Either/Or

Con-gress vs. pro-gress

2005-03-24T22:50:00.000-08:00

OK.
Here are the two big issues our beloved U.S. Congress has tackled recently:

1) Hand-wringing and blustering about some guys who play a game for a living using perfectly legal substances to enhance their performance;

and

2) Insinuating themselves into the private affairs of a husband and wife and also subverting the "checks and balances" system of our government by giving two people (and ONLY these two for this time only) the right to move a state court issue to the federal system, all to keep food and water running useleslly through the organs of a woman who has basically been akin to a turnip for 15 years. Just because some conservatives didn't like what the state courts have decided repeatedly for years, on the basis of informed medical opinion.

My responses:

1) Don't our elected officials have something better to do than worry about bloated home run totals? (Like North Korea having a nuclear bomb? Stuff like that.) If you want fewer home runs, raise the damn pitchers' mound, call the "high" (read: "as defined in the rules") strike and get rid of the DH.

2) I thought the Republicans were FOR states rights. Don't they always demonze the big, bad federal government? What gives with trying to strip Florida's (why does every odd or idiotic thing happen in Florida these days?) state judicial system of their powers and turn them over to the feds?
I feel bad for Terri Schiavo's parents, I really do, but guess what? Ever since she turned 18, they no longer have a say in her affairs. And ever since she got married, her husband does. I pray she's not suffering but let's face reality. And if the parents are really religious, why not let her go to God?

Not listed on Monster.com

2005-01-04T13:04:00.000-08:00

After seeing the dearth of replies to some posts in the Masslive Weblogs Forum, I thought of a new business venture: Professional post replier.

------------------------------------------

Is cyber popularity just a few long forum threads out of your reach?

We can help.

Look, everyone wants their forum posts acknowledged, right? But we're all so busy these days that we can't always reply to as many as we'd like.

Therefore, We at Either/Or are offering the following services: For a small fee, we will reply in one of several ways (your choice) to your forum posts. The menu of reply choices include:

Enthusiastic. (Examples: "Great post!" / "LOL!" / "How do you come up with that stuff?!")

Thoughtful. (Example: "Once again you teach us not just how to feel, but how to write about how we feel.")

Playfully antagonistic. (Example: "Yeah right! And Paris Hilton is just a hotel name! Get outta here ya big lug!")

Really antagonistic (for masochists and others who prefer this mode). (Example: "I've seen better writing on the men's room wall at Ye Olde Watering Hole.")

Monosyllabically insipid. (Examples: "Dull." / "Corny." (Written in the header field only, but without an "(nt)" to let readers know there's no text in message.)

In addition, you can code your post with key words to prompt various types of replies depending on your mood...OR...you can customize your own special type of replies. Work with our team of experts to select ones right for you!

AND:

For a nominal charge, we will also reply to your Weblog posts, if you have a comments section. Use one of our auto-replies or write your own and we'll submit it under a pseudonym* at no extra charge!**

Write us today for more details!
---------------------------------------------------------------

* You choose gender, we choose name
** Extra charge for choosing name.

New Year’s Dissolutions (and Disillusions)

2005-01-03T07:35:00.000-08:00

Like many overly optimistic folks, every year I scribble out a list of New Year’s Resolutions. Many of the items are boilerplate, while others are sui generis to me.

I’ve noticed over the years that many of my goals involve subtraction of an activity as opposed to the addition of a positive one. By my age, of course, one usually has a fairly intractible daily routine, so the removal of a habit or practice is not only difficult, but should be accompanied by an substitue activity, otherwise it’s too easy to drift back to old habits in the newfound gap of free time left by the subtraction.

This led me to a very simple realization, which I’m sure has been elucidated better by many people before me, but which I’ve never seen anywhere: The secret of this whole resolution business is found in percentages.

Normally I’m no math guy. I know music, my great love and avocation, is “based” on math, and I know the universe supposedly is as well. But numbers do lie, and they do it early and often. But that’s another story for another day. What I realized is this: That when one engages in any given activity, it’s taking up a percentage of one’s time (of a day, week, month, etc.) After a certain number of activities, saturation is achieved and one is out of time (for the day, week, month, year or, finally, life.)

