly credible and ahead of the curve
in the past (for example, the Alaska Report was the first
media outlet to have reported that McCain had chosen
Palin as his running-mate).
Whatever the veracity of the claims, one thing is certain:
since resigning as Governor, she has become a dedicated
crusader against the First Amendment, seemingly picking
on every podunk blogger in cyberspace in trying to suppress
rumors.
Like most right-wingers, Palin doesn't understand a core
truth about free speech: when one tries to suppress
information, that information becomes even more public
than it would have been if you hadn't tried to quash it.
In fact, this column would not be covering the situation
had Palin not used a sledgehammer against an Alaska preschool
employee who runs a blog -- theimmoralminority.blogspot.com -- that
cited sources saying Palin's marriage was on the rocks.
Believe it or not, Palin actually had her attorney send the
blogger (he writes under the name Gryphon) an email pdf threatening
legal action if he didn't take down the report from his
website (letter is posted above).
Picture that for a moment: she's threatening to have a
high-powered law firm serve legal papers to some guy in
front of five-year old kindergarten students for
writing a blog that has miniscule circulation.
Can you imagine what this sort of behavior would have
translated into if she had become vice president of the
United States? Palin's orientation is so small-scale
and petty, her mind-set so censorious, that she would have
probably tried to suppress almost every story written
about her by media outlets of all sizes -- and
would have been able to use the apparatus of the federal
government to do it.
Incidentally, if the rumors are true, they would sure go
a long way toward explaining why Palin made the alarmingly
unusual decision to step down as Governor.
As we all know, the best way to show your law firm
has stature is to have your attorneys pose with dead fish.
(Above, lawyers with the firm that reps Palin (Clapp, Peterson,
Van Flein, Tiemessen and Thorsness), as shown
on its own website!).
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- By the way, wanna know who Sarah Palin
is said to have had an affair with? Dude's name,
according to numerous blog and media reports,
is Brad Hanson, snowmobile dealer and former business
associate of Todd's. (Word is he can get you an
Airwave Rear Shock for a deep discount!) Again,
impossible to confirm at this point. Here's his pic:
Is this the goatee that caused Sarah Barracuda to abandon
that pesky 7th Commandment?
________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for August 3, 2009
Counting Crows Plays a Hometown Show in Berkeley
After a rousing encore of "Mr. Jones," still the
most irresistible song in the Counting Crows catalog,
Adam Duritz went to the mic to talk about politics and
his former hometown, Berkeley, Calif., where he had
just finished a generous set with numerous collaborators
at the Greek Theater (7/26).
Referring to Berkeley, Duritz said: "This city
was founded on the idea that we believe in things.
Well, you can protest all you want, but the way
to make it happen is to show up and vote. Believe
me when I tell you I don't give a fuck who
you vote for."
Then Duritz closed the show with Woody Guthrie's
"This Land," a song that seems to be gradually
evolving into the U.S.'s de facto national anthem.
"This is a very old song written about our country,"
Duritz said, intro'ing the tune. "At the time it was
written, if you sang it, you were thought to be a
Communist. The truth of the matter is, it's the most
American of all songs."
Musically, however, the highlight of the night came
with the surprise appearance of trumpeter Chris Bogios
of the San Francisco Symphony, who performed with the
Crows on "Carriage," a truly sublime and bootlegable
moment. (His son Jim Borgios is the Crows's drummer.)
* * * *
Last Friday's Earth, Wind & Fire/Chicago Show
Several nights after the Crows's show, Earth, Wind & Fire
and Chicago took the stage at the same venue (7/31).
I was skeptical at first. After all, Chicago without
Peter Cetera is not really Chicago; and Earth,
Wind & Fire without Maurice White is not truly EW&F.
And I'm always a bit wary of oldies bands on package
tours that include, say, The Grassroots (featuring the
original bassist and all new members!) plus the Dave
Clark Five (with the founding drummer and a bunch of
session guys).
Still, the configuration of Chicago that played here did
include vocalist/keyboardist Robert Lamm and the group's
original horn section, an essential element, so they did sound
very much like Chicago. And this version of Earth, Wind
& Fire featured Philip Bailey, whose falsetto is the
trademark of many of their classics, so EW&F also
sounded very much like EW&F.
And as the show progressed, one tended to forget
about the absence of Cetera and White, if only because
most of the music was so enjoyable, as number one hits
from the 1970s flew through the air like arrows, one
after another, with half-forgotten zingers always
aiming for the heart, and sometimes hitting it,
inciting widespread dancing and smooching.
Of course, the bands's two separate catalogs feature
very different material, though one of the high points
came when EW&F performed its own quite amazing
arrangement of Chicago's "Wishing You Were Here."
The magic of EW&F has always been its cool hot flame,
on display here in vintage form, and never hotter than
when it played encore "Shining Star," which turned the
place into a dance floor (for the record, I heard the
show from the hill above the theater, where everyone
was dancing at the end).
Meanwhile, Chicago played top ten hits like it was
giving out candy, always aiming to please, from the
show's opening salvo -- "Saturday in the Park" and
"Make Me Smile" -- to the concert finale, "25 or
6 to 4."
All told, a surprisingly satisfying double bill.
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for July 31, 2009
satire
Exclusive Transcript of the Meeting Between Crowley, Gates and Obama
(with apologies to Francis Coppola and Mario Puzo!)
A waiter brings bottles of beer to guests seated
at a table on the White House lawn.
SGT. JAMES CROWLEY: How's the beer here?
PROF. HENRY LOUIS GATES: Good. Try the
Blue Stripe. It's the best in the city.
CROWLEY: I'll have it.
GATES (to the waiter): Capiche?
The waiter nods, opens the bottle and pours the beer.
GATES (to Crowley): I'm gonna speak Harvard
to Barack.
CROWLEY: Go ahead...
GATES: Mi dispiace...
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Forget about it.
GATES: What happened -- the interruption of your
health care plan -- was just business, not intended. I have much
respect for your public option plan -- but you must understand
why I blew my top.
OBAMA: I understand, but let's work through
where we go from here.
The waiter brings another beer to the table.
OBAMA: Come si dice? What I want -- what's most
important to me -- is that I have a guarantee: No more
distractions from my health care plan.
GATES: What guarantees can I give you, Barack?
I am the hunted one! You think too much of me, kid -- I'm not
that clever. All I want is a truce.
OBAMA: I have to go to the bathroom. Is that all right?
CROWLEY: You gotta go, you gotta go...
* * *
After the get-together, Obama visits Gates at his hotel room:
GATES: Barack, I wish you would have let me
know you were coming; I could have prepared something for you.
OBAMA: I didn't want you to know I was coming.
Obama shuts the door.
OBAMA: You heard what happened to my health care plan?
GATES: Barack, I almost died myself.
OBAMA (shouting): To my health care
plan! To the central issue of my presidency. One of the
reasons I ran for office.
A long pause.
OBAMA: I want you to help me take my revenge.
GATES: Barack, anything -- what can I do?
OBAMA: Settle these troubles with the Cambridge
police department. They're a distraction.
GATES: Barack, I don't understand. Look, I
don't have your brain for big deals -- but this is a street thing.
Why do you ask me to lay down for them, Barack?
OBAMA: [a long pause] You know,
my father taught me: keep your friends close but your
enemies closer. Now, if Crowley sees that I interceded
in this thing on his behalf, he's going to think his
relationship with me is still good. Capiche?
Gates nods head.
OBAMA: That's what I want him to think. I want
him completely relaxed, and confident, in our friendship. Then
I'll be able to shift my focus to health care and find out who
the Blue Dog traitors in my party are who are stopping the health
care plan.
CUT TO: The bedroom of Bill and Hillary
Clinton's house, late at night. Bill and Hillary are sleeping.
The telephone rings, Bill picks it up.
BILL CLINTON: Yeah?
VOICE OF MITCH MCCONNELL: Bill, this is
Mitch, Mitch McConnell. We need some more help.
BILL: Mitch, Jesus Christ, what the hell time
is it?
HILLARY CLINTON (groggy):Who's that, honey?
BILL CLINTON: Shhh!
VOICE OF MCCONNELL: Listen good, Bill.
BILL CLINTON: What are you calling me
here for? I don't want to talk to you.
VOICE OF MITCH MCCONNELL: We're setting up a meeting
with the Blue Dogs -- they say they're gonna go for our deal.
BILL CLINTON: Oh, God --
VOICE OF MITCH MCCONNELL: Are they on the level?
BILL CLINTON: I don't know anything -- you got
me in deep enough already.
VOICE OF MITCH MCCONNELL: Just go along,
everything will be all right. Mike Ross and the Blue Dogs
say they're willing to make the deal. All we want
to know is if they're on the level.
BILL CLINTON: You guys lied to me -- I don't
want you to call me anymore.
VOICE OF MITCH MCCONNELL: Obama's not going
to find out we talked.
BILL CLINTON: I don't know what you're talking about.
Bill hangs up the phone and sits up in bed.
HILLARY: Who was that?
BILL: Ahh -- wrong number.
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for July 29, 2009
One very smart local TV news anchor in San Francisco
came up with the best question that anybody has yet
asked about yesterday's international swimming
competition: Why didn't Michael Phelps wear the
superior swimsuit?
And the question is really quite bright. In yesterday's
200-meter freestyle race in Rome, Phelps was
wearing last year's hot innovation, the Speedo LZR, not
this year's, the Arena X-Glide. All the other swimmers
had the option of wearing the Arena but Phelps and others
chose the inferior Speedo (and it now emerges that Phelps
was offered the polyurethane suit but didn't wear it
because he had signed a contract with Speedo).
Let's be real. Phelps didn't wake up yesterday
morning saying, "Gee, let me wear something
bulky that creates a lot of hydrodynamic resistance
so that I can be fair to those who aren't clever
enough to wear something better." No, Phelps
wanted to wear what he felt would reduce
drag and resistance as much as possible.
Only problem (for Phelps) is that -- guess what? -- somebody
invented something better. And it doesn't use a motor or a
propeller and doesn't administer steroids like a patch,
so it's completely legit.
Some say the polyurethane Arena should be prohibited
because it's too close to a floatation device. But every
swimsuit is, to some degree, a floatation device, and the
superior ones have greater buoyancy and less drag. Buoyancy
is the point, or part of it, after all.
As Phelps well knows, if you build a better bong,
the world will beat a path to your doorstep!
And equating the Arena to an aluminum bat in baseball
is a false comparison. Aluminum bats, which hit balls
with far greater force than wooden ones, are not used in the
major leagues, largely because of safety issues
related to pitchers being hit with baseballs speeding
at 100-miles an hour. There is no such safety issue
involved with a polyurethane suit being worn by a swimmer
swimming in his own lane in a pool.
There is, however, a dangerous tendency among some to
criticize almost any new innovation (in any field)
because that person didn't come up with it or use it
first. In many cases, envious people say there is an
unfair advantage merely because they weren't smart enough
to have taken advantage of a legitimate advance in technology
or approach. Losing competitors in every profession
have a habit of saying, "Hey,that's a clever and fresh
way of doing things -- no fair!"
The polyurethane suit does pretty much what the Speedo
does -- except it does it better. And that's why Phelps (and
his allies in the sports media and those associated with
Speedo) are acting like a bunch of sore losers, because
they know Phelps could've used the better brand if he
hadn't been locked into a contract with Speedo.
Fact is, all suits have inherent advantages and disadvantages.
The only way competitive swimmers could truly be on
an equal footing with one another is if everybody
swam nude (which might be great for TV ratings but a nightmare
for Standards & Practices). Even then, of course, there would
still be, uh, other elements of the bodies of (unequally endowed)
swimmers that could create drag.
Germany's Paul Biederman, using the best technology legitimately
available to him, as any other swimmer could have, won fair
and square and should be duly congratulated by all.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for July 24, 2009
He's Saad, I'm Glaad
Osama bin Laden's son Saad bin Laden, 27, is saaid to have
died (27 years too late, I might aadd) in an American bombing
raid earlier this year.
To celebrate the fact of Saad's death, a good thing for
the world, like the death of a tumor, here's a song I
wrote and recorded last year called "I Shot Osama
bin Laden." http://www.paulioriosong.vox.com/
Enjoy!
[cvr art for "I Shot Osama bin Laden."]
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Someone asked me whether I'm also the producer
of my own music. Yes. I write everything, perform
everything, produce everything that appears on my
albums. Literally everything -- from the initial
songwriting idea to the finished track to everything
in between -- is solely my work. Only in 2005
did I use an outside producer for an album, and
that album didn't work out and has since been
withdrawn from circulation. But even in that one
instance, way back in '05, the outside producer was
essentially just a tech support person (and we
haven't spoken to each other in years).
____________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for July 23, 2009
Anyone who has lived in Hoboken , New Jersey, for any
length of time knows its city government has always been
incorrigibly corrupt. For honest everyday people, living
there can be a fright if you're at odds with someone at
City Hall (or with a businessperson associated with
City Hall).
So it was heartening to see the FBI put the handcuffs on
the newly elected mayor of Hoboken, the mayor of
Secaucus and others in the venal infrastructure out there
this morning.
To note the housecleaning, I'm posting a song I wrote
while living in Hoboken and recorded last year in
California: "Old Fashioned Mafia Town." Here's an
audio link: http://www.paulioriosong.vox.com/
But I digress. Paul
________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for July 18 - 22, 2009
On the 40th Anniversary of the First Moonwalk, My
Conversation with a Moonwalker
I've interviewed many stars and celebrities over the
decades, from Woody Allen to Richard Pryor
to Lawrence Ferlinghetti to Frank Zappa, and one
that I'm particularly proud of is my Q&A with Alan Bean,
the fourth person to walk on the moon, one of only
12 human beings who can truthfully put "moonwalker"
on a resume.
In this one-on-one, I wanted Bean to describe
exactly what it was like, on an experiential level,
to walk on the moon. And Bean (who also has a thriving
second career as a visual artist) talked about
it in vivid, painterly detail. (For the record,
Bean went to the moon in November 1969, as part of
the crew of Apollo 12, which included the late
Charles “Pete” Conrad, Jr., and Richard F. Gordon.)
I conducted this interview on October 13, 1998, but
got around to publishing it in 2004, when I
sold it to the Austin American-Statesman, which
ran it on July 18, 2004. Here, on the 40th
anniversary of the first lunar landing by astronauts,
is the (mostly) uncut interview with Bean. Fasten your seatbelts!
IORIO: WHEN YOU STEP OUT ON THE MOON, WHAT DO YOU SEE?
BEAN: It looks bright outside but you're fairly dim inside...It's
like coming out of the house at night onto a
patio that's super brightly lit...You're saying, "Look at this!
This looks so different than when I was inside.'"
It looks scarier. You're saying, "Look at this place, it's
not like any place on Earth. And I hope my suit
doesn't leak because if it does, I'm dead. And look at
those rocks. And look, there's Pete [Conrad,
Commander of Apollo 12] over there, jumping up and
down -- that looks like fun." And then you let go of
the ladder to start to move and you start to wobble around,
and you think, "I'm going to fall down and I don't
want to; I might cut my suit."
...If you've looked at TV [footage] of Apollo 11...you'll
see they're bouncing around continually at first. It's
easier to stand up when you're bouncing around....If you try
to stand still in a spot, it's much more difficult
than just kind of moving around a little bit, because
naturally you'll move in the direction you're leaning, and
that'll keep you from leaning farther.
IF YOU HAD FALLEN, COULD YOU HAVE PUNCTURED YOUR [SPACE SUIT]?
BEAN: We worried about it, we worried you could. You've got
a cover layer over it but we said, "Those
rocks are sharp." It's funny: you know things and yet you
don't know them until they really happen...I fell
down a couple of times on the moon -- most people did -- because
there are dust layers there, and under the
dust are rocks, and it's like you’re running through snow,
and there are rocks under the snow that you don't
see. You trip every once in a while.
But with light gravity, things fall much more slowly, so
when you trip you start to fall down much more
slowly. Sometimes you can run under your body and catch
yourself, where on Earth you would've really
fallen down. Nothing happens real fast like on Earth.
,,,To get up, just give it a little push with your hands
and you'll stand right back up again. The first time I
tried to stand, I gave a push with my hands and nearly
went over backwards I pushed so hard...
Someday, when they have the Olympics up there in a big dome,
it'll be fun. It'll be fun to watch the high
jump, because they're going to jump fifteen feet or
something, and they're going up very slowly and keep
going up and up, almost like a football. Then they're
going to come down very slow....No telling what pole
vaulting would be like up there!
DID YOU HAVE THE TEMPTATION JUST TO JUMP AS HIGH AS YOU COULD [ON THE MOON]?
BEAN: We did that, but don't forget we were in these
bulky suits, so even though you could jump and go
up a long ways, it was so slowly that you went up and
were pulled back.
What I found was the problem was not jumping up high
but...the minute you jumped off the ground, you
never pushed through your center of gravity really
perfectly. On Earth, you jump up and land right down
again, so it's no problem. But [on the moon], you're
going up, and all of a sudden you see you didn't push
through your center of gravity, and you see you're
starting to lean to the left.
When I was running [on the moon], I always felt that
I was over-rotating forwards, backwards, left or right,
and each time I landed I would think, I've got to hurry
up and land, I'll never make it." And then when I
would touch down, I would push off and try to make a
correction in the other direction. Then I would
overcorrect. [laughs] So it was like I was reeling
across the moon....It was a constant balancing act almost.
You had to look where your foot was going to land every
time. You couldn't run and look ahead, because
you'd go into a crater. You had to make sure you didn't
step on rocks or twist your ankle...It would be fun to
do it in a bubble without the suit on.
YOU SAID EARLIER THAT, VISUALLY, IT'S LIKE NOTHING ON EARTH.
BUT IS THERE ANY POINT OF COMPARISON?...IN YOUR SEVEN
AND THREE-QUARTERS HOURS [ON THE MOON], WAS THERE ONE MOMENT
WHEN...YOU SAID, "THIS LOOKS LIKE THE MOJAVE"?
BEAN: It looked like volcanic fields that we had practiced
on in Hawaii and Oregon and Ireland and
Mexico and some in the southwest [U.S.]...except there's
a lot more dirt around [on the moon]. With the
dirt on Earth, the rain washes most of it away, particularly
the fine stuff, so usually the volcanic fields...have
more rock exposed. Up there, the rocks are around but
all the little chips that have been knocked off the
rocks are still there.
So I thought, initially, it looks sort of looks like
volcanic fields....However, it never looked like any place on
Earth because of the incredible sun, because the sky is a patent
leather black instead of a nice blue and because nothing
moves up there. The only things that moved when we were
up there were the two of us and our shadows. Nothing
else moves. We'd never been to places like that on
Earth. Even in the desert you can look up and see maybe a
wisp of a cloud go by....It's so still, so dead. I never
for one second felt like this could ever be a place on
Earth, even though parts of it looked like other places
we'd been. It's an unearthly place, an out-of-this-world
place.
AND YOU TURN AROUND AND LOOK AT THE EARTH...AND IT'S THIS
BLUE WATERY MASS?
BEAN: You're on this [moon] that's black and white and the
whole universe is black and white, except on
Earth. And there is this blue and white marble. And
also, it changes. You do some work and look at the
Earth an hour later, and it has moved 15 degrees. So some
clouds have moved to the right, the part that was
in the shadow 15 degrees has come out.
WHAT'S IT LIKE UP THERE [ON SKYLAB]? YOU WERE THERE FOR FIFTY-NINE DAYS IN
CRAMPED --
BEAN: We weren't cramped -- we had a big Skylab. I've never
heard anybody come back from space for no
matter how long and say, "Well, we didn't have enough room."
Because when you can float around...it
always seems like you have enough room. I've never heard an
astronaut say the spacecraft was too little, but
I've heard lots of astronauts say, "We need better food" or
"We've got to invent a better sleeping bag" or
"We've got to get bigger windows because we can't see out."
As [lunar module pilot] Bill Anders on Apollo
8 said, "It's like going through Yellowstone Park in a tank
and looking out the little window."
...People complain about the fact that it's kind of
messy up there for pooping and urinating. It's like
camping out [but] not as much fun as on Earth.
WHAT [FEATURE] FILM BEST CAPTURES THE SPACE EXPERINECE?
BEAN: "Apollo 13," easily. "Apollo 13" was as good a movie
as could be made about space flight as I knew it.
* * * *
* * * *
The best line about remembering the events of 1969 came
from Meredith Vieira on today's "Today" show: "Forty
years ago I was alive -- that's depressing."
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for July 17, 2009
Remembering Walter Cronikite
The only time I ever saw Walter Cronkite in person
was in the early-1980s at the Black Rock building in
Manhattan. He was alone in the elevator lobby on an
upper floor as I walked by behind him. I remember he had
a terrific red tan, and when I passed, he turned his
head all the way around to look at who was walking by.
And I was about to stop and introduce myself and say a
few words, but his elevator arrived and he got inside.
That backwards glance will stick with me forever; you
could sense he was genuinely curious about whatever
entered (or didn't enter) his field of vision.
Cronkite died today, and it's almost impossible to
overstate his influence, especially on the boomers
that came of age in the Sixties and Seventies. To me,
his finest hour on TV -- and he had many fine ones -- was
the one I saw as a politically active 11-year old in 1968:
his coverage of the Democratic National Convention,
particularly the famous incident in which Dan Rather
was decked by security goons on the Convention
floor for merely asking why a Eugene McCarthy delegate
was being ejected from the hall. Cronkite, moderating the raucous
gathering from a booth, had clearly had it with cops and security
people being violent to the press and others.
"I think we've got a bunch of thugs here, Dan,” said Cronkite.
And there he was, the most trusted source of news in America,
calling the authorities "thugs." That made a big impression on
me as a kid. He wasn't mincing words or prettifying things or
doing anything but calling it as he saw it and as it was.
He died at age 92, meaning he was a year younger than JFK
(which also shows the staggering amount of time and
history that our 35th president was robbed of). Cronkite lived
exactly twice as long as JFK, despite the risks of his
profession, and maybe his longevity had something to do with
the fact that, as I saw first-hand, nothing ever got past him
unless he took an unflinching look at what it was.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for July 16, 2009
Bruno Hoaxes Ron Paul!
U.S. Congressman in a compromising position!
[photo of "Bruno" by Paul Iorio.]
The main astonishing things about "Bruno" are 1) how
Sacha Baron Cohen, in his cinematic guises as both Bruno
and Borat, has avoided being assaulted and seriously
injured by irate prankees; 2) how he could
find celebrities who, at this late stage, were still
unfamiliar with either Bruno or the phenomenon of
Baron Cohen himself.
I mean, Paula Abdul was not aware of Bruno? And Ron
Paul hadn't heard about how Borat famously hoaxed
Bob Barr and Alan Keyes back in '06? Evidently not.
The most striking part of "Bruno" is the hoaxing of
U.S. Rep. Ron Paul, who is caught on film genuinely
losing his temper in a very politically
incorrect way after being pranked by Bruno.
The sequence in which Bruno tries to seduce the
Republican Congressman (imagine if this had been
the Larry Craig of a few years ago!) begins with
the Austrian fashion icon entering Rep. Paul's hotel
room and asking if he would like some Champagne.
BRUNO: Do you want some Champagne?
RON PAUL: [nervously] No Champagne, no.
BRUNO: I'm going to light some candles, if it's
OK....Has anyone ever told you you look
like Enrique Iglesias?
RON PAUL: [grunts "no"]
BRUNO: Of course not. You're much cuter.
Bruno then puts on music and dances a bit, as Ron
Paul -- his antenna finally up, albeit a bit too
late -- stands and pretends to read a newspaper.
When Bruno takes off his pants and stands at the
door, that's the last straw.
RON PAUL: [pushing the half-naked Bruno out of
the way and shouting angrily] Get out of here!
Alright, this is ended. [to his own people, still hollering
and pissed] That guy is queer to the blazes. He took his
clothes off. Let's get going. He's queer! He's crazy!
He put a hand on me, he took his clothes off!
(By the way, fair game. Ron Paul is a guy who wanted
to become president of the United States; well, here's
how he responds in a pressured situation. If Obama
had been pranked by Bruno, could you imagine the same
tantrum? Not a chance. Obama would've kept his cool,
smiled that smile, and said, "Sorry, guy, not into that
sort of thing," and left the room.)
Paula Abdul also gets the treatment. At first, Bruno
lures in Abdul by asking a couple softball questions
that feed into her instinct for self-promotion.
BRUNO: So tell me about your humanitarian work. How
important is it for you to help people?
PAULA ABDUL: [while sitting on a person paid to be a
chair] Helping other people is so vital to my
life. It's like the air that I breath and the water
that I drink. You give love to other people and you get
love back in spades.
Then Bruno rolls out a food buffet that is on top of a person's
naked body.
ABDUL: [shocked] Oh, my god!! This is really not for
me. I'm sorry this is really not right. [And then
she runs off in horror.]
As Abdul runs off, Bruno pleads, "Come back, please!"
Paula Abdul, caught in Bruno's web of lies
(and sitting atop a person paid to be a chair!).
[photo of "Bruno" by Paul Iorio.]
Another memorable bit is this one between Bruno and a
self-defense instructor:
BRUNO: How do you spot the homosexual?
INSTRUCTOR: Very hard to do. Because many look no
different than myself or you. It's kind of like
terrorists...
BRUNO: But obvious things to look for?
INSTRUCTOR: Obvious is a person who is being extremely
nice to start with.
BRUNO: So someone approaches you...and is very very nice
to you, you know that they are homosexual?
INSTRUCTOR: Most likely.
And what follows is a marvelous and surreal bit of
choreography in which the instructor trains Bruno in
how to defend himself against someone coming at him
with a variety of exotic dildoes (you have to
see it to believe it).
Other funny scenes include one in which Bruno tries to
negotiate peace in the Middle East with an Israeli and a
Palestinian.
BRUNO: Could the Palestinians agree to give the Pyramids
back to the Israelis?
PALESTINIAN: This is in Egypt, not in Palestine.
BRUNO: I don't care where you put them. Give them back.
He also jets off to a Lebanese refugee camp where he
meets with a hard-line militant.
BRUNO: Can I give you guys a word of advice? Lose the
beards. Because your King Osama looks like a kind of
dirty wizard or homeless Santa.
LEBANESE MILITANT: [through a translator] Get out!
Get out now!
[Again, fair game. Bruno is interviewing a guy
whose terrorist beliefs are based on his reading
of only one book (and not a very good one, at that), The
Koran. The militant is arguably more superficial
than Bruno himself.)
All told, "Bruno" is (as everyone says) not quite as funny as
"Borat," though it still has plenty of hilarious sequences
and is funnier than some critics say it is. I've always
thought Bruno the character was incompletely
conceived in that his Nazi side should've been developed
more than his gay side (think of the possibilities if
Bruno had infiltrated and hoaxed some Aryan Nation
groups who thought he was one of them, a worshipper
of the gay Hitler).
But the Ron Paul and Paula Abdul segments are pretty
much worth the price of admission, or at
least the price of a DVD rental.
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for July 14, 2009
I know I'm a compulsive thanker, but I must say
many thanks to Marshall "Hussein" Stax for playing
my new song "Kim Jong-il" last night on KALX (along
with my own tribute to the NBT). Free stream of "Kim"
now posted at www.pauliorio.vox.com! Juche, baby, Juche!
But I digress. Paul
_______________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for July 12, 2009
Last Night: Death Cab, Andrew Bird, Ra Ra Riot -- and Sunshowers!
There was natural magic onstage and off last night in
Berkeley, Calif., as Death Cab for Cutie and two primo
indie acts performed while nature itself almost upstaged
the show with sunshowers, weird sunlight and a massive
rainbow.
"This is a song about a day like today and a night like
tonight," said Death Cab's Ben Gibbard, referring to the
weather. "The song is called 'No Sunlight.'"
And then the band, as confident and masterful as
ever, started into the tune: "More clouds appeared/the
sky went black/And there was no sunlight/No sunlight."
Also mentioning the rain from the stage was opening
act Andrew Bird, who lately has been the headliner at
other gigs and had most of his set here accompanied
by a steady drizzle.
"You ok?," he asked the crowd once the showers began.
"It's nothin', right?" The crowd cheered. Bird tried to
make everyone forget about the precip, building tension
from note one.
As Bird played an immensely enjoyable "Fitz and the Dizzyspells,"
from his new EP of the same name, the rain seemed to awaken
nearby exotic birds who began to chirp along with Bird's own
prodigious whistling (Bird makes novel use of whistling and
the violin, which he occasionally plucks like a mandolin,
like no one else in pop music).
After Bird finished his set, the rain stopped and sunlight
scattered through the hilly woods like an orange fire. "A
rainbow, a rainbow," a woman started shouting, pointing to
a big rainbow in the southern twilight sky. (By the way, I
heard the whole show in the hills adjacent to the Greek
Theater, an open-air venue.)
Minutes later, the real magic began, as Death Cab took
the stage with a double blast from "Plans," its 2006
breakthrough album, which comprised around a third of
its setlist. And then a taste of "Transatlanticism," the
band's most critically praised album, before playing
a couple tunes from its new CD, "The Open Door,"
the best being "My Mirror Speaks," well worth
checking out.
Tracks from '08's "Narrow Stairs" sounded weightier
than they did at first listen last year, with the high
point of the entire show being the long version of "I
Will Possess Your Heart," which worked up a groove and
momentum that was almost hypnotic.
Opening the concert for both Death Cab and Andrew Bird was
Ra Ra Riot, who've roared out of Syracuse University in
the last few years to become one of the more promising
bands in indie rock. The group is touring behind its
debut album, "The Rhumb Line" (and has already
appeared on Letterman and at top festivals); it's the
sort of stuff that kicks in after a second
or third listening, and the highlight here was the
infectious and catchy "Can You Tell," which shows why
the band is generating lots of enthusiasm, not least
of all from Death Cab's Gibbard, who dedicated a
song to the Syracuse band.
"Here's an old song...from our first record, and it goes
out to Ra Ra Riot," said Gibbard from the stage, intro'ing
"President of What?"
By the time the whole three-band shebang ended, the rain
was gone, the ground was almost dry -- and Bird had
turned 36. It was cooler, then warmer, and I felt
vaguely as if the seasons had changed, but to
what, I didn't know. Perhaps to an imaginary fifth
season.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- By the way, before "Death Cab took the stage,
a pre-recorded disc played a welcome surprise through
the p.a.: "You're My Favorite Thing," a 25-year-old
post-punk nugget from The Replacements, and it sounded
fantastic. So much so that I began to think of how great
it would be if the surviving Mats were to re-unite
(bringing together Paul Westerberg, Chris Mars and Tommy
Stinson, if that's even possible). People tend to forget
how great that group was, both on stage and in the
studio, until they hear a prime track. A reunion tour
would turn on a whole new generation to a massively
influential (and very, very fun) band that should be
better known than it is today.
___________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for July 11 - 12, 2009
A 25-Year Old Recluse, and His Own Private Nukes
The rising son? Said to be the only publicly-available
photos of Kim Jong-un as an adult. [from a South
Korean newspaper, via the Daily Telegraph]
In the wake of President Obama's trip to Moscow, it's
clear the central problem with nonproliferation policy
is and has always been hypocrisy, the paternalistic
notion that one set of nations can be trusted with
nukes but another cannot. Obama has gone a long way
toward removing hypocrisy from the equation by saying,
ok, we'll reduce our nuclear arsenal, and in return
we expect you, North Korea and Iran, to take an
equivalent action, to not develop nukes at all.
(By the way: oh, how these meetings with Russian leaders
have changed; legend has it that Boris Yeltsin used to
show up at summits, saying, "Take me
to your liter!")
Jokes aside, the unfunny truth is that the DPRK
will soon become a nuclear power, if it
isn't already, and there's not much we can do about it.
Any U.N.resolution authorizing the use of force
against the DPRK will always be vetoed in
the Security Council by the PRC (and Russia), though
President Hu Jintao, who sometimes acts as if Kim is his
Agnew, can always be persuaded to vote for a
non-binding resolution that has all
the impact of an impassioned letter to the editor.
Meanwhile, six-party talks always amount to mere
two-party talks and impasse.
Frankly, the DPRK could get away with anything (short
of attacking Seoul or Tokyo) without suffering much
more than a strongly-worded condemnation.
And let's be real: Kim Jong-il is not testing nukes to get
attention. We say that he's trying to get attention
as a backhanded insult, a way to infantilize him
and his regime.
No, he's developing weapons of mass destruction for
the same reason we have them: for self-defense. Kim
doesn't send out press releases every time he
fires off a Taepodong or explodes a nuke; in fact, we learn
about it only through our own seismographic info. The DPRK is
doing this stuff in private, and we're the ones publicizing it and
saying they merely want attention.
Further, the DPRK has not put Euna Lee and Laura Ling in prison
in order to get attention or to have a bargaining chip any more than
the United States is incarcerating Charles Manson for those
reasons. North Korea has put them in prison because it believes
they broke one of its eccentric laws -- and the punishment there is
almost always universally (and absurdly and tragically) harsh.
By the way, the campaign to spring Lee and Ling might be more
effective if there was an appeal for their release by film
stars and movie moguls rather than by U.S. government officials.
You see, Kim Jong-il really does follow movies closely and
always has, and he might listen more attentively to Hilary
Swank than to Hillary Clinton.
Kim may have the ambitions of a film maker, but not the talent.
I've read many of Kim Jong-il's writings, mostly essays,
and what comes through is that he's no Robert Towne (and
certainly no Mao). I mean, he's not stupid but his writing
is shockingly lousy, plodding and autocratic, far from
the aphoristic wisdom of Mao (even when translated into English
by Kim's own editors in Pyongyang).
Kim's intellectual development might have been stunted by the fact
that his college education happened at a university named for his
dad, who was running the country at the time (what prof
would've risked flunking him?).
That lack of education may account for his persistent
delusional dream of re-unifying the Korean peninsula.
Kim and many others are evidently unaware that the division of
Korea is not a modern invention. The peninsula was
divided as far back as the Han dynasty and divided again during
the T'ang era; in the modern age, it was artificially
unified as a Japanese colony for around 30 years in
the 20th century, a colonial relationship that ended very
badly, as we all remember, with the atomic bombing
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki in '45.
The good news about North Korea is that
we might have caught a break; Kim is said to have
had a stroke last year, is in declining health and
recently sent his sons to Beijing to beg for advanced
medical equipment to treat his ailment, which
can only mean his illness is unusually serious
(word is he has pancreatic cancer).
He could have been one of those dictators who
lives and rules in good health until age 90.
Instead, we probably won't have to deal with him
much longer.
The bad news is his successor -- son Kim Jong-Un, who
is only 25 (or 26) -- might be worse. Given his age
and temperament (he's said to be a lot like his dad,
and has a taste for Claude Van Damme flicks), he's
probably prone to making rash, callow hot-headed
decisions that could be dangerous for everybody.
In terms of U.S. policy: whatever we're doing now
seems to be pushing the DPRK away from disarmament.
The key question is this: What was the international
community doing in the spring of '08 that convinced
Pyongyang to topple its own reactor tower at Yongbyon?
Whatever the world was doing then to persuade Kim to
de-nuclearize, it worked, and we should do it again.
Even during the ancient Han Dynasty, the
Korean peninsula was divided between north and south.
[from the book "Historical Atlas of Empires," by
Karen Farrington]
- - -
And in the later T'ang dynasty, Korea was
similarly splt. [from the book "Historical
Atlas of Empires," by Karen Farrington]
- - -
I walked by Current TV's headquarters in San Francisco recently,
which is near the bayfront and AT&T Park, a baseball stadium
and concert venue. And I felt sad thinking that Euna Lee and
Laura Ling must have enjoyed this very fun area of town, which
is so radically different from the landscape they're in now.
[photo by Paul Iorio]
* * * *
Scandalous Picture of the Day!
Seeing is believing, right? Here's a shot of U.S. Senator
Mel Martinez taking indecent liberties with an 11-year-old
boy! Looks like inappropriate touching to me. Scandal!
[photo published in today's online edition
of The Washington Post.]
* * * *
I have a friend who is not very artistically
smart who visited me a few years ago and, after
hearing my latest album, pompously asked what
the "theme" of the album was.
I told him that I was no fan of the idea of
superimposing a conscious theme on a work
of music or art, that any theme (if there is one)
should emanate organically from the work itself
and not be forced upon the music. Theme, unless
it is organic, is generally a contrivance, and
I prefer to allow the unconscious
to shape a work as much as possible.
But my friend still had these high school
English teacherish ideas about writing and
music that he hadn't outgrown and
needed some convincing.
"OK, what's the theme of Rubber Soul?," I asked him. "What's
the theme of Who's Next, one of the greatest albums of
all time?"
He didn't have an answer, and I could see that I
was getting him to re-think "all the crap he learned in
high school" (to coin a phrase).
The greatest pop albums of all time were collections of
songs that fit together intuitively, for reasons that
can't be fully consciously explained -- and that's the
most genuine and authentic way of shaping a work.