So the secret is to replace activities that don’t advance your goals (and your goal may be sleeping more – this isn’t about “productivity” but rather, happiness) with ones that do.

One simple example is this: If you want to lose weight and you're on a plan that allows you 2,500 calories a day, you probably don’t want 1,200 of those calories to come from beer or cake. You need nutrition, so every empty calorie you ingest either replaces a nutritious calorie, or more likely, will be an additional calorie above 2,500, (as you continue to eat until your body gets the nutrients you need).

So, the same principle applies to time. If I want to finish a recording project by a certain date, and I spend a few hours each day watching “The Surreal World” or reruns of “Law & Order” (R.I.P. Jerry Orbach) instead of recording, then I might have trouble reaching that goal. Or if I need to exercise 30 minutes each day, but find myself in a three-hour marathon playing “Freecell” solitaire on my computer, I might not get to my daily constitutional.

In a nutshell (which is where I live) here’s the rub: Changing my life (at least the quotidian, empirical parts of it) can be achieved by making sure that the various activities that comprise the “100 percent” of my time (or the foods comprising my caloric intake) are ones I desire and that will make me happy in the long term.

So I’ll end this piece now, because “blogging more” isn’t one of my resolutions (although I do plan on keeping a decent pace up here).

Happy New Year.

Doggone Christmas!

2004-12-27T11:04:00.000-08:00

We had a very nice Christmas, thank you, but one part of the day made me both mad and sad -- as well as thankful.

In the early afternoon, my wife J. called for me in a tone that made me knew something was amiss. It didn’t quite elicit panic, but it evoked concern. I scampered to the back door to see the cause of her emotive cry: a huge Huskie limping around on three legs.

She called the hound to the door, but since we both know that dealing with wounded animals can be dicey, I told J. to stay inside while I checked the dog’s condition. I’m twice J.’s size and figured I could fend it off it if need be.

Luckily, the dog was a calm as could be and sat slurping up several bowls of water (it seemed dehydrated after what seemed to have been a long three-legged run). We then call 911 and said we had an injured dog -- possibly hit by a car – on our hands, and they got an officer out to us pronto.

The police officer immediately recognized the dog and told us it wasn’t injured but that it had a permnanently bad leg (either from birth or a previous mishap). Of cousre we couldn’t tell that was the case, as the last thging we wanted to do was tuch the leg and possible enrage the dog, had it been injured.

Apparently the dog had been running free before and the owners had to be called. So fortunately the police had the owners’ address on hand and called them. They came and picked the dog up a few minutes later.
The police officer (wisely) told us he’d handle the exchange so we went inside, watching as the couple pulled up and thanked the officer. We were slightly angry at them for not attending enough to this poor handicapped hound.

The officer then came back to our door and told us he was alerting the dog officer about this couple, in case it happens again. J. almost wanted to call the animal control center and tell them we’d take the dog if it was ever taken away from the deleteriously undependabale couple. The huge pooch reminded her of one her most beloved (former) pets. So in way, we saw the dog as a Christmas angel.

We still may call and let animal control the dog has a home if need be. We don’t have enough room, really, for a dog in our small house (with three cats, no less). But have more than enough room in our hearts, and that’s where pets really live, isn’t it?

Can’t anybody here play these games?

2004-12-23T06:47:00.000-08:00

Sean is frustrated that a team with a sub-.500 record may win the NFC West Conference and thereby make the play-offs. It is pretty bad out there: The combined record of all four teams is 20-36; they are a combined 2-11 against AFC teams; and none of the four have scored more points than they’ve allowed this year (although Seattle is only a TD and PAT away from evening their scoring imbalance).

But things aren’t much better in the NBA’s Atlantic Division, home to your Boston Celtics. New York leads this sad group with a 13-13 record and the combined record of all five teams is 54-74 (the Celts are in second place with a stellar 12-13 record).

Compare this with the NBA’s Pacific and Northwest divisions, where all but the last place teams in each have records of .500 or better.

I guess parity exists, at least within divisions in some sports. But in some cases it should probably be spelled parody.

Well, It's not "All Right Now"...

2004-12-22T05:23:00.000-08:00

...nor will this ever be:

Paul Rodgers, (ex-Free, ex Bad Company) is keeping even worse company these days as he has apparently signed on to replace the late Freddie Mercury on a Queen reunion tour.

I don't know what's worse: The idea of a Queen reunion or the fact that Rodgers is on board.

I liked Rodgers with Free. He complemented Paul Kossoff's understated (and underrated) guitar work perfectly in that British Blooze-rock style. I wanted tolike Bad Company and they had a few OK songs on the debut album but it was all crotch rock meets arena rock after that.

I never cared much for Queen. Oh, sure, they had great chops, could sing etc., and "Killer Queen" was a nice pop hit. But the rest of the songs were either insipid rock (We Will Rock You!!!!) or just fancy arrangements of non sequitorial parts ("Bohemian Rhapsody.")

That Bowie collaboration was OK ("Under Pressure"?) too.

But unless they need the cash badly, why on earth reunite when they can't do so with their real frontman, who was the face and (very big) voice of the group? And I can suggest several replacements for Mercury that would fill the role better than Rogers (although Paul has a good voice, it doesn't seem to fit with Queen.)

How about the most obvious choice, George Michael? Or that guy from REO Speedwagon? I'd suggest that overwrought bellower from Styx, but didn't I just hear they're doing something again too? How about Elton? Great voice, flamboyant like Freddie (and I'm not just suggesting him cuz he's gay -- but the vocal/flamboyance equation can't be denied.) They probably should have hired one of those singing actors from "The Phantom" or whatever.

Yet I still think they should leave well enough alone.

But hey, all you Queen fans can throw yourselves a fucking party for all I care, it doesn't matter to me whether they reunite or not. It just seems sad to do it without ol' Fredaroo. And I didn't even care about the guy when he was around...I mean I hate to see anyone die, and it was sad he died from AIDS etc., but I just didn't care for Queen's music. Brian May had a cool guitar sound, but if that's a band's biggest selling point (which it was to me) they aren't getting me to buy their CDs.

Their music was different, but so is every snowflake, every grain of sand and every piece of dog crap.

God Save the (former and now defunct) Queeen. We mean it man.

Don't hate me because I'm honest

2004-12-20T08:43:00.000-08:00

There are plenty of reasons to dislike me, if you know me. I'm far from perfect (like everyone else seems to be).

But one thing I can't stand is people getting all surly on my ass just because I call them the way I see them.

Hey, disagree with me all you want, but don't try to say I'm "wrong" on matter of pure opinion.

I like to get along with folks. I like to joke and laugh and share bonhomie etc., etc. But I refuse to temper my beliefs and/or opinions just to pacify people.

I don't call people names or mock them for liking what they like (most of the time anyway) and I cetainly don't do it to friends. I disagree, make my points and if you don't get them...well read the heading of this blog. You either get me or you don't. I don't have time to convert people. I'm working on myself.

And while I'm at it. I hate passive agressive behavior. Save it for someone else. I can smell it a mile away.

Dear Either/Or: Volume One

2004-12-14T13:06:00.000-08:00

Dear Either/Or:
Here's my question: Astronomers tell us we are in the Local Group of galaxies. Does our galaxy have the talent to go National?

Thanks. You're a pal.

Dear Galileo:
Not after the latest round of draft picks. We're two or three light years away from a playoff spot.
__________________________________________

Dear Either/Or: What is the best T-shirt you have ever owned and whatever happened to it?

Dear Fruit of the Loom:
When I was a punk (some say I still am in some regards) I had a self made T-shirt that said "fUn sUcks" (as in: fun sucks with a capital U).
I think I still may have it somewhere next to my Plastic Bertrand pin and Fabulous Poodles fanzine.
___________________________________________

Dear Either/Or: Where are my thermal socks?