What about an album like the Beatles's "Sgt. Pepper's
Lonely Hearts Club Band," which (supposedly) has a
deliberate unified structure?
Does it? Think about that for a moment. Was "Sgt. Pepper"
really a themed album? The best insight about "Sgt. Pepper"
comes from John Lennon, who once stated that the idea
that that album had a theme or concept was really false. I
don't have the exact quote in front of me, but Lennon said
that if you take away the reprise of the title
track near the end, it's just a collection of songs
that has absolutely nothing to do with the "theme" of
"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." I mean,
"Within You, Without You" had zero to do with the idea
of "Sgt Pepper." And the rest of the songs didn't
go with the concept at all.
But the album fits together -- frankly, despite the
forced concept, not because of it.
So to those who ask what the themes of my albums
are, my answer is: I don't work that way and never will.
I simply write songs that feel right and put them together
on an album in a juxtaposition and sequence that works.
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for July 3, 2009
The Best American Film of 2009 (So Far)
In "Public Enemies," Johnny Depp compares
favorably to vintage Pacino.
Michael Mann's new film, "Public Enemies," is not
just the best American movie of the first half of
'09, but also the best gangster picture in around
20 years, a symphony of violent light that must
be seen on the big screen to be fully appreciated.
The movie stars Johnny Depp as John Dillinger, the
bank robber who terrorized the Midwest in 1934 and gained
fame for his legendary prison escapes and chases
from police, all dramatized here as vividly as
cinematically possible. Depp is as charismatic as he's
ever been, recalling no less than Al Pacino
in the first two "Godfather" films.
Depp's Dillinger sums himself up to a gorgeous hat
check attendant (Marion Cotillard) this way: "I like
baseball, movies, and good clothes and fast cars
and whiskey -- and you. What else do you need to know?"
Also notable is Stephen Graham as Baby Face Nelson,
Dillinger's number two, as brutal and breathtaking as
chilled vodka; and the soundtrack, one of the best in
years, featuring vintage, dangerous-sounding Depression-era
songs that mix magically with the robbery scenes.
And the film also draws a devastating portrait of
J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup), the autocratic
founder of the FBI, who obsessively pursued Dillinger
and is shown here as callow, bureaucratic and always
trying to take credit for the achievements of others,
as in this scene in which he's quizzed
by a U.S. Senator:
SENATOR: How many [felons] have you actually caught?
HOOVER: We have arrested and arraigned 213 wanted felons.
SENATOR: No, I mean you, Director Hoover. How many?
HOOVER: As Director, I administer.
SENATOR: How many have you arrested personally?
HOOVER: [pause] I haven't arrested anybody.
SENATOR: You've never arrested anybody?
HOOVER: Of course not. I'm an administrator.
SENATOR: With no field experience, you're shockingly
unqualified aren't you, sir?
Hoover's agents, after many missteps, eventually got
Dillinger, outside a movie theater in Chicago, exactly
75 years ago to the day (this July 22); Mann, as always,
finds fresh, surprising and memorable ways to show the
carnage.
And the denouement might actually bring a tear to your
eye, making this a real rarity: a gangster movie that's
not just suspenseful and visually stunning but humorous
and moving, too.
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for July 2, 2009
The New Nixon Tapes, "Frost/Nixon," Title VII, etc.
Last year bumper stickers cropped up in my neighborhood
that said something like "Bush Makes Me Nostalgic For Nixon."
But I've never agreed with the stickers or the progressives
who say George W. Bush was worse than Richard Nixon as
president.
Look, I'm no Bush fan, but he was far preferable to Nixon
in almost every significant way. Whatever else you might
think about Bush, W. was transparent, unbigoted, and
there was almost no difference between the private Bush
and the public one. W.'s sins were mostly those of omission,
Nixon's of commission.
In other words, domestically at least, Bush had a laissez-faire,
less-government approach that led to neglectful policies,
disasters like the Katrina response and the partial collapse
of the U.S. economy. Nixon, however, was more predatory,
aggressively using the apparatus of the Federal government
to ruin political opponents.
Last week a new batch of Nixon tapes was released by the
National Archives that, once again, confirm almost
every nightmare we've ever had about him, one of the most
shocking being his racism. Abortion, said our 37th
president, the product of a mixed marriage between a
Quaker and a Methodist, may be necessary when there is a
pregnancy between "a black and a white." Hard to fathom
the sort of mind that would say such a thing.
The new Nixon tapes are reminders of why progressivism,
and even its more radical variants, made a lot of sense
in that era.
Nixon's Watergate-related crimes were so egregious that I
think Congress should seriously consider passing a bill
that urges courts to reevaluate the criminal cases of
citizens convicted of crimes committed in the course
of group political action between January 1969 and
August 1974, allowing judges to give greater weight to
such mitigating factors as abuses of power by the U.S.
government and by Hoover's F.B.I.
So, for example, if, today, some sixtysomething guy
who was unfairly caught up in a group arrest during, say,
an anti-war protest in 1970 wants to get his official
rap sheet cleared, such a law would make it easier for
him to do so.
I think there has to be some sort of additional formal
acknowledgment by the government that the Nixon regime
operated outside accepted legal frameworks -- and the best
way to do that might be to allow a reassessment of
legal cases involving dissent in those years.
The tapes also spurred me to revisit last year's
"Frost/Nixon" film and the actual Frost broadcasts
that it was based on. "Frost/Nixon" is beautifully crafted
and engaging but fundamentally flawed in its elevation
of Frost to a level that is way beyond his relatively
minor cultural and journalistic significance.
And some of the most riveting parts of the real Frost
interviews with Nixon weren't dramatized in the feature
(such as the real-life part when Frost nails Nixon about
the paying of hush money to the Watergate burglars,
citing 16 audiotaped examples of Nixon directly approving
such payments).
Some say this is the closest Nixon came to being put on
trial, but if that's so, Frost was the wrong prosecutor,
because he lacked the professional finesse of, say, the
best "60 Minutes" interviewers. For example, instead
of telling Nixon, "I would say,'that is an obstruction of
justice,'" Frost should have said something like, "What would
you say to someone who calls that an outright obstruction
of justice?" Frost repeatedly assumes the posture
of an advocate or prosecutor, not of a disinterested
journalist.
In the actual Frost Q&A, Nixon has the air and anger
of a generalisimo in a military coup. One gets the sense
that he saw his own vice-presidency of the 1950s as a
case of being second-in-command during America's military
regime -- Gen. Eisenhower's presidency -- even if Ike himself
never saw it that way. Elsewhere, unprompted, Nixon brings
up a characterization of H.R. Haldeman as a "Nazi storm
trooper" as though that excites him in some way. And when he
says, "I let the American people down," Nixon has a slight
smile on his face, as if he's really saying, "I finally got to
stick it to all those people who tormented me."
No wonder he got along with the despots of the
People's Republic of China, who we now see more
accurately as human rights violators and autocrats.
Nixon fit right in with the dictators who wanted
to quash peaceful dissent by shedding blood, and lots of it,
if necessary.
Sure, opening the door to China was a progressive move -- nobody
is going to deny that. But factoring in what we now know
about both Nixon and China, we can see his PRC policy as
motivated by a simpatico between a would-be dictator and the
genuine articles.
The conventional wisdom has always put Nixon in the moderate
wing of the GOP of '68, along with Nelson Rockefeller and
George "Brainwashed" Romney, but that's because the
conservative wing of the party at the time
was co-opted by George Wallace and his segregationists.
The ultra-conservatives had spun-off, and the only ones left
in the GOP (besides marginalized Goldwaterites) at the
time were so-called moderates.
Today, conservatism is rooted in supply-side Reganomics,
now discredited and really just a white-collar reformulation
of George Wallace's basic gist. What I mean is, in the
1960s, Republicans said, We don't want to use the government
as a tool to give black people equal access to institutions
and to their own rights. But after Reagan in the 1980s,
conservatives dressed up that belief in different clothing,
saying, We don't want to use the government as a tool to
give blacks fair access to the money that could
liberate them.
It's a different era in other ways, too. It would be
almost impossible to imagine America electing a president
as racist as Nixon today. And the fact of Barack Obama's
electoral triumph should spark a reevaluation of race-based
statutes and policies. For example, the assumptions
around Title VII protections appear to have been built
for a different era, a time when even the president of
the U.S. was full of irrational ideas about blacks (and
Jews and Italians and...).
In the recent Supreme Court case Ricci v. DeStefano (aka,
the New Haven firefighters case), the disparity of the
test results at issue is perhaps more convincingly
explained by the self-fulfilling prophecy brought
about by rulings such as the one Sonia Sotomayor was a
part of on the Second Circuit. If you signal to people that
they will pass a test whether they fail it or pass it, then
you are creating a disincentive for them to study for that
test. And that dynamic may explain the disparity better
than the Title VII assumption that a group's failure is
circumstantial evidence of its victimization by
discrimination.
Sotomayor's decision was more correct at the time she
made it and would have been more just at any time
before the U.S. presidential election of 2008, which
proved beyond a doubt that racism and bias are not as
prevalent or as debilitating as we once thought they were.
In the wake of the Obama election, which proved
that an African-American progressive can win amongst
white voters in red states (against a strong conservative
opponent), we must rethink some of the assumptions around
Title VII, much as we would reassess the disability
status of a person who was once unable to walk
but can now run and win top track and marathon
competitions.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for June 28, 2009
Wilco (The Concert)
Wilco performed last night in Berkeley
(above, a picture of Jeff Tweedy from '07).
[photo by Paul Iorio]
Jeff Tweedy and Wilco were soaring from peak to peak
last night on stage in Berkeley, Calif., topping themselves
with almost each new song. By mid-set, Tweedy was clearly
jazzed.
"I have to tell you, I think this is my favorite place
in the world to play," Tweedy said, referring to the Greek
Theater, where he was playing a sold out gig in support of
his band's new album, "Wilco (The Album)," due Tuesday and
already the number one non-Michael Jackson CD on Amazon.
And then he started strumming the opening chords of
"California Stars" -- and it would be hard to imagine
louder applause if Clapton had just ignited "Layla" -- and
singing Woody Guthrie's words and his own melody:
"I'd like to rest my heavy head tonight on a bed of
California stars..."
Under the California stars on this midsummer night, almost
everyone clapped and sang along (even in the hills above
the Greek where I heard the whole show) to a tune
that has an undeniably powerful effect on audiences,
perhaps the greatest song about the Golden State since
"California Dreamin'" itself.
As the gig progressed, the peaks got higher: an irresistible
"Handshake Drugs," an unstoppable "I'm the Man Who Loves You"
and the band's new single, "You Never Know," an instant Wilco
classic that recalls CCR and the Beatles without sounding
explicitly like either. (Also, an impressive "You're My Face.")
Anyway, this tour is just getting started, so see it if it
comes to your town (unless you're averse to enjoying yourself).
But I digress. Paul
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for June 27, 2009
Last Night's David Byrne Show
I went to David Byrne's concert last night in Berkeley,
Calif., wanting to hear Talking Heads's classics, but
left the show humming a few of the new ones like
"One Fine Day" and the title track of his latest
album, "Everything That Happens Will Happen Today," a
surprisingly strong CD that I had underrated until
several hours ago.
That said, the dozen or so Talking Heads tracks he
and his band performed were exciting, particularly
"Life During Wartime," whose main riff now sounds
like a classic rock thing; "Once in a Lifetime,"
which comes to life magically onstage (even for
people listening in the hills above the theater, as
I was); and the unexpected "Road to Nowhere," which
he hasn't played much on this tour.
It was wonderful to hear Byrne sound as fresh
and un-burned out as he did when I first heard
him perform (in 1979 in New York's Central Park,
headlining a concert that included brand new arrivals
The B52s).
Last night, Byrne was affable, loquacious and in very
good humor: "It's great to be back here at the Greek
Theater," he started, as the crowd thundered. "...Appropriately,
we'll be doing some Greek tragedies. Euripides..."
Byrne continued his droll banter. "...You are welcome to
take pictures...We ask you, politely, to delete the
pictures where we don't look so good," he joked, before
energetically launching into openers "Strange Overtones"
and "I Zimbra."
His Berkeley gig was the last U.S. date of his tour
(or at least the last announced date); next, Byrne
goes to some real Greek theaters, in Athens and
elsewhere in Greece.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for June 25, 2009
Remembering Michael Jackson
Shocked, saddened by the unexpected death of Michael
Jackson, a pop music genius if anyone is. I saw him
in person only once, in '86, at a press conference in
New York, where he stood smiling on a stage in his
neo-Sgt. Pepper outfit, letting others do the talking,
speaking maybe ten or fifteen words. I remember
thinking he seemed overly stage-managed by his handlers
and was wishing he'd loosen up a bit.
At the time of his death this afternoon, he was preparing
to re-invent himself a la Garland, but instead ended up
resembling her in another way.
Back in 2007, on the 25th anniversary of the release of
"Thriller," I wrote this about Jackson for the Digression:
Now that the 25th anniversary of Michael Jackson's "Thriller"
is being celebrated, perhaps it's time for a fresh
re-evaluation of Jackson. A good place to start is
the footage of the Jackson Five's first performance,
in 1969, on "The Ed Sullivan Show" (available on
disc three of Sullivan's "Rock 'n' Roll Classics" series).
Sullivan is not just enthusiastic but in genuine awe
after watching 10-year-old Michael and his brothers
light up the place with "I Wonder Who's Loving Her Now."
And he applauds Diana Ross, who's in the audience, for
her gargantuan A&R find. "The little fella in front is
incredible," says Sullivan of Michael, seemingly dazed by
the performance.
Michael Jackson's performance was both dazzling and sad;
dazzling because you could see what an epochal talent
Jackson was; but sad because...well, he looked and acted
more like a pressured adult than he does today. At age
10, he acted sort of like a 40-year-old, and at age 40,
he acted sort of like a 10-year-old. The anxious expression
on his face tells us everything we need to know about
the very adult pressures he was being saddled with
as a kid (show biz deadlines, contracts, complex cues,
etc.).
Sure, we all danced to the sounds of Michael Jackson's
lost childhood -- sounded great, didn't it? -- but many
of us now have no sympathy for or understanding of
the all-too-human flaws that loss has produced.
_____________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for June 16, 2009
Tehran Spring
Echoes of the Green Revolution were felt as far as Berkeley,
California, on Sunday when passionate protesters (above)
rallied to condemn the results of the so-called "election"
in Iran. [photo by Paul Iorio]
* * *
Another shot of Sunday's protest. [photo by Paul Iorio]
Unfortunately, it's hard for the United States to
claim the clear moral high ground about the rigged
election and subsequent brutality toward protesters
in Tehran. After all, we denied victory to the
victor in our presidential race of 2000. We
shot unarmed student protesters at Kent State in
1970. We brutally beat dissenters in the
streets of Chicago in 1968 (while making sure
television networks couldn't cover the violence
live). And then, like a chain-smoking parent
telling his son not to smoke, we (the biggest
nuclear bomb maker of them all) forbid them
to have their own nuclear weapons.
So when we look at Tehran, we look in the mirror at
our own moments of right-wing oppression. Let's
condemn it there, but let's also stop it when it
surfaces here, too.
* * *
You know, I was not at all offended by David
Letterman's joke about Bristol Palin. And what's
with this brand new comedy rule that
you-can't-make-jokes-about-minors? "Seinfeld"
did it all the time (remember the episode about
George looking at an underage girl's cleavage?).
Jonathan Swift even joked about eating young
children (see: "A Modest Proposal") in a
satiric piece that irony-deficient people did not
understand. (For the record, Swift never
apologized for "A Modest Proposal" -- and he
shouldn't have.)
No, Letterman bowed to a cynical politician
who willfully misread his joke in order to
score points on the campaign trail.
That said, I am offended by the fact that
Letterman (or one of Letterman's writers) ripped
off one of my original ideas that I published in
my June 1, 2009, Daily Digression. I posted
a humorous bit -- "An Excerpt from Bob Woodward's
Upcoming Book on the Obama Administration" -- on
the morning of June 1. And that night (or the next
night) Letterman did his own "excerpt from Bob
Woodward's book on the Obama administration."
Does it feel right that a millionaire
comedian can rip off the ideas of a small
entrepreneur who writes an online column like this
one? Does that pass the fairness test for you?
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for June 5 - 8, 2009
A label on a U.S. government map of the Pyongyang area
stamped "Distribution Limited -- Destroy When No Longer
Needed." (I found it (and other rare maps) at a map
archive at the University of California at Berkeley.)
Just before they were busted near
the China-North Korea border last March, Current TV's
Laura Ling and Euna Lee found themselves within sight
of a North Korean winter wonderland of snow-covered
peaks, seven and eight thousand feet high, ranging
from slate gray to white. On that day, the shallow
Tumen River, the border between North Korea and
China, was looking less like a river and more like
a continuation of the ice that was already on the
ground, according to photos taken around that time.
For the crime of crossing the border without a visa
(and there is some dispute about which side of the
line they were on), Ling and Lee have been sentenced
to twelve years of hard labor (doing logging or mining,
in all likelihood).
That sentence, by the way, is effectively a death sentence
for many prisoners, who are forced to work 12-hour days
of strenuous labor on dangerously small amounts of food.
(Read about it in detail at
http://www.hrnk.org/hiddengulag/part1.html.)
And this is one of the least sensitive areas
in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea
(DPRK), a desolate patch in the far northeast where
almost nobody lives (the only real city in the
vicinity is Yanji, on the China side, which is
around the size of Oakland, California).
The case of Ling and Lee underlines this lesson:
the best way for any outsider -- tourist or
journalist -- to see that northern
area is from deep inside Manchuria (with binoculars),
because that border is something of a Venus
Flytrap.
As for visiting the rest of North Korea from the
inside, forget it, if you're a U.S.citizen;
North Korea is as reclusive and secretive as
it's reputed to be. In the unlikely event that
you are allowed entry, you would almost
certainly be restricted to visiting Pyongyang,
and only certain parts of Pyongyang at that,
in a group led by a DPRK-approved tour guide.
Visitors would do well to heed the warnings and
advisories about travel to North Korea posted
on the U.S. State Dept. website, among them:
your hotel room and phone conversations may
be bugged; you can't take pictures of anything
without permission; you can't pay for anything
by credit card or personal check; you can't
bring anything resembling pornography into the
country; you can't take the subway or buy a bike;
it's illegal to dis ruler Kim Jong-il; if you
develop a medical problem, you should avoid
surgery (because "functioning x-ray
facilities are not generally available"); and if
you run afoul of the many eccentric, arbitrary
laws of the DPRK, you're on your own, as America
has no diplomatic relations with the North (you would
have to cry to the people at the Swedish Embassy in
Pyongyang, a "U.S. protecting power").
Whew! Still want to visit? If you could visit,
you might want to start with the most private
place in all of the DPRK: the Nuclear Research
Center at Yongbyon.
It would be an exaggeration, though
not much of one, to say that more Americans
have walked on the moon than have visited
the nuclear facility at Yongbyon, which
seems as sealed and insulated as the heavy lead
casks used for spent fuel rods.
Nestled in the Myohyang Mountains on the
winding Kuryong River, at the point where the
river becomes shaped like a horseshoe or a "U"
(as in Uranium), Yongbyon is the heart
of the nation's nuclear weapons development
program.
A rare detailed map of the Yongbyon area
(U.S. Army map, 1945).
Not only is access to the center heavily restricted,
but the only major highway to Yongbyon -- the
Myohyang-Pyongyang Expressway -- is from
Pyongyang and said to be for official use only.
In other words, when Kim Jong-il wants to drive
to see his budding nukes, if he drives, he has
to take the Expressway north for around 60 miles,
traveling for around 90 minutes through plains and
mountains on a highway that is, presumably, almost
completely car-less and truck-less.
Around halfway there, he'd pass near the city
of Suchon, site of a major uranium mine, and
then veer northeast through the Myohyang
Mountains, coal mining country.
After Kim arrives at the nuclear facility
area -- he probably exits the freeway near
a town called Kaechon -- he likely continues
by local roads near the Kuryong to
Yongbyon.
The nuclear facility, which is reportedly not
linked to the rest of the DPRK's electrical grid,
includes structures for fuel fabrication,
uranium processing, assembly of fuel elements,
etc. -- in other words, everything required
to makes nukes. Photos from a tower-toppling
event at the site in 2008 make the center
look like a factory in a green river valley.
Satellite photos make it seem something
like a warehouse district or a
Burbank movie studio backlot for a nuclear
disaster flick.
But Yongbyon is the real deal. Fueled by nearby
uranium mines, with facilities for reprocessing
plutonium, Yongbyon is currently back in
operation, according to Kim Jong-il's own
recent public pronouncements. And it's widely
believed that Kim might soon have fully
functioning Taepodong 2 missiles, which could
deliver a nuke as far as the Golden Gate Bridge.
Several miles to the west are far more modest digs:
the residences of nuke plant workers (the Homer
Simpsons of the DPRK), according to online maps.
All told, there's probably a better chance that
Yongbyon will be visiting America (so to speak)
than that Americans will be visiting Yongbyon any
time soon.
Far more accessible is Pyongyang, though that's
not saying much. (For the record, I've never had the
pleasure of visiting North Korea!) But it is possible to
catch a flight into the capital from Beijing (and there
have been irregular charter flights from Vladivostok,
Russia, in the past).
Pyongyang is a big, vertical city -- slightly larger
than Chicago -- built mostly after
1953, after the Korean War destroyed much
of the previous city.
But if you're looking for bars and restaurants,
they're as scarce as street crime here, which
is to say, almost non-existent.
Built on the flatlands and low hills around the
Taedong River, Pyongyang is full of tourist sights designed
to praise and glorify the current and past
governments of the DPRK.
Remember the Pueblo? Well, the North Koreans sure do,
and they now have that U.S. Navy ship -- the U.S.S. Pueblo,
which was captured by the North Koreans in 1968 after it
allegedly strayed into its territorial waters -- on display
in the river that runs through the capital.
Then there's North Korea's Statue of Liberty -- the Tower of
the Juche Idea -- a granite, riverside tower
topped with a bulb shaped like a flame, which dominates
a good part of the Pyongyang skyline. (Juche, by
the way, is the guiding philosophy of modern North Korea,
promoting self-reliance as a universal goal in both personal
life and governmental policy.)
The city's subway, the Pyongyang Metro,
seems more like an oddly ornate bomb
shelter, around 360 feet underground,
reportedly a record depth for a major
city subway system. Even official photos reveal
an overdressed facility, what with all those
chandeliers and colonnades -- not to mention
the propagandistic mosaics and art at many
of the stations.
To the northwest, there's an attractive hilly
neighborhood called the Peony Hill (Moranbong)
District, with elevations to around 300 feet (not
quite as tall as, say, San Francisco's
city heights). Near the Peony District is North
Korea's Harvard University (such that it has
one!): Kim il-Sung University, where Kim Jong-il
studied economics in the early 1960s. Government-released
photos of the campus make it look drab, sort of like
a combination meat-packing plant and reform school.
A U.S. government map (stamped "Distribution
Limited -- Destroy When No Longer Needed") shows
that the most notable landmark in the Pyongyang area
is a large reservoir to the city's southeast that's
absent on many other maps of the region.
A confidential U.S. government map of the greater
Pyongyang area that shows details that aren't on other
maps of the area (like that huge reservoir to the
southeast of the city).
Farther north is the international airport, where
virtually all passengers are either coming from or
going to Beijing.
Much farther north is the Yalu River, which forms
most of the border with China, and it's wide and
partially clogged with islands claimed by both
Manchuria and North Korea. It's an almost entirely
mountainous region whose star attraction is Mount
Baekdu, the highest peak on the peninsula at
nearly 9,000 feet, with a lake near the top
that straddles a once-disputed border.
Other areas along the Yalu are less idyllic,
according to photos published by Reuters and
other news organizations; the landscape around
Hyesan, for example, is a forest of
factory smokestacks; some of coastal Sinuiju,
in the far northwest, looks very dilapidated.
Finally, truly adventurous travelers looking
to enter the DPRK through a relatively weak
border can try taking a train from Russia into
the first North Korean town over the line, Tumangan.
(There are recent reports of lucky westerners
making the trip successfully and safely). The
two countries share both an eleven-mile border
in the northeasternmost part of the DPRK (which
is around 90 miles west of Vladivostok) and railroad
tracks, and those who make it to the peninsula can
continue their rail journey to the nearby port city
Najin (there's great cod fishing in Najin Bay, they
say) and even farther on to Pyongyang.
Unfortunately, making the reverse trip and getting
out of the DPRK is a much harder task, as Laura
Ling and Euna Lee now understand all too well.
C.I.A. map of the Russia-North Korea border area.
* * *
Satellite photo of the Yongbyon nuclear facility
(with my own annotations). (From the freekorea.us site.)
* * *
Some think this is the mansion where Kim Jong-il
stays when he's visiting his nuclear center
at Yongbyon, though it's impossible to confirm if
that's really his house. (I printed this out
from the freekorea.us website.)
* * *
The Yalu River border, near Sinuiju, China (map shows the
numerous islands in the Yalu that make the border
ambiguous). [Army Map Service, 1945]
* * *
Map of Pyongyang, from "The Rough Guide to
North Korea" travel guidebook.
* * * *
A C.I.A. province map of North Korea (2005).
* * * *
SIDEBAR
Juche, baby, Juche!
Appreciating the Oeuvre of Kim Jong-il
Kim Il-Sung University, economics major, class of '64!
[photo from nordkorea-info.de website]
If you're planning to visit North Korea anytime
soon -- and now that that naton is opening up,
this might be the time! -- the U.S. State Dept. wants
you to know that it's a criminal offense to dis
the Dear Leader Kim Jong-il while there. In fact,
as a tourist, you might be called upon by your
government guide to show some sign of respect to
the Dear Leader a few times during your stay.
So it might pay to bone up on some of the
many published writings of Kim Jong-il, who
has weighed in on a wide range of
topics over the decades, many of them far
from his collegiate major, economics.
In this 1968 essay -- "On the Direction Which Musical
Creation Should Take" -- Kim shows his own singular,
uh, taste as a music critic, as he raves against
all piano playing and praises a new song about his
dad! Here's an excerpt:
"I have called you creators here today to tell you
which direction musical creation should be developed
for it to conform with the Great Leader's revolutionary
thought on art and literature. Recently some success
has been achieved in musical creation. However, many
shortcomings are still evident and these must be remedied.
Among the songs that have been composed recently,
"General Kim Il Sung is Our Sun," "The Azaleas of our
Homeland" and "The People Sing of the Leader" are very
good....These songs are suited to the sentiments
of our people and are also easy to sing because
their melodies are elegant and yet soft and gentle.
Songs that are too jumpy with melodies that rise and
fall too sharply are both difficult to sing and unsuited
to the sentiments of Koreans...If composers are to
produce good songs, they must, above all else, have
a correct stand and attitude concerning music.
The Great Leader taught us that music, like all
other forms of art, should serve the revolution
and the people.
Listening to the song "General Kim Il Sung is Our Sun,"
I once again felt deep in my heart that the leader is
a genius of art...
From now on, woodwind instruments should be used as
little as possible in instrumental music. The use of
the piano should also be reviewed. The piano does
not stimulate the interest of people very much
because it disrupts that melody when it is played.
The frequent use of the piano, in accompaniment, is
outdated and does not suit the tastes of our people.
In the future, the piano should not be used in a
performance or accompaniment by a single person.
Songs should be accompanied mainly by a small
instrumental ensemble. An orchestra of our national
instruments should be developed."
-- essay from "Kim Jong-il: Selected Works" (1992),
Foreign Languages Publishing House, Pyongyang.
A sample of The Pyongyang Times's tough, skeptical
investigative coverage of Kim Jong-Il, shown here at
the dawn of his reign in '95.
But I digress. Paul
________________________________________________
TRHE DAILY DIGRESSION
for June 4, 2009
A line Obama should've added to his speech in Cairo:
"He who doesn't want to be treated like a stereotype
shouldn't act stereotypically."
____________________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for June 3, 2009
Wow! According to MySpace, my new song
"Life's Just a Single Blast" has already been
played hundreds of times by visitors to my MySpace
page -- and I just uploaded the song to the site
around a week ago!
I'm grateful and glad listeners are
connecting with the tune (and I'm thankful great
radio stations like KCRW and KALX have aired it).
Check it out (and download it for free) at
www.myspace.com/paulioriosongs.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Yes, all songs on my MySpace site were
composed, performed and produced solely by me!
____________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for June 1, 2009
Hey, dig those pics of Barack back when he was a member
of Sly and the Family Stone! Very phresh! And now
he's hangin' out in the West Village, too. I'm liking
this guy more and more!
And, the other day, I heard a recording of him singing, and
-- guess what? -- he's not a bad singer at all. He croons
plenty better than Clinton (Bill, that is) plays
sax. He should cut a record.
* * *
Excerpt from Joe Biden's tell-all memoir, "Biding My
Time: My Years as Vice President," which I'm guessing
will be released around 2025:
"You know, I never really had the chemistry I
should've had with some of Obama's inner circle. I
think a few of them always thought they
were just a little bit better than cup o'-Joe Joe
Biden, the Amtrak-riding senior Senator who never got
in the Georgetown swim. I have to confess I was shut
out of too many decision-making meetings and my advice
went unheeded too often."
* * *
Excerpt from Bob Woodward's upcoming (and unwritten) book
on the Obama administration:
President Obama's voice on the telephone was tense,
agitated, unlike his usual calm. The President
wanted to talk with Vice President Biden in
the Oval Office, right now, post-haste.
"I do have some business in Wilmington this morning,"
the vice president said.
"Cancel it," said the president tersely.
"Yessir, I'll be right over to the Oval Office,"
Biden said.
When the vice president arrived, Obama wasted no time
getting to the point.
"Joe, what were you thinking?! 'Everyone should stay away
from crowded places' because of the H1N1?"
"I'm sorry Mr. President -- a poor choice of words on
my part," said the vice-president, scratching the part of
his head where he had had surgery years before.
"I know you know that's exactly the sort of thing
that can cause a panic, Joe."
"I didn't mean for it to come out that way," Biden said.
"Joe, you know I love your frankness, your candor. That's
why I picked you," continued the president. "But let's try not
to stray from the script anymore, ok?"
"Yessir, Mr. President."
* * * *
Well, some of you have heard my new song "Life's Just a
Single Blast" on KCRW, KALX and other great radio
stations (thanks a lot to those stations for playing
it, by the way!).
Now everyone can hear "Life's Just a Single Blast"
on MySpace. Just go to
www.myspace.com/paulioriosongs to listen to it.
I must admit that of all the hundreds of songs
I've written over the years, "Life's Just a Single Blast"
has connected with more listeners than any of
my other ones. And I'm real glad people seem
to enjoy it! (You can download it for free for
now -- it's on me.)
(P.S. -- I'm posting new uploads to MySpace every few
days so you can have a fresh selection of the many
songs I've written and recorded. Today I added "Time
Begins to End." Of course, every song I've posted
is composed, performed and produced solely by me.)
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for May 20, 2009
Maureen Dowd Should Take Six Months Off
And not just because she plagiarized Josh
Marshall's Talking Points Memo in her
column last Sunday -- though that's a serious
journalistic felony -- but because she's
becoming predictable, repetitive, stale,
off-key. She needs to freshen up her prose,
do something else for several months and
then come back to her twice-weekly column.
First, the plagiarism scandal, which resonates
in Dowd's case because: 1) she actually defended
the disgraced Jayson Blair in print in the early
stages of the scandal that almost brought down her
newspaper, and 2) there have been several
instances (and I've mentioned them in the Digression
over the months (search columns posted below
for the name "Maureen Dowd" to find them)) where
she appears to have swiped unique coinages or phrases
or ideas of my own (to cite only one example, I
coined the term "Palinista" to refer to supporters
of Sarah Palin last year and the very next day she
also used the word "Palinista," which had not been
used by anyone else up to that point).
In the current Maureen Dowd plagiarism case,
she plagiarized, virtually verbatim, an entire
paragraph from Marshall without crediting him.
Here's what she wrote:
"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why,
if the torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to
happen mainly during the period when the Bush crowd was
looking for what was essentially political information to justify
the invasion of Iraq."
And here's what she plagiarized from Marshall:
"More and more the timeline is raising the question of why, if the
torture was to prevent terrorist attacks, it seemed to happen mainly
during the period when we were looking for what was essentially
political information to justify the invasion of Iraq."
Now, according to media blogs, she's justifying
herself with what appears to be a transparent lie: that
a friend discussed the idea with her on the phone, and
then she repurposed that idea for her column.
So we're supposed to believe that her friend
discussed the idea with her using Marshall's
exact words?! And that Maureen took word-for-word
dictation from her friend?! You expect us to
believe that?! That's High Cheney, Maureen. No
wonder you believed Jayson back when.
Now there appears to be a second excuse: that
she cut-and-pasted the passage and
then mistook it for her own. (Hey, she
wasn't writing a book, for crissakes, just
a dinky column!)
So in addition to her plagiarism violation, she
now now has a credibility problem, too. As her
dad the cop probably told her: sometimes the
cover-up is worse than the crime.
And as I mentioned, she's also becoming too
predictable. I mean, here's my own imitation of a
typical Maureen Dowd column:
"W was a president without a precedent when it came to torture,
but might the closing of Gitmo turn out to be a precedent
without a president?
Is Barack Obama second-guessing his own decision to
shut down the un-American detention center designed to
defend America?"
Typical (and right off the top of my head, too). There's
too much word reversal, idea reversal stuff, and
labored convoluted wordplay. She should take
six months off and come back to the paper around
Thanksgiving.
But that won't happen. She'll get a pass (much as
the far less well-known and far less-talented Edward
Guthmann got a pass at the San Francisco Chronicle).
Why? Because if you're friends with the right
people in journalism, your editors will overlook
almost any transgression. If you're not,
you'll be fired for merely misplacing a comma.
* * * *
Californians to California: "Drop Dead"
Funny thing is, the election in California
yesterday, in which almost all of several
ballot propositions to raise taxes were
defeated at the polls, seemed to generate
more media coverage in the national press than
locally. I live in the Bay Area and didn't
vote, and I usually do, and I don't know
anyone who did. There was almost zero buzz
about the ballot measures -- and most
of the local news coverage was about the
low voter turn-out.
I know: if the propositions had passed, they
would have helped to solve the huge budget
shortfall that the state government now has
to offset with deep spending cuts.
But in this recession, when everybody except
the state of California seems to be getting a
federal bail-out, I and most Californians
echoed that famous New York newspaper
headline of the 1970s and, on Tuesday, said
to the state, "Drop dead!"
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for May 3, 2009
Last Night's Van Morrison Show
There are tales and legends of Van Morrison concerts
at which Van rides a sunbeam up through the cumulus
clouds and into centrifugal orbit -- and last night's
show in Berkeley, Calif., or part of last night's
show, was sort of like that.
I'm referring to his performance of "Like Young Lovers
Do," which simply overflowed with melody into the
open-air Greek Theater and up to the hills above
(where I heard it) and into the clouds, where I'm
sure that deities from Zeus to Krishna were
sitting, catching a freebie, catching the
sounds of heaven on Earth, on this
intermittently rainy night.
"Then we sat on our own star and dreamed...,"
he sang, and he sang it as if he had just
freshly composed it, with the lyrics, of
course, just sounds, a way to facilitate
emotion, given that Van generally sings
(or scats) along the contours of the feeling
of the moment, whatever that sounds like.
Whatever. If you haven't yet discovered the
live version of "Like Young Lovers Do," do
so. (It's available on his "Live at the
Hollywood Bowl" DVD, released a couple
months ago.) By the way, can you imagine
what David Hidalgo and Los Lobos could
do with that one?
The design of the concert was to perform
his entire "Astral Weeks" album, after
a warm-up set of Van classics, so
"Like Young Lovers Do," the peak of
a concert full of peaks, came around
mid-way through the "Astral" segment.
Earlier, Morrison had performed "Moondance,"
reimagined in a jazzier arrangement, an
irresistible "Wild Night" and a version
of Them's "Baby Please Don't Go" that had
people dancing wildly -- plus plenty
of radical scatting that made it seem
like Van was trying to re-invent singing
itself.
This tour is well worth checking out.
And you can see him on Leno this Wednesday.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for April 29, 2009
Suddenly, unexpectedly, the balance of
political power in the United States has
come down to one single individual: the
guy who used to play Stuart Smalley on
"Saturday Night Live." Who'd-a thunk it?
* * *
Now that the state of Florida is
considering offering car license
plates with a picture of Jesus Christ
on them, here are a couple captions
to go with the pic.
"Right Guard Dry: never let them see you sweat!"
"Gee, Dad," says Jesus from the cross, "thanks
a whole lot -- you were a huge help!"
* * *
I've decided that Bill Maher is a funnier Lenny
Bruce -- or (more accurately) a funny Lenny
Bruce.