Dear Cold Feet:
It depends: if they are red socks, they are probably leaving for other teams, like the Mets. Otherwise, ask my wife, she's notorius for stealing mine on cold nights when hers are not within easy grasp. (Mine are, as I keep them downstairs.)

Ask Dr. Either/Or

2004-12-14T10:30:00.000-08:00

Sorry about the blog-gap. I’ve just been writing a lot elsewhere and have had little time, energy for blogging.

I’ll take any questions you may have though. Please post them in the comment section below and I’ll do my best to provide insightful answers (he writes, expecting maybe three responses, at best).

Or maybe I’ll just make some up.

Snow Blind...and deaf and dumb...

2004-12-06T13:26:00.000-08:00

It snowed a little today so that meant one thing here in Dumb-assachusetts: The highway was jammed with broken zeroes on a last chance power slide. (With apologies to Bruce.)

Look, people: If you're driving on Route 91 and you pass six vehicles that have clearly swerved off the road due to driving stupidly during adverse conditions, what compels you to drive like you want to become the seventh?

Anyway, far worse than that was this, a new height (or depth) and combo of some of my biggest pet peeves:

An ambulance was trying to make its way through the slowed, dense traffic, and a person in a crosswalk sauntered out in front without noticing. Now I'm pretty sure the ambulance has the right of way, but even if it didn't, why wouldn't a person crossing stop and let it by?

I'll tell you why: Because she was too busy prattling on about something on her goddamn cell phone to even notice.

Had a Weltschmerz sandwich

2004-12-01T08:09:00.000-08:00

I once wrote a song called “Mr. Twilight.” It’s about me and my propensity for vacillation between light and dark; between art and ethics (they often conflict) and between reality and surreality. It’s also about my love for that magical, dusky time of day – the time that the sidhe (pronounced shee and meaning “wee people of the faerie hills”) come out, according to Irish myth.

It’s been an ongoing, almost chronic, problem for me since my late twenties: Part of me wants to just say fuck-all and surrender to the artist within (but even the artist is split: I feel half-Yeatsian, half Johnny Rotten).

The other part of me wants to use my creative side for some positive social change or something like it (i.e. journalism, promoting the arts in general, political change, etc.)

(As way of disclosure, I should admit that all of me does what it does to capture the Ecstatic; to find God; to seek Nirvana.)

In short, part of me wants to be a semi-psychedelic punk rocker while the other wants to be a slick-suited politico. It’s virtually impossible to do both.

Of course the onset of middle age has made some decisions for me, but age alone can’t ever stave off the appetitie for creating art that gnaws at me from within. I suppose if I were wealthy enough, I could play both sides of the field (kind of like Troy Brown has been doing.) I could be the Renaissance man I’ve always wanted to be: writer/political operative/musician/film producer/good husband/bon vivant/raconteur/man-about-town. It’s one reason I never wanted children. I love kids but they come at quite the cost, artistically and freedom-wise.

So, what I’m saying is that no one will hire a serious reporter or political operative who also plays serious rock music. Not yet anyway. (That’s another small positive thing we can thank Bill Clinton for: By playing sax on Arsenio’s show as a candidate, even badly, he erased a little of that thick line between The Establishment and The Counter Culture.

Of course there is a natural enmity between those two social structures, as there should be. But this battle leaves people such as myself torn, tired and vexed, like Cuchulain fighting “the invulnerable tide.”
Byt unlike the Ulster hero, at least I’m not dying while fighting, standing defiantly against a rock and then pecked by vultures.
Not yet, anyway.

Free thinking

2004-11-30T20:46:00.000-08:00

...although it may cost more than you think:

If you're in pain:

Stop, unless you have to go. Think, before you do the thoughtless. Breathe, so that you're doing something. Wait, until the right fight comes.

If you're trying to change:

Go, unless you're forced to stop. Leap, until you start to fall. Look, but don't stare too long. Fight, until the right peace comes.

If you're completely happy and satisfied:

Take, another look at things...

UPS=Unbelievable Parcel Screw-ups

2004-11-17T13:29:00.000-08:00

SO I don't like to use this space for too-personal complaints, but let me make an exception. Why is it so hard for a company, whose main service is delivering stuff, to deliver stuff?

Here's the skinny: Over the weekend, I started jonesing for some more Brian Jonestown Massacre CDs. So although I usually buy local, I had exhausted all local outlets for my quest. No one had any I didn't already have.
So late Sunday, I decided to use the Evil Empire and get some from Amazon.com.

As it turns out, the ones I wanted were pretty cheap, so I decided to treat myself and pay extra for next day shipping (when I want something, I really want it). Being a reasonable sort of chap, I knew since it was late Sunday, that the order wouldn't be shipped until Monday, which meant I'd get it Tuesday. That's cool.

Except for the part where I didn't get the package Tuesday.

Now, I know mistakes are made and nobody's perfect, blahblahblah, but here's what gets me: No one can tell me what's going on with the package.

Oh, sure Amazon gave me a UPS tracking number, but sadly it doesn't tell me anything except that UPS received billing info from Amazon. Amazon assures me it was shipped (which I tend to believe since UPS gave them a tracking number to give me) but doesn't know anything else.

One might think that having a tracking number should help one track one's package. After all, the name all but implies that the very reason for this lengthy string of digits' (and letters') existence is to allow said package to be tracked as it makes its hazardous journey from Amazon to one's doorstep. But one would be wrong in this case.

So what good is this garbled line of data that reads something like AZ9R4JH23974563? It may impress some yokels in the red states ("Looky Caleb! They must have a powerful mighty computer to cipher this mess of numbers and shit") but it does nothing for me. It certainly isn't helping me track anything excpet my own frustration.

So after several email exchanges with both Amazon and UPS, there is still no word, here a good 24 hours after it should have shown up. One might think that UPS might have this delivery thing down, especially with Amazon, who one would assume is a huge client of UPS.

I mean, I see all these commercials about UPS doing all this newfangled stuff for small businesses and the like. But they can't even execute their fundamental service, their raison d'etre: delivering packages as quickly as the customer requests (and for which he pays extra).

Meanwhile UPS trucks make their way merrily up and down my street (I've seen several since yesterday).

What can Brown do for you? I dunno. But what it could do for me is get me my damn CDs, pronto.

Oh yeah, one more thing: They could give you the number of the local UPS office (they wouldn't) so you could try to clear this up yourself locally. Nah, that would make sense. So you have to call the 800 number. Of course, they could make an attempt to call the local office for you, bu they don't. I know that could be a pain if too many people aksed them to do it, but if a lot of folks are having problems, you either need to improve either your service, or need to increase your customer service staff.

Blogged down?

2004-11-16T10:10:00.000-08:00

Some folks over in the masslive weblogs forum are talking about how they are having trouble blogging lately. I’m not referring necessarily those folks, but it’s true that some people think writing is easy; that just because you can write, you should write.

As my music pal Henning of the band School for the Dead once said as we watched a band that overplayed and tossed out complex musical riffs seemingly randomly in their songs: “Just because you have a musical idea doesn’t mean it’s a good musical idea.” I agreed: Just because you can play something doesn’t mean you should. The same goes for writing.

As Rainer Maria Rilke wrote in “Letters to a Young Poet”:

Ask yourself in the quietest hour of the night: must I write? Dig down into yourself for a deep answer. And if this should be in the affirmative, if you may meet this solemn question with a strong and simple, I must, then build your life according to this necessity.

A gift from a flower to a garden

2004-11-13T05:40:00.000-08:00

OK that title was nicked from a Donovan record and has no relation to this post. I just neded a generic title for the following random bits of brain detritis:

1) Snow. Ungh! What is it good for? Absolutley nothing! (OK it looks nice and I like to have it around Christmas -- how cliche -- but that's about it. It makes people drive even more stupdly than they already do: They either pay no attention to the fact that the road surface is a bit more treacherous -- or, they drive as if their navigating a skating rink on a unicycle. (Sometimes a road will feel like that but only after the worst of ice storms.)
Snow also inhibits my enthusiasm for taking walks (my main form of exercise since I can't find enough people --and a place after it gets too cold -- to play basketball.)