* * *
I don't have a pet dog, but if I ever get
one, I've decided to call him or her Rolf.
But I digress. Paul
[picture of crucifixion by unknown artist]
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for April 27, 2009
"Dr." Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Ph.D.; "Those who
believe fact-based truths are racist" is
the level of a lot of what he says. [drawing
by Paul Iorio]
Funny thing about personal experience; it doesn't
always have a direct, linear effect on what
you do or say. A songwriter, for example, can
have personal tragedy or trauma in his life and
still continue to write mediocre songs. But
another writer who is merely moved by someone
else's tragedy or trauma can come up with a
work of genius like "Hey Jude" (as Paul McCartney
did, loosely playing off circumstances
surrounding John Lennon's painful divorce
from Cynthia). Interesting that Lennon
himself, as brilliant as he was, never came up
with anything nearly as moving that directly
related to his marital break-up.
Likewise, lots of soldiers endure the trauma of combat,
but very, very few come up with a work on the order of
"The Naked and the Dead" or "Platoon." Most soldiers
who have seen friends die on the battlefield write
only banalities and doggerel and are unable to
transform their experience into meaningful art.
One of the greatest war novels ever -- "The Red
Badge of Courage" -- was penned by someone who
never saw a day of combat, Stephen Crane.
And, likewise, one can have an education and still
not be educated at all. Witness Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, who has a Ph.D. but is still
"astonishingly uneducated," to quote
Columbia University president Lee Bollinger.
The latest evidence of that was his appearance on
ABC's "This Week," in which he said the following:
"The Holocaust, if this is indeed a historical event,
why do they want to turn it into a holy thing? And
nobody should be allowed to ask any questions about
that? Nobody study it, research it,
permit it to research it. Why?"
One wonders about such a mind. If Ahmadinejad doubts
the Holocaust, what else does he doubt? The existence
of gravity? The fact that the Earth is round? Does
he have the same problem with all fact-based truth?
Does he only accept mythological truth?
And Ahmadinejad seems to be drawing a feeble
parallel, saying, See, you're as totalitarian in
the West as we are when it comes to something
you hold sacred.
But that's not true. If he wants to deny the Holocaust,
we in the West say, go ahead. We allow you the freedom
to publicly say and write that the holocaust didn't
happen. Sure, people might get angry, but there would
be no deadly riots in the streets as a result
(the way there were riots after the Jyllands-Posten
published the irreverent Mohammed cartoons).
What Ahmadinejad and other fundamentalists don't
understand is there are many different tools with
which to respond to something offensive (e.g.,
boycotts, civil disobedience, opinion pieces,
etc.). But, when offended, too many Muslim
extremists choose homicide from their tool kit -- as
their first and only response.
My feeling about newspapers and public figures that
deny the Holocaust is that they bring on their own
punishment: lack of credibility. Who would ever
take such a source seriously again?
Unfortunately, the answer to that question is:
too many members of the U.N. General Assembly --
and too many Ph.Ds with disdain for
fact-based truth.
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for April 26, 2009
The Dalai Lama Visits Berkeley, Calif.!
Free Tibet buttons (which, by the way, aren't
free) on sale outside the theater where the Dalai
Lama appeared in Berkeley yesterday afternoon.
[photo by Paul Iorio]
--
Students hanging out of dorm windows at
the University of California to catch a
glimpse of His Holiness.
[photo by Paul Iorio]
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for April 23, 2009
What Ever Happened to Al Gore?
my own Al Gore sighting, as seen at
around two o'clock this afternoon in
Berkeley, Calif. (above).
[photo by Paul Iorio]
I was wondering the other day: where did Al Gore
go? He seems to be the only first-rank Democrat
who hasn't become an Obama appointee or subsidiary.
In fact, he's been sort of invisible since November.
Well, I got my answer this afternoon. Gore was
speaking at the University of California at Berkeley,
and I dropped by to listen.
And I am here to report first-hand that he has
not reverted to his post-Beatles break-up beard,
that he seems almost younger than yesterday,
even slimmer than when I last saw him (two-and-a-half
years ago at a Prop 87 rally), though grayer, looking
much like the ex-president he'd finally be now, if
he hadn't been unfairly blocked from taking
the job he won in '00.
And on this day after Earth Day, his speech was
vintage Gore ("The entire north polar ice cap is
melting right before our eyes....."), though the
actual reason for his appearance was a
groundbreaking ceremony for UC's Blum Center.
For those wondering: Gore didn't mention whether
he'd run again for president in 2016 (or whether he'd
pull a -- banish the thought! -- primary challenge
in 2012).
* * * *
Obama's First Hundred Days
Barack Obama may well become our greatest
president since JFK and has probably already
inspired as many people as Kennedy did by
'62. Time will tell. But one hundred days
into his presidency, he still seems a bit
like the hip, super-smart substitute teacher
at the experimental school who does wonders
with the students and maybe can even help
junior get out of his funk! (And wouldn't
it be great if we could put him on staff
permanently?)
Joking aside, Obama seems to be made for this job.
I don't think there's another recent president
who has had fewer mis-steps and made fewer
mistakes in the post-inaugural months. And
he's checking off his campaign promises, one
by one, doing exactly what he said he'd do during
the election season.
I bet some of his supporters must be thinking
that this might be the time to repeal the 22nd
Amendment (because he's only going to be 55
when he finishes his second term, if he wins
in '12).
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for April 22, 2009
The Rise of Religious Tyranny
(and Why Blasphemy Makes More Sense Than Ever!)
The badly-educated religious totalitarians who
wrote this trashy U.N. resolution (above) probably
would've stoned Copernicus and Galileo for "religious
defamation." (Has Obama condemned it yet?)
--
The new U.N. logo?
--
Written by lazy plagiarists who shamelessly
stole supernatural tall tales from "The Book of the
Dead," the Hammurabi Code, etc.
--
Now that it's finally being released in
the U.K., might Bill Maher's very funny
"Religulous" run afoul of Britain's
antiquated blasphemy laws?
And so the United Nations's so-called Human Rights
Council -- a mis-named group dominated by Muslim
fundamentalist sympathizers that (by the way) has
yet to formally condemn the many human rights abuses
under Sharia law -- has drafted a
resolution condemning what it calls "religious
defamation."
Free speech, says the non-binding resolution
passed a couple weeks ago by the General
Assembly, should be restricted to protect
"morals and general welfare," which
pretty much opens the door for censorship
by any government for any arbitrary reason.
Because the backers of the resolution, led by
Pakistan and cheered on by Hugo Chavez, obviously
did not do much critical thinking in drafting it,
let me ask the questions they should have.
Are you aware that religious defamation is what
scientists like Copernicus and Galileo were accused
of? Are you aware that many major advances in
science and philosophy throughout history were
once called blasphemous by religious literalists?
If you're against "defamation" of religion, then
why aren't you also against defamation of
political groups, governments and individuals?
Is it a human rights violation to make a joke
about the Saudi King? Is it a human rights
violation to ridicule the Republican party?
If not, why not? If I consider
my political beliefs more sacred than
my religious beliefs, then why shouldn't
my political beliefs be equally protected
against defamation? By defamation, don't
you really mean...merely criticizing
religion?
Lately there has been a lot of platitudinous
talk about showing respect for various
religious fanatics. But certainly there
are some people and groups not worthy of
respect. For example, bin Laden
and his followers are not worthy of respect
(just as the Ku Klux Klan and Charles Manson
are not worthy of respect). Others who have
not earned respect are: the Muslim
fanatic who murdered Theo van Gogh, abortion
clinic bombers, Islamic militants
who kill people because they're offended
by a mere cartoon. (Muslim militants have
apparently become the new Rodney Dangerfields!)
You see, the people who wrote that U.N.
resolution misunderstand the real problem,
which is religious totalitarianism and
the tyranny of absolutism. Muslim
fundamentalists simply don't want to give
Western progressives the same freedoms that
progressives give to fundamentalists.
In the U.S. and in most of Europe, we
say: if you want to prohibit pictures
of Mohammed in your mosque, you can do so.
You can lay down the law within your
mosque and forbid any drawings of
deities. That is your freedom.
But Muslim fundamentalists do not reciprocate.
They don't want to grant secularists the
freedom to display pictures of
deities if that's their choice.
The people who wrote that U.N. resolution
don't understand that Mohammed, to me,
is a figure from history, not from
religion -- and I will portray him (and
Napoleon and Hirohito and Plato
and Mao, etc.) any way I choose, thank
you very much.
It's disturbing that even Britain has
blasphemy laws on the books, but,
thankfully, that hasn't stopped the recent
release of Bill Maher's very funny and
wise documentary "Religulous" in the U.K.
In "Religulous" -- the top grossing documentary
of '08, yet unfairly shut out from the Best
Feature Docu category at the Oscars -- Maher
shows wit worthy of Groucho as he takes
apart the supernatural plagiarized tales of
the Bible.
One of the best parts of the film is when
Maher shows how the supposed biographical
details about Jesus (e.g., the virgin birth,
the resurrection, his ability to heal the
sick, etc.) are suspiciously similar to and
seem to have been lifted from stories about
the lives of deities from centuries before
the supposed birth of Christ (e.g., Mithra,
Attis, Buddha, etc.).
In other words, the holy tall tales told
for centuries in ancient Egypt and India
were such a great box office draw in Cairo
and Bombay that the writers of the Bible
couldn't help but steal some of the best
bits for their brand new character, Jesus
Christ, star of a sketch in which a father
(God) is OK with having his only son
murdered by a mob. (How heartwarming!
And one of Melissa Huckabee's favorite
stories, by the way.)
And the way the Koran steals from the Torah,
you'd think the holy wars would be about
copyright infringement!
Elsewhere in the Bible, Maher notes, there are
supernatural yarns worthy of Marvel comics.
As he notes, it's astonishing that otherwise
smart adults actually believe cartoons about
a talking snake, a man living inside
a whale, and a virgin birth.
By the way, Ray Suarez's comment that fewer people
went to church less often in America in the 18th
century may be true, but it's also true that
far more people back then took the Bible more
literally than they do today; as science
continues to explain phenomena that the Bible
had attributed to supernatural forces, the
overall trend is, generally, away from
fundamentalism.
As I said, a terrific docu. I only wish Maher
had interviewed the loony former mayor of
Inglis, Florida, who memorably banned
the devil from her town! Also wish he had
been able to use Tom Lehrer's "The Vatican
Rag" for his segment at the Vatican.
To digress for a moment: I've always thought
that if the story of Jesus Christ were true,
and it's probably not, and if Jesus were
to come back to life and to Earth, Jesus
would probably not be well-liked. I mean,
after the initial novelty of Christ's
resurrection wore off, people would get
very tired of Jesus throwing around his weight
and saying arrogant and egotistical things
like "I am the way and the light" and "I
am the son of God" and "Hey, babe, you
can't worship anyone but me." Imagine him
demanding a good table at a crowded restaurant
because "I'm the son of God." After two or
three months of this, I can imagine people would
want to crucify him all over again!
Anyway, see "Religulous," if you haven't already.
And put that U.N. resolution to good use -- in
the bird cage.
But I digress. Paul
[U.N. resolution from www.un.org; satiric U.N.
logo by Paul Iorio (Mohammed drawing from
Jyllands-Posten); Holy Bible from
ancient-future.net; "Religulous" image
from the Lion's Gate DVD.]
______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for April 10 - 12, 2009
New on DVD: "Slumdog Millionaire"
The TV biz is murder in India, no? They actually
dish out torture for suspected game show
cheating? I can't imagine the authorities
could torture someone more if they thought
he knew where bin Laden was hiding. (I hope
Regis isn't like that!)
That said, the quiz show subplot is
surprisingly secondary, or almost
secondary, and doesn't even fully kick
in until the 90-minute mark, despite the
film makers's contrived attempts to show
how the questions on the TV program relate
to past experiences in Jamal's life. Still,
one wonders how a guy raised in bookless
squalor came to have such an expanse of
knowledge (and such fluency in English,
too!). In somewhat similarly-themed
movies about braniacs, like "Quiz Show" or
"Good Will Hunting," one gets a real sense
of a character's brilliance permeating other
parts of his life -- but here, Jamal
doesn't seem exceptionally bright
off screen.
Also, he's handed over to the cops (by
the host of the show, no less!) and
suspected of fraud (an accusation that
even makes headlines!) and then is allowed
to return to the program for the final
round, all freshened up after a session
of torture, his reputation restored.
But such loose ends can be overlooked
because the film making -- by the guy who
directed "Trainspotting" and the writer
who scripted "The Full Monty" -- is genuinely
seductive. Despite its flaws, "Slumdog" is
gripping, harrowing, scalding, touching,
suspenseful, twisty.
Everyone (rightly) talks about how impressive
Dev Patel is as Jamal, but the real unsung
actor here is Madhur Mittal, the guy
who plays the older version of Salim,
who benefits from some memorable lines
and makes the most of some very
small lines (e.g., "Still?!,"
which Mittal makes so poignant; it takes a
resourceful actor to draw out the vast meaning
in that one small word).
But Mittal is also the victim of an oddly
conceived scene in which he covers himself
with money in a bathtub (it would have been
better if he had filled the tub with dough
and then put a match to it, saying something
like, "Hey, Javed, here's your money").
Movie could've easily been more multidimensional,
showing how some of the elements of "Who Wants to
Be a Millionaire" are much like the capitalist
system itself, in that you can lose (or gain)
everything with a single risk.
Still, it's well worth seeing, though not the
best movie of 2008 (that was "The Wrestler,"
which itself could have been far greater if
the film makers had merely added 15 minutes
of footage dramatizing The Ram's glory days
as a wrestler; instead, it's like "Raging Bull"
without LaMotta's early period).
The dance sequence finale is winning, a sweetener
that's necessary in order to counterbalance the
brutality elsewhere, which threatens to overwhelm
one's overall memory of the film.
DVD has no extras of note, no deleted scenes,
but the film is so meaty that you don't
notice that.
* * *
Bravo to Madonna Ciccone for donating money to
the earthquake victims near L'Aquila, Italy.
Far less admirable is Prime Minister Silvio
Berlusconi, who surveyed the tent city of those
made homeless by the quake and said it looked
"like a weekend of camping." And I guess he
must think the Nazi concentration camps were
just a huge slumber party.
* * *
the perfect song for Good Friday and Easter!
* * * *
Turns out that the face of pure evil is
(evidently) a Sunday school teacher, the
granddaughter of a pastor. (Above, the
official booking info for the suspected
Tracy killer.) By the way, if she did
do it, you can bet it wasn't the first time
she had done something like that. Are there
any similar unsolved murders in the area of
L.A. County where she lived before last year?
In all likelihood, she wouldn't have been
so brazen as to commit an abduction
in broad daylight (and in public) if
she hadn't done it before and gotten
away with it.
* * * *
Newt Gingrich has once again proved how heartless
he is by calling the hoopla around the First Pooch,
Bo, "stupid." Aw, c'mon! Thatza cute pup. Look
at those boots. And you gotta love the name, redolent
as it is of Bo Diddley, who would be smiling right
about now. The best White House pooch in a
long time (and better than the one that bit that
Reuters reporter!).
* * * *
One way to manage the pirate problem off Somalia
might be to have the Coast Guard or Navy send out
decoy ships (posing as private vessels) on a regular
basis to those waters. Then we can capture and
jail the pirates who take the bait, creating a
huge downside for the bandits, reducing their
confidence and incentive.
* * * *
People continue to ask about songs I wrote
for my album "75 Songs," which I self-released
last year. (And I must say I'm very grateful
to those who have connected with my songs
and have played them on the radio!)
A couple people asked about how "Time Begins
To End" came about, and another asked about
"Chasin' You."
"Time Begins To End" is perhaps the most
personally cathartic song I've written,
in that I felt better after writing it.
Based loosely on the very sad experience
of having seen my father just before
he died of cancer.
I wrote "Time Begins to End" in my apartment
in Berkeley, Calif., between late December 2007
and early January 2008. I began
writing the song in late November 2007 when
the line "asleep at the wake" came to me
out of the blue. In late December '07
and early January '08, the whole song came
rolling out of me, melody and lyric in
one piece.
Finished it on January 13, 2008, and (as
usual) sent it to myself in an email,
presented below:
* *
And (below) here's the line I came up with that gave
birth to the track:
* *
"Chasin' You" has a different origin. I
wrote that one in 1981 during my New York
years, put it on a 1994 cassette of my
own songs, which I didn't release until
1998, when I put together around a dozen
of my songs on a cassette tape
and sent it around (to around ten people!).
[None of my songs was released on CD
until late 2005 -- except "Ten Years Ago."]
I wrote most of "Chasin' You" while living on
West 74th Street in Manhattan. And I wrote
the rest in '85 after I had moved
to a new place on West 110th St. that
had a broken window (actually, the whole
window frame was pushed from its hinges
after I tried to buttress it during a
hurricane -- yes, a hurricane! -- in New
York City in the late Fall of '85).
Anyway, through this busted window I could see,
in a nearby apartment building, a really hot
looking woman who was dancing in her room
virtually naked. And that's when I came up
with (among other things!) a new song,
or a fragment of a song, that went,
"Fortunate for me, good luck dances naked
in broken windows."
But I was unable to develop the fragment, though
I found it fit well as a sort of cryptic coda
to "Chasin' You," and that's how that part
was written.
the "broken window" in my apartment (above)
on the Upper West Side from which I once saw a
beautiful woman dancing naked (fortunate for
me!), inspiring part of my song
"Chasin' You" in the 1980s. (window wasn't
broken when this shot was taken!)
* *
"Chasin' You" (number 9 on the list, above) was one of
around 17 songs I had written that I was going to
release in 1994; most didn't get released until
1998 (on cassette tape, to around 10 people!). None
of my songs was released on CD until late 2005 --
except "Ten Years Ago."
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for April 9, 2009
Kurt Cobain died 15 years ago this week,
which means he would've been 42 by now,
older than John Lennon ever was, but only
halfway to a full lifespan, which
should've ended naturally sometime in
the 2040s, in mid-century, after he had
created at least a couple dozen new
albums, both solo and with Nirvana and
perhaps with others, too.
But he ended it way back in the 20th
century, in the pre-Internet era, so
long ago that no undergrad currently in
college could have a contemporaneous
memory of the release of a brand new
Nirvana studio album.
Anyway, to mark the 15th anniversary, here
are some original photos I shot in 2002 of
Cobain's house and of other Cobain-related
locations in Seattle. Several photos from
this series were published
by the Washington Post in 2002,
accompanying a story I'd written and
reported about Seattle for the paper.
But most of these shots have never been
published, so I thought I'd share
them here.
a bench marked with graffiti about
Cobain, next door to Cobain's house. [photo
by Paul Iorio]
* * *
the house where Cobain killed himself.
[photo by Paul Iorio]
* * *
Cobain lived in the Madrona district
of Seattle, on Lake Washington. (As you
can see, I was there on a very rare
blue-sky day in Seattle!) [photo by Paul Iorio.]
* * *
Seattle's Re-Bar, site of the "Nevermind"
record release party, from which Nirvana
was bounced for food fighting! [photo
by Paul Iorio]
But I digress. Paul
______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for April 8, 2009
A friend asked me the other day what I
meant when I wrote a particular line in
my song "Love's the Heaven You Can't Reach."
The line she wanted to know about is:
"She's living in a hole/the pilot light
has gone from blue to yellow/you can
almost see the CO in the air."
I wrote that line after going to an
apartment (I won't say whose!) in the
Bay Area in '08 and feeling dizzy
because of the air quality in the
place. I suspected there was CO in the air
and noticed that the pilot light on the
heater was a sort of sickly yellow. Later,
at my computer, I Googled "pilot light" and "CO"
and found that one major indicator of CO emission
is when a gas pilot light goes from a healthy
blue to a flickering yellow. So I put that
detail into the song, which is sort of about
a woman living a boho Lower East Side
existence, and it fit nicely.
I wrote "Love's The Heaven You Can't Reach"
as I've written almost all of my songs, on
the tape recorder, with the lyric and melody
coming simultaneously. (And then, as I also
always do, I emailed the song to myself
so that I would know exactly when I came
up with it. Hence, for what it's worth, I
know I finished "Love's The Heaven" on
August 9, 2008, at around 9:30 AM! (A nifty
device, this email thing, eh?) Studio
version is from an August 19 session, by
the way. For anyone interested, here's
the top of the email I sent to myself:
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for April 6, 2009
The word is out: Crime, the pioneering San Francisco
punk band of the 1970s, will definitely appear on
Marshall Stax's show on KALX radio next week!
For those unfamiliar with his program, it
features music by the unsigned and the
unsung, happens every Monday at 6pm, and
is one of the more inspired shows on the
airwaves. (And I'm not just saying that
because he has played my own songs on
KALX from time to time; I'd still tune in,
even if he didn't air my stuff!) Anyway,
his show is called the Next Big Thing and
(I think)it's streamed live on the web -- and
the Crime appearance should be
well worth checking out.
* * * *
I just wrote a story with John D. Thomas
for the online edition of Playboy magazine;
it's a humorous look at all those
misleading ads that A.I.G. and other financial
services firms ran before the recession,
and here it is:
http://www.playboy.com/articles/ad-it-up-financial-institution-ads/index.html
___________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for April 5, 2009
On the Sunday morning talk shows this morning,
all the expert analyses of the North Korean
missile test omitted one of the most chilling and
truly dangerous elements of the launch:
the fact that Kim Jong Il recently had a
major stroke. As any medical professional
would tell you, strokes can easily turn
someone into a clinical paranoid or create
other kinds of mental illnesses.
Which is doubly troubling in Kim's case,
given that the North Korean leader had
obvious paranoid tendencies before
the stroke.
Isn't this what we've all been worried about
since the birth of the Bomb: that some
deranged leader will become mentally unstable
enough to start lobbing nukes? I guess we
should be truly alarmed if Kim starts talking
about his "precious bodily fluids."
It's altogether possible that, a year from now,
President Obama will be saying stuff like: "If you
told me a year ago that my main foreign policy
concern right now would be American involvement
in the war between North Korea and Japan, I'd
have said you're wayy off."
* * * *
Good for George Stephanopoulos for questioning
Obama advisor Susan Rice about the
administration's silence on the horrific flogging
of a 17-year old Pakistani girl by the Taliban
for refusing to marry some local geezer (or some
such "offense") -- an act of violence that is
all the talk in Pakistan and elsewhere lately.
Susan Rice was so outraged by the brutal beating
that she even went so far as to call it
"inconsistent." How Dukakasian.
I know what they're probably thinking in the White House:
let Zardari handle it; it will only harden
the Taliban position if the Great Infidel (aka, the USA)
weighs in with predictable condemnation.
Maybe. But the application of Sharia law
in this sort of way is a human rights
violation, plain and simple, and we should
call it exactly what it is: barbaric.
Cultural relativism doesn't apply in this
case, any more than it did when Dr. Mengele
did his medical experiments in Germany in
the 1940s.
But I digress. Paul
_________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for April 4, 2009
Editing Maureen Dowd
While reading Maureen Dowd's latest column in The
New York Times (3/5/09), I couldn't help but think
that perhaps she needed the help of an editor
this time.
So I've decided to present Dowd's column here,
along with my own editorial comments and suggestions
(in bold caps):
Barack Obama grew up learning how to slip in and out
of different worlds — black and white, foreign and
American, rich and poor.
The son of an anthropologist [WHO BARACK NEVER KNEW
AND ONLY MET ONCE], he developed a lot of “tricks,”
as he put it, training himself to be a close observer
of human nature [YOU'RE SAYING THAT AS IF HE LEARNED
THAT BY BEING THE SON OF AN ANTHROPOLOGIST, BUT (AS
I SAID) HE NEVER KNEW HIS DAD], figuring out what
others needed so he could get where he wanted to go.
He was able to banish any fear in older white folk
that he was an angry young black man — with smiles,
courtesy and, as he wrote in his memoir, “no sudden
moves.” He learned negotiating skills as a community
organizer and was able to ascend to the presidency
of the Harvard Law Review by letting a disparate
band of self-regarding eggheads feel that they were
being heard and heeded [THIS PART READS LIKE A GLOWING
OBIT, MAUREEN. BTW, ARE YOU IMPLYING HE WAS
BEING DECEPTIVE AND DUPLICITOUS, MAKING THEM
FEEL THEY WERE BEING HEARD AND HEEDED WHEN
IN REALITY HE ACTUALLY DIDN'T GIVE A DAMN
ABOUT THEIR VIEWS?].
As Charles J. Ogletree Jr., a Harvard law
professor who mentored the young Obama, put it,
“He can enter your space and organize your thoughts
without necessarily revealing his own concerns
and conflicts.” He can leave you thinking he agrees,
when often he’s only agreeing to leave you thinking
he agrees. [YOU QUOTE OGLETREE'S ONE-LINER AND
THEN SLYLY SLIDE IN YOUR OWN AMENDMENT TO HIS
QUOTE, SORT OF MAKING IT LOOK LIKE OGLETREE IS
SAYING BOTH THINGS, WHEN IN FACT YOUR STATEMENT
IS VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT OGLETREE IS SAYING
AND, AGAIN, YOU (NOT OGLETREE) SEEM TO BE
IMPLYING THAT OBAMA HAS A TALENT FOR DECEPTION,
WHEN IN FACT HE SEEMS MUCH MORE TRANSPARENT
AND HONEST THAN YOU MAKE HIM OUT TO BE.]
He privately rolls his eyes at the way many
in politics and government spend so much time
preening and maneuvering for credit rather
than simply doing their jobs. Yet with that
detached and novelistic eye that allows him to
be a great writer [SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE
FLIRTING WITH BARACK], he is also
able to do a kind of political jujitsu,
where he assesses the bluster and
insecurities of other politicians,
defuses them, and then uses them to his advantage.
Gabriel Byrne’s brooding psychoanalyst on
“In Treatment” might envy Barack Obama’s
[YOU'RE STILL USING FIRST AND LAST NAME
FOR OBAMA THIS FAR INTO THE PIECE?] calming
psychoanalysis in Europe. He may not have
come away with all he wanted substantively
[INADVERTENT UNDERSTATEMENT].
His hand was too weak going in, and there was
too much hostility toward America, thanks
to W.’s blunders and Cheney’s bullying. But
he showed a psychological finesse that has
been missing from American leadership for
a long time.
“Each country has its own quirks,” he said at
his London press conference, indicating that
you had to intuit how much you could prod
each leader.
W. always bragged about his instincts, saying he
knew whom [WHOM? YOU SOUND LIKE A BUTLER. READ
STRUNK & WHITE] to trust based on his gut. But even
with the help of psychologists putting together
profiles of dictators and other major players for
our intelligence services, Bush and his inner
circle were extraordinarily obtuse about reading
the motivations and the intentions of friends
and foes.
How could it never occur to them that Saddam Hussein
might simply be bluffing about the size of his
W.M.D. arsenal to keep the Iranians and other
antagonists at bay? [HEY, I HAVE ALWAYS
BEEN AGAINST THE IRAQ WAR, BUT YOU'RE BRINGING UP
A POINT BUSH COULD EASILY KNOCK DOWN. BUSH WOULD
RESPOND WITH, IF A BURGLAR AT YOUR DOOR CLAIMS
TO HAVE A GUN, YOU HAVE TO ACT AS IF HE DOES
HAVE A GUN, EVEN IF HE DOESN'T. BUT IN THE CASE OF
IRAQ IN 2003, SADDAM HUSSEIN, YOU MAY RECALL,
WAS CLAIMING THAT HE DID NOT HAVE W.M.D.s.
FURTHER, OUR MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT HE
DID HAVE W.M.D.s WAS NOT BASED
ON HIS PAST BOASTS.]
[WHILE YOU'RE POINTING FINGERS ABOUT
BEING OBLIVIOUS: HOW COULD YOU HAVE
NOT SEEN THAT JAYSON BLAIR WAS DISHONEST
AND FRAUDULENT, EVEN WHEN THE EVIDENCE
AGAINST HIM HAD PILED UP? AS I RECALL, YOU
DEFENDED BLAIR IN AT LEAST ONE OF YOUR
COLUMNS -- BEFORE YOU WERE PROVED DEEPLY
WRONG. WHY SHOULD WE BELIEVE THAT YOU
CAN DETECT A FUTURE JAYSON BLAIR WHEN
YOU COULDN'T DETECT A PAST ONE? IF YOU HAD
HAD YOUR WAY, BLAIR WOULD STILL BE AT
THE PAPER, PROBABLY RUNNING IT AS A #2 TO
RAINES BY NOW. (BUT I DIGRESS.)]
W. bristled at French and German leaders
because he thought they were condescending
to him. He thought he saw into Vladimir Putin’s
soul until the Russian leader showed his
totalitarian stripes.
W. and Condi were so clueless about the mind-set
of Palestinians that Condi was blindsided by
the Hamas victory in 2006, learning the news
from TV as she did the elliptical at 5 a.m.
in the gym of her Watergate apartment. {HOW
COULD CONDI HAVE KNOWN THE ELECTION RESULTS
BEFORE THE ELECTION RESULTS WERE ANNOUNCED?]
The Bush chuckleheads misread the world
and insisted that everyone else go along
with their deluded perception, and they
bullied the world and got huffy if the
world didn’t quickly fall in line.
President Obama, by contrast, employed smart
psychology in the global club, even on small
things, like asking other leaders if they
wanted to start talking first at news conferences.
[BUT OBAMA'S "SMART PSYCHOLOGY" AND
PERSUASIVENESS GOT HIM ABSOLUTELY NOWHERE AT
THE G-20 IN TERMS OF CONVINCING THE EUROPEANS
TO GO ALONG WITH SENDING COMBAT TROOPS TO
AFGHANISTAN, HIS MAIN REQUEST.]
With Anglo-American capitalism on trial and
Gordon Brown floundering in the polls,
Mr. Obama took pains to drape an arm around
“Gordon” and return to using the phrase
“special relationship.” He gave a shout-out
to the Brown kids, saying he’d talked dinosaurs
with them. [SOUNDS LIKE HIGH W.]
He won points with a prickly Sarkozy when he
intervened in an argument about tax havens
between the French and Chinese leaders, pulling
them into a corner to help them “get this all
in some kind of perspective” and find a
middle ground. Mr. Obama also played to the
ego of the Napoleonic French leader, saying
at their press conference, “He’s courageous
on so many fronts, it’s hard to keep up.”
[HE PROBABLY JUST SAID THAT ABOUT SARKO TO
GET HIM TO PONY UP SOME TROOPS FOR AFGHANISTAN;
BUT SARKO SAID NO, DESPITE OBAMA'S
FLATTERY.]
Soon Sarko was back gushing over his charmant
Americain ami. [YEAH, BUT DID YOU CATCH THE
FOOTAGE OF SARKO JEALOUSLY WATCHING EVERY
MOVE OBAMA MADE AROUND HIS GORGEOUS WIFE?]
Having an Iowa-style town hall in Strasbourg
with enthusiastic French and German students
was a clever ploy to underscore his popularity
on the world stage, and put European leaders
on notice that many of their constituents
are also his.
Like a good shrink, the president listens;
it’s a way of flattering his subjects and
sussing them out without having to fathom
what’s in their soul. “It is easy to talk
to him,” Dmitri Medvedev said after their
meeting. “He can listen.” [YEAH, BUT THIS
WAS NO "LISTENING TOUR"; REMEMBER, HE
ALSO LECTURED THE EUROPEANS ABOUT THEIR
WRONGHEADED VIEW OF AMERICANS, AMONG OTHER THINGS]
The Russian president called the American
one “my new comrade.”[PUTIN WAS EVEN MORE PUBLICLY
ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT BUSH AT FIRST, BUT IN THE
END THEY BECAME AS ADVERSARIAL AS TWO
COLD WARRIORS.]
Mr. Obama, the least silly of men, was even
willing to mug for a silly Facebook-ready
picture, grinning and giving a thumbs-up
with Medvedev and a goofy-looking
Silvio Berlusconi [I'LL AGREE WITH YOU THERE;
BERLUSCONI IS AS BUFFOONISH AND CLASS-CLOWNISH
AS TRACY MORGAN.]
Now that America can’t put everyone under
its thumb, a thumbs-up and a killer smile
can go a long way. [GO A LONG WAY? REALLY?
THEN HOW COME HE COULDN'T CONVINCE A SINGLE
EUROPEAN LEADER TO DEPLOY TROOPS TO AFGHANISTAN?
THE "KILLER SMILE" ALSO DIDN'T STOP THE RIOTS
IN THE STREETS EVERYWHERE HE VISITED, WHICH
YOU ODDLY FAILED TO MENTION.]
But I digress. Paul
[The April 4, 2009, Digression was revised
on April 8.]
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
For March 25, 2009
[An online magazine has just bought (and says
it will publish) a version of the Digression that
appeared on this day. So I'm taking it down from
this space and will provide a link to the
published piece later.]
______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 24, 2009
"A Whole Host" of Obamisms
Sure, many presidents and public figures sometimes
find themselves unable to stop repeating certain
words or phrases during a speech, and President
Obama, at his news conference tonight, was no
exception.
Like Richard Nixon repeatedly saying he could
have easily taken the easy path, or George W. Bush
telling us the presidency is "hard work," President
Obama now has his own pet phrase: "a whole host."
At tonight's Q&A session, he used "whole host"
seven times; for those who missed the
repetitions, here they are:
-- "...the FDIC could step in, as it does with a
whole host of banks..."
-- "the American people are making a host
of sacrifices"
-- "It is going to take a whole host of
adjustments"
-- "There are a whole host of veterans' issues"
-- "There are a whole host of people who are students
of the procurement process"
-- "Let's do a whole host of things"
-- "So there are a whole host of steps"
And the phrase is catchy, too; his press secretary, Robert
Gibbs, was using the phrase earlier in the day.
Prior to the Obama era, "whole host" was
perhaps best known pop culturally as a phrase in
a well-known James Taylor song, "Carolina in
My Mind," which Taylor playfully altered this way:
"With a holy host of others standing 'round me
Still I'm on the dark side of the moon...."
I expect the president will probably be
using the phrase in a whole host of new
ways in the future.
But I digress. Paul
______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 23 - 24, 2009
Obama's Appearance on "60 Minutes" Last Night, etc.
It's official: President Obama already has
seniority among former presidents, having
served longer in the White House than our
ninth president, William Henry Harrison, who
dropped dead around a month after his inauguration.
So if Obama were to quit his job today -- and
I hope he doesn't -- he wouldn't be the
president with the shortest tenure.
On "60 Minutes" last night, Obama showed us the
White House-as-a-family-residence, and that
got me wondering about the particulars of
presidential living (not that I'm thinking
of running for anything). But I wondered:
would I be covered by a lease during my
tenancy at the White House? Would I be
effectively classed as a renter, with the
rent paid by the federal government? Would I
have to pay a security deposit?
Sounds like Obama is, effectively, a temporary
tenant who has to vacate in 3 years and several
months, unless he wins the 2012 election.
Suppose I came into the White House and said,
not for me, not my style. Too 19th century. But
I'll keep it as my nominal residence, while
actually residing in, say, Arlington, in a
21st century A-frame place with modern sculpture
and a grand green front lawn, where I'd feel more
comfortable. I'm the president -- I can do
that, right?
Look, I can understand relocating to D.C. as
part of the job. But why do you have to live
in a one-size-fits-all house that
still has all the smells and stains and ghosts
of your predecessor?
In other words (and let's be frank), Bush's
Crawford friends, some with b.o. and dripping
bar-b-q sauce and mud, probably left their own
unique imprint and odor, and I would want to get
all that deep-cleaned immediately. (Remember the
"Seinfeld" episode with the smelly car? Sorta like
that.) But what if the cleaners have done their
best and yet I'm still smelling 43 and his
frat buds? Or, what if I just can't stand the
idea of sleeping in the same place
where you-know-who slept for eight years?
I guess I'd feel stir crazy and cooped up in
the White House. I'd be looking to get out
and take solitary walks at every opportunity.
I'd have to find a way. Could I wear a
super-realistic face mask that makes me look
like I'm a completely different person -- and
then take a walk in the woods? If not, then
who's running things around here: me or my
security people?
And what if the president -- who is the decider,
after all -- decides to veto his security
peeps and insists on going to the grocery
store on his own, without anyone else? Can his
security people overrule him? Suppose the president
says, "So arrest me." Can Secret Service
agents then detain or bust the president
and physically stop him from going to the
grocery store? Would they have to handcuff the
prez and place him in a detention area?
I mean, how would that look? Everyone would ask
whether there's any difference between a president
and a prison inmate. Everyone would wonder why
the president has the power to drop
nukes and annihilate life on earth but doesn't
have the authority to buy a pack of smokes
at the 7-11. Shouldn't the commander-in-chief
have the last word?
Frankly, I don't think I'd last even as
long in the White House as William Henry
Harrison. Not enough power in the position.
* * * *
STUPID BUMPER STICKER OF THE WEEK!
A more stupid bumper sticker than "9/11 Was an
Inside Job" probably does not exist (although
"What Has Any Afghan Ever Done to You?,"
which cropped up after 9/11, is
a runner-up in the idiocy sweepstakes).
Also, note the adjacent leftover "Dennis
Kucinich for President" bumper sticker, which
just shows that Kucinich -- who is as
smart about domestic policy as he is unwise about
defense issues -- has a way of attracting foreign
policy crazies.
If any fresh proof were needed of Kucinich's
foreign policy ineptitude, check out his
recent statements opposing President Obama's very
necessary deployment of 17,000 troops to Afghanistan,
reported prominently on the the Russia Television
(RT) news service, which can sometimes seem like
a propaganda arm of the Kremlin. (The Kremlin,
of course, has a personal interest in opposing
our involvement in Afghanistan, because
Medvedev/Putin probably wouldn't want to
see us succeed where their nation failed
militarily in the 1980s. Moscow conveniently
forgets the U.S. was attacked in '01 by
terrorists based in Afghanistan and backed
by the Taliban government there -- and the
people who attacked us are currently regrouping
in that area. So, obviously, we want to
stop that resurgence.)
Like former Sen. George McGovern, a World War II
vet, I am against some wars, not all wars,
and Afghanistan is a necessary one. Pacificism
merely means the other guy's violence
prevails.
As I wrote in this space a couple years ago:
those who spout platitudes like "war doesn't solve anything"
are just spouting platitudes. Yes, war should be avoided at
almost all costs, but -- hmm, let's see -- war stopped slavery
in the United States, war stopped Adolf Hitler in Germany,
war stopped bin Laden's proxy government in Afghanistan.
Sometimes you have to counter-intuitively light a backfire
to stop the main fire, you have to inject a little smallpox
to get rid of smallpox. (That's where guys like Howard Zinn
and Noam Chomsky, who were once wise in their younger days
but not in their post-9/11 older years, make big mistakes
in judgment, not understanding such a central paradox. But
then we all get old.)
With regard to the Afghanistan war, I side with Sen. John
Kerry, another vet, who not only supported that conflict
but said we should have gotten in sooner (why on earth did
we wait till October '01, giving bin Laden a chance to
escape?!) and should have stayed longer to bomb Tora Bora.
What exactly did the anti-Afghanistan war activists
suggest we do in the weeks after 9/11? Serve bin Laden
a subpoena in the neverlands of Tora Bora? And what
if his protectors had started shooting? Then we're
shooting back, right? Well, hey, that's precisely
what war is!
So "war doesn't solve anything" is one of those
platitudes -- like "love conquers all" and "I am
the way and the light" -- that really, when you
examine it, isn't very wise or true and doesn't
make a whole lot of practical sense.
And let's hope that we don't let the national trauma
of the Iraq conflict cloud our collective judgment so
that we don't see that the next war, if there is one,
may be very just. A patient traumatized by
inept surgery may be overly reluctant to
have a necessary operation in the future.
But I digress. Paul
____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 22, 2009
New on DVD: "Milk"
Take it from me, a hard-core, incorrigible
heterosexual: "Milk" is magnificent.
The story of late-blooming politician Harvey
Milk, a city councilman (they call them
supervisors in San Francisco) who served for
only a year but broke new ground by being
openly gay and putting gay issues defiantly
front and center, this biopic is
riveting, inspired, carbonated, airborne.
Sean Penn disappears into the role of Milk as
magically as Robert DeNiro became Jake LaMotta in
"Raging Bull" all those years ago. It's on that
level, easily.
Josh Brolin is also brilliant in his very
knowing, very smart psychological portrait
of a deeply repressed homosexual,
assassin Dan White, a role that probably should
have been expanded (if only to show how financial
pressures contributed to White's mental illness).
"Milk" is also a vivid evocation of a long-ago
counter-culture era (and scenes are packed with
such obsolete phenomena as record players,
typewriters, unprotected sex, landlines and the
San Francisco Chronicle).
The Anita Bryant footage is priceless; she almost
comes across as an actress in an ironic
performance trying to portray a truly
ludicrous holy roller, which is exactly what
she was.
And excellent use of Bowie's "Queen Bitch" and
Sly's "Everyday People" in the film (Tom Robinson's
exciting but unjustly forgotten "All Right, All
Night" would've fit perfectly here).
Also, S.F. supe Tom Ammiano makes a nice,
passionate cameo.
But don't look for any deleted scenes of note
on the DVD; evidently, all the magic was used
in the picture.
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 20, 2009
Visiting A.I.G. Execs is Only the First Step
"Well I'm going to the mansions where Pfizer
lives/the mansions that they built by ripping
off the sick/I'm gonna tell 'em that they can't
do that no more/There's a deep discount on aisle
four/I'm stealin' medication," goes the lyrics
of one of my latest songs, "Stealin'
Medication," which has actually gotten some radio
airplay in recent months.
As the composer of "Stealin' Medication," I was
gratified to see this story --
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/20/nyregion/20siege.html --
in today's online edition of The New York Times,
reporting about a group that is
taking its anger about the A.I.G. bonuses to
the streets where the executives live.
Great idea. It's what I've been advocating in
this space and elsewhere for a long time: bring
your protests to the neighborhoods where venal,
overcompensated executives live -- and make some
noise there. Those excessive bonuses are
both the symbol and the reality of exactly
what is unfair about the accumulation of
wealth in America: the wrong people are
rewarded.
More than talent, more than hard work,
gaming the system, along with
nepotism and luck, will make you wealthy and
successful in the U.S.A.
Let's be real: those execs at AIG are failures,
incompetent in their own fields, yet they're
fabulously wealthy. Explain
to me how that happened so we can stop it from
ever happening again, at A.I.G. or elsewhere.
My advice to protesters is to put
your time to really good use and target
the heads of companies that make
profits off sick people (e.g., the
major pharmaceutical and health insurance
firms). After all, the execs
at companies like Pfizer and Merck are
basically saying to the uninsured: "go bleed
to death if you can't afford our medication;
it's survival of the fittest in the jungle
out there."
So let's adopt their attitude. Let's take that
very same approach to the rich execs at
the pharma companies. Maybe some picketers will even
be motivated to block their streets and sidewalks.
Maybe other protesters will refuse to come
down from their trees until the execs
make medication affordable to those who need
it.
In other words: exert leverage. Do what they're
doing to us. And remember: almost no harsh protest
tactic could possibly be as callous as denying medication
to sick people who can't afford it.
This is clearly a new era, but President Obama
can take us only so far. In order to get
meaningful health care reform (and business
compensation reform, for that matter), there must
be a combination of official action from the
White House and Congress and
effective acts of civil disobedience,
targeting bad corporate actors where they live.
So come down from your trees, you eco-protesters.
Come down from your occupied buildings,
you anti-Iraq war people. Come put your
resourcefulness and energy to better use
by targeting immoral, unethical, overcompensated
CEOs at the palaces they call home.
Practice on the AIG execs first but then set your
sights on an even nobler target: the residences of
the heads of the pharma and health insurance
firms.
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 19, 2009
THE SIXTH ANNIVERSARY OF THE IRAQ WAR
Last Night's Attack on a Marine Recruiting Center in Berkeley
Exclusive photos
Last night, on the eve of the 6th anniversary of
the U.S. invasion of Iraq, anti-war protesters
(we assume) vandalized a Marine Corps Recruiting
Center on Shattuck Ave. in Berkeley, Calif., smashing
plate glass windows and splattering paint. This
is how it looked at daybreak this morning, its
broken windows replaced with wood.
[photo by Paul Iorio]
* * *
Red paint tossed by protesters on the wall of the
Marine center. [photo by Paul Iorio]
* * *
Paint splattered walls and gates of the Marine
center and of an adjacent business.
[photo by Paul Iorio]
* * *
The controversial memorial, in Lafayette, Calif.,
to American soldiers who have died in Iraq. Here's
a shot of it in April 2008, when the number of
dead stood at 4,039 (the number has since been
updated to 4,925).
[photo by Paul Iorio]
* * *
* * *
The Great Recession is everywhere you look these
days. This morning, during an early morning walk,
I snapped this shot of a homeless man sleeping
on a sidewalk next to a Kinko's picture window
in Berkeley. [photo by Paul Iorio]
* * *
Another shot of the homeless man, sleeping next
to shelves of Kinkos's multi-colored paper.
[photo by Paul Iorio]
* * *
One more picture of the man sleeping outside a
Kinko's store. [photo by Paul Iorio]
But I digress. Paul
_______________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 18, 2009
I Was at Britney's First Concert in L.A., Ten Years Ago....
my ticket to Britney's debut live show in L.A.
Haven't seen Britney Spears's "Circus" tour yet,
but I actually did get to see her on her first
tour in 1999, when she performed her debut
concert in Los Angeles at age 17.
Though her first album, "...Baby One More Time,"
had been released only five months earlier, her
following was already intense and massive. She
was playing one of those multi-act stadium shows -- at
Dodger Stadium on June 12, 1999 -- headlined by
one-hit flash Ricky Martin (who I didn't stay
to see) and Will Smith (who I was covering for a
newspaper).
The eclectic pop fest, dubbed Wango Tango, also
featured Nancy Sinatra (doing a fine "How Does
That Grab You?"), an exciting Blondie and a
solid UB40 -- and there were lots of stars in
the audience, too (when Kobe Bryant strolled
down an aisle, carrying himself like an emperor,
the crowd stood and watched his every move).
When Britney appeared, the entire composition of
the audience suddenly changed into an aggressive
all-female, all-teenage mob that seemed to view
me -- the only middle-aged male there (hey, I was
working!)-- as their unwelcome daddy and
chaperone, who they wished would just go away.
I half-thought I was going to
be lynched at one point.
Britney performed on a stage crowded with several
dancers and bandmates doing mass-synchronized
dancing that looked exactly like an aerobics class.
The fans in front of me, standing on chairs, were
so loud I couldn't hear much. And before I knew it,
around 20 minutes into the set, her first concert
in L.A. was over. Her legend, of course, was
just being born.
* * * *
Julia Louis-Dreyfus, edgy last night on Ferguson's show.
With "Seinfeld" in constant syndication, and with
"The New Adventures of Old Christine" a fresh
presence in prime time, a lot of people tend to
take Julia Louis-Dreyfus for granted. One
tends to forget how spontaneous and unpredictably
funny she can be -- until you see her in an
appearance like the one last night on "The Late,
Late Show with Craig Ferguson." She started off
funny, got funnier and then edgy as she
let loose some talk that was completely bleeped
by Standards & Practices and that
seemed to take even Ferguson aback. Would
love to hear the uncensored footage.
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 15, 2009
Just listened to the new bin Laden audiotape,
and the first thing that struck me was he sounded
sort of dehydrated, which -- who knows? -- might
be related to his kidney disease, which (in some
cases, doctors say) can feel like the worst
hangover imaginable.
So there is hope!
He also comes out against wine, folks (so I'm sure
he'd be no fan of my recently released song "The
Wine Song," which goes, "I want wine, I want wine,
I want more and more and more wine...").
And he denounces radio, too, and singles out
the BBC for condemnation (which means he
wouldn't like the fact that "The Wine Song"
was recently aired by a radio
station -- double blasphemy!).
Elsewhere, he talks about morality (which is
sort of like Charles Manson lecturing on good
and evil), speaks repeatedly about "temptation,"
talks a few times about "reaching shore" (but,
thankfully, doesn't plagiarize
my song "Drowning Man," which is also about
reaching shore), says something about spears, and
plays the Middle East card rather than justify
his own mass homicidal actions.
And, yeah, he mentions the Koran several times,
though it's unclear what good the book does
him if it guides him only to evil acts.
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 14 - 15, 2009
Al Jazeera, staffed with steno secretaries for
al Qaeda who pose as reporters, once again carried
water for bin Laden (such sweet boys!) and won't
tell us where the water came from, which makes
the "network" a bit of a collaborator with bin
Laden, wouldn't you say?
You guys at al Jazeera probably didn't even try to
trace the chain of custody of the latest audiotape
from bin Laden. Maybe you could give us a hint as
to which part of the world it might have come from.
(Sounds like...?)
Let's just say that if bin Laden causes more
bloodshed -- and he will, or will try -- that
some of the blood will be on the hands of
you folks at al Jazeera, because you could've helped
us catch him. Most of the "reporters" at the
"network" can barely conceal their pathological
closet sympathies for bin Laden and his religious
psychos. You guys aren't hiding it well.
The job of a journalist is not to turn in people
like bin Laden, you say. But it is your
job and responsibility when there are
extraordinary circumstances involved. You're
citizens first, journalists second, and you could
save many thousands -- maybe millions -- of lives by
doing the right thing and trying to find where he's
hiding -- and revealing that info to the authorities.
Let me provide an example that you guys
at al Jazeera might understand. Suppose
(and let's hope something like this never occurs)
the wife of the head of al Jazeera were kidnapped
by a terrorist group, and one of your reporters was
able to score an interview with the head of that
group. Are we to believe for one moment that
al Jazeera wouldn't bring all its resources
to bear to find out the location of the interview
and to alert the authorities about where it
was taking place?
Of course they would. In that instance,
al Jazeera would (rightly) be acting more like
cops than reporters -- and would certainly make
no apologies for doing so. They would surely cite
"extraordinary circumstances" in justifying their
actions and their scuttling of confidentiality
agreements.
Well, there you go; you've just agreed that
a confidentiality agreement is not always
inviolable.
It's amazing how people suddenly
see the light with such clarity when an
example is given that involves their own
self-interest.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Last night's "Saturday Night Live" was one
of the unfunniest in recent memory, standing as
vivid proof, if any were needed, that
Tracy Morgan is not funny. Morgan is under
the misimpression that a bad joke told at
a low volume will miraculously become
funny if you shout it. (Also -- suspicious
sin of omission: why no Jim Cramer sketch,
which would've been a perfect fit for SNL
this week, and everyone knows it. I wonder
which one of Cramer's contacts at SNL or NBC
got such a sketch idea dismissed.)
* * *
How refreshing to hear Congressman Barney
Frank (D-MA) say it honestly and directly
on "Fox News Sunday":
"I'm for a single-payer health care plan
like Medicare."
And he's right: the easiest way to provide
universal health care in the U.S. is to simply
expand Medicare until everyone's covered.
Right now, given the stigma of "single-payer"
among conservatives, incrementalism may be
the best the Obama administration can do.
But the most painless path to universal
health care probably lies in the gradual
expansion of a program that's already
in place.
* * *
Dontcha just hate all those people on TV
interview shows who say (whether it's true
or not), "This was a team effort," "There
is no 'i' in team," "We all checked our egos
at the door," "This wasn't about me but
about the group," etc., etc.?
All well and good if that's true. If something is
really a team effort, then by all means label
it as such.
But can you imagine Picasso unveiling "Guernica" and,
with false modesty, saying, "Ya know, 'Guernica'
was a group project, and I want to thank the team,"
or if Leonardo had displayed "The Last Supper," saying,
"And thanks to the team that made this possible -- it
wasn't just me!"
As I get older, I find that the people who talk the most
about a project being the result of "teamwork" are
generally the ones who had least amount of input into it.
_____________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 12, 2009
New on DVD: "Rachel Getting Married"
Yeah, it's Demme's best feature film in 15 years,
though that's not saying much, given the fact
that his best movies were all made before '94.
The core problem with "Rachel" is the lack of focus
suggested by the inadequate, slightly off title;
after all, the movie is not about Rachel
or her wedding as much as it's about Kym and her
return from rehab, the much more compelling story,
and as such it should've been titled something
like "Home for the Wedding," with its focus
shifted accordingly and more decisively.
It feels like a combination of "Interiors" and "The
Return of the Secaucus Seven," though it would've
been interesting to have seen Kym evolve into
something other than what she was at the beginning
of the film. (Character growth is the element that
makes so many Woody Allen pictures greater than
most others. Remember how Dianne Wiest's character
blossoms by the end of "Hannah"? Or how our
perceptions of Cheech in "Bullets Over Broadway"
shift dramatically as the movie progresses?)
Here, Kym at the beginning is Kym at the end,
unfortunately.
The "grant me the serenity blah blah" rehab scenes
follow the memorable ones in "Traffic," in which
the counselors are either dim and bureaucratic or
platitudinous and cloying (and "Rachel" may be
the first major feature to note that the personal
stories told in group therapy sessions -- which
always leak out, despite guarantees of
confidentiality -- are often as untrue as the
tall tales of James Frey or Herman Rosenblat).
I love the Sayles-ian dishwasher competition, though
I wish Kym could've been worked into it (perhaps she
could've freaked out when she was unable to pull a
stuck dish from the washer, much as she couldn't pull
Ethan from the car seat all those years ago).
All told, the movie is fascinating from start to
finish, despite its flaws (e.g., the focus problem
noted above; the fact that major
plot elements (like the car wreck and the
mother-daughter fight) aren't integrated into
subsequent sequences). And what a surprise to see
Debra Winger all grown up, looking like late
Carole King and attractive in a brand new way.
The DVD includes a generous helping of deleted
scenes, all justifiably cut -- except the funny one
in which Kym meets and greets old friends in the
wedding reception line.
But I digress. Paul
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 10, 2009
Don't Do Anything for The Taliban That
You Wouldn't Have Also Done for the Ku Klux Klan
Lots of talk in the Obama administration these days
about the possibility of negotiating with the
Taliban in Afghanistan, or having Karzai do so.
My response is this: it depends on how you define
the Taliban. If you mean the people who backed or
worked with Mullah Omar, the answer is a flat-out
no; we shouldn't negotiate with any of those people.
In fact, we should jail or kill most of Omar's
top brass, once we find which caves they're
hiding in.
But if you're referring to the brave folks in
Afghanistan who were only nominally allied with
the Taliban but stood up to (or tried to stand
up to) Mullah Omar and voiced opposition to, say,
the bigoted Taliban policy of forcing Hindus
to wear yellow stars on the streets of Kabul,
and thought it was wrong to throw in with bin
Laden, then I say, yeah, talk with
such courageous individuals. Reward them with
a place at the table. We must reach out to those
in Afghanistan who were the equivalent of the
underground resistance during Nazism (even if
they were part of a self-interested group
like the Northern Alliance).
But to those who backed Omar (and, by extension,
bin Laden) who now sidle up to us hoping for
a concession, we must tell them what Bill McKay
told a corrupt Teamster in "The Candidate":
"I don't think we have shit in common."
Let's not reward, explicitly or implicitly, the wrong
people in Afghanistan and Pakistan, even if it
would bring a quicker peace. We don't need that
kind of peace. I would much rather see continued
war -- war that would kill killers planning, say,
dirty bomb attacks on Manhattan right now -- than
a peace that results in Omar's right-wing lieutenants
sharing power in Kabul.
Our guide to policy should be this: don't do
anything for the Taliban that you wouldn't have
also done for the violent terrorists of the
Ku Klux Klan in the 1950s in America.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 8, 2009
Kashmir Border Drawn in Plutonium
I took a taxi from Oakland, Calif., today and
chatted with the driver, who said he was originally
from India. Talk soon turned to last Fall's
Mumbai attacks, and he was passionate about the
tragedy, angrily blaming Pakistani militants and
cursing the Kashmir crisis for helping to create
the climate that caused it.
As I listened to his tirade against Pakistani
militants, I realized this was almost certainly
the temperature throughout much of India: hot
toward Pakistan and ready for
cold vengeance, with Kashmir a way too convenient
flashpoint.
Both sides are profoundly pissed -- and all nuked up,
too. Both sides have barely budged a substantial inch
since '47, it seems. Both sides's competing claims
in Kashmir are now complicated by separatist demands
and counter-claims by China. And the Mumbai
attacks, recently traced to members of the
Lashkar-e-Taiba of Pakistan, have added accelerant
to the tinderbox.
If Kashmir blows in a nuclear way, the body count
could be unthinkably massive -- and the nuke cloud
could travel over....China, or anywhere in the neighborhood,
creating a potentially unprecedented humanitarian
catastrophe.
Yeah, I know, there are lots of global hot spots.
Yeah, we have to establish a two-state solution in
the Middle East. We need to rein in the
increasingly ill Kim Jong Il. We have to
sit down with Ahmadinejad and read him the riot
act. And, most important to U.S. security, we
absolutely have to stop the resurgence of the
Taliban in Afghanistan.
But it's all too easy to imagine breaking news coming
out of Islamabad and Delhi about multiple nuclear
strikes throughout both nations, with each side claiming
the other fired first, with casualties in the millions.
And then we'll wish we had had the foresight to spend
more time on Kashmir than on, say,
Gaza, where nukes aren't really in play.
The line of control in Kashmir is, post-Mumbai,
drawn in plutonium. Hillary Clinton and
Ban Ki Moon should hold a summit with Zardari and
Singh to definitively resolve the Kashmir crisis
so that all parties recognize the borders and LoCs
in the region. (Perhaps there should be (yet another!)
sub-Secretary of State to focus on the region.)
It's unlikely a single summit will settle things; deep
underlying tensions between Hindus and Muslims in the
area are fueling the disputes. But if most Indians
are as enraged at Pakistan as my cabbie was yesterday,
I bet any minor spark could set the whole
region ablaze, possibly radioactively.
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 6, 2009
Fresh evocation of American suburbia by San Francisco's
own Robert Bechtle titled "'60 T-Bird" ('67 - '68), now
on display at the Berkeley Art Museum.
[photo by Paul Iorio.]
Visited the Berkeley (Calif.) Art Museum
yesterday and its "Galaxy" exhibition, an
eclectic collection of paintings
BAM hasn't shown for awhile. Highlights include
Magritte's striking "Duo," Warhol's silkscreen
"Race Riot," a couple engravings by William Blake,
a drip painting miniature by Pollock, Rothko's
"Red Over Dark Blue on Dark Gray" and Robert
Bechtle's "'60 T-Bird." (I did a
double-take on the Caracciolo, thinking it
was a Caravaggio, whose style Caracciolo
thoroughly rips off.) Galaxy runs until nearly
Labor Day at BAM.
* * * *
"Are times so stressful that our young president
is going grayer a mere six weeks into the job?,"
asked The Washington Post the other day.
Isn't it more likely that Obama was using
hair dye during the campaign and is only now
showing his real gray? In any event, we elected
him for the gray matter inside (not outside)
his skull.
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 2 - 3, 2009
A New Crime Wave? 
According to KALX radio's Marshall Stax, Crime, the
seminal Bay Area punk band, may be re-uniting and might
appear on his show, The Next Big Thing,
in the near future. Above, a vintage Crime poster from
a recent exhibit at the Berkeley (Calif.) Art Museum.
(Also, many thanks to Marshall for playing two
new songs of mine, "You're Gettin' Played" and "The
Riot Noise (Off Avalon Green)," on tonight's Next
Big Thing!) [photo of poster by Paul Iorio.]
* * *
Someone asked me what inspired my new
song "The Riot Noise (Off Avalon Green)." I started
writing it after walking into a riot that erupted
in Berkeley, Calif., on September 5, 2008. (I actually
ran into the riot to snap the shot that is the
cover of my upcoming album of the same name.)
In my song, the line "I don't know who threw
the chair but that was no excuse to shoot bullets
in the air" was suggested by this AP photo of
another riot, in Thessaloniki, Greece, on December
7, 2008, where violence escalated after a protester
tossed a chair at cops:
(photo: Nikolas Giakoumidis)
But I digress. Paul
The Daily Digression is not sponsored
by AeroShave! (photo by Paul Iorio.)
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for March 2, 2009
And so we're all supposed to believe that
Bernie Madoff, when he was chairman (not merely
a senior vice president or COO) of
overly-respected Nasdaq, was ethical
and honest? I don't buy it. My business
experience tells me that, generally, a person
exhibits the same sorts of tendencies at
one company that he or she does at another, more
or less. It strains credulity to believe
Madoff only became corrupt in recent years,
and was, prior to that, a model of ethics and
probity. It probably takes a lot of practice
over many decades to become as expertly
nefarious as he became in his sixties.
What does the fact that Madoff was chairman of Nasdaq
tell us about Nasdaq? If you scratched the surface
beneath the fortunes of Madoff's colleagues at
Nasdaq, do you honestly think they'd come up clean?
(Is there such a thing as a completely clean fortune
in America? Was there ever, considering America
was founded on the mass theft of labor via
slavery? Isn't it true that any bum can amass
wealth if all his workers work for free? I digress.)
If one can't trust the former chairman of Nasdaq,
whose later clients/victims included savvy, respectable
folks like John Malkovich and Steven Spielberg, then
who can one trust in the investment world?
BTW, check out the Google News Archives to see how
glowingly some news organizations covered Madoff in
the 1990s. Reminds me of how some financial journalists
today still quote and give credibility to sources
at discredited companies like Moody's, which either
fraudulently or negligently gave triple A ratings
to firms that failed mere months later.
Uh, let's see: Moody's was waay wrong
about fundamental aspects of the
economy, and yet you're still quoting people
from the company. And I'm sure you'll continue to
quote them in the future, throwing good money
after bad in order to justify crappy
journalistic decisions.
[I wrote and posted the above column at
around 12:30am on March 2, 2009; some
of the ideas I originated here were
later echoed by a guest on PBS's "NewsHour" around
15 hours after I posted the ideas here.]
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 24, 2009
The other day I saw a sight from the Pleistocene
era: a McCain bumper sticker on an old, rusty GMC
truck. And I thought, could there possibly be
any sight so yesterday on the planet?
Then this morning I got my answer. There was
old-fashioned Jim Cramer on the "Today" show,
thundering like a Brontosaurus about how the
horse-and-buggy is not disappearing and how talkies
will never supplant silents. And I realized, yes,
there is something more antiquated than a McCain bumper
sticker on an old GMC truck.
Cramer -- an over-amplified defender of discredited
free market policies who wants President Obama to
pass the jellybeans and say "things aren't terrible" -- just
can't get his mind around the fact that unregulated
capitalism has fallen and failed as surely and
decisively as communism fell nearly two
decades ago.
By the way, Cramer shouts too much. I mean, if
this is how he is on camera, can you imagine what
he's like with subordinates? I wonder how many of
his co-workers have accused him of creating a
hostile work environment. That old style of a
rich (and wrong!) boss shouting at poor
subordinates is, thankfully, going down
the toilet as fast as unregulated capitalism
is -- and good riddance.
Why give airtime to this guy and others
like him (such as Zandi of Moody's)? After
all, Cramer and his kind -- the
supply-siders -- have been proved wrong. They
were (and still are) oblivious to the unacceptable
inherent risks of the unregulated marketplace.
Why not give TV airtime to those who
have been proved right?
* * * *
[cartoon/caption by Paul Iorio, 2009;
drawing by unknown artist.]
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 23, 2009
Slum Enchanted Evening
Time was, prior to 9/11, the Oscars were held in
what seemed like the early spring rather than the
late winter, and it fit better there. When
I lived in Los Angeles in the 1990s, and covered
aspects of the Academy Awards as a reporter, the
Oscars weren't handed out until almost April.
I remember it was like a federal holiday in the
area, and I'd walk through West Hollywood on
the way to pick up my tux or something
and see people all dressed up in their suburban
driveways in the middle of the afternoon, preparing
to drive to the Oscars or a related event.
And it seemed the trees were just starting to
bud and everyone was coming out of hibernation
and there was a sense of re-awakening all around.
But since 9/11, the ceremony has been held
in the dead of winter (which -- admittedly -- is
hard to define in L.A.) as if the Academy
was trying to throw off terrorists by shifting
the typical date of the Oscars.
Last night's ceremony was yet another late-winter
event, and I watched it on TV in Berkeley, Calif.,
and don't have much to say about it, except the
following:
-- It is becoming exceedingly easy to predict
the winners (I predicted all the major ones,
except for Winslet) just by looking at the
winners of the various guild awards.
-- Hugh Jackman worked out better than one might
have expected, though Steve Martin was so funny
in his brief appearance that I began to wish he
was the host. Bill Maher was also a welcome
gust of truth and wit and perhaps he, too, should
be considered to host the 82nd awards ceremony.
-- I wish Alicia Keys had sung something (she's
such a genius as a singer that she virtually sings
when she talks).
-- Very gracious of Sean Penn to have praised Mickey
Rourke from the podium.
-- In another century, in another era, I'm convinced
Kate Winslet would have become a genuine Queen of
some country.
-- Having five actors descend on the actor
nominees felt more like a rehab intervention
than an appreciation.
-- In the old days, if a Woody Allen movie were nominated
in any category, it would also be nominated for the
best director or best original screenplay
prize. It's telling that recent Allen movies are
now noted for something other than his direction
and writing. (He is in something of a late Chaplin
(post-"Monsieur Verdoux") phase.) Cruz's performance
was indeed notable, though it worked only in tandem
with Bardem's.
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 20, 2009
Here're a few everyday photos I
recently shot around my neighborhood in
Berkeley, Calif.:
a novel, leftover bumper sticker for You-Know-Who!
* * *
the rainy season has arrived out here, and
this is what it looked like last Sunday.
* * *
occasionally, we have bouts of severe fog in Berkeley
that are almost like heavy smoke, such as this one
last year.
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 14 - 16, 2009
Roman Polanski, and Why All Charges Against Him Should Be Dropped
Roman Polanski is one of the most reflexively brilliant
people I've ever interviewed. Talking with him, one
really feels the pull of genius, in the sense that
he spontaneously puts a fresh angle on
whatever moment you're in and causes you to
re-think what you're thinking. When you've finished
a conversation with Polanski, your mind is somewhat
altered, your view of the world is a bit
different, you come away charged and alive to
the possibilities out there.
I landed my interview with Polanski -- a rarity
and a scoop at the time -- through the late Richard
Sylbert, an enormously gifted production and set
designer of classic films by Polanski, Mike Nichols
and others, and a very close friend of the
director's.
Sylbert seemed to think of a film as a place that
one can return to repeatedly, like an old family
living room from childhood, and hence he designed
locations in movies that millions of us do
return to each year, via cinema (e.g., the
Braddock family home in "The Graduate," Mrs.
Robinson's bedroom in "The Graduate,"
Ida Sessions's apartment house (with its
claustrophobic, parallel outdoor walls that
seem to be closing in on Jake Gittes),
Evelyn Mulwray's foyer (the site of so much trauma),
and on and on. The lives of lots of moviegoers were
partly lived in those spaces, and Sylbert made sure
they stuck in collective memory.
I had planned to talk with Sylbert for only ten
minutes or so to get some quotes for a Los Angeles Times
story on "Chinatown" that I was writing but we hit
it off (as reporter and source) and our conversation
went on for well over an hour. He was
evidently impressed with my expert knowledge
of "Chinatown," which I'd seen hundreds of
times, and at the end of the interview
asked, "You want Roman's phone number?"
And I said something like, yeah, sure.
Keep in mind that getting an interview with Sylbert
himself was a bit of a coup in those days, as his
number was deeply unlisted. (In late 1998, I had
an advantage over many other journalists in that I
had already been using such pre-Google search engines
as Alta Vista and HotBot, which led me to the unlisted
number of a relative of Sylbert's, who referred my
message to Richard.)
Anyway, I called Polanski and left a message on his
answering machine, not expecting much to come of it.
Some time later, I caught a message on
my own machine, and it was unmistakably
Roman, calling from Paris. We exchanged calls back
and forth, and then set up a phone interview for a few
days later, when he would be on a family vacation in
the Dolomites.
A couple days before 1999, I interviewed Polanski
in-depth about "Chinatown" and a bit about other
topics, but the central subject of my article
was "Chinatown," his best film by a fair margin,
in my view, though there are many other high peaks
in his oeuvre (I'd rank "Knife in the Water" higher
if it had come before "L'avventura"). (I'd go on
to do other interviews for the "Chinatown" piece
in early '99.)
My interview with him was the basis of articles
I wrote and reported for the July 8, 1999, issue
of the Los Angeles Times. (A top editor at the paper
said that my story had generated more reader response
than any other article that had appeared in that
section of the Times; I'm flattered that film
aficionados have told me they never completely
understood the film until they read my articles;
an uncut, updated version of the story appears
on my website at www.paulliorio.blogspot.com.)
A few years after creating this cinematic masterpiece,
Polanski was caught in a scandal somewhat similar to
the one that almost prematurely ended the career of
Leonardo da Vinci centuries earlier. Leonardo, accused of
having an affair with an underage model in Verrocchio's
studio, was almost jailed and trashed by the
Florentine authorities -- and imagine the loss to the world
if he had been.
Fact is, there aren't many bona fide geniuses on the
planet, and the human race can't afford to throw them
out as if they were yesterday's Yuban -- unless there
is an absolutely compelling reason that fully overrules
mitigating factors.
And the Samantha Geimer case was never a compelling
enough reason to toss out a world class director like
Polanski. (It was, after all, not a case of murder,
an exponentially more serious crime that no western
nation condones.)
Apart from the narrow legal concerns that are currently
in play in the case, perhaps we should also begin to
rethink and debate the big picture issues about the
basic fairness of such prosecutions and whether we
tend to overstate the seriousness of such crimes
in the States.
First, what Polanski did would not have been illegal
(or at least would not have been prosecuted) had
he done it in his home country (France), his native
country (Poland) or the place where he sometimes
vacations (Italy). Laws regarding age-of-consent vary
wildly from decade to decade and from nation to nation
(and even, to some degree, from state to state
in the U.S.).
As footage in the recent documentary "Roman Polanski:
Wanted and Desired" clearly shows, Polanski seemed to be
genuinely and completely unaware that having sex with
a teenager was illegal in the U.S. In many ways,
this was a case of how the sexual provincialism of
a nation created a high-profile international injustice.
Here's an analogy everybody might understand. Suppose
you visited one of the northern provinces of Nigeria,
where Sharia law is in effect, and suppose you were
in your hotel room innocently playing a mandolin while
your girlfriend was resting on the couch. You might
very well hear a knock on your door and find that the
local police want to arrest you for violating Nigeria's
Sharia law that prohibits playing the mandolin,
particularly in the presence of a woman (look it up;
it's actually against the law in some
parts of Islam).
If the Nigerian police had led you away in handcuffs,
your reaction would be something like: "What're you
talking about? I had no idea such a thing was illegal
in your country. Who would make such a law?" And
they would say, "Playing a mandolin is explicitly
prohibited by Sharia law in parts of Nigeria, and
you, sir, are under arrest."
And you would respond with, "Nobody ever told me this
was against the law in your country. How was I
supposed to have known that? Who was the person
designated from the Nigerian government to tell
me, as I arrived at the airport in Lagos, that
mandolin-playing was illegal in Katsina province?
Did somebody at the airport hand me a list of things that
are illegal in this country but legal in my own?"
Analogously, that's very similar to what happened
in Polanski's case. As I noted before, he was
arrested for something that isn't really a
crime in his home country, and when he was busted he
seemed to be completely unaware that he had done
something illegal. How can it be fair to fully
prosecute someone for behavior that we never told
him was illegal?
If the crime was so serious, then how come the
so-called victim has repeatedly said she was far
more traumatized by Judge Laurence Ritteband's
handling of the "unlawful intercourse" case than
by what she did with Polanski? I think most would
agree today that everybody -- both the "victim"
and the accused and everyone in between -- would
have been far better off if the whole incident
had never been brought into the legal system and
had been handled as a private matter between families.
Don't get me wrong: I would never consider committing
an act similar to the one that got Polanski in
trouble -- and I think aspects of his behavior in
that case (using Quaaludes, for example) are not
very defensible. But just because I wouldn't do
such a thing doesn't mean that I think it should
be prosecuted as a serious crime warranting
excessive legal penalties.
It would seem to be common sense that behavior
that is virtually legal in Vancouver shouldn't
get you a 20-year sentence if you do the same
thing several miles down the highway in Seattle.
I'm not saying there should be international
standardization of laws -- there shouldn't be,
because each nation has its own traditions and
practical realities. But a sensitivity to
cultural differences should be factored into cases
like Polanski's (or into the hypothetical case of
an American prosecuted for playing a mandolin
in Nigeria).
In the current climate of witch hunting and hysteria,
it's not likely Polanski's conviction will be
tossed out now or anytime soon, despite the new evidence
brought to light about malfeasance committed by the
disqualified judge in the case.
Maybe Polanski will just have to heed the hard truths
of "Chinatown" itself, and say to himself:
"Forget it, Roman, it's Santa Monica."
* * * * *
Regarding the Michael Phelps story: it's
not like he was accused of selling pot.
He just took a toot off a bong, standard
behavior for guys that age. Leave 'im alone!
* * * * *
Re: Roland Burris. I told ya so. (See my
column, below, titled "Don't Seat Burris,"
January 7, 2009.)
But I digress. Paul
______________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 12, 2009
Surely, You Must Be Joaquin'.(Or Maybe Not.)
I watched the Joaquin Phoenix interview with
David Letterman in real time last night and
was riveted by what initially looked like
a major actor committing career suicide on late
night TV. I thought, this is either
Johnny-Cash-kicking-out-the-lights-on-the-Opry-stage
or an Andy Kaufman-style hoax. As I thought
about it through the day today, I was starting
to wonder whether it was a Phoenix-Letterman
collaboration along the lines of "The Late Show"'s
Johnny-the-Usher bits.
If not, it ranks right up there with Lennon's
infamous behavior at the Troubadour or Brando's
eccentric late interviews or Norman Mailer's
drunken TV appearances.
Either way, an extremely entertaining departure
from the usual movie promotional fare.
* * *
An interesting fact that I just unearthed: did
you know that only seven popularly-elected U.S.
presidents have served two, full, consecutive
terms? Only seven of our 44 presidents! (According
to my own research.)
It breaks down this way. Thirteen presidents served
two complete terms, but four of them -- George W. Bush,
Monroe, Madison and Jefferson -- were not winners of the
popular vote in at least one of their elections.
Wilson "served" two terms but was actually in charge
for only six years before a stroke incapacitated him
and made him a merely nominal commander-in-chief. And
Cleveland's terms weren't consecutive.
Meanwhile, eleven of our presidents served less than
one complete term in the White House.
* * * *
So, sadly, the Guarneri Quartet begins to end its
existence with a few dozen final shows in North
America, 45 years after its birth.
When I first saw them, in June 1972, when the
quartet was eight years old, they were the new kids
on the classical block, and they would give
controversial interviews comparing classical
composers like Beethoven to Bob Dylan and the
Beatles.
In those days, their performances of the late
and middle Beethoven quartets were causing quite
a buzz, and I was completely blown away (as a 14 year
old!) when I heard them play the No. 11
in F Minor (the so-called "Serioso"), the last
of Beethoven's middle quartets and the one to which
I keep returning 37 years later.
You can still catch the Guarneri in various cities
through June (and there'll be a handful of
performances in October, too), but after that,
there'll be only the recordings.
* * *
Thought I'd share this I picture I shot of the
Hollywood Bowl from an interesting vantage point:
Mulholland Drive. Circa 2000.
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 11, 2009
Perfect DVD for President's Day Weekend: "John Adams"
As an evocation of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson
and Benjamin Franklin, who really should have been the
central subject of the series, "John Adams," the 2008
HBO mini-series now on DVD, has almost no peer on the
big or small screen. The black hole is unfortunately
the characterization of the title character,
John Adams, second president of the U.S. and
an even-handed figure during our revolution.
John Adams is played here by the usually impressive
Paul Giamatti, who portrays Adams as something
between a sad sack and Jimmy Olsen, looking (without
his wig) a lot like Uncle Fester of "The Addams
Family" -- and 2% from being an inadvertent comic
caricature.
Unfortunately, Adams's life was not as eventful
or fascinating as Lincoln's or Jefferson's or
Franklin's or even Obama's, for that matter,
so we have one episode devoted mostly to the time
Adams caught a bad case of the sniffles in Europe
and we get to see him cough a good deal.
The portrait of Abigail Adams, the second First
Lady, alas, is also flawed. Played by the almost always
winsome Laura Linney, who leans too heavily on being
smugly amused here, Abigail Adams comes
off as someone who is constantly, privately seeing
her husband as an object of ridicule, constantly
chuckling about him to herself.
Elsewhere, much is made of the cultivation of son
John Quincy, but there, unfortunately, is no
foreshadowing of what a mediocrity he'd become
in adulthood.
Yes, the series is based on a book by one of our
best historians, but, frankly, I've lost faith
in the veracity of a lot of history. As I've
gotten older, I've seen people I know covered
in the press, and sometimes their published
life stories are so wildly inaccurate that they
almost qualify as fiction. And this is the 21st
century, when primary documents and firsthand
remembrances are preserved like never before.
Back in Adams's time, a lot of what passed as
fact was almost surely sheer myth.
An example. Look, I love Hillary Clinton, but let's
be real: in an earlier century, her story about
sniper fire in Bosnia would have been stamped by
all historians as the stone cold truth. Yet it
was debunked only because -- incredibly -- there was
actual video footage of the event (and of the sweetest
little sniper you've ever seen!).
So you have to wonder how many stories of
Revolutionary War derring-do are actually,
factually true, and how many are the 18th
century equivalent of, uh, sniper fire
in Bosnia.
Anyway, this is a mostly terrific mini-series -- you
come away feeling as if you've really met
Washington and Franklin -- and it's perfect
for President's Day, though the quality drops off
precipitously after the second episode.
But I digress. Paul
____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 11, 2009
Should We Cap Anchor Salaries at a Half-Mil?
The banking crisis and economic collapse has
opened up -- or should open up -- a wider-ranging
debate about paying executives exorbitant salaries
when their companies are failing.
How about the news biz itself? What about the
massively excessive salaries of executives at top
newspapers that have been failing for years? Some
daily newspapers are losing a million dollars a
week, yet their top executives are paid multimillion
dollar salaries. For what are they paid? To run
the paper into the ground?
Perhaps the salaries of all tv and print journalists,
and associated executives, should be capped at half
a million until their organizations return to
profitability. Or maybe there should be a rule: no
journalist should make more than the president of
the United States. Because a reporter or anchor
who "earns," say, 16 mil a year, is too out of
touch with the everyday concerns of 99%+ of the
citizens they serve. Which probably accounts for
the oddly lacadaisical attitude of a lot of tv
journalists toward the health care crisis in
this country; when they ask questions about it
at news conferences, there is an abject lack of
urgency in their tones.
TV viewers might get a better understanding of the
news they receive if the networks used captions
beneath the faces of the talking heads and anchors
and correspondents who they air (such as: "The
anchor reporting this health care story makes
$7 mil a year; his health care costs are
completely covered, and then some; his
mother-in-law is a top executive at
Pfizer"; or "Correspondent reporting this story
about overly-generous CEO pay makes $11 mil a
year, which is more than the combined salaries of
hundreds of midlevel employees at his company;
and he has a book deal from a company with a huge
stake in the pharmaceutical biz." Etc.
Those who make $9 mil (or whatever) a year in
broadcast news made it because they (or their
agents) were clever at leverage. Because if
they were really worth that money, their companies
and their TV programs wouldn't be failing right
now. If, say, Katie Couric were really worth the
multimillions, her show wouldn't be in third
place; her ratings are roughly below or equal
to the ratings earned by her predecessor anchors,
which suggests one could probably put one of
many correspondents in that spot and have the same
ratings. Which means that last place is rewarded
with something like $15 million.
And to the CEO or anchor who says, "Fine, go ahead
and cap my salary; I'll go somewhere else," we
should start calling that person's bluff. If,
say, Couric balks at having her salary cut to
half a million, let her go. Where would she go?
The other anchor spots are already taken. CNN
would be her only alternative. She'd likely
end up running Larry King's show, and that
would be no real thorn in the side of her
former employer. (And even if she did end up
on a competing news program, one assumes she'd
bring her failing ways there, too.)
Likewise with the heads of the failed banks.
If we cap their salaries at half a mil, to
what collapsed financial institution
would they go for more gravy? And if they
did go elsewhere, they'd probably bring along
their ineptitude there, too.
I'm starting to think it's possible that the
election of President Obama is the first
major symptom of revolutionary change to come,
not the revolutionary change itself. I think
the whole nation has awakened to the
massive, callous, fundamental unfairness of
undeserving people earning millions of dollars
a year while many of us can barely pay our
basic bills.
But I digress. Paul
______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 9 - 10, 2009
After walking home this afternoon (and dodging
Berkeley's traffic cops, who seem to have become
ubiquitous in recent days), I immediately
turned on my favorite radio show, KALX's "Next
Big Thing," and was thrilled to hear Marshall
play my latest song, "Doctor, Please Restore My Youth,"
around an hour ago. Many thanks to the station
and Mr. Stax!
* * * *
Twenty years ago this Saturday, the Ayatollah Ruhollah
Khomeini, via fatwa, sentenced novelist Salman Rushdie
to death for blasphemy. Though formal advocacy of the
death sentence by Iran has largely ceased, there are
many Islamic hard-liners who still want to do him in for
writing "The Satanic Verses" in 1988.
A couple weeks after the '89 fatwa, I covered a rally in
support of Rushdie in Manhattan that was interrupted
by a bomb threat and wrote about it and associated
issues for the East Coast Rocker newspaper in its
March 29, 1989 issue. Here's that story (and
another piece that has not been published until now):
from The East Coast Rocker newsaper, March 29, 1989
We Must Send These Fundamentalists a Clear and Sharp Message
By Paul Iorio
The rock world has finally started weighing
in with its belated condemnations of the
Ayatollah Khomeini's death sentence
on novelist Salman Rushdie. Unfortunately,
certain factions have chosen to use
oppressive tactics to fight the Ayatollah.
Nowhere has that been more evident than in
the organization by several U.S. radio stations
of boycotts and burnings of records by Cat
Stevens, due to the singer's backing of
Khomeini's death threat.
Without a doubt, Stevens's support of
Muslim terrorism is completely damnable,
though record burnings are not the proper
way to vent one's outrage. Indeed,
suppressing Stevens's work on the basis
of his political or religious beliefs is doing
the Ayatollah's job. We should be able
to hear Stevens' music just as we should
be allowed to read Rushdie's books.
When we respond with such a boycott,
by fighting fascism with fascism, we defeat
ourselves. We should combat Khomeini
by making sure that Rushdie's "The Satanic
Verses" is sold and displayed by major
book chains.
And Viking Press should heed
NBC-News's John Chancellor's suggestion
to call the Ayatollah's bluff by bringing Rushdie
over to the U.S. for a publicity tour.
We must send these fundamentalists a
clear and sharp message: no political
or religious leader, not even in our own
country, will intimidate or terrorize us into
limiting freedom of expression.
One can condemn Stevens's approval of
the Rushdie death contract without boycotting
his music, just as one can deplore poet Ezra
Pound's Nazism without condemning his
brilliant Cantos.
Certainly there are grounds for not airing
Stevens's songs, but those grounds are
aesthetic, not political; his wimpy folk lacks
any semblance of edge or energy, enduring
guilty pleasures like "Peace Train" and
"Moonshadow" notwithstanding.
We've had enough censorship from
religious fundamentalists -- from Falwell
to Khomeini -- and should put religious
extremists of all faiths on notice: they have
absolutely no business imposing their
private beliefs on a secular society. Period.
How does one deal with bomb threats and other
violent acts by those who wish to stifle free
speech? Norman Mailer, speaking at a recent
PEN reading of "Satanic Verses" in Manhattan
that I attended (and that was delayed by a
bomb threat), gave advice on how to handle
telephone bomb threats, which, he noted,
only cost a quarter to make. Quoting Jean
Genet, Mailer said to tell such callers:
"Blow out your farts."
* * *
In January 1996, I wrote and reported another story
related to the Rushdie affair. For this piece, I walked
around Manhattan with a copy of "The Satanic Verses"
prominently displayed, visiting both everyday places
and locations where the book might raise eyebrows and
tempers. The idea was to see how provocative
the novel was seven years after the fatwa. Here's
my report (which has never been published):
page one of manuscript (click to enlarge it)
* *
page two of manuscript (click to enlarge it)
* *
page three of manuscript (click to enlarge it)
* *
fourth and final page of manuscript (click to enlarge it)
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- There has been a lot of talk lately about
there not being enough "respect" for various
religious right-wingers in Iran and elsewhere.
Could you please tell me how religious militants
(e.g., the backers of the Rushdie fatwa, those
who supported the 9/11 attacks, etc.) have earned
that respect? Could you please tell me why
such religious militants merit respect?
Could you please tell me what specific actions
they have taken that are worthy of respect?
Am I supposed to "respect" the fact that they
respond with homicidal violence when they
object to a novel or an editorial cartoon? Why
should I respect that?
In my view, most religious militants are
worthy only of contempt. And disrespectful is
as nice as I'll be toward them.
P.S. -- Why are we still listening to rich
twerps like Mark Zandi of Moody's, which (either
negligently or fraudulently) gave top
ratings to companies months before those
companies collapsed?
Isn't there something deeply wrong and
disingenuous about some TV news people (who are
making multi-million dollar salaries) who interview
Zandi and other millionaires (who were virtually
complicit with those who caused our financial crisis)
and say, "Tsk, tsk, off with the heads of the rich"?
Sort of like King Louis XVI and Marie Antoinette
telling the French revolutionaries, "We're looking
for the culprits, too."
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 9, 2009
Top o' the Grammys!
Alison Krauss, Robert Plant performing in
Golden Gate Park, October 3, 2008.
[photo by Paul Iorio]
The Grammys got it right last night by giving
top awards to Robert Plant and Alison Krauss
for their "Raising Sand" collaboration -- and
"Please Read the Letter" was the song to honor,
too. Anyone who was at the penultimate
show of Plant and Krauss's 2008 tour, at Golden
Gate Park in San Francisco last October, saw
an audience that got naturally high from
the moment it heard the opening drumbeat
of "Letter" and then became exhilarated as
the song progressed. I went to a fair
number of concerts last year but not one
(besides the Plant/Krauss one) at which an
audience became so openly transported by
a single song. Looking forward to
"Raising Sand, Vol. 2."
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 8, 2009
Here're a few pictures I've recently shot:
Sullyville (aka, Danville, Calif.), Sully's hometown, shown
here around an hour before he appeared on Jan. 24, 2009. As
you can see here, the town is also proud of the fact that
Eugene O'Neill wrote "Long Day's Journey" when he lived in Danville.
* * *
Remember that night a few weeks ago when the moon made its closest pass
to Earth of '09? Well, here's how it looked in Berkeley, Calif.
* * *
A midnight shot of the barbed wire fence surrounding
eco-protesters in trees last Fall.
But I digress. Paul
________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for February 4, 2009
Was My Phone Tapped In the Bush Years?
A Reporter's Suspicions
As a journalist who has written for almost every
major newspaper in North America, and for a lot of
magazines, I wanted the 9/11 attacks
to be my beat in the years after 9/11. But it
never really happened. At the time, my
specialty was arts and entertainment journalism,
so making the switch to hard news was not easy,
particularly in that period when the newspaper
industry had begun to collapse, leaving
fewer publications to write for.
But in 2004, I did come up with a bit of a scoop:
Using the so-called Wayback Machine search engine,
I discovered time-stamped archived Usenet and chat
room postings on Muslim fundamentalist websites
that seemed to indicate, judging by the dates of
the messages, that some Muslim militants
knew about the 9/11 attacks before they occurred
and that word of the impending attacks might have
been in the air and involved a wider web of people
than just the hijackers and bin Laden's conspirators.
As a freelance writer, I decided to report the story
independently -- asking various government sources for
comment -- and then submit it to various publications.
Though I didn't contact the Joint Terrorism Task Force
(JTTF) for comment, I was called by the JTTF out of
the blue. And, frankly, I was more than happy to get
their perspective and, in the process, talk with
them about my reportage. (As The Washington Post's
Bob Woodward and others have always pointed out, you're
a citizen first and a journalist second, especially
when it comes to issues that could be a matter of
life or death.) My info, after all, did not come
from confidential sources but from obscure
Internet archives that I was not obligated to keep secret.
My interviews with the two JTTF agents were not for
attribution, meaning they spoke on the condition
that they not be identified by name. Suffice it
to say that I spoke to two of them, both
of whom called without having been first contacted
by me. I spoke with the first agent on July 22, 2004,
for around an hour, and the second agent on December
3, 2004.
To be honest, neither gave me the third degree and both
were sensitive to the nature of both their roles and
mine -- and both were refreshingly and unambiguously
un-bigoted about Muslims.
The only red flag came at the beginning of the conversation
with the second JTFF agent on December 3. This call came
the day that Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy
Thompson made his famous remarks about the U.S. food
supply's vulnerability to terrorist tampering, which
was, by the way, one of the plots discussed in
some of the Usenet messages I had uncovered.
Anyway, that second agent said that he had initially
reached my AOL answering service and asked me
about what sort of phone service I had. "Do you
have service through AOL?," he asked.
"No, through ATT," I said.
At the time, I didn't think much of the exchange.
But shortly afterwards, I realized that he had
been a bit too curious about who provided my
phone service. This was a JTTF agent, after all.
I thought, uh oh, I bet my land line is going to be tapped.
In the subsequent months, certain mundane but distinctive
details from my personal phone conversations
seemed to be getting around to people who didn't
know me. At first, I thought, maybe it was
just a nosy neighbor. My apartment, after all, is in
an apartment house whose units are way too close
together, and you can sometimes overhear conversations
in adjacent rooms. That might be it, I thought.
But I wanted to be sure. Suspecting that my land line
might be tapped, and wanting to rule out the nosy
neighbor theory, I conducted a test. I simply called
myself from a remote pay phone, left a message on
my own answering machine and waited to see whether what
I said eventually leaked out.
I took lots of precautions to rule out stray factors.
For example, I made the calls to myself from an
isolated pay phone at a place that could not
be overheard by anyone (on the far east side of
the Clark Kerr campus of the University of
California at Berkeley). I made sure that the
answering machine that would receive my message
in my apartment was muted so there was no chance
a neighbor would overhear it. And I left a message
that contained unique or very personal information
(or misinformation) that could not possibly be
known or said by anyone else.
I'm not going to reveal some of the things I said
into my answering machine -- too personal -- but I
can give an example of the sorts of things I'd say.
I'd always say something that had some sort of
security or confidential component, like: "I know
a journalist who interviewed Rumsfeld, and he tells
me that, off the record, Rumsfeld really can't
stand Tom Ridge. Hates him." Something fictitious
and distinctive that could only have come from me.
And, sure enough, each time I left such a message,
the info seemed to get around to complete strangers
in my daily interactions, usually within around
three or four days. For instance, I'd be in a line
at the grocery store and someone nearby would
pass by and say something like "he can't stand
Ridge." Something like that. Something that
sent a clear signal to me that my phone
line was being monitored.
After this happened a couple times, I quickly moved
to protect the privacy of friends and family members
who would call, switching almost all my telephone
conversations to my new cell phone and
using my land line mainly for dial-up Internet service.
That seemed to clear up the problem.
I must confess that I later saw the mischievous
potential of such a situation; after some
local sociopath (in an unrelated matter)
starting leaving vaguely threatening messages on
my answering machine for no reason, I decided to
use his name as a guinea pig in my experiment,
leaving a message on my answering machine along
the lines of: "[Name deleted] is always praising
bin Laden. Sickening." I did it half-jokingly,
still not knowing at the time whether my
phone was being tapped or not. Interestingly --
and this may be only a coincidence -- the
harassment from the guy ceased within a week.
As for my story, there was substantial interest
in it from CBS's "60 Minutes" and from the Los
Angeles Times for a time, but ultimately
it wasn't published or aired. As a freelancer,
I had to go on to other assigned stories and
couldn't continue to develop or pitch the
9/11 piece. (A version of it is posted on my
home page at http://www.paulliorio.blogspot.com/.)
So was my phone tapped or not? I don't know for
sure, though the circumstantial evidence strongly
suggests it was. Now that a new administration
is in place in Washington, with new priorities, maybe
I should request a copy of my FBI file and solve
the mystery definitively.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Mostly masterful story in TNY about a region in
which I spent part of my childhood (and it happens
to quote my little sister, too!): southwest Fl.
The only big-picture element that Packer and his
sources neglect to mention is that the more
extreme hurricane seasons of recent years have
made that area a far less desirable place to
settle and do business. People simply don't want
to risk being wiped out every few years by a
Cat 3 or 4, and that's one (albeit only one) of
the reasons behind declining property values
in parts of that area. Remember Al Gore's famous
maps in "An Inconvenient Truth"? Climate
change, more than any other factor, will re-shape
that state in the coming decades.
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 30, 2009
So what will Springsteen play at the Super Bowl?
Here are a few scenarios:
MOST LIKELY SETLIST
opens with "Glory Days"
"The Rising"
"Working on a Dream"
ends with "Born to Run"
LEAST LIKELY SETLIST
opens with "New York City Serenade"
"The Angel"
"If I Was the Priest"
ends with "Drive All Night"
A SETLIST FOR TRUE FANS
opens with "Two Hearts"
"Rendezvous"
"Kitty's Back"
ends with "Glory Days"
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 25, 2009
Maureen Dowd's latest column truly nails
Kirsten Gillibrand, who spent around 20
inconsequential minutes in the U.S. House
before being promoted to the Senate by a feeble
governor not elected to his own post. As she notes,
Gillibrand resembles no one so much as...Tracy
Flick.
Why do we celebrate politicians who have never said
anything original, never written anything memorable,
never led the way on an issue when it was unpopular,
never risked everything to take a brave stand?
When someone like Gillibrand is elevated over
more deserving contenders, one has to suspect
that there are laundered favors or laundered
grudges involved.
Or perhaps the late Sen. Hruska has become more
of a prophet than anyone might have guessed
back when. He was definitely ahead of his time
in championing the rights of the mediocre, for
whom we now seem to have a fetish.
But I digress. Paul
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 24, 2009
I went to Danville to see Sully Today....
the Danville Green: epicenter of Sully-mania. [photo by
Paul Iorio]
I traveled to Danville, Calif., today to see
Chesley "Sully" Sullenberger make his first
public appearance since he saved 155 lives
last week by landing his crashing jet on
the Hudson River. Danville, of course,
is Sully's hometown, and thousands turned
out on the main Green to see and hear
speeches by him, his wife, and assorted
local politicians.
After his wife, Lorrie, introduced him
("I'd like you to meet my husband, Sully"),
he walked to the podium to enthusiastic
cheers and thanked the audience three times.
The crowd then broke into a spontaneous chant:
"Sull-ee! Sull-ee! Sull-ee!"
In person, he's taller, lankier and more
good-humored than he seems on TV, with an
easy laugh and a likable manner.
At the podium, he kept it brief. In fact,
here's the entire text of his speech:
"Lorrie and I are grateful for your incredible
outpouring of support. It's great to be home
in Danville with our neighbors and our friends.
Circumstance determined that it was this
experienced crew that was scheduled to fly that
particular flight on that particular day. But
I know I can speak for the entire crew
when I tell you: We were simply doing the
jobs we were trained to do. Thank you."
This was a proud day for Danville, an upscale,
distant suburb of San Francisco in a scenic,
BART-less part of the East Bay called the
San Ramon Valley. The place is almost
Capra-esque (people wait in an orderly line
to cross a busy street; a restaurant advertises
"the best tuna melt ever!"; even the manager
of a grocery store looks like the president
of a bank). And there's a sort of New England
gentility to some of the locals (who once
included playwright Eugene O'Neill
in their number).
At the ceremony, people in the crowd exchanged
Sully myths and gossip. One woman talked
(as if she had inside knowledge) about how
Sully had been seen cooly sipping a cup of
coffee right after the Hudson landing, as if
the whole accident had been a routine
procedure.
Of course, we'll have to wait until his
upcoming "60 Minutes" interview to learn
the other details about how a massive
tragedy was, against all odds, averted.
Sully holds up a plaque on a stage in Danville. [photo by
Paul Iorio]
Danville fans of Sully, after his speech. [photo by Paul Iorio]
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 22, 2009
So how is the Obama era being celebrated in
liberal areas like Berkeley, Calif. (the petri
dish of democracy)? This picture pretty much
sums up the mood here.
someone's car
in Berkeley, decked out as an Obama shrine. (I wonder if he can
clear the Caldecott with that on top.) ((photo by Paul Iorio)
* * * *
Here're a few other humorous photos I shot in
the last couple days:
* * * *
But I digress. Paul
[photos above by Paul Iorio]
__________________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 21, 2009
Notes on the Inauguration Ceremony
The ceremony was Greek, not Roman, in spirit,
memorable, not monumental, organic, not
contrived, and Obama's speech didn't overreach
or try to become something grander than it
actually was.
The closest he came to an eternally quotable line
like "Ask not what your country can do" was: "The
question we ask today is not whether our government
is too big or too small, but whether it works."
And I loved the inclusiveness of "We are a nation of
Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus, and
nonbelievers" (finally, a president who has the
sensitivity and courage to include "nonbelievers").
And then there was his marvelous slam that could
easily apply to the misguided, evil supporters of
bin Laden: "To those leaders around the globe who
seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills
on the West, know that your people will judge you on
what you can build, not what you destroy."
There were also stray lines that stuck, some of
them almost Dylanesque ("we will extend a hand if you
are willing to unclench your fist").
And I loved the way his ascension to the presidency
happened not with some predictable high noon sharp
speech but with live, original music that overflowed
naturally from the Bush years into the Obama era.
Elizabeth Alexander's poem was a marvelous
celebration of the quotidian, though, alas,
I don't think mass audiences have much of an
ear for even the finest poetry.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Yes, close Guantanamo, by all means and with
due dispatch. But make sure that some of the seriously
violent criminals there are fully prosecuted and not
let out on some legal technicality. Keep in mind that
we have all sorts of degrees of due process in America,
and different standards apply to criminal, civil,
military and corporate cases. "Beyond a reasonable doubt"
is not always the level of proof required to convict
in the United States and probably shouldn't be the
level of proof needed to imprison some of the
mass homicidal folks at Gitmo. Using one of our other
standards in some instances would serve both
justice and security. And, by the way,
it's not hard to see that President Obama's
political career would be completely over
if even one of the Gitmo detainees were to be
released and went on to plot, say, a successful
dirty bomb attack on New York.
____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 19 - 20, 2009
"The Hour When the Ship Comes In..."
impressionistic/blurry photo of President Obama, back when
he was Sen. Obama, in an Oakland (Calif.) crowd in early
2007 by Paul Iorio.
__________________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 16, 2009
Sully Should Head the NTSB
In the folds of ordinary American life are hidden
some astonishingly extraordinary people who
generally toil in obscurity until some
freakish event brings their greatness into
the spotlight. Proof of that happened yesterday
afternoon, when Chesley Sullenberger made a
series of brilliant, reflexive, split-second
decisions that saved perhaps hundreds of lives.
I mean, the temptation for him to try to fly on
to Teterboro would have lured almost every other
pilot into untold tragedy and devastation. This
was spontaneous decision-making of the
highest order.
President-elect Obama should tap Sullenberger, who
is associated with UC Berkeley, to
head the National Transportation Safety Board. But
the way things are going, Sully may be drafted to
run for California governor in 2010. Lucky
Lindy never did what Sully did.
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 14, 2009
If I found a brilliant surgeon who had just the
right specialized training and experience for
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 14, 2009
If I found a brilliant surgeon who had just the
right specialized training and experience for
an operation I was about to undergo, I wouldn't
drop him just because I discovered he hadn't
fully filed taxes in the past. Frankly, I wouldn't
care. I'd want the best surgeon I could find,
no matter what problems he might have in terms
of filing forms.
Likewise, with Timothy Geithner. The American
economy is on the operating table and in critical
condition. It needs a smart, super-competent
professional with specialized experience in
the areas that are currently in distress, and
Geithner fits that bill. Frankly, I don't care
about the minor mistakes he might have made in
the past in his personal life; the patient is
dying and in need of Geithner's expertise now.
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 13, 2009
Well, Roland ("Trailblazer," if he should say
so himself) Burris is not our first
senile-seeming U.S. Senator. Hope he didn't
have to pay too much for the seat.
Is this the sort of "bold" future we're
talking about?
I must say that the Senate is showing such
a lack of spine lately that I would be very
surprised if it passes any sort of universal
health care legislation by this time next year.
Mark my words. Clip and save this. By January
2010, I bet we still have virtually the same
health care system in place. Welcome to 1993?
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- At this hour, Blogojevich, still receiving
hefty paychecks from the state of Illinois (though
deprived of the bribes he wanted to take), is
probably laughing all the way to Cristophe's.
I would have had a lot of respect for Burris
if he had told Blogojevich, "I won't play
ball with a corrupt official; I'm turning down
your appointment." Why are we rewarding people
like Burris when there are lots of whistleblowers
and quiet heroes out there who are neglected
on the sidelines? That's where the Dems'
partnerships should begin.
___________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 12, 2009
Bush, Frosty
Quote of the day:
"At times, you've misunderestimated me," President
Bush said to journalists at his final press
conference this morning. (Personally, I think
Bush may be mis-accusing the press.)
Bush also said one of his big mistakes was not
finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The
way he phrased it this morning, he made
it seem as if there had been some sort of Easter
egg hunt on the banks of the Euphrates and,
gee whiz, we couldn't find the booty
hidden there.
Truth is, the mistake was not that we couldn't
find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The
mistake was in erroneously believing
that there were WMDs there in the first place.
And with regard to Bush's "connecting dots about
9/11" bit: there's nothing wrong with connecting
dots if there are genuine links between terrorists
and a foreign government. But what Bush
did was to connect dots in order to draw an imaginary
or unfounded linkage between 9/11 and Saddam
Hussein, who virtually hated Osama bin Laden.
Bush might as well have drawn a link between
al Qaeda and the government in Mexico City.
* * * * *
QUICK CUTS:
What's the difference between a loan and a bridge
loan? Isn't every loan effectively a bridge loan?
* * * * *
Isn't the phrase "returning to the status quo ante"
redundant? No need to use "ante."
* * * * *
Can we please retire the very tired phrase
"fifth Beatle" and anyone who uses it?
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 11, 2009
Rather than seat Roland Burris, I suggest that Dems
wait until soon-to-be-Governor Pat Quinn appoints someone
like....Jesse White, the man who has refused to sign
Blogojevich's certificate of appointment. Jesse
White seems like the sort of profile in courage
the Senate could use right about now. Blogojevich,
under a cloud of his own hair-stylist's making,
does not deserve the victory that Burris's
seating would give him.
* * * *
Still haven't seen "Frost/Nixon" yet but have seen enough
clips to be sort of puzzled by it.
Look, I lived through the Watergate era as a teenager
who was virtually obsessed with the Nixon scandals
and all the media coverage about them. I was so
involved in anti-Nixon political activism at the
time that I actually was a marshal at and organizer
of a pro-impeachment protest when I was 15-years old
(and I was even covered in my hometown's main
newspaper at the time). But, frankly, I don't
even remember watching David Frost's televised
interviews with Nixon in '77.
In fact, I don't think I've ever watched one
of David Frost's shows from beginning to end, and
I've always been an avid TV viewer.
When I was a kid, in the 1970s, Frost always seemed
a bit remote, aloof, somewhat dense and square. As
a teen, I and my friends much preferred Cavett and
Carson, with an occasional dose of Susskind or
even William F. Buckley. In terms of electric
interviews, Cavett v. Mailer, or Buckley v. Kerouac,
loomed much larger in the zeitgeist of the era.
I can imagine that the new generation is a bit
confused by this film. They must be wondering:
Was Frost the guy who brought down Nixon? They
must be wondering: Was this an important moment,
mom and dad, when everybody in the post-Watergate
era was glued to the TV set to watch Frost
snare Nixon? I think the film makers are
guiding young people to the false impression
that this was a larger event than it actually
was (a reviewer at TNY touches on this
aspect, too).
You know what Watergate-related event truly scared
and charged everybody contemporaneously? The so-called
"Saturday Night Massacre," in which Nixon got rid
of the top guard of the U.S. Justice Dept. and
the Watergate special prosecutor, who
the Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General
both courageously refused to fire at Nixon's behest.
On that night, on an autumn weekend in 1973,
with a succession of alarming news bulletins
interrupting that Saturday night's television
programming, you really got the horrifying
sense that the federal government
was truly collapsing and that we weren't
being told the whole story of what was
going on at the White House.
Now there's a moment in Watergate history
ripe for cinematic dramatization.
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 7, 2009
Don't Seat Burris
Anyone appointed to the U.S. Senate from
Illinois can't assume office until his
certificate of appointment is signed by
the Illinois secretary of state. Why
should Roland Burris be an exception?
The signature of the secretary of state is a
de facto (if not intended) check on the unchecked
power of the governor. Should the governor make an
appointment that is clearly irresponsible or make
a rash appointment when he is in his political
death throes, the secretary of state can, in effect,
check that power by not signing on.
I don't know what's gotten into Dianne Feinstein
lately. Once admirable, she's fast turning into the
next Joe Lieberman, what with her apparent opposition
to Panetta and her backing of Burris. Filibuster
proofing the Senate seems further away than ever.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 6, 2009
He's good enough, he's smart enough, and, doggonit,
the people just elected him Senator!
Now that Al Franken has been certified
the winner of the U.S. Senate race in Minnesota
(though there will certainly be a legal challenge
from Coleman), all the Senate contests have now
been resolved (even if the appointments have not).
As you may recall, there were 11 Senate races that
were considered highly competitive back on election
day, and I offered my own predictions on who would
win each one (which I published in my November 4,
2008, Digression (see below), and posted at
4:15am on Nov. 4).
How did I fare? I predicted 11 of the 11
Senate contests!
* * *
Frankly, Leon Panetta may be just the right guy
to head the CIA. Some criticize him for not having
specialized experience in intelligence, but let's
be real: it was all those so-called intelligence
professionals who didn't see 9/11 coming. Maybe we
need someone (like Panetta) who can bring a fresh,
smart approach to the spy agency. He couldn't possibly
do worse than the team that ignored the red flags
about bin Laden in '01.
* * *
One of my favorite xmas presents this year was a
marvelous book of photographs of R.E.M. by David
Belisle, "R.E.M. Hello" (Chronicle Books) (thanks
to H!). It's packed with fascinating and often
revealing pictures of the band in the 2000s.
Anyone who loves this band the way I do will want
to see these pics.
Yorke and Stipe: melancholic genius overload.
[by David Belisle]
But I digress. Paul
________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for January 4 - 5, 2009
And the Best Picture Oscar Goes to..."The Wrestler"? Probably.
Finally saw "The Wrestler" this afternoon and must
confess I came out of the Metreon crying like a
wuss (to use the trade parlance of the film). Not
only is "The Wrestler" almost certainly the best
picture released in '08, but I'm trying to
figure out how many years I'd have to go back
in order to find a movie as poignant or moving
(though, admittedly, I've not yet seen all the major
movies of last year).
It is certainly comfortably in league with such
first-rank classic films about pugilists like
"Raging Bull," "Million Dollar Baby" and "On the
Waterfront," no doubt about it.
At times, it's like a top-grade episode of "The Sopranos"
and, at other times, achieves something close to the
brilliance of films by De Sica and other Italian
neorealists. (Director Darren Aronofsky and
screenwriter Robert D. Siegel should
definitely find some way to collaborate again.)
And what a resurrection this is for Mickey
Rourke, whose career had been left for dead years
ago by both critics and the movie biz. (Doesn't
it seem like not long ago when Rourke was playing
pranks with a popcorn box in "Diner"? ) Now he's
very likely to be nominated for a best actor
Oscar in a few weeks and seems the
favorite to win in a category that looked like
a lock for Sean Penn just last month.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if "The Wrestler"
were to win the best picture Oscar in February.
In my Digression of December 7, 2008, I wrote
that "Wall-E" was probably going to be
nominated for best picture -- and I think
that's still the case, though I also believe it has
far less of a chance to win than it did several
months ago. After seeing "The Wrestler," it's
obvious that "Wall-E" is soo pre-recession
in spirit, packing all the emotional wallop of a
brand new Subaru. And the buzz has also drifted
away from Penn and "Milk," which seems to have
peaked a bit too soon, and moved unmistakably
toward "The Wrestler," which captures the current
recessionary zeitgeist like no other major film
in release.
* * * *
Haven't yet seen "Frost/Nixon" but am surprised
Langella was cast, given that Nixon was the least
Italian of all our presidents (remember the bigoted
stuff about Rodino that Nixon said
on his tapes?).
* * * *
Also haven't seen "Rachel Getting Married," though
Demme is one of my favorite directors. Am impressed
with Anne Hathaway as an actress, but far less so
with her personal life, which (as she should know
by now) can easily undermine a career. How come
there's something about her that tells me she could
become the next Claudine Longet by the time
she's 40?
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 31, 2008
Happy new year, everybody.
For today's Digression, I'm publishing an unpublished
story I wrote and reported a few years ago on J.D.
Salinger. I'm proud of this story, as it reveals
brand new details about the reclusive author's
day-to-day recent life in New Hampshire. Very unfair
that it was not published by the newspaper for
which it was written (I think my editor chickened out
because Salinger and his people are famous for getting
litigious about anything written about him; but
every fact in this story is nailed down and solid).
Anyway, here's the story that certain mainstream
papers, probably bowing to pressure from Salinger,
wouldn't publish!
Tomorrow, by the way, is the author's 90th birthday
(so the piece has been updated a bit).
Salinger Turns 90 in January
What the Townspeople Think About J.D. Salinger
By Paul Iorio
J.D. Salinger will turn 90 in January, which means he has
now lived for 56 years in the tiny town of
Cornish Flat, New Hampshire, in seclusion. By all
accounts, he’s still as reclusive as when he was when
he first moved to town on January 1, 1953, back
when President Truman was still in the White House.
The author moved there around 17 months after the release
of his first and only full-length novel, “The Catcher in the
Rye,” at a time when he was “tremendously relieved that the
season for success of ‘The Catcher in The Rye’ is over,”
as he told the Saturday Review magazine in 1952. Little did
he know the season had just begun.
The townspeople of the Cornish Flat area seem to have grown
accustomed to him and usually leave him alone to live
his day to day life with his wife, a quilt and
tapestry designer around half his age, in a house
near a covered bridge (how fitting it's a covered
bridge!) that leads to Vermont. (He moved down the
road to his current Cornish house after divorcing
his previous wife in 1967.)
Most people in the area do not talk about him or
to him. But some do.
"People know who he is, yet he acts like nobody
knows who he is," says Lynn Caple, who runs the
nearby Plainfield General Store, where Salinger
and his wife occasionally stop in to buy the
New York Times and other items.
"Very straight-faced guy," says Caple. "I've only seen
him smile once. I've been here four years."
Other neighbors, like Jerry Burt of Plainfield, have
actually been to his house, which he says is at the
end of a long driveway and atop a hill on hundreds
of acres owned by the author. "We would
go over to watch movies in his living room and have
dinner with him," says Burt, who claims he hasn't
seen the author since 1983.
"He's got a big living room with a deck that looks out
over the hills of Vermont, way up high, very private,"
he adds.
Burt recalls one dinner party at Salinger's house
twenty-some years ago at which Salinger, who is said
to enjoy health food, served meatloaf. "No Julia
Child," he says of Salinger's cuisine. And
the conversation was rarely literary. "He talked
about movies and the gardens and his children," he says.
The books Salinger usually talked about were not novels
but non-fiction works related to “health, being your own
health provider -- and gardening."
Of course, none of the guests dared to mention
“Catcher.”
"You'd never even think to do that if you were around
him," he says. "He'd just give you a look. He's a
very tall man and stern looking. You just know not
to do that. He'd probably show you the door and
say, 'Don't come in.'"
“He never talked about his work except to say he wrote
every morning faithfully,” he says. “And he said if I was
ever going to be a writer, I would have to do that.”
He also says Salinger has a big safe -- like a "bank
safe" -- where he keeps his unpublished manuscripts. "I've
seen the safe, I've looked in it. And he told me that he kept
his unpublished [work] there....It's huge," says Burt. "You
could have a party in there."
At one get-together in the 1980s, Salinger screened Frank
Capra's 1937 film "Lost Horizon," about a group of people
who find a paradise called Shangrila tucked in a remote
corner of the Himalayans. "He liked all those old things,
those old silents, Charlie Chaplin," he says. (His
description of the Salinger party almost resembles the
scene in the 1950 movie “Sunset Boulevard” in which a
has-been screens old movies for friends in a remote house.)
Another neighbor, this one in Cornish, is much more
circumspect about what she says about Salinger and
takes great pains to defend him. “He has been a wonderful
neighbor,” says Joan Littlefield, who lives close to
him. “The minute we moved into the neighborhood, he
called and gave us his unlisted number and said,
‘We’re neighbors now.’”
Littlefield spontaneously defended the author against
some of the allegations in the memoir by Salinger’s
daughter Margaret A. Salinger, “Dream Catcher: A Memoir”
(2000). That book claimed, among other things, that
Salinger was involved in offbeat health and spiritual
practices, such as drinking urine and Scientology.
“This thing about telling him to drink his own urine
or something that I heard that somebody wrote about,”
said Littlefield. “...I think that if any of these
reporters did some research into Ayurvedic medicine
or the medicine of China or the Far East, they would
probably find out that the medicine people over
there recommend this sort of thing.” (Ayurvedic
medicine provides alternative health treatments -- including
urine drinking -- that have origins in ancient
India.)
Littlefield defends Salinger on smaller issues, too.
“Absolutely ridiculous things have been written about
him, like that they had two Doberman attack dogs,”
she says. “For Pete’s sake, they had two little
Italian hounds of some kind that looked like Dobermans,
and they were skinny and tiny as toothpicks!”
(Our requests for an interview with Salinger went
unanswered. The author is famous for not granting
interviews and has given only around six interviews,
some of them brief and grudging, to reporters since
the release of “Catcher.")
Most other people in the area see Salinger only when
he's out in public, if at all. “He’s great looking for his
age,” says photographer and area resident Medora Hebert,
who has spotted him twice. “He’s dapper, very trim.”
“It was a long time before I could actually recognize him
because he looked so ordinary,” says Ann Stebbens Cioffi,
the daughter of the late owner of the Dartmouth Bookstore,
Phoebe Storrs Stebbens.
But Salinger himself has said that he thinks others don’t
see him as ordinary. "I'm known as a strange, aloof kind
of man," Salinger told the New York Times in 1974. And
some agree with him: "He's a very strange dude," says
Hanover resident Harry Nelson. Burt agrees: “He had a
weird sense of humor,” he says.
What emerges as much as anything is that the
author is a serious book lover and serial browser
who shops at places ranging from Borders Books to
the Dartmouth Bookstore. “He was uninterrupted
during his hour or two of browsing for books,” says
a person answering the phone at Encore! Books in West
Lebanon, New Hampshire, describing his own Salinger
sighting.
“He does come in reasonably frequently,” says someone
who answered the phone at the Dartmouth Bookstore in
Hanover, New Hampshire, around 20 miles north of Cornish.
“He’s a pretty good customer here but doesn’t really
say anything to us.”
"He frequented the Dartmouth bookstore," says an
employee of Borders Books Music & Cafe in West Lebanon.
"I talked to people who worked over there one time;
they say he wasn't very nice, wasn't the most cordial
person. So I kind of keep my eye out for him
here, go my own way."
Adds Medora Hebert, "One of my daughter's friends
was a cashier at the Dartmouth Bookstore. And they warned
him, 'If J.D. Salinger comes in, don't talk to him,
don't acknowledge him.'"
And there have been many reports of Salinger
browsing the stacks at the Dartmouth College
library. “I’ve talked with people who have met
him in the stacks and whatnot,” says Thomas
Sleigh, an English professor at Dartmouth College.
Salinger is also said to enjoy the annual Five-Colleges
Book Sale at the Hanover High School gym, a springtime
sale of used and antiquarian books that raises money
for scholarships.
In Hanover, as in Cornish, he keeps to himself. "My
wife [says] Salinger always said hello to Phoebe
and no one else," says Nelson, referring to Phoebe
Storrs Stebbens, who was a year older than
Salinger (and incidentally shares the same first
name as a major character in “Catcher”).
And area booksellers say Salinger’s books are
displayed just as prominently as they would be
if he were not a local.
Then again, Salinger doesn’t have many books to
display, since he’s published only three besides
“Catcher,” all compilations of short stories or
novellas that had been previously published, mostly
in The New Yorker magazine. His last book,
“Raise High the Roof Beam, Carpenters and
Seymour, An Introduction,” was released in
January 1963. His previous books were the bestsellers
“Franny and Zooey” (1961) and “Nine Stories” (1953).
(By the way, The New Yorker magazine actually
rejected "The Catcher in the Rye" when Salinger
submitted it as a short story/novella that was
substantially similar to the novel, according to
Paul Alexander's book "Salinger: A Biography.")
In 1997, he had planned to publish a fifth book,
essentially a re-release of his last published
work, “Hapworth 16, 1924,” which appeared in The
New Yorker in June 1965. The book’s publication
was ultimately scuttled.
But “Catcher” eclipses everything else he’s
done -- by a mile. It’s one of the most
influential 20th century American novels, a
coming-of-age odyssey about high school student
Holden Caulfield, who wanders around New York
after being kicked out of prep school. And
it's arguably the first novel to convincingly capture
the voice of the modern, alienated, American
teenager.
"Catcher" was successful in its initial run but not
nearly as successful as it would become by the end
of the 1950s, when it started to turn into a
freakish cult phenomenon. To date, it has
sold more than 60 million copies worldwide and
continues to sell hundreds of thousands more each year.
Over the decades, the book has appealed to a wide
range of readers that even includes certified
wackos (John Lennon’s killer had a copy on him
when he was captured). So it’s not surprising that
Salinger has had to fend off obsessive
fans even at his private Shangrila of Cornish
Flat, which has a population of under 2,000.
“People approach him a lot,” says Burt. “And they
stole clothes off his clothesline. They stole his
socks, underwear, t-shirts. And they’d come up on
his deck. It’s a huge picture window that
goes across the front of the house looking out to
Vermont...And he said he’d get up and open the
drapes and people would be standing there looking in.
It really pissed him off.”
And there was also a much publicized scuffle outside the
Purity Supreme grocery store (which he used to jokingly
call “the Puberty Supreme,” according to two biographies)
in 1988, in which Salinger reportedly mixed it up with
a couple photographers who tried to take his picture.
But for the most part, people in the area don’t bother
him.
“People in Cornish are quite protective of him,” says
Cioffi. “I can’t think of anyone who will tell you
a word about Salinger,” says a woman who answered
the phone at the Hannaford Supermarket in Claremont.
Apparently, Cornish is the perfect place to go if you
vant to be alone. “This is also a part of the country
where [writer Aleksandr] Solzhenitsyn lived in his
enclave -- and his kids went to public
schools,” says Bob Grey of the Northshire Bookstore
in faraway Manchester Center, Vermont, referring to
the Nobel laureate’s former home in Cavendish,
Vermont, which is around 20 miles from Cornish.
“It’s the kind of place where, if you’re going to move
to be left alone, it’s not a bad place to be.”
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 23, 2008
Almost 30 Years After "All in the Family" Went
Off the Air....
Excerpts from my exclusive interview with Carroll
O'Connor -- unpublished until now.
"Archie Bunker...never laughed."
I was lucky enough to have interviewed Carroll
O'Connor a few times in the 1990s, most memorably in
1997, when he talked about (among other things)
"All in the Family," which went off the air
thirty years ago this April.
That conversation, which lasted a couple
hours, took place in a church in the
Westwood section of Los Angeles on Labor
Day weekend of 1997 -- Saturday, August
30, 1997, to be exact, a few hours before
Princess Diana got into a car wreck in Paris.
Most of the conversation was about a play he had
just written, "A Certain Labor Day," though he
also talked about "All...," adding previously
unreported backstage details about how the series
came into existence every week. Here are excerpts,
which haven't been published -- until now (except
for a few lines, which I first included in one
of my newspaper articles of 1997):
CARROLL O'CONNOR: Yeah, we used to sit
and talk about making lines funnier or inserting
something. But I always used to make sure that these
jokes were not just jokes, they were characters's thrust
and parry. And I wouldn't play a pure unadulterated
joke. I could do it. But I always thought
we were doing these little plays on "All in the
Family." And there was a little crisis every week.
Archie Bunker, for instance, he never laughed.
He came in bothered every night about
something that went on in the day. He had a
crisis a day. And then he had a crisis at home
with his son-in-law and his daughter. And crisis
is what people understand. From a purely pragmatic
point of view -- forget art for a moment -- crisis
is what the ticket buyers understand. Everybody out
there has a crisis. I take credit for being the
one who was driving every week towards a little
play. I'm [not saying] everybody else was going
the other way. But I was the principal -- I used
to sit around the table and say, "Why should anybody
want to see this?...What is in this little play
we're doing that makes it worth watching?"
IORIO: HOW DID YOU GET THAT CONSISTENT
LEVEL OF QUALITY EVERY WEEK?
O'CONNOR: ....Let's go for the crisis.
Let's put a crisis in. If putting a crisis
in means losing a few jokes, let's put the crisis in.
Every single week, we improvised something on the set.
And we used to have a script going upstairs [at CBS].
We used to use computers, the big Xerox computers -- I
mean, they were monsters in those days, those Xerox
things -- so we could send [dialogue]. The minute we
made changes, they rushed up and put in the new pages.
They'd come down with three, four new scripts every
day. We went through all kinds of paper! And Xerox
machines kept turning them out for us. We'd
improvise and...we'd have to go up and get the script
changed.
IORIO: DID YOU EVER HAVE PROBLEMS WITH
THE CENSORS?
O'CONNOR: The time when Archie
changed the baby's diaper, and there was
frontal nudity on the little boy ["Archie,
The Babysitter," aired Jan. 12, 1976]. They
decided they wouldn't do it. I must say
Norman Lear went to bat for us. He won the
day on that one. But I think that even then,
they fudged it. They let us do it and then
they...did a very fast shot.
IORIO: WHAT IS YOUR FAVORITE EPISODE?
O'CONNOR: There was one very important
episode when Archie and Mike get a little boozed and
discuss the origins of racism and Archie explains why
he thinks what he thinks ["Two's a Crowd," aired Feb.
12, 1978]. Locked in a liquor room, in
the storeroom. And Archie opens up. He doesn't
forswear racism, he just explains why he believed his
father about [assuming Bunker's voice] Jews
and niggers."
* * *
As it turned out, while O'Connor and I were chatting,
the world had suddenly changed in a tragic way,
unbeknownst to both of us. On my way home from
the interview, I heard the breaking news that
Princess Diana had been involved in some sort of
car crash. (But I digress.)
As I mentioned, O'Connor's show went off the air
30 years ago this April, though -- of course -- it's
still very much available on DVD, even if it's
(oddly) somewhat scarce in syndication.
I recently watched the entire fourth season of
"All in the Family" and was struck by how modern
most of it seemed. Some of the dialogue sounded
like it was written in 2008 -- like this passage,
which first aired on October 20, 1973:
HENRY JEFERSON: How come we don't have a black
president? I mean, some of our black people are just
as dumb as Nixon.
ARCHIE BUNKER: You ain't got a black president,
Jefferson, 'cause God ain't ready for that yet.
MICHAEL: Wait a second. What?!
ARCHIE: That's right. God's got to try it out
first by making a black pope, which he ain't done yet.
LIONEL: Maybe that's 'cause God ain't Catholic.
. . .
GLORIA: Is that all you can talk about, whether a
black man or a white man should be president?
ARCHIE: Well, what do you want to talk about, little
girl?
GLORIA: How about a woman president?
ARCHIE: Oh, holy cow!
HENRY JEFFERSON (aghast): A woman president?!
GLORIA: Mr. Jefferson, this may come as a big surprise to
you, but women are much more oppressed than blacks.
HENRY JEFFERSON: I don't see no ghetto for women.
GLORIA: What do you call a kitchen?
LOUISE JEFFERSON: I call it a prison.
HENRY JEFFERSON: Stay out of this, Louise, you're
talking foolish.
LOUISE: Do you know what Shirley Chisholm said?
Shirley Chisholm said that she ran into more
discrimination because she was a woman than because
she was black.
HENRY JEFFERSON: That's why she didn't get elected.
LOUISE: Right.
HENRY: Because she was talking foolish.
......
GLORIA: Mr. Jefferson, you've come a long way,
baby. But from now on it's we women who have
to overcome.
...
Sounds like vintage 2008 dialogue, eh? Right out
of the Obama-Hillary headlines, right? Ahead of
its time, no doubt.
But it was also very much of and about the 1970s,
too. The fourth season was the last one of the
Nixon era, coming at a point when the show had
accumulated enormous momentum and was knocking it
out of the proverbial ballpark every week with
an astonishing level of consistency. And it also
includes some of the most frequently syndicated
episodes (e.g. Archie takes a bribe from a
corrupt lawyer in exchange for dropping charges
against a mugger from a prominent family; a
seemingly washed-up unemployed colleague
visits the Bunkers and ends up landing a
job as Archie's boss; Archie celebrates
his 50th birthday (though it's hard to believe
Bunker was as young as 50 in '74; he could've
easily passed for 64).
Still, it's hard to call it the best season, because
the first four were really almost equally brilliant,
with the consistency starting to lag only in the
final four seasons, though it's also true that
some of the very best episodes were in the later
seasons (particularly the sporadically
inspired eighth season).
The best way to define the prime of "All in the
Family" is to recall favorite episodes from
memory. Let's see, there was that one that
everybody remembers in which Sammy Davis Jr.
kisses Archie (second season); the one where
right-wingers paint a swastika on the Bunkers's
front door (season 3); the show in which Archie
gets addicted to speed (season 8) -- among many,
many others. Generally, you're naming stuff
from the first four years.
The first season had a fresh, almost shock-jock
quality.
The second was dominated by Maude, who really
sort of overwhelmed the show (she soon had
her own spin-off series).
The third and fourth seasons were almost a
"Rubber Soul"/"Revolver" peak, with the 4th
introducing neighbors Frank and Irene Lorenzo
(amazing that Vincent Gardenia was given the
role, given the fact that he had played a
completely different (and unforgettable) character,
a wife-swapping swinger who Edith naively
invited to the house in the previous season;
and George Jefferson and his family (who, like
Maude, also got a solo series).
The 4th was also arguably Rob Reiner's best season
though Reiner, creatively, will probably be
remembered by future generations less for
his role as the blustery Michael Stivic than
as the film maker behind one of the funniest
films ever made, "This Is Spinal Tap."
And the crazy energy of Frank Lorenzo truly
spices up things, though one gets the sense
that he was originally written as a gay
character but was instead converted into
something more mainstream: an Italian
husband who loved to cook and sing
(just as the core ensemble characters
of "Seinfeld" seem as if they had been
initially written as roommates).
As for Archie: if you watch footage of former
Chicago mayor Richard Daley Sr., you'll see such
a remarkable resemblance between Bunker and
Daley that you'll swear the former must have
been modeled on the latter, and in fact he
might've been. Today, Bunker almost seems
like a dead-on caricature of Daley, right
down to the mayor's famous malapropisms.
(The Bunker character was fully created in
1970, only a couple years after Daley became
a villain to many for orchestrating the
"police riot" of 1968 in Chicago.)
Other times, Bunker is played as Willy Loman
for laughs (sort of).
It's interesting that O'Connor plays Bunker in
such a way that a right-winger could watch the
show and say, "What's so funny about that?"
His non-punch line punch lines were that straight.
Also, you can see Bunker's influence on the
Tony Soprano character in "The Sopranos,"
particularly in the mob series's later
episodes. (David Remnick, writing in
TNY last year, showed a fine ear for
dialect when he once wrote that Tony
Soprano "sounded more Summit than
Newark" in the first season.
Very true, though I would add that
his accent and manner actually shifted
from Summit to near Hauser Street in
later episodes.)
Things began to decline on all fronts for
the series during the fall season in which Jimmy
Carter was elected president. By late '76, the
landscape, culturally and politically, had
shifted. Nixon the dictator had been
overthrown. The revolutionaries were victorious.
Liberal paranoia, which had given the series
some of its tension, had dissipated. And
"All in the Family," which had had a lock on the
number one spot for most of the decade,
dropped out of the top five for the first
time -- and permanently.
Today, you'd have to be at least thirty-six
years old to even vaguely remember a first-run
episode of "All in the Family." But I'd find it
hard to believe that someone unfamiliar with the
show wouldn't find any episode from the first
four seasons hilarious in a meaningful way.
But I digress. Paul
[above, photo credit: photographer unknown]
__________________________________
THE DAILLY DIGRESSION
for December 19 - 21, 2008
Regarding the Rick Warren Invocation
I took a job at the San Francisco Chronicle
as a staff writer in 2000, and one of my first
assignments was to write about TV coverage of
the upcoming presidential election and the
candidates. At the time, televised debates were
being scheduled and Reform Party candidate Pat
Buchanan wanted to be included in them. So I
contacted all the major and minor presidential
candidates and asked if they would comment for
my article, and the only one who responded was
Buchanan, who phoned to talk about why he thought
he should be allowed to participate in the
debates. Great, I thought; I can use the
interview for my story.
Ran into my boss at the water cooler around
an hour later and told her the mildly good news
that I had landed an interview with one of the
presidential candidates for my article.
"Which one?," she asked
"Pat Buchanan," I said.
She looked horrified and talked as if I
had committed some terrible faux pas.
She was the top features editor at the paper,
a mostly terrific editor who could sometimes pull
magic out of the air during deadlines (in contrast to
some of the lower-level editors, who
ranged from plodding to downright
dishonest, to be honest, though almost all
of 'em were very nice people. But that's another
story.)
Anyway, she was disappointed because she
didn't like Buchanan and didn't want to give him
any ink.
I explained to her that I, too, despised Buchanan's
politics (probably more than she did) and that I was
personally to the left of Nancy Pelosi on some issues,
but thought Buchanan should be heard, particularly
at a paper where predictable liberalism was rampant.
This was journalism, after all, not advocacy, and I
was writing a news story in which Buchanan was a
player, so it was important that I include
him, no matter what my personal feelings about
his politics were.
She, on the other hand, likely came away from
the discussion thinking, ohmygod, I just hired the
wrong guy; he's been on the job for only a few weeks
and already is giving podium to guys like Buchanan.
(My previous journalism experience, by the way, had
been entirely in New York and Los Angeles, not in
S.F., so maybe that had something to do with it. You
see, I was taught at Spy/Washington Post/Los Angeles
Times, etc. to follow the story where the facts
led you, without fear or favor. But they had a
different way of doing things at the Chron, where
editors openly gave preferential and biased
coverage to personal pals, which sort of made
me nauseous. What made me more nauseous is
that top editors there were well-connected
enough to spin the situation into a narrative
that favored them, not the truth.
To digress further for a moment, here's an example
of how the Chronicle would give favors to personal
pals in its reportage. Context is this: a publicist
wanted to control coverage of a story I was writing, and
I politely but firmly refused his request. Publicist,
it turned out, was a personal bud of a top editor
(which wouldn't have changed my response even if I'd
known that fact). My editor(who is still at the paper, by
the way) criticized me (in a written evaluation, no
less!) for not doing a favor for that publicist
pal of a top Chronicle editor. And he was completely
open about it, too! Here's the evaluation, written
by my editor:
This S.F. Chronicle evaluation left me wondering:
gee, I thought you weren't supposed to do favors for
personal pals in journalism. (Yes, my editor actually
said I shouldn't defy publicists!)
[click to enlarge]
Anyway, I've over-digressed here. But I'm telling
this story because I identify strongly, in my
own microcosmic way, with Barack
Obama's decision to let Rick Warren give the
invocation at the inauguration. It's like something
I would do (and, as I just said,
like something I did do -- in an analogous way,
on a far smaller scale -- shortly after being hired
as a writer for the Chronicle). In politics (as
in journalism), a real pro puts aside his own
personal beliefs and allows someone with whom
he disagrees to be heard.
And in politics, there's practical value to that.
Because the worst thing you can do for your own
cause is to muzzle the opposition, to make them
feel as if they're powerless and have
no voice, to make them scared of the new power
structure. Because that's when they'll lash out
the most, that's when they'll gather in church
groups in huge numbers and bury you
in the next election.
But if you bring them into the dialogue, make them
feel like they're not invisible to the new regime,
you stand a better chance of convincing them to
compromise on certain issues later on.
Like gay marriage. Hey, I voted against Prop 8 and
thought it was a real tragedy that it passed, and I
also think that opponents of gay marriage like
Warren are despicable and, frankly,
backward-thinking. (And I'm a hard-core hetero!)
But let's let the man speak. Because if we hear
him, there's a better chance he may hear us in the
future on issues like gay marriage, a better
chance we might be able to convince him of
the wisdom of our point of view.
However, if there is no dialogue, there can be no
persuasion, or little chance of it. Which is why
I also advocate sitting down and talking with Hugo
Chavez, Mamoud Ahmadinejad and the Castro brothers
(but not with an irrational, homicidal fanatic
like bin Laden).
Proponents of gay marriage: get shrewd. Bringing
Rick Warren to the party is probably the most practical
way to convince him and his people to soften their
opposition to gay civil rights.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 17, 2008
Poor sweet Caroline. Prior to today, she
had more mystique, breathed a more rarefied air,
exuded a more untouchable grace. Now she has
to lunch with non-entities like the mayor of
Schenectady. Sort of like J.D. Salinger deciding
to come out of seclusion to do in-store promotion
for his new novel. The enigma becomes diminished.
The legend becomes too accessible, familiar.
Suddenly the person is no longer a "get" interview
or a rare thrill to meet.
Interesting that her mom, at around the same age,
also decided to take a relatively conventional job,
book editor at Doubleday, where she -- believe it or
not! -- came into the office on Park Ave.
on a regular basis to work (that's where I actually
saw her once, in the editorial offices there;
Jacqueline Kennedy remains the only Kennedy I've
ever seen up close and in person).
Not that the U.S. Senate is a "conventional" job,
though lots of conventional or at least politically
unremarkable people have held the position, among
them: Jean Carnahan (qualification: wife of a
governor), Hillary Clinton (qualification (at the
time): wife of a president) and Liddy Dole (qualification:
wife of a senator). So, in that context, "daughter
of a legendary president" makes her as qualified
as many who have recently served.
Let's face it, as I've written before (to quote my
Digression of November 16, 2008, posted below):
"Truth be told, the Senate has always been an easy
job. Anybody can be a Senator (though it'$ very hard
to actually be elected to the post). Politicians'
relatives without any experience in government have
ascended to the job and performed well. Because it's
a position in which your main responsibility is
to simply vote the party line (unless you're in the
leadership, where you're co-creating the party line).
Is there any other position in which you can
be away from work for years and have nothing
go awry?"
Yeah, Caroline may not be an arm twister or
wheeler dealer like lots of powers of the Senate
have been, and she's seems a bit too private for
politics, but she does bring a personal clout
and a powerful name to the table, which can go a
long way toward making her an effective member
of the legislative branch. Plus, she's exactly as
progressive as outgoing Senator Clinton has been
and enjoys an excellent working relationship with
president-elect Obama.
Senator Caroline Kennedy? We could do (and have
done) a lot worse, and it would be difficult to
do much better.
But I digress. Paul
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 14 - 15, 2008
One of the Problems with the Car Business
Ah, remember when car designs were memorable?
I know almost nothing about cars or the car industry,
but couldn't help getting caught up in the discussion
on this morning's Chris Matthews television show,
when everyone talked about their favorite cars.
I must admit I'm in solidarity with Andrew Sullivan of
The Atlantic, who, like me, doesn't drive and doesn't
know or care much about cars.
Oh, I used to drive, and still can, but don't, largely
because I didn't need a car when I lived in and around
Manhattan in the decades after graduating from college
and so got into the habit of not being dependent on
a car. Today, as a Bay Area resident, I'm perfectly
content with BART and its various forms of connecting
transportation, thank you very much.
But I'm certainly not oblivious to the vehicles
around me every day and suspect that one of the
problems with the car business today is its
lack of imagination.
When I was a kid in the 1960s and 1970s, there used
to be really snazzy cars. When friends and neighbors
would visit, our suburban driveway always seemed to
be packed with lively MGs and Triumph Spitfires and
Fiats and even an Aston Martin or two. They had
style, character, personality, pizzazz, a sense
of fun. (And some even had that great lost
guilty pleasure: a fifth gear!)
And now everything is a Toyota. Not to knock
Toyotas, because If I were in the market for an
affordable car, I might end up with a Toyota, too.
(Because good luck getting parts
or repair service for an Aston Martin in this
part of the world in the 21st century.)
But cars today seem to look the same: generic,
bland, utilitarian, un-fun, with almost
interchangeable designs.
What happened to exciting design ideas? In the
1960s, even American cars had a sense of conceptual
daring, in their way. I remember when one of our
neighbors of the 1960s drove up with a brand new
Corvette (with retractable headlights) for the first
time, and all the kids (and adults) crowded around
it as if it were a UFO that had just landed on
Courtney Drive.
What happened to the wow-factor?
The only vitality I see out there in mainstream cars
is in the VW Beetle, whose semi-circular shape
is almost pop art in spirit. Even though they've been
around for awhile, they still look innovative
in contrast to the blandscape on the highways.
In the current homogeneous environment, even French
cars, once widely derided, are now a welcome contrast
to the vehicular sameness out there.
At least when you see a Citroen or a Deux Cheveux,
you're seeing something unusual and memorable
and quite unlike anything else, even if its design
doesn't quite fully work. (As writer Henry Biggs put
it on the MSN website: "...the French do occasionally
build cars if only to have something to burn next
time they decide to riot").
Look, I'm certainly not saying American car
makers should emulate the French, but if you were to
combine the U.S. utilitarian spirit with
Japanese efficiency and a European sense of
innovation in design, Detroit might actually come up
with something people want to buy. (Nowadays,
it's easy to spot an American car; just look
for a bulky vehicle that overdoes the steel and
chrome.)
Me, I prefer daring to safe mediocrity anyday.
Until the industry puts some inspiraton and
surprise back into its cars, I'll continue
to take the BART.
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 12, 2008
Kudos to that Reuters reporter for being the only one
at yesterday's Obama press conference to ask the
president-elect about his health care plan.
The other esteemed journalists -- all fully insured,
I'm sure -- asked about Governor Milosevic, or whatever
his name is. Perhaps uninsured reporters, who more
fully understand what a callous horror the U.S. health
care system has become, should be assigned to ask
questions at the next Q&A session, because the
insured might not completely appreciate what a
five-alarm crisis this is for millions of Americans.
Yeah, I fully understand that the question from
the CBS reporter needed to be asked, but it's hardly
a tell-tale detail that Blagojevich somehow knew
that Obama wouldn't play ball in the governor's
nefarious game. The governor, like the rest of
us, knew Obama's reputation for honesty and, hence,
knew not to ask him to engage in horse-trading.
In any profession, in politics or elsewhere, a
person sets an ethical tone that tends to either
invite or discourage certain solicitations and
associations. And smart staffers can easily see
where a conversation is going and stop it before
it goes there.
In any event, the Blagojevich tapes are
exculpatory toward Obama. The real wonder -- and
it's damn near a secular miracle to anyone who
has been an honest professional in the midst
of corruption -- is how Obama managed to rise through
the ranks of Chicago politics and come out as
a genuine model of high-minded ethics. Amazing.
Less amazing is the shameful behavior of Jesse
Jackson, Jr., who seemed to go along to get
along, which is what most people do, unfortunately,
in such circumstances, because whistleblowing
requires enormous courage and risk. My own
hard-earned experience tells me that
when you blow the whistle on someone powerful --
whether in politics or journalism or anywhere
else -- the following generally happens: you
get fired, then smeared, then blacklisted in
your profession, and then the real bad luck
begins.
But I digress. Paul
________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 7, 2008
Does "Wall-E" Deserve a Best Pic Oscar Nom?
Wall-E: a star is boring? (photo from Pixar)
I'd really like to like "Wall-E." A lot of critics
I respect rave about it. But after watching it
two-and-a half times, I still find it a
bona fide bore.
The first time I viewed it, I fell asleep around forty
minutes in. The second time, I saw the whole thing
and got into it a bit more, but was still astonished
by how uninteresting it was for such a highly-praised
film.
Maybe it's me, I thought. Maybe I wasn't in the
right mood for it. So I tried it a third
time -- with 10 minutes of deleted scenes -- and
was still yawning throughout.
Problem is its occasionally flat visual effect, a
constricted style that looks like a computer screen
for much of the film. I don't care what novel
storyline or earnest message a film maker
intends, because intention and concept scarcely
matter, if there is no visual magic on the screen
(and there's very little here).
To be sure, there are some inspired moments, around
an hour in, during the space sequences, which soar
like no others here. But otherwise, it's just a
lot of mechanized stop-start motion that expresses
little except an overall lack of flow.
As for the love story, it's less Chaplin-esque than
"E.T."-esque, and hard to praise because it consists
mostly of Walle-E screaming "Eve" and Eve yelling
"Wall-E" (the name Wall-E is shouted at least a
hundred times or so, or so it seems).
The good news: if you cut the visuals and just
listen to the audio portion, with all its whirs
and beeps and musical loops and repetition,
it sounds sort of like a fascinating piece of avant
garde music, which makes it more deserving
of a Grammy than of an Oscar, though the
film will probably be nominated for best picture
on January 22nd.
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for December 4, 2008
I was just in San Francisco a few hours ago and
shot a few photos. Here they are:
Light through stained glass windows falls on columns
in Grace Cathedral in S.F.
* * *
A cat sleeps on a snoozing dog on Powell Street in S.F.
-- something you don't see every day! (Almost lost in the
cropping: a mouse is actually atop the cat.)
* * *
This is what the holiday season looks like in S.F.'s
Union Square.
* * *
And here are a few photos I shot several weeks ago:
A squirrel feasts on Halloween leftovers.
* * *
A voter (with child) on presidential election day,
at a polling place in Berkeley, Calif.
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 28 - 29, 2008
If you're looking to watch some DVDs over
this Thanksgiving weekend, here are my
reviews of a few movies I've seen (or re-seen)
recently:
Bernardo Bertolucci's "The Conformist"
I tend to watch Bertolucci's films primarily for
their visual beauty.
Is there a more seductive light blue anywhere in the
world, offscreen or on, than the one in "The Conformist"?
It's slightly darker than powder blue, like a
light twilight snow in Central Park, or the comic book
blue of "Ghost World," an almost blue white (just
look at the scenes in the Paris store).
For deep blue, I go to Coppola, particularly the first
"Godfather" film, which looks the way it does largely
because Bertolucci (and ace cinematographer Vittorio
Storaro) led the way years earlier with "The
Conformist." Coppola's dark blue is that of the sky
at 30,000 feet, or of Frank Sinatra's eyes up close
(which I was lucky enough to have seen in person, from
around a foot away, on a movie set in 1980). But
I digress.
I'm more impressed with "The Conformist" as a fest of
shadow and color, that by-product of light, than as a
character study of a conformist. The film is remarkable
for, among other things, the way it makes shadows look
like they seemed in childhood, as huge mysterious things
that you could get lost in. His style of manipulating
shadow and light, later used so revealingly
by Coppola in the opening sequences of "The Godfather"
to suggest a contrast between good and evil, furthers a
stylistic throughline that appears to come from no less
than Caravaggio.
The film is also about the low angle of the sunlight
through the fog in the forest during the climactic
murder scene (even if that sequence has a continuity
gaffe; the snow disappears just as the professor
gets out of the car), a setting that is remarkably
similar to the "Pine Barrens" episode of "The Sopranos."
As a portrait of a conformist, however, it is lacking. If
Bertolucci, revising the Moravia novel, is trying to draw
a character who goes along to get along, who blends in
chameleon-like with whoever he happens to be with, who
takes the path of greatest agreement and least
resistance, then the title character, Marcello Clerici,
is not such a person.
Clerici is actually a sometimes contrarian and
contentious sort of guy, deeply committed to an
evil political ideology. He may be callous,
conscienceless and amoral but is far from chronically
malleable; after all, he argues with a priest during
confession, debates politics with his former
professor at dinner, and refuses to join in a group
dance even when surrounded by dozens
of dancers in Paris. Leonard Zelig he ain't (in
fact, "Zelig" could have easily been titled
"The Conformist").
Remember, the premise of the film is this: because
Clerici killed someone when he was kid (or he thinks
he killed someone), his life is shaped by his desire to
be normal and to fit in amongst non-homicidal regular
people. But the main problem with that premise is
that it doesn't follow that he would then commit
himself to a political organization that orders him
to kill political opponents. If the concept is that
Clerici wants to show how much he is an average
everyman non-killer, then wouldn't killing someone
be exactly the opposite of the conformity he's
supposedly trying to achieve?
Still, it's always welcome to see a great film that
exposes the cruelty and savagery of Nazi and
Nazi-associated fascists of the thirties and forties.
But for all the talk in the film about Mussolini's
people forcing dissidents to drink castor oil -- sort
of an execution by diarrhea, in some cases -- there
is not much shown onscreen of the imaginative
sadism of the blackshirts (the way there is in
Wertmuller's films or in Pasolini's scalding "Salo,"
which not only shows the trauma of torture but actually
traumatizes anyone who dares to view that film).
Dominique Sanda's portrayal of someone who
knows she is about to be murdered may be traumatic
enough for most viewers. Still, the most salient and
memorable imagery in "The Conformist" relates to light,
shadow, blue.
P.S. -- How telling that Bertolucci uses the E.U.R.
subdivision in Rome as the setting for a mental
institution, which is what it looks like today, for
the most part. Rather than the ultramodern city
of the future, the E.U.R. now looks clinical, cold,
sterile, like that odd building in Columbus Circle
(2 Columbus Circle) in Manhattan that nobody has
ever seemed to find a use for. (I was more
impressed with the E.U.R. as a kid than I am now.)
Also, the Vittorio Emanuele monument appears in
the picture, making me wish the Italian government
would dismantle it, piece by piece, and bury
it in landfill off the coast of Ostia Antica.
Look, I love most of Rome but can't think of
another major monument in a western European
city as overstated, pompous and arrogant.
(It would be impossible to imagine it in Florence.)
P.S. -- Some DVDs of "The Conformist" include
interesting interviews with both Bertolucci and
Storaro that are well worth checking out, if only
because of Bertolucci's characteristic wisdom and
insight. Here's what he says about directing actors:
"I always tell my actors, 'Please surprise me.
I need to be fed with surprises. Surprises are
nourishing.'" Very refreshing (particularly in
contrast to a dim editor I once worked with at
a Bay Area newspaper who used to tell me and other
writers to try to do the opposite -- "no surprises"
was his motto).
* * * *
Woody Allen's "Scoop"
I'm certainly thrilled with the unexpected
resurgence of Woody Allen's career in the
2000s and loved "Match Point" and am looking
forward to "Whatever Works." But "Scoop" falls
into the lower tier of Allen films
that are well-crafted but not really very funny.
I can't imagine that any serious critic would
recommend this one for its hilarity. It's sort of
like a U.K.-based re-make of the slight "Manhattan
Murder Mystery" with recycled bits from "Broadway
Danny Rose" and "Small Time Crooks." Sure, there
are some suspenseful moments -- the scene on the
boat is chilling -- but not all the movie's supposedly
tell-tale details hold up to scrutiny (e.g., why
would the murderer have hidden the key in a hiding
place that he knew Scarlett Johansson
had already discovered?). But I loved the Camusian
death at the end.
* * * *
"The Devil Wears Prada"
One of the great things about "Prada" is that
the audience becomes educated, along with Anne
Hathaway's fashion neophyte, about haute couture.
For example, in the beginning, I looked at
Hathaway's blue sweater and, with her dark hair
against it, thought it looked very pretty. But
Meryl Streep's character, with a rarefied
level of refinement in high fashion that Hathaway
and most people in the audience don't have, sees
right to the core of her fashion flaw, calling it
that "lumpy blue sweater." And gradually, Hathaway
(and moviegoers) realize that Streep
is...right. It is bulky. After Streep's description,
I couldn't see that sweater the same way for the rest
of the film.
Streep truly tops herself here, perfecting the
throw-of-the-jacket at either an assistant or a chair,
both of which she treats with equal disregard, and
the dry slicing put-down ("Is there a reason my coffee
isn't here? Did she go to Rwanda for the beans?").
"Prada" is entertaining and satisfying throughout, and
some of the deleted scenes are as terrific as the ones
that made the cut.
* * *
"TV Classic Westerns"
For those curious about the westerns that began
to sprout on television around fifty years ago, a
variety-pack of episodes from four series of that
era is available on DVD. Though there's no
"Gunsmoke," "Rawhide" or "Bonanza," there are
"Death Valley Days," "The Rifleman," "Bat Masterson"
and "Wagon Train."
The latter was the most popular of those included here,
or at least it was until ABC Entertainment, in an
incredibly boneheaded decision, decided to expand
it, a la "The Virginian," to 90 minutes, thereby
inadvertently killing it. (In one of the most
spectacular falls in ratings that I'm aware of, it
went from #1 to unranked in the top
twenty in a matter of months.)
"Death Valley Days" is probably the worst of them,
a series so old-fashioned it could pass for what
television might have looked like in the 19th
century, had there been TV in the 19th century.
"Bat Masterson" was the most eccentric and stylish
of them, what with Masterson's cane and dapper duds.
But the problem with the cane gimmick was that all
the bad guys always had guns, so showdowns inevitably
devolved into traditional gunfights in which the cane
was irrelevant or merely ornamental.
"The Rifleman," a succinct (half hour) weeknight series,
had a welcome punk edge to it and was almost, but not quite,
Eastwoodian in sensibility.
I never watched any of this stuff when I was a kid, which
explains my current curiosity, now satisfied enough to tell
me I didn't miss much back when.
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 25 - 26, 2008
Season 7 Starts Shooting in a Couple Weeks
Reading "Mondo Freaks."
Two reasons to be cheerful in 2009: there'll
be a 7th season of "Curb Your Enthusiasm"
and a new Woody Allen movie, "Whatever Works,"
also starring Larry David.
Shooting starts on the next ten episodes of "Curb" in
a week or two, though there are no credible leaks on
whether Larry and Loretta become a permanent item or
if Cheryl remains estranged from her ex.
Those who have yet to check out the 6th season have a
treat awaiting them, because it may be the best so far, or
at least it includes the (arguably) funniest "Curb" episode
ever, "The Freak Book," which makes me laugh just thinking
about it. Yeah, I know, there have been plenty of other
contendas for best episode, to wit: "Lewis Needs a Kidney,"
which actually may be better and more resonant than
"Freak Book"; and such slighter, but only
slightly slighter, episodes like the hilarious "Krazee-Eyez
Killa" and "The Car Pool Lane" (and "The Car Salesman"
and "The Wire" and "The Larry David Sandwich," in which
Larry, while inside his wife, interrupts sex with her
because he can't resist taking a phone call
from his overweight manager Jeff, with whom he
seems to have better chemistry).
I vote for "Freak Book" because of the seemingly
genuine enthusiasm that Larry and Jeff have for
"Mondo Freaks," an exploitative coffee-table book
full of pictures of physically deformed people.
The second disc of Season Six, with only four
episodes, may seem skimpy at first, but it packs
a bigger wallop than most "Curb" double-discs.
Only problem with "Curb," which is otherwise close to
perfect, is its occasional plot deficiencies, storylines
that are often jerry-built, a weakness it shares with
"Seinfeld," which, as hilarious as it was, could never
really carry an adequate plot over the span of even
two episodes (remember the contrived mail truck/golf club
bit?). And that same sense of contrivance is apparent
in, say, the story in which Larry stages the mugging of
his wife's shrink, which leaves the viewer unwilling to
suspend disbelief -- and wondering why the police wouldn't
want to talk with the mugging victim and the main witness.
And then there are promising plots not taken, like
the one in which Leon robs people of their
jerseys, thinking they're Larry's jerseys; that
story could've easily bloomed into one in which Larry
winds up in a legal mess, accused of conspiracy to
commit strong arm robbery, because of Leon's
well-intentioned overstepping.
But "Curb" isn't primarily about plot but about
a set of tangled, complicated relationships that crash
and burn and recombine and uncombine and resurge
-- and sometimes resurge and disintegrate at the
same time, which is to say it's as close to life itself
as a great sit-com can get.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 20, 2008
Well, it's official. The only ones who don't love
Barack Obama are the religious right of America and
the religious right of Islam. Al Zawahiri
just sent his latest right-wing rant from the
15th century and -- surprise! -- he doesn't like the
progressive modern policies of Obama.
For those who don't remember al Zawahiri, he's
bin Laden's number two, a physician (albeit a
physician who hasn't yet learned that being overweight
is a big health risk). And I don't think he fully
understands that his and bin Laden's medical prognoses
have, with the election of Obama, just taken a
turn for the far worse.
You see, al Zawahiri, the president-elect has said
repeatedly that if his soldiers catch you guys in
their crosshairs, they have orders to shoot to kill.
And Obama is way smarter than Bush and more likely to
figure out where you're hiding. So get your cave in
order, because your reactionary ways are a-comin' to
a close.
As I've said before, I've got a bottle of marvelous dry
Tuscan red all ready for the great day when bin Laden is
declared dead. Can't wait.
Sure, we should and can negotiate with a lot of
despots we disagree with (e.g., even Ahmadinejad,
Chavez, Castro, etc.). But not with bin Laden or
al Qaeda.
The reason? They targeted apolitical civilians, Muslims
among them, in a non-wartime context. Civilians.
Deliberately. I still can't get my mind around what
those guys did in '01. Even in wartime, when
civilians are killed, they are killed by accident, not
by design.
And by the way, al Zawahiri, you have your facts
wrong about Obama's father. Yes, his dad did begin
life as a Muslim, but as soon as he got a first-class
education, at Harvard and elsewhere, he quickly learned
that all that religious stuff was just bullshit and
soon abandoned theism. Smart guy.
In any event, his son is obviously his own man and
was not raised by his father but by people who
were Christians, which accounts for his Christian
faith.
But I digress. Paul
____________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 18, 2008
Here's the best (and funniest) lede paragraph I've
seen in a long, long time. It was written
by Burkhard Bilger and appears in the new issue of
The New Yorker:
"Elephants, like many of us, enjoy a good malted beverage
when they can get it. At least twice in the past ten years,
herds in India have stumbled upon barrels of rice beer,
drained them with their trunks, and gone on drunken
rampages. (The first time, they trampled four villagers;
the second time they uprooted a pylon and electrocuted
themselves.)"
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 17, 2008
Mean Girl
It's hard to believe some can't see the fact that
Sarah Palin's national political career is sooo over.
She may be a presidential contender in 2012? Are you
joking? You think she might team up with Dan Quayle?
Honey, she just came off a stint as America's newest
National Laughingstock. People tune in to watch her
only because they want to see her screw up on camera.
They watch her the way they watch TV Bloopers.
For cheap kicks. To feel good about their own
failings. Her legacy -- forever -- is as Tina Fey's
sidekick (and, man, has the bottom dropped out of the
Palin-related humor industry, no?). Sarah,
we're not laughing with you, we're laughing at you.
Further, your meanness toward uninsured sick people
who need to see a doctor makes you an unsympathetic
figure. Go back to teaching creationism or
whatever you were doing before.
But I digress. Paul
______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 16, 2008
A Sea of Udalls
Nobody's noticing it, but the U.S. Senate is
gradually being depleted of its
greatest talents.
Many of the leading lions will be gone in the next
Senate. Our best Senator, Barack Obama, has
found another job. Congress's greatest foreign
policy mind, Joe Biden, has also found employment
elsewhere. Ted Kennedy, sadly, has cancer and
is not expected to live far into the new year. Hillary
Clinton is in negotiations to leave her job, and so
is John Kerry. Even Dianne Feinstein is seriously
considering a gubernatorial run. (And since his
political sex-change operation, Joe Lieberman has
been of little use to either side.)
So who's left to perform before the C-Span cameras?
Two new Udalls and a Stuart Smalley (if we're lucky).
The Senate is now officially 2% Udall.
Truth be told, the Senate has always been an easy
job. Anybody can be a Senator (though it'$ very hard
to actually be elected to the post). Politicians'
relatives without any experience in government have
ascended to the job and performed well. Because it's
a position in which your main responsibility is
to simply vote the party line (unless you're in the
leadership, where you're co-creating the party line).
Is there any other position in which you can
be away from work for years and have nothing
go awry?
Still, there's at least one lion left, John McCain,
and here's my suggestion: appoint McCain Secretary
of Defense. No, hear me out. Do what some businesses
sometimes do. Appoint your main rival to a post
that you know he could not turn down. And then, a
year or so later, replace him with someone else, saying
that you and McCain don't see eye-to-eye with regard
to, say, the Kurdistan separatist crisis, or
whatever the crisis du jour is in a year. By so
doing, you've effectively fired McCain from the
Senate and put him into early (or earlier)
retirement. (Sort of like what Eisner did to
Ovitz on a different playing field.)
Remember, cabinet officials do not get tenure. This
is not a post at the Kennedy School of Government.
And this ain't a luxurious six-year Senate stint
from which you cannot be fired (even if you're caught
in a restroom trying to kiss an undercover dick, so
it turns out). Look at how long cabinet officials
have lasted in previous administrations. Mere months,
in some cases. A best case scenario -- and this is
stretching it -- is eight years, though most don't
last that long at all. And if you think the position
will bring immortality or household name recognition:
anybody remember William P. Rogers? George von L.
Meyer? Cornelius N. Bliss? (I think Cornelius
used his middle initial in order to distinguish
himself from the many others named Cornelius Bliss.)
On the upside, an Obama cabinet official does get
the satisfaction of serving someone who may turn
out to be the greatest president since Lincoln
himself. Or you can stay in Congress and risk
getting lost in a sea of Udalls.
But I digress. Paul
_________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 12 - 13, 2007
The Ten Commandments have some new competition.
A religious group in Utah has been promoting its
own alternative to the Commandments, called The
Seven Aphorisms, and wants to erect an Aphorisms
monument on public land, which is now the
subject of a hot new case before the U.S.
Supreme Court.
I, too, have my own alternative to the
Commandments, or rather an edit of the
Commandments that I'd like to share.
After all, the Commandments must have been
tough to edit back when they were first written
on stone tablets, which are nothing like the nifty
word processors we have today. If laptops
had been around in Moses's time, here's what a
good editor might have done:
1. I am the Lord thy God: Thou shalt not have false gods before me.
This is your lede commandment?! Wording this
in the first person makes God seem immodest -- and
as if it's a pick-up line at an orgy ("Hey, baby,
you can't worship anybody but me"). If you're
going to keep this as a commandment, find a way
to re-word it in the third person, even if you
have to quote someone else saying it
(e.g., "Thou shall not have false gods before
Him").
---
2. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
Look, if you're going to be The Lord, you've
got to learn to take some heat and nasty words every
now and then. Scrap this Commandment.
---
3. Remember thou keep holy the Sabbath.
Awkward wording, to say the least. Also:
by "holy," I assume you mean "suspend all activity."
You're essentially giving everyone a license to be
lazy on a particular day and feel good about it.
No can do. Schedules are too tight in the modern
age. Scrap this one, too.
---
4. Honor thy father and mother.
Generally a good idea. But what about
the millions of people whose mothers and fathers
are not worthy of honor, who are
Nazis and rapists? Re-write.
---
5. Thou shall not kill.
In all instances? Thou shall not kill Hitler?
Thou shall not kill bin Laden? Thou shall kill in
wartime? Thou shall not kill in self-defense? Too
many exceptions to the rule. Go back and make it more
specific.
---
6. Thou shall not commit adultery
What if it's an open marriage and the husband
doesn't mind if you have relations with his significant
other? Too broad.
---
7. Thou shall not steal
Again, generally a good idea but too vague.
It's legal, for example, to steal something that
was stolen from you. During the French and
American revolutions, revolutionaries stole
almost all the property of the ruling elites.
Keep but modify.
---
8. Thou shall not bear false witness against a neighbor.
It's hard to disagree with this one, though
Ben Franklin said it better with "Honesty is the
best policy."
---
9. Thou shall not covet thy neighbor's wife.
What's wrong with a little coveting now and
then? I know, coveting can lead to harder things
(which is what I've been hoping for lately!).
Also, does this apply to thy neighbor's husband?
Ditch this one.
--
10. Thou Shall not covet thy neighbor's goods.
This commandment gets outshone by the much
kinkier "neighbor's wife" commandment. Lacks pizazz.
Try combining this one with the 9th commandment.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Tuned in to the CMAs earlier tonight, hoping
to catch a performance by Alison Krauss, but, alas,
she wasn't scheduled to play. I did hear Martina
McBride, who sort of swept me away. Every time I hear
McBride, I think, what an amazingly natural singer she is,
natural as a gale.
* * *
P.S. -- With the regard to the case of possible
plagiarism by Neil Halstead of my work (which I wrote
about in the November 10th Digression, below), let me
make this clear. If I sense that he or his people are trying
to reverse this situation and make it look like the
opposite is true, then I will definitely take this
dispute to a more formal venue so that the record
will be clear about this. (Hard drives and copyrights
don't lie.)
__________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 11, 2008
Now that the election results have been
mostly finalized, how did the Daily Digression
do with its pre-election predictions?
Let's see, I speculated about several possible
scenarios but wrote that the most likely outcome
would be 353 votes for Obama, 184 for McCain. The
final tally was 365 to 173, so I was close.
I also tried to predict the outcomes of the 11 main
competitive U.S. Senate races, and I was correct
about nine of them (though Chambliss still has to face
a run-off), and wrong about only one of the 11. (The
Franken-Coleman contest is still in dispute.)
And at what time did I call it for Obama on
election night? Well, I didn't post anything on the
Digression last Tuesday night, but I did phone a good
friend, an Obama supporter, to tell her that Obama
had just won the election. According to my cellphone
records, I made that call at 9:31pm (ET) Tuesday, more
than a half hour before the tv networks projected his win.
It was obvious Obama couldn't possibly lose once he'd
won Ohio.
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 10, 2008
Last night someone made me aware of a new song,
"Witless or Wise" by a guy named Neil Halstead,
that seems to appropriate the melody of one
my own original songs. And sure enough, his song
does appear to be way too close in melody to one of my own
songs, "I Don't Know If I Know You No More," which
I posted on March 22, 2008, on the vibecat website
and kept up on the site for several months. It's
now on my album "75 Songs (Part 3)." Halstead's
similar song was released many months afterwards.
(I sent an MP3 of it to myself on 3/22/08 by email,
so that's its copyright date; registered copyright
was slightly later.) If anyone has heard both
his track and mine, I'd like to hear what you think
(at pliorio@aol.com).
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 9, 2008
The Rise of Self-Interested Progressivism
Look, I don't want to ruin anybody's Kumbaya moment,
but the stats are in: 70% of black voters in California
voted for a proposition banning gay marriage last
Tuesday, according to exit poll research by Edison Media
and Mitofsky International. And that means that the vast
majority of black supporters of Barack Obama in the
blue Golden State support their own civil rights but not
necessarily the civil rights of other groups.
There has been a lot of self-interested progressivism
in the last couple decades. When was the last time
gays marched for Chicano workers' rights
in the Castro? When was the last time blacks marched
for gay rights in Harlem? When was the last time
Hispanics demonstrated about environmental issues
in L.A.? When was the last time eco-activists
demonstrated for the single-payer health plan?
When was the last time black men marched in favor
of abortion rights?
It's almost comic to think those groups would do
any of that.
And it wasn't always that way. Back in the 1960s, Martin
Luther King used to speak out against the Vietnam War
almost as much as he spoke out on racial issues. Student
anti-war activists would march in support of
Cesar Chavez's farmworkers union in those days.
And Chavez's people would join the black civil rights
struggle.
There was a lot of welcome cross-pollination among
activists then. And people were not as concerned
with their own demographic groups as they were
with...justice.
And that just ain't the case anymore.
A contrast. When Rubin Carter was falsely accused of
murder in the 1970s, I and other whites supported
his struggle for justice. Sure, Carter was no saint,
but he was clearly falsely accused.
When Reade Seligmann was falsely accused of having
committed a monstrous assault in 2006, I similarly
supported his struggle for justice. But because his
accuser was black, most blacks at the time sided with
the persecutor -- Crystal Mangum -- not with the
persecuted in that case. (Yeah, the Mangum case is
a divisive issue -- which is all the more reason to
bring it up, so that all its associated issues can be
properly resolved. By definition, virtually every
struggle against injustice has been divisive.)
What happened to the thirst for justice in that
instance? What happened to the quest for truth?
One of the main illnesses in this country is the
attitude of my-ethnic-group-right-or-wrong. If an
Italian-American mafioso is accused of murder,
some Italian-Americans in certain neighborhoods will
not only stand up for the guy, whether he did it or not,
but they'll cite his prosecution as a case of ethnic
prejudice. He's one of us, they'll say.
Similarly, if a common black thug robs some guy
at gunpoint, some blacks will not only back the
criminal, whether he did it or not, but they'll actually
try to turn it into a political cause. He's one of us,
they'll say.
That tendency must stop. Period.
Instead of blindly siding with your own ethnic or
demographic groups from now on, why not try siding
with the person who is in the right, whose cause is
just? Instead of supporting the person
whose skin color most resembles your own, why not
back the person who is actually telling the truth?
That's the revolution that needs to happen next.
I don't think the gay guy who was just un-married
by Obama supporters -- who told him, "No, you
can't" -- wants to sing "Kumbaya" just yet.
But I digress. Paul
________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 7 - 8, 2008
Loose Thoughts on the New Era
1. If the current tableau out there were
"The Godfather": Bush would be Sonny Corleone;
Obama would be Michael Corleone; Lieberman
would be either Fredo or, more accurately, the
Abe Vigoda character at the end of the first film
("For old time's sake, Tom?"); Joe Biden would
be consigliere Tom Hagen; Rahm Emanuel would
be Clemenza; Oprah would be Johnny Fontane; Bill
Clinton would be Moe Green ("talking loud, saying
stupid things") or Jack Woltz; John McCain would be
Capt. McCluskey; Mahmoud Ahmadinejad would be Virgil
Sollozzo ("I hope you're not a hothead like Sonny");
Hyman Roth (the good side of Hyman Roth) would be
Warren Buffett; Jeremiah Wright would be Frank
Pentangeli ("an old man and too much wine");
Jesse Jackson would be Johnny Ola; Eliot
Spitzer would be Pat Geary; and the Talia Shire
character would be Hillary Clinton at the end
of the first film when she suspects
Obama had something to do with the death of her
husband's political reputation ("she's hysterical").
2. Joe Lieberman should not be let back in, and not
just because he was a traitor. If his seat had been up
this year, he would have been soundly defeated, so his
views do not reflect the current will of the people.
(Harry Reid is one steely guy, eh? Exactly what the
Dems need right now.)
3. Bob Dylan should be the poet selected to read
at the inauguration. Or Lawrence Ferlinghetti.
(Or maybe Melle Mel.)
4. Whenever possible, we should ditch the term
African-American and instead refer to the nation, not
the continent, from which the person's ancestors came.
Obama is a Kenyan-American. Most "African-Americans" are
actually west African-Americans (very few came from
Kenya centuries ago). The diversity on the African continent
is the same as the diversity on the European one. I'm not
called a European-American, but rather
an Italian-American (or someone with an Italian-American last
name), and those who came from the African continent should be
given the same level of individuality.
5. If a universal health care bill is not passed within
the first six to nine months of the Obama administration,
citizens can fairly assume that the same gridlock of '93
is in effect, that the revolution is stalled in traffic.
People should then start taking extreme civil disobedience
actions, e.g., by going to the primary residences of the
top executives of pharmaceutical and insurance companies
(and others who make profits off the sick) and staging
raucous demonstrations in front of their homes on
a regular basis. For starters.
6. The White House family dog should be a...beagle.
7. The rich bums who have run major financial services
firms into the ground should either be fired or be forced to
work at the federal minimum wage without health benefits,
pensions or bonuses -- if their companies want to see a
dime of bail-out money. That should be one of the
conditions. Let them work as their workers work. These
executives obviously have no special skills worth paying
for; if their MBAs and business experience led to
the collapse of their companies, then we can conclude
that even an unskilled, rank amateur could've
taken the CEO's job and done at least as
well. Start paying those guys what they're really
worth, not what they can unfairly leverage.
8. Maureen Dowd, we love you, but please, stop
flirting with Obama. He just don't dig you, babe.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- I'm a big fan of the Berkeley Art Museum (BAM)
and highly recommend the "Mahjong" exhibit currently
on display there, but I did ridicule their
Mao-era propaganda exhibit in a previous Digression
(see column of October 9), so I wondered idly whether
I'd be hassled by some disgruntled staffer
when I visited there yesterday.
Sure enough -- and it might be sheer coincidence -- I was.
While strolling slowly through the gallery, some
diminutive security person, who didn't identify herself
as a staffer, stood in front of my path, and I walked on
anyway, and she stood in front of that path, too, as
if she were a crazy person. So I walked on anyway
again, but she stood in that path, too, before
she finally identified herself as an usher or whatever
she was and asked that I check in my bag at the front
entrance, which I promptly did. (I bring this up
only because these sorts of things tend to get
distorted in the re-telling, don't they?) Note to
BAM: in the future, you guys should consider handling
such requests from a distance, clearly identifying yourself
as a staffer -- and not by standing in the way of
a patron.
______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 5, 2008
So You Say You Want a Revolution!
It takes a nation of millions... [photo by Paul Iorio.]
But I digress. Paul Iorio
[above, photo by Paul Iorio of Obama speaking in Oakland in early 2007.]
P.S. -- Now that a racial barrier has finally
fallen, it's time to move toward taking down other
barriers -- for example, creating a climate in which
there are political candidates who don't think the
concept of god makes a whole lot of sense. (Oh, yeah,
and you also said an African-American could never
be elected president in this generation!) That's
the direction the human race is going, after all. The
defeat of Liddy Dole is a really good sign. She
called her opponent godless, and some voters said,
even if that were true, what's wrong with godless?
There's a tendency among some progressives to say,
let's liberate every unpopular or minority group
EXCEPT this one, the non-theists, because they're
too unpopular. If the black and gay civil rights
movements have taught us anything, it's that there
are always new brave stands to take, new mountaintops
to climb, new resistances to overcome in each new
generation. Let's start by taking "under god" out
of the Pledge, so that non-theist school kids don't
have their rights trampled.
* * *
P.S. -- One point that obsververs haven't brought
up is that the election of Obama is more a triumph
of the immigrant narrative than of the dominant
African-American narrative in this country. After all,
Obama was the son of a father who was born in another
country -- Kenya -- and came to the U.S. relatively
recently (1960s), which puts the president-elect in the
tradition of other first generation politicians
who attained high office. His late father was,
effectively, an immigrant to the U.S. -- at
least for the six years or so in which he lived
here as a student. (Or you could see him as a
Kenyan who briefly lived in the U.S.) Further,
Obama's dad and paternal ancestors did not live
through the various liberation struggles in the
United States over the centuries and decades and
never suffered as slaves here. So Obama's narrative
is quite different from the main African-American
storyline in the U.S.
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 4, 2008
Predicting Today's Presidential, Senate Races
My best prediction, based on all the major polls
and my own research, suggests there
will be a closer race in the electoral college
than most analysts now think. One clue is the
Kentucky Senate race, where Mitch McConnell is
now widening his lead over Bruce Lunsford,
suggesting that disenchantment with Republicans
in red states is not as intense as first thought
following the financial collapse last month.
If Florida and Ohio end up in the McCain column, as
they well might, the pressure will be on Obama to
find substitutes -- and the electoral
logic makes that difficult. I mean, if Florida is
not locked up for Barack, how can North Carolina or
Virginia be?
In the last analysis, I'm comfortable making a
prediction only about the likely range of results,
which I think will be between a 353/184 Obama win
and a (less likely) 274/264 McCain upset.
In the U.S.Senate, I project that at least eight of
the 11 main competitive Senate seats will go to the
Democrats. Here's the scorecard:
ALASKA: Stevens loses to Begich.
GEORGIA: Too close to call, but Chambliss has an edge.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Shaheen beats Sununu.
KENTUCKY: McConnell wins another term.
MINNESOTA: Live, from Minnesota, it's Senator Franken!
OREGON: Merkley over Smith.
NORTH CAROLINA: Dole is defeated.
MISSISSIPPI: Too close to call, but Wickers looks likely to win.
VIRGINIA: Warner by a mile.
NEW MEXICO: Udall beats Pearce.
COLORADO: Udall beats Schaffer. (What's with all these
Udalls, anyway?)
[posted at 4:15am, Nov. 4, 2008.]
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- Tomorrow morning, if Obama wins, I bet
newspapers all over the country will use the banner
headline: "Yes He Can!"
______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 3, 2008
Yesterday's Jason Mraz Concert
"Can I ask you to vote no on Proposition 8?!," Jason
Mraz said from the stage last night to wild cheers
from the crowd, at his show in Berkeley, Calif.
This was, of course, around 48 hours from election
day, so politics was on everybody's minds, even if
Mraz's blend of pop, rap and reggae transported
his fans elsewhere for most of the concert. (By the way,
out here, in California, the debate about
Prop 8 -- which would ban same-sex marriage, and
is backed by one of the ugliest television ad
campaigns in recent memory -- is actually
eclipsing the presidential race in some quarters,
particularly in Berkeley, where Obama might as
well be running unopposed.)
Anyway, after Mraz's condemnation of Prop 8, he
launched into "Live High," a song from his new
album, "We Sing. We Dance. We Steal Things,"
released around six months ago and already
certified gold.
But the audience's most intense enthusiasm was
reserved for "I'm Yours," his latest hit (currently
a number ten single, and one of the few songs in the
top ten that's not a Def Jam release), a reggae
tune that fans greeted with shrieks that must have
been deafening inside the open-air theater
(I heard the show from the hills above the
Greek, and the crowd was loud even there).
Near the end of the show, Mraz decided to have some
pure fun, shouting out, "Let's make this place a
party!," as the opening piano notes of The Foundations's
"Build Me Up Buttercup" rang out. Marvelous cover
(complete with "overdubs" from the crowd) of one
of the most perfect pop songs ever made.
Opening were an impressive British band from Brighton,
Two Spot Gobi, and Irish singer Lisa Hannigan (Damien
Rice's ex), whose music occasionally suggested
the aura of an enchanted forest.
* * * *
Andy Rooney had a funny one last night about the
predictable tradition of defeated presidential
candidates being gracious to their victorious
opponents. He quoted what the late, great
Henry Wallace said when Wallace was asked
to praise Harry Truman, who had just defeated
him in the '48 election: "Under no circumstances
will I congratulate that son of a bitch!"
(Ah, Henry, integrationist decades before
everyone else, universal health care supporter
decades before everyone else: if only
you could've lived to see the day that
might be coming tomorrow.)
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 2, 2008
OK, at ground level, the Sunday before Tuesday,
here's what I'm getting:
Even in noncompetitive California, where I'm based,
there are nasty TV ads that have cropped up like
poisonous mushrooms from the GOP Trust PAC
(goptrust.com), juxtaposing images of Jeremiah Wright
with Obama, resurrecting a controversy that had been
satisfactorily explained and resolved months ago.
I don't know if the spots are running in purple states
like NC, VA, MO, etc., where they could gain traction
and become a problem for the Dems.
Plus, the latest major polls in the big swing states
show an Obama lead of merely a point or two, which -- given
the wind chill factor of the Tom Bradley Effect -- translates
into a likely McCain edge in some of those states.
A 274 to 264 McCain win is not hard to imagine on Tuesday
night (even if a 353 to 185 Obama win is easier to
picture). Pundits who say Pennsylvania has to be in the
McCain mix for him to win: where do they get that?
My calculations show he could lose Penn and New Mexico
and New Hampshire, and still make 274.
To those who think 274 to 264 is out of the question,
I have 13 words for you:
Remember the evangelicals who were invisible to exit
pollsters in Ohio in '04.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- The lines for early voting are quite stunning, aren't
they? I haven't seen voting lines that long with my own
eyes since July 2, 2000, when I was in Mexico on election
day (I was there to cover another story for the Washington
Post), and Vicente Fox was in the process of turning out the
entrenched PRI and being elected president.
___________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for November 1, 2008
"After voting for Obama on Tuesday, come join our godless,
socialist jam session, and frug to the latest fad!"
* * * *
To John McCain's supporters: remember to vote on Wednesday!
* * * *
Obama supporters should heed these words from the Bible:
"Don't get overconfident." (Is that from the Bible?)
* * *
A very possible electoral vote scenario on Tuesday:
According to my calculations, it's possible McCain
could win 274, Obama 264.
By the way, check out the brand new Zogby numbers,
which now show Barack's margin within the margin of
error. Those who are in the lead in the final stretch
should always watch tendencies toward overconfidence,
implicit immodesty and ingenerosity to long-time
loyalists.
* * *
For the record, I was the first person anywhere to have
coined the word "Barack-a-docious." Granted, the word
hasn't exactly caught on anywhere, but if it ever does,
it started here.
But I digress. Paul
[Jam session photo above from ABC-TV.]
________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 30, 2008
Not sure whether Tina Fey's much-deserved newfound
surge of success on SNL will transfer to her
series "30 Rock," which is just too insiderish
to gain a big audience. It's sort of like the
meta-episodes of "Seinfeld" that featured a
television show within a tv show -- the least
effective episodes of that otherwise
almost flawless series.
Fey's Palin is an instant comedy classic, but
too bad she's wasting her genius on a character
so topical. Palin's 15 minutes will likely end
on Tuesday, and I bet she doesn't return to the
national stage in any substantive way (look at
how her poll numbers have dropped since voters
have gotten to know her). And her roguish
behavior in this final week -- "my daddy McCain
isn't going to tell me what to do!" is the way
she's been coming off -- will likely ensure she
remains a phenom -- in Alaska. Fey's impersonation
will probably seem as obscure and dated in 15 years
as SNL's Ross Perot does now.
The inspired spontaneity of SNL is often a thing
of wonder, but keep in mind that, even in its
golden years, it had as many misses as hits. Even
in its classic first season, entire episodes were
duds (check out the one hosted by Louise Lasser,
and the first one hosted by Elliot Gould, etc.).
Great artists from J.D. Salinger to Stanley Kubrick
have taught us that we should always aim for the
illusion of spontaneity, not spontaneity
itself, in works of art and entertainment. (I mean,
how many dozens of drafts did Salinger write of
the opening of "Catcher in the Rye" in
order to make it sound like it just rolled
off his tongue? And if you look at Bob Dylan's
recording studio logs, you'll see that his worst
albums were generally those he did in a day or two,
and his best were usually those he
recorded and re-recorded over a period of months.)
Keep in mind that the funniest movie ever made -- Kubrick's
"Dr. Strangelove" -- was the result of take after take
after punishing take. As a result, we have a work that
resonates down the decades, fresh as ever.
Even if Palin does become vp in January, it still
doesn't grant immortality to Fey's version of her. Remember,
Chevy Chase's Gerald Ford resonates today because it
was great comedy and because Ford was a president -- and
almost all presidents are remembered forever in the U.S.
Veeps don't have that sort of historical heft. (Quick -- who was
Ford's veep? Who was Goldwater's running mate? And,
while we're at it, who played Perot on SNL back in the day?)
No doubt, SNL is on a roll these days, but the stock in
Palin-related humor is very likely to dive precipitously
in a matter of weeks if not days. (I bet some of Kristen
Wiig's wildly funny characters out-survive Fey's Palin.)
Then again, I may be wrong about the durability of
Palin and Palin-related humor. If someone held a gun to
my head and said I had to predict a winner this Tuesday,
I'd say I can't. If the gunman insisted, I'd say,
"Probably McCain." Despite the polls. Why? Too
much racism in Florida and Ohio.
* * *
I was sitting around in Marin some time ago with some
friends when the talk turned to Stanford University,
where one of them used to teach. And I had just been
over there (to see the Cantor, a terrific art museum,
by the way) and was wondering why so many buildings
on campus were named after Herbert Hoover, a name
synonymous with disgrace, abject failure and
discredited theories. I mean, this fellow Hoover
brought such misery to millions of people because of
his wrongheaded ideas about unregulated capitalism.
So why is he now rewarded by having buildings at
one of the world's great universities named
after him? Unsuspecting or uninformed Stanford
students might get the wrong idea about this presidential
malpractitioner, second only to Nixon on most lists
of lousy presidents. Seriously, of the
43 presidents we've had, Nixon ranks 43rd and Hoover
ranks 42nd, in my estimation.
Anyway, the Stanford prof -- a very nice and smart guy,
incidentally -- offered an explanation, saying Hoover
had done some work earlier in his career that was
laudable and notable. (Though I must say that even if
that were true, it hardly eclipses his failures.)
I mention this because Hoover's name has been ubiquitous
lately in the presidential race, with both Obama and
McCain trying to make the other look like the 30th
president. Obama has a point in saying that McCain
resembles Hoover; McCain, after all, has been a huge
supporter of the sort of unregulated capitalism that
Hoover championed and that has gotten us in the current
financial mess. But I'm still trying to figure out how
on earth McCain can get away with calling Obama both
a Republican Hooverite and a socialist. That's
not only a stretch. It's almost surreal.
* * *
Out here in California, there's a ballot proposition
called Prop 3, and, frankly, I haven't really checked
it out, though if I did, I'd probably be for it.
Unfortunately, on heavy rotation on Bay Area TV
stations is a syrupy, annoying commerical
in which an "adorable" Jamie Lee Curtis "conducts"
an "adorable" chorus of children singing an "adorably"
off-key rendition of John Lennon's "Imagine."
Too adorable for my tastes. If I see that ad
one more time, I might just vomit from
sugar overload. (And I'm not the only one.)
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- There are some actors and musicians who
do come off genuinely adorable and irresistible
in settings with children, but Curtis, alas, ain't
one of 'em, at least not here.
________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 29, 2008
Great to see so many stars come out to
honor the late Paul Newman (and the Painted
Turtle)the other night in San Francisco. And
isn't it amazing how Julia Roberts can eclipse
everybody by simply walking into a room? As
dazzling as ever after all these years.
* * *
As brilliant as Patti Smith's "Horses" is, her
2005 live version of that album is superior to
the original in almost every way. I finally
got around to listening closely to it -- on the
double-disc legacy edition of "Horses," released
a few years ago -- and kept thinking the live one
should replace the original. (I was also reminded
how ballsy a track "Birdland" is.)
* * *
And I've been listening to The Rolling Stones'
"Singles: 1965 - 1967," which compiles each Stones
single from those years, with its b-sides, on
individual CDs. Great concept. Interesting
liner notes, too. They say Mick and Keith initially
didn't want "Satisfaction" to be released as a
single but were (thankfully) overruled
by the rest of the band. (Look how wrong you can be!)
I didn't know until last night that that was Nicky Hopkins
playing piano on the Rolling Stones' "She's a Rainbow."
Sure, everyone has heard that tune many thousands
of times by now, but think of how magical, unusual
that piano work is, dancing in and out of the
arrangement like a miniature toy ballerina, or
sounding like a child's music box. (By the way, am
I the only person who was an admirer
of Nicky Hopkins' solo album "The Tin Man Was
a Dreamer"? Don't know if it's even in print
anymore, and my own vinyl copy is long gone, but
"Waiting for the Band" and a few others are
terrific tunes.)
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 26, 2008
A Worst Case Scenario for Obama on Election Night
Oh, yeah, I see the poll numbers, but I also
remember the New Hampshire primary. Remember
New Hampshire? Obama up by double digits in
the pre-primary polls but losing by double-digits
when the voting actually happened. And
nobody could quite figure out why there was
such a disparity between the polls and reality,
though some thought the Tom Bradley Effect
might have had something to do with it.
Just in case you don't remember January 2008,
here's a news story posted on the CBS News website
just before the New Hampshire primary:
"Obama leads Clinton 35 percent to 28 percent with
Edwards getting 19 percent in the poll....The polls
had a margin of error of five percentage points...'It's
unimaginable to me that Obama won't win, and win by
double digits,' said CBS News senior political
correspondent Jeff Greenfield this morning
on The Early Show."
If the current crop of polls are as wrong as the
New Hampshire primary polls were, then here is how
election night might play out on November 4th:
ABC News begins its coverage on election night
this way:
CHARLES GIBSON: At this hour, the polls have
now closed on the east coast, and ABC News is ready
to project a winner in two swing states that
Senator Obama thought might fall in his
column: Virginia and North Carolina. In the state
of Virginia, we project its 13 electoral votes will go
to John McCain. This one was hotly contested, Sen. Obama
thought he had a shot at it, it was the key to his
theory of a changed electoral map, but tonight, ABC
News projects that Virginia falls to the GOP.
And in the state of North Carolina, same story.
Obama had campaigned vigorously there, had a lead
in the polls, but tonight it is going solidly for
McCain by a comfortable margin.
There is some good news for the Democrats at this hour
in that some of the traditionally blue states are, as
expected, staying blue tonight. New York, with its
31 electoral votes, and New Jersey, Connecticut and
Vermont, all projected to go to Obama, no surprise
there.
AN HOUR LATER:
CHARLES GIBSON: Polls have now closed in
the central time zone, and in all parts of Florida,
but ABC News is not yet ready to name
a winner in the Sunshine State, which, as everyone
knows, is a crucial part of both the McCain and Obama
strategies. But it is too close to call in Florida
right now, with early returns almost evenly
split between the two candidates, with a slight
edge for McCain, though we don't feel ready to name
a winner there quite yet.
And in Ohio, with around 10% of the returns in,
you can see McCain jumping to an early lead, 53%
to 47, though it is far too soon to call that
state for either candidate. Our exit polling is
showing McCain with surprising strength in the
Akron/Canton area, south of Cleveland,
where Obama had high hopes.
This cannot be good news for the Obama campaign
which has said it must win either Florida or Ohio
in order to win the White House, and at this hour
he is trailing in both states, though again, we
are not ready to project a winner in either.
Alright, big win at this hour for Barack Obama.
In the state of Pennsylvania, with a hefty 23
electoral votes, we project the Keystone State
will go for Obama, though the margin is much
slimmer than initially expected by our
exit pollsters. And in Michigan, also a must-win
for the Democrats, a healthy margin for Obama.
Polls are now closed in Missouri, a state Obama
thought was in play, so it can't be encouraging
for him to hear that it is leaning heavily for
John McCain. And in Iowa, where polls had shown
a big lead for the Democrats, it is too close to
call, with an almost 50:50 split of the vote at
this point.
OK, a bit of breaking news here, and it's big.
Our analysts at ABC think enough votes have been
counted in Florida to call the state, and to call
it for John McCain. So, George, it appears that
at this early part of the night -- and
remember, polls have not yet closed in the Mountain
and Pacific zones, so this is not over yet by a
long shot -- but it appears as if John McCain is
having a much better night than expected.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Yes, Charlie, far better.
This can't be good news for the Obama campaign. The Florida
win now puts the pressure on Obama to prevail in Ohio
because he knows he has to win there if he is to stand
a chance of reaching 270 electoral votes. He simply
can't lose both Florida and Ohio and expect to make it,
particularly now that McCain has already picked
up Virginia and North Carolina.
CHARLES GIBSON: In Ohio, McCain currently
has a two-point edge, which he has maintained all
night, but it is still too close to call,
especially since results in Cuyahoga County, an
Obama stronghold, have not been fully counted.
Shades of 2004, there are already allegations of
voting irregularities in that county that
will surely be investigated by the Secretary of
State in that state. So this is a developing
story.
AN HOUR OR SO LATER:
CHARLES GIBSON: It is now 11pm in
the east, 8 pm in the west, where polls have just
closed, and we are ready to project a
solid win for Sen. Obama in the state of
California, where he had been expected to prevail.
And in the GOP column, Arizona, home state of John
McCain, obviously, going for McCain by a wide
margin.
But the western swing states we're looking at -- New
Mexico, Colorado, Nevada -- are clearly trending
McCain in early returns.
GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS: Without those
three, Charlie, I really don't see how Obama could
possibly get to 270. And frankly, with those three it
still may not be possible for him to pull out a win
tonight. Looks like we're seeing the Tom Bradley Effect
in effect, as we suspected might be the case
all along, and trumping the economy as a
factor among voters. And already there
is anger in the Obama camp, particularly
about voting disputes in parts of Ohio,
with one senior staffer saying, "A second election
is being stolen from us, and we're not going to let
that happen," referring, of course, to the 2000 election.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 25, 2008
Imagine if someone had gone into a coma one year
ago and came out of the coma just this morning with
a full memory of everything that had happened before
his deep sleep. Imagine the awakening, with family
members filling him in about everything that had
happened in the past year. The news would
probably freak him out. Doctors might suggest
some valium.
Family members would start to tell him about the course
of the presidential election, and the former coma victim
would say, "Uh, let me guess: the nominees are Hillary,
of course, and Romney."
"Not exactly," a relative would say. "Things took an
unexpected turn."
"Oh, Huckabee got the nod, right?," the coma victim would
say.
"No, it's actually McCain versus, uh, Barack Obama."
And the coma victim would laugh and laugh. Oh, that's a
good one, he'd say. Barack Obama! Ha, ha.
"No, we're serious. It's Obama and McCain."
"But Hillary was a sure thing."
"Until people started voting, it turned out."
"So It's McCain/Romney?"
"No, McCain/Palin."
"Who's Palin?"
"That's what everyone's asking."
"Look, I've just come out of a coma and I don't
appreciate that you're messing with me."
"We're not joking."
"Then McCain has it locked up, right?"
"No. You're not going to believe this, but
Obama has a considerable lead and is widely
expected to win."
"How did this happen?"
"While you were asleep, most of the capitalist
system fell. Like the Berlin Wall fell."
"Oh, now you're making this up. The economy was going
great guns when I went into a coma. So unemployment's
a bit up?"
"More than that. Remember the capital markets sector
of the economy?"
"Yeah."
"Well, it's been nationalized."
"What? Did Hugo Chavez take over the government?"
"No, Bush did it all by his lonesome."
The coma victim starts sweating, turns red in the face.
"Doctor," says a relative. "I think you need to double the valium. "
* * *
If Barack Obama becomes president in January, and
that looks extremely possible at this point, all
the assumptions about power and prejudice and
progressivism will suddenly change in America. When
activists protest, as they surely will, in March to
commemorate the sixth anniversary of the start
of the Iraq War, they will be protesting a war run
by a black progressive president, Barack Obama.
"Stop Obomba's Bombs," the placards might read.
When leftists talk about how they want to "fight the
power," they'll be talking about fighting a black
progressive. When they talk about speaking truth
to power, ditto. When they talk about "The Man,"
ditto again. Likewise, when they talk about the person ultimately
in charge of the C.I.A., the F.B.I. and the Justice
Department. And they'll have to re-think their
thoughts about America being a racist nation.
The whole idea of being disadvantaged in America will
also have to be re-thought if an African-American is
actually running the country. Some will inevitably say:
how oppressed can a black person be in the U.S. if
the most powerful person in the country is black?
Jokes about the White House being too white,
about a bunch of white men being in charge -- all
those perceptions and cliches and images (and t-shirts)
will be out the window if Barack is in charge.
But I digress. Paul
__________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 23 - 25, 2008
Do Mess With Moody's
So satisfying to see executives from the main credit
rating agencies -- particularly Moody's, which has
had a lot of questionable dealings over the years -- taken
to task by Congress for giving triple A ratings to junk,
thereby helping to facilitate the current financial
crisis.
Moody's has been a bad actor for a while; it was
formally accused in the 1990s of essentially saying
to some companies, "You can either pay us to rate
your credit or we'll rate your credit for our own
amusement and spread the word through the industry."
Great to see them get their just desserts.
* * *
Liar Crystal Mangum has a new book out, "If I Did It"
(I think that's what it's called).
Question to the D.A.: Why didn't you prosecute that
bitch for filing a false police report?
* * *
Hey, people in the media and in the Pittsburgh PD:
the reverse B shoulda been a tell-tale clue for
y'all.
Let me make sure I understand this: a young woman comes to
you, saying someone carved a reverse B on her face. I mean,
was the mugger Leonardo da Vinci? Or maybe some dude who
carried a mirror with him when he defaced his victims. That
sounds believable on its, uh, face. I'm surprised some
tab didn't immediately dub him The Mirror Mugger!
Of course, a society that believes the tall tales of the
Bible -- love that one about rising from the dead! -- all too
easily falls for such stories like the one about the
woman with the reverse B on her face. Or the Jennifer
Wilbanks story. Or the Crystal Mangum story. Or the
Tawana Brawley story. Or the McMartin story.
Thing is, nobody in the media or in law enforcement
seems to get fired after falling for such obvious
lies. (And they're often way too skeptical about
tales that are actually very true! I once spent
a long time explaining to a friend, who was not
being very smart about a story I was relating, that
one can have massive internal bleeding from
blunt-force trauma (say, a speeding baseball
to the chest) without ever shedding a drop
of blood externally. But she was familiar only
with the cinematic version of injuries.)
So let's see who was gullible this go 'round. First of
all, the Pittsburgh PD, including (but not limited to)
one Diane Richard, spokeswoman for the
department.
Also, John McCain, U.S. Senator, who reportedly phoned the
woman, Ashley Todd, to express condolences. And Sarah
Palin, beauty pageant finalist, who also called
the woman with the reverse B on her face. And, crossing
party lines, Allison Price, spokesperson for Obama, released
a statement about "our thoughts and prayers" and all that crap.
And lots of reporters -- Ramit Plushnick-Masti of the AP,
among them -- also couldn't see through that reverse B.
I'm sure some dope out there still believes her
initial claim, saying "the photographic
evidence -- she does have a B on her face, after
all -- contradicts the official report."
And I'm sure Geraldo was in the process of setting up a trust
fund for the poor woman before she was exposed as
a liar. I'm all choked up.
* * * *
Thanks to those who emailed me about my recent
column, "She's Blaspheming as Fast as She Can,"
(see Digression, below). Glad you enjoyed it.
To those who found it offensive, let me just say,
"Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn" (to coin a
phrase!).
Let me tell you what I find offensive:
An Iraq war vet sees combat that convinces him there
could not possibly be a god, at least not a benevolent
one. He raises a son and sends him to a public school
that he helps to finance with his tax dollars. He
tries to raise his kid according to his own private
spiritual values, making sure not to indoctrinate his
son into any religion, making sure he can choose
his own philisophical beliefs when he grows up.
But one day his son comes home and tells his dad
that they force him to participate in a group
religious chant at school every morning -- that's
precisely what the "under god" part of the Pledge
of Allegiance is -- and he doesn't feel right about
that. The dad is angry, tells school officials that
that's not how he wants his kid to be raised, that
in the U.S. the separation between church and state
also applies to tax-payer funded schools, that
public schools should not be taking sides on the religious
debate about whether there is a god or not.
Of course, school officials and others don't care a
bit about his complaint and continue to coerce his son
into joining a morning religious chant.
Now that's offensive.
Politicians and pundits who step on eggshells in order
to make sure they don't say or do anything at all to
offend Muslims, Jews and Christians, somehow leave their
manners at the door when it comes to treating non-theists
with a proper level of respect. Evidently, it's ok to
offend and disrespect non-theists, who are then asked
not to say or do anything that might be objectionable
to people of other religions.
Well, until that double standard is corrected, I will
continue to treat the world's great -- and not so
great -- religions with the the same level of respect
that is accorded non-theists in the
U.S. (if I feel they're so deserving).
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- If "under god" has no significant religious
meaning, then why include it?
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 22, 2008
If Early Voting Trends Continue, The Electoral Map
Will Look Like This On November 4:
Obama's on track to win 353 electoral votes to
McCain's 185.
Quinnipiac and Gallup, take a hike. Exit
pollsters, find the exits.
Early voting data has now arrived, and such info is much
harder and more reliable than mere polls, making
traditional polling seem sort of obsolete right about now.
And the results, in state after state, are astonishingly
blue. North Carolina's early voters, for instance,
have been Democratic by a healthy margin so far, which
would suggest an Obama victory may be in the offing
in this traditionally red state. But before Barack fans
get too excited, keep in mind that early voting
in N.C. in '04 was mostly Democratic, too,
and Bush ended up winning there.
Still, these '08 numbers are waay beyond '04. As of
yesterday, 56% of the early voters in N.C. were Dem
and 27% Rep (in '04, it was 48 Dem to 37 Rep, according
to a prof at George Mason U). In Florida, 56% of the
early voters have been Dem., 29% Rep. (I couldn't
find comparative data for '04). Nevada results are
also said to be trending Democratic.
If this continues, Obama will be on track to win
around 353 electoral votes, according to my own
calculations (see map, above).
Then again, there are still 13 days before the actual
general election, and events could create a whole new
political climate. If, for example, some foreign
policy crisis were to take centerstage, or if
black-o-phobia were to set in among voters, the map
could end up looking something like this
on November 4:
Obama's worst-case scenario: 283 for McCain, 255 for Obama.
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 21, 2008
She's Blaspheming as Fast as She Can!
Well, at least it seems Sarah Palin isn't an
advocate of blasphemy laws, or we certainly
would've heard objections from her to a lot
of the humor on "Saturday Night Live," birthplace
of the Church Lady, where Palin appeared
last Saturday.
Still, it's hard to believe that her chumming around
on SNL is fine with people like Donald Wildmon
and his American Family Association, which
seems to have a fetish for boycotting all sorts
of companies and sponsors of TV programs it
deems un-Christian.
Maybe the religious right feels it has to keep quiet about
its kooky beliefs during this campaign season, or else
risk the election of a "Muslim" named Obama.
So I guess we can assume that Sarah Palin, the
American Creationist, thinks it should
be legal to blaspheme or mock the so-called Lord?
And she must think free speech covers -- oh, I don't
know -- the right to say that, say, the virgin birth
was a ruse by Mary to deceive Joseph into believing she
hadn't had an affair with another man? Might
make an interesting novel. And thanks to
the absence of blasphemy laws in the
USA, we're free to speculate about such things
without fear of prosecution.
Palin evidently -- i.e., she's not speaking out
against SNL, which has mocked religion since
its early days, and she was actually swaying with those
late night infidels! -- is ok with that sort of free
speech. Maybe she's more free-thinking than
we think!
Let's hope she's more liberal about blasphemy than other
religious fundamentalists, like those in Pakistan and
Afghanistan, who advocate -- and enforce -- a strict
set of very backward blasphemy laws.
Latest example is in Afghanistan. A 24-year-old student,
Parwiz Kambakhsh, simply distributed some info about
women's rights under Islamic law, and he was sentenced
to death. He appealed his sentence the other day, and
it was reduced to a mere 20 years in prison. That's
what passes for progress in the Karzai era. 20 years.
Which means Parwiz will be in his mid-forties
before he sees freedom -- if he survives his
prison term.
Blasphemy laws in Pakistan appear to be even stricter.
Here's part of the Pakistani Penal Code: "Whoever
willfully defiles, damages or desecrates a copy
of the Holy Quran or of an extract therefrom
or uses it in any derogatory manner or for any
unlawful purpose shall be punishable for imprisonment
for life."
Damages? Suppose I have a copy of, ahem, That Book, and
it accidentally falls into the toilet? Life imprisonment
for that? Talk about a broadly-written
law. Sheesh!
But that ain't nothing compared to long-standing Sharia
law statutes, which state the following (and I ain't
making this up): "It is unlawful to use musical
instruments -- such as those which drinkers
are known for, like the mandolin, lute, cymbals, and
flute -- or to listen to them. It is permissible to
play the tambourine at weddings, circumcisions,
and other times, even if it has bells on its sides.
Beating the kuba, a long drum with a narrow
middle, is unlawful."
I mean, where do they come up with this Sharia
stuff? Let me get this straight. Flute and lute:
not OK. Tambourine: OK, but only if it's being played
while cutting off part of a child's penis. And what
the hell is a kuba, anyway? Any restrictions on a
Strat with a wah-wah peddle and a whammy bar?
(By the way, who the hell would play a tambourine
during a circumcision? Sounds kinky to me.)
I know, it's hard to roll back the laughably
antiquated Sharia laws in Afghanistan and
Pakistan when you're dealing with a large part
of the population that was indoctrinated at a
young age in the madrassas. But Karzai and Zardari
need to find a way to begin the process of
modernizing their legal positions with regard
to blasphemy, if only to prevent more
injustices -- like the verdict against
Kambakhsh -- from happening again.
Back to to the blasphemous Sarah for a moment.
Sarah, stand before the congregation and be
shamed, speak in tongues, repent and wash
that devil Lorne right out of your hair
with holy water. Instead of being in the
devil's lair, aka Studio 8-H, shouldn't you
have been at home, nursing Trig and a grudge
against those who took "Death Valley Days"
off the air?
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 20, 2008
Whatever happens on November 4, the outcome will
probably seem inevitable, obvious in retrospect.
Yes, it was clear all along there was too much
racism in America for Obama to be elected.
Yes, it was clear all along that Obama had the
momentum and the grassroots support to win.
Yes, I'm not surprised it was an Obama landslide.
Yes, I'm not surprised it was a McCain landslide.
Yes, I'm not surprised it was the closest presidential
election in U.S. history.
You can make a case for all the above scenarios, as
we approach the gravitational pull of election day,
now two weeks away.
Everyone is talking about the Tom Bradley Effect,
but there are two other important electoral dynamics
few are noting.
1. THE OHIO '04 EFFECT -- Ah, remember that one?
Kerry was expected to win on general election day,
according to exit polls, but -- surprise! --
evangelicals came out of the proverbial woodwork,
spooked by the idea of a liberal winning -- and
by hot button issues like gay marriage -- and streamed
from the churches to the voting booths, giving Bush
a second term.
Well, that same dynamic may be writ large with
Obama -- writ large because of the black-o-phobic
vote not just in Ohio but in the Florida panhandle,
rural areas of Virginia and North Carolina,
and in the red areas of other purple states.
Come the morning of November 4, if it looks like
Obama's going to win, an army of rednecks in
pick-up trucks with confederate flag license plates
will suddenly wake from their Pabst Blue Ribbon
hangovers to drive to the polls to stop a black
from becoming president. Black-o-phobia
is one thing the polls may not be accurately
measuring.
2. THE 2007 DYNAMIC -- Remember 2007, the Pleistocene
Era, the early throes of Beatlemania, when it was a
wow-wee thing to see Obama attract 12,000 fans in
Oakland, Calif.? How quaint, now he's attracting
100,000 in Missouri.
But anyway, remember 2007, when pundits assumed Hillary
would be the nominee because there was no way mainstream
Dems would vote for Obama? Yet, throughout '07, there was
nagging evidence to the contrary? Huge crowds for Obama,
not so much for Clinton. Lotza contributions and enthusiasm
for Obama, not so much for Clinton. Yet, until people
actually first cast their votes in Iowa in '08, the party
line was still that Hillary would win.
That same dynamic may be repeating itself now, in that
the conventional wisdom (Obama can't win because of
racism) appears to be contradicted by big crowds and
polls that say otherwise. But keep in mind an
oft-forgotten fact: Obama almost lost the
nomination to Hillary in the final reel. It
could've easily gone the other way.
* * *
Didya hear Andy Rooney last night? He endorsed McCain
and Obama, saying he was mightily impressed
by the youth of both contenders. And he's as
sick and tired of William McKinley as the rest of us!
(I think that's what he said.)
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 18, 2008
The Daily Digression Endorses Barack Obama for President.
First, the Digression is not a political advocacy
blog. It's a mostly reported online column, and when
I cover and analyze politics, I try to do so fairly,
freshly, even-handedly. Just because I'm endorsing
Obama for president doesn't mean I'm not going to be
as critical of him as I am of John McCain, if he's so
deserving.
That said, I'm endorsing Obama because he makes
sense time and again on the issues that matter,
is on the right side of history, is unusually
persuasive. America is going where he's going,
and we can get there now or we can delay
progress for another several years.
With a President Obama, we stand our best chance
of getting health insurance for all
Americans, fixing the economy, mitigating the
effects of global warming, killing bin Laden
and stopping terrorism on a long-term basis by
shutting down the madrassas cesspool
that breeds jihadists.
McCain is a relic. He's still spouting the gospel
of unregulated capitalism, even as its pillars fall
by the day. It's astonishing how oblivious he can
be to the history in the making around him.
And his decision-making is sometimes reckless and
irresponsible, as his choice of Sarah Palin has made
abundantly clear even to leading conservatives.
And frankly, I'm uneasy about McCain. To be blunt,
when I see him in the debates, I get the sense of a
guy who was never properly treated for post-traumatic
stress syndrome, which has now, decades later,
blossomed into a monster in his mind, like a case of
syph untreated for way too long.
By contrast, Obama is surprisingly
well-adjusted, post-neurotic, temperamentally
suited for the presidency -- and refreshingly
honest (any other politician with his name would
have changed it to Barry O'Bama).
Plus, with an Obama presidency, we also get Joe Biden,
arguably the greatest foreign policy mind in America.
When I see an Obama/Biden bumper sticker, it feels
completely right in a way that, say, an Obama/Kucinich
sticker wouldn't. The Obama who intersects with Biden
is easily the best the U.S. can offer in '08.
But I digress. Paul
_____________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 17, 2008
The Limits of Cool (and the Better Reason to
Back Obama)
I'm not as impressed with Obama's supposed cool
as many others are. Dukakis was cool, too, in much
the same way as Obama is, and that, it turns out,
was one of his least appealing characteristics in
the end, particularly when he was cool
when asked what his response would be if Kitty were
raped. We all learned that night that cool is not
the appropriate response in all instances to everything
life throws at you. Sometimes anger is the right
tool -- and, yes, sometimes violence is the only
proper response (if you had bin Laden in your cross
hairs, for example). Also, cool becomes complicit
at a certain point (when you're in a group of people
doing something objectionable, and you have to
stop them from doing it, for instance). And
cool becomes untenable at other points (witness
the broad-daylight mass panic on 9/11 around
the south tower when the south tower fell).
By cool, most pundits really mean unflappable, which
is even more of a Dukakasian term. Unflappable
may have been given a bad name in the '88 election, but
it is exactly the quality you need in a crisis, when, say,
someone has just attacked Washington, or
someone is trying to break down your door and kill
you. There are some people who get cooler when the
heat gets higher, and Obama is one of them, though
he has yet to show us the full range of responses he
is capable of in a crisis.
Rather than cool, the quality about Obama that
impresses me most is a characteristic common to
a lot of geniuses I've interviewed (from
David Rabe to Lawrence Ferlinghetti to Woody Allen
to Roman Polanski), and that is: radical common
sense, the keen ability to show the contours of reality
exactly as they are, without indulging in wishful
thinking or interested distortion.
As I said, cool will get you into trouble if the
right response should actually be anger (as Dukakis
discovered). But radical common sense -- that
ability to see that not all wars are bad, but the
Iraq war is, and that not all spending cuts are good,
but some are -- is what Washington has been missing
for many, many years.
Incidentally: funny thing about anger and cool;
it's much easier to be the former when you're
losing and the latter when you're winning.
George W. Bush's supporters were calm when the
2000 election results were cutting their
way -- but they had a Brooks Brothers riot
in Florida when the recount threatened
to topple their "win."
Many years ago, there was a brilliant "Saturday Night
Live" sketch in which a group of people had fallen
through thin ice on a lake and were screaming angrily
and desperately to people on the sidelines to help
them out of the ice hole. But the folks on the
sidelines, sitting comfortably in warmth, were
indifferent to their plight and openly aghast
at the rude level of rage expressed by those
freezing to death. While they were commenting
on the utter vulgarity of the anger of the
drowning people, the ice beneath those on
the sidelines suddenly broke, and they, too, became
stuck in an ice hole, and they, too, began screaming
angrily for help to anyone within earshot. As the
sketch ended, both groups were raging at the same
volume and in the same way.
Which shows that, for all of us, cool has its limits.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 16, 2008
A Second Look at the Final Episode of "The Sopranos"
I saw most of the final episode of "The Sopranos" last
year but didn't see the whole thing until yesterday, when
I rented the DVD.
So I didn't fully know how truly lousy it was. Easily
one of the five worst episodes of "The Sopranos,"
and I'm being nice.
I always thought the ultimate resolution would
be one in which Meadow became a criminal attorney
who ended up prosecuting associates of her father.
A Shakespearean clash of the generations.
But the actual final episode doesn't even hang together
in terms of basic dramatic compentency. What happened
to that plot element about everybody in the family
splitting up because of death threats? Are we to
believe that security arrangements were
all tossed aside for a casual meal in an open diner,
with all the family members gathered together without
even a bodyguard? And nobody at the table looks at
all nervous, despite the DefCon4 danger level.
Characterization of A.J. is inept. He comes off more
like a flashback of how Tony (or someone Tony's age)
behaved back in 1975. A kid like A.J., coming
of age in '07, would be into Lil Wayne and Jay-Z, not
Bob Dylan's acoustic period of 45 years ago. A.J., after
all, is not a throwback to a previous boho era in
any other way -- he's a typical, spoiled, suburban
Oughties guy.)
And in the unlikely event that a boy in '07 was
listening to "It's Alright Ma" and reading Yeats,
that would be far more laudable than someone
listening to pseudo-operatic wiseguy junk like "Cara Mia"
or reading mediocre Biblical verse (now
there's a ripe target for ridicule!).
What is obvious now on close DVD viewing is the
key clue about the ending that almost everyone missed.
Notice that Meadow runs -- frantically, anxiously -- to
the diner as if she wants to warn her family about
an imminent danger that she had just become aware of.
She looks like she knows something awful is
about to happen and wants to alert them before it does.
Why else would she be running -- and running in a state
of near panic? She's not late. They're not talking
at the table as if she were late, not saying things like,
"I wonder what's holding up Meadow" or "Where's Meadow?"
(By the way, nobody would be scrutinizing any
of this episode if it were not the very last one.)
Anyway, this one ain't "Pine Barrens." It ain't even
"The Blue Comet." It's a choke.
But I digress. Paul
_______________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 15, 2008
A lot of bruised feelings at tonight's debate.
Touchy, touchy. "You ran an ad that said the
former chair of my steering committee once sold
bad hash at Woodstock." "Your aunt once sold Nazi
memorabilia on Ebay to pay her heating bill." Etc.
And then, after sniffling, they started talking to
their imaginary friend "Joe." Dear Joe, I will
click my heels and say there's no place like a
tax shelter. Dear Joe, deliver me from this
studio and Bob Schieffer's tough questions.
And there was McCain, looking like he had a glass
left eye, "flashing [his] madness all over the
place," to quote a Steve Forbert song. And there
was Obama, looking like he hadn't gotten enough
sleep last night, probably wishing the election were
tonight, now that the Quinnipiac numbers are as
ripe as they've ever been.
Obama probably should've shown more anger when bringing
up Palin's implicit incitement of hate at her rallies,
an ugly, dangerous phenomenon. The backward-thinking
religious fanatics that attend her speeches do in
fact shout, "Kill him!," and there are also reports
that she has winked and gestured affectionately at
fans in the crowd who have yelled death threats \
about Barack.
Serious matter. She'd truly better hope that
someone doesn't take a shot at Obama,
because if someone ever did (heaven forbid), angry
citizens would know exactly who to blame for helping
to create a climate in which that could happen.
There're already enough such threats on the Internet
(just Google the words "Obama" and "Aryan" to catch
the very latest assassination plots!), and Palin
should not be allowed to stoke that stuff.
All told, my guess is this debate won't matter a bit
on November 4th, any more than the situation in
South Ossetia matters now. New crises will
erupt between now and then that will probably
supercede everything we're talking about today.
Remember: an election is not a measure of who voters
prefer. An election is a measure of who voters prefer
on a particular day.
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 9, 2008
The New Irreverence in Chinese Art
Puncturing sacred cows, post-Mao: Wang Guangyi's
"Chanel No. 5" (2001). [photo by Paul Iorio]
While traveling alone by local train behind the
Iron Curtain as a teenager in the 1970s, I saw a
lot of telling, unforgettable images of everyday
Communist life. One of the smaller memorable moments
happened after I was briefly detained in Zagreb by the
local authorities (for being an American, which was
sufficient cause for suspicion in those days). As
the train zipped along a rural area just north of
present-day Bosnia, I looked out the window and saw
hard-working, happy peasants using sickles -- as in
hammer and sickle -- to harvest crops in a vast field.
And I thought that it looked just like a Communist
Norman Rockwell painting, an almost laughably
idealized vision of collectivist propaganda -- except
it was a real-life tableau. (Of course, there were no
such soft-glow scenes once I crossed into the far more
brutal Bulgaria, where there were plenty of rifles at
checkpoints and unhappy-looking workers who had
supposedly lost their chains, but that's a whole
different story.)
I thought about those Croatian peasants with sickles the
other day, as I walked through the awesome new exhibition
of Chinese Communist propaganda art from the Mao era, on
display at the Berkeley (Calif.) Art Museum (BAM).
I wasn't in the museum for more than three minutes
before I began laughing out loud at some of the
romanticized posters and paintings depicting an always
benevolent Mao greeting grinning workers or leading
some heroic charge or posing with red icons of decades
past. A priceless collection.
Also on display at BAM, and equally fascinating, is
post-Mao, modern Chinese art that shows, beyond a doubt,
that China has been hurtling at warp speed toward not
just economic transformation but cultural and artistic
metamorphosis, too.
There are paintings that poke fun at Mao and at the
Communist traditions of his day, stuff that would have been
considered an absolute sacrilege a couple decades
ago -- and now is on open display.
There are Chinese equivalents here to Rothko, Pollock,
Klee and Warhol, and it's breathtaking to see how far
China has come in terms of aesthetic experimentation
and liberation.
The exhibition also includes one of the most inventive
and stunning installations I've seen in any museum,
Wang Du's "Strategie en Chambre" (1998), an expansive
work centered around the figures of Boris Yeltsin and
Bill Clinton surrounded by mountains of newspapers and
topped by pure magic: an uncountable number of multi-colored
toys hanging from the ceiling, giving the effect of a Pollock
painting in the air or of Klee mobiles that have multiplied
madly or of a swarm of exotic insects hovering.
An astonishing work.
The exhibition, "Mahjong: Contemporary Chinese Art From the
Sigg Collection," continues at BAM until January 4, 2009.
A bubbly Mao, oh-so-pleased to meet Karl Marx and
Friedrich Engels, in one of the dozens of pieces of
Mao-era Communist propaganda art now on display at the
Berkeley Art Museum. [photo by Paul Iorio]
* *
Detail of Wang Du's "Strategie en Chambre," featuring
dozens of multi-colored toys hanging from the ceiling.
[photo by Paul Iorio]
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 8, 2008
Last night, one presidential candidate praised bin
Laden and the other said he wanted to kill him.
It was McCain who hailed bin Laden, calling him
and his fellow Afghan warriors of the 1980s
"freedom fighters," and it was Obama
who said he wanted to "kill bin Laden."
The contrasts were stark elsewhere, too. Obama looked
comfortable, poised, Kennedyesque. McCain seemed like
he was waiting for a next round of interrogation from
his Vietnamese captors.
Obviously, McCain was coached to play it sotto voce
so as not to appear angry, but it had the opposite
effect; his idea of soft-spoken resembled a tense
prisoner talking low so the guards wouldn't hear him.
There were also failed attempts at jokes by McCain,
recalling the humor-impaired Nixon and Goldwater.
"You know, like hair transplants -- I might need one
of them myself," McCain joked at one point. Nobody
laughed.
And when Tom Brokaw asked him who he'd choose to head
Treasury, McCain responded awkwardly, "Not you, Tom."
Brokaw rolled with it in a good-natured way, saying,
"For good reason." But it was an inappropriate,
are-you-running-for-something moment.
Brokaw was right in trying to make sure
the candidates abided by the rules they had agreed
to -- but why did they agree to such lousy rules
in the first place? No follow-up questions by the
moderator and no rebuttals by the contenders made for
a constricted, repressed debate, until Obama finally
overrode the rules near the end and got the flow of
free speech going again.
Obama hit his high note with a passage that had some
of the force of a Shakespeare soliloquy. "Sen.
McCain...suggested that I don't understand. It's true.
There are some things I don't understand. I don't
understand why we ended up invading a country that had
nothing to do with 9/11..."
Obama could've made more of that, expanding it into
a real tour de force with: "And I don't understand why
McCain thinks the private sector can take charge of
our health care system when it can't even manage itself.
And I don't understand why a senator who votes
with George Bush 95% of the time thinks that he
represents a change from Bush. And I don't understand
why...." Etc.
Incidentally, at the end of the debate when the
candidates were milling among the people onstage, I
caught a camera shot on one network that showed
Obama reaching out to shake McCain's hand, and
McCain refusing the handshake and diverting him
instead to Cindy McCain, whose hand he shook.
To be sure, there may have been another moment,
off-camera, in which they did shake hands.)
Again, a bit Nixonish.
It looks more and more like McCain will be holding
a press conference on November 5th to say, "Well,
you won't have John McCain to kick around anymore."
But I digress. Paul
___________________________________
THE DAILY DIGRESSION
for October 6, 2008
Barack Obama has been taken to task
for his past associations, however remote,
with radicals from decades past. Isn't it time
the media started focusing on John McCain's defense
of right-wing extremists and outright fascists
associated with South Vietnam's Ky and Thieu
regimes of the 1960s?
McCain, of course, served in the U.S. Navy in defense
of Thieu and Ky, so one can understand his personal
reluctance to denounce the South Vietnamese leaders
who he sacrificed so much to support. He evidently
doesn't want to admit those five-and-a-half years in
a North Vietnamese prison were served for a big mistake.
Now that the passions of the Vietnam era have cooled
a bit, perhaps McCain can bring himself to say what's
obvious to most Americans today: Thieu and Ky
were neo-fascists, governing without popular support,
whose human rights violations equaled (or virtually
equaled) those of the North Vietnamese.
Ky, in particular, is indefensible by any measure of
modern mainstream political thought. Here's Ky in
his own words: "People ask me who my heroes are. I
have only one: Hitler. We need four or five Hitlers
in Vietnam," he told the Daily Mirror in July 1965.
Why does McCain, to this day, still voice support,
at least implicitly, for Ky and Thieu? At the very
least, McCain should, however belatedly, unequivocally
condemn Ky's praise of Hitler, if he hasn't already.
(My own research has yet to turn up a clipping in
which McCain has been significantly critical of
either leader.)
And why don't we hear outrage from pundits and
politicians about his support for Ky?
Yeah, I know, it was the policy of the U.S. government
at the time to back Ky and Thieu, but that's no
defense. If Nuremberg taught us anything, it's that
you can't hide behind I-was-only-following-orders or
it-was-the-policy-of-my-government when
defending your individual actions in wartime.
Maybe McCain thinks Ky is a maverick. Maybe
he thinks Hitler is a maverick, too.
Look, my dear late dad quite literally broke his
back as a U.S. paratrooper fighting against Hitler's
soliders in Germany and in Belgium. And he was among
those who busted open the gates of Hitler's slave camps
in western Germany, spring of 1945. What he witnessed
turned his stomach for the next six decades, and he'd
tell me about what he saw that day as a 19-year-old,
but only reluctantly, because it was such a bad memory.
So I know what a true patriot looks like.
A mere several decades later, we're supposed to
stand by silently as a major presidential candidate
says, "It's cool to support a guy who supports Hitler."
So now I'm nauseous -- about McCain's backing of Ky and
and about the silence, the lack of outrage about that.
But I digress. Paul
P.S. -- And don't give me that crap about Ho being
the greater evil. Ho Chi Minh had broad popular
support, north and south, and no designs
on neighboring nations, so we had no business
appointing a president for the Vietnamese
people.
[parts of my column today first appeared in my column of
June 7, 2008.]
_______________________________________
TO READ DAILY DIGRESSIONS PRIOR TO OCTOBER 7, 2008,
PLEASE GO TO:
http://www.previousdigressions.blogspot.com/
great post....
ReplyDeleteThanks for your sharing//////
Truck Chrome Stacks