(Note on basketball: I'm a mediocre hoopster and don't want to play with people who want to dunk over me and/or would feel slighted playing with a lesser player. I mean: I'm OK, played city league ball for years and coached teens when I got older, but my game, at this point, has probably decayed to the point where it's closer to Franklin Pierce's than Paul Pierce's. In the end I'll play with anyone, as long as they're not judgemental.)

2) Why doesn't anyone blog on weekends? Is blogging mostly a way to pass down time at work? If so, that really makes me question how much people are committed to this revolutionary mode of communication. Give them a landscaping career and there goes blogging out the window for some of these folks, huh?

3) My wife is in London on business. Avis, Fergus, Oliver and I all love her & miss her terribly. In case she reads this, they're all on the bed right now, like lambs.

4) I hate when I see a band by whom I don't have any CDs; like them, but don't buy anything by them for a long time; then remember I liked them, buy some CDs and find out I like them even more. This is the case with the Brian Jonestown Massacre (which I posted about here last week). This band is incredible. They've made me get back into playing, which I haven't done in a while (I've written a little , buthaven' really played much.) But the point is: I could have already been enjoying them for a while now, but life and apathy got in my way. As ususal.

5) Sean (who obviously is also this Sean and this one)was on CN8's Sports Pulse show last night and did a great job. I hear the show can be found ON DEMAND (I hate names like that: Should I have written it's "on ON DEMAND"?) The host seemed like a nice guy, but his questions weren't great or anything. Yet Sean still managed to give good answers. It was fun to se a buddy on the tube, especially for doing something cool and creative (as opposed to seeing a friend on "Cops" or something.)

I gotta write me a book someday.
Yeah, like that's gonna happen.

Put a sock in it

2004-11-11T13:25:00.000-08:00

You know what I'm sick of reading/hearing about? Long-suffering Red Sox fans.

Please donate to me one sizeable break.

Any fan under 35 (which is probably a large percentage of them) hasn't really suffered that long. If you were 35, that would have made you 17 in 1986. OK, so you were old enough to really suffer through the Buckner error and resultant loss, and then last year's horrific loss to the Yankees.

But at most, you've been a fan for 25 years or so. Just because you read about the previous years since 1918 doesn't mean you get to to retroactively suffer through them. Plus, the Sox have been pretty damn good in the past 30 years. Maybe they didn't make it all the way til this year, but they've been fun and exciting and mostly better than a lot of teams, year-to-year.

My point isn't to pick on fans 35 and under; I'm 46 and even I don't claim any long-term suffering.

The Cubs fans have suffered longer and the Phillies fans only have ONE championship ever!.

Yes, 86 years between championships is a long time. But unless you're in you're nineties, shut up about suffering. Of course it's wonderful that the Sox won. Enjoy it. But please, no more breathless sighs about it, as if the war was over.

Anton Atonement

2004-11-11T08:05:00.000-08:00

I want to just say that I hope yesterday's post didn't leave the impression I found Anton to be a jerk. At the start of the film, I thought so, but I may have not been clear that by the end of the film, I found him to be a creative force who has trouble living in this damned world. I can empathize. Good guy stuck in a bad world, but unlike others, doesn't just accept it. If only I had that courage.

Plus I take his views on the film as accurate. He probably was misrepresented in several ways.

In addition, I just had a totally pleasant email exchange with him and he was kind and polite. Not that he has to be, but he was.

If you are unfamiliar and want to hear any BJM songs, you can listen to mp3s here

It's worth it. Then go buy some records. You can find some at Bomp Records and others at Insound.

Kool Ade or Aid to the Cool?

2004-11-10T09:11:00.000-08:00

I'm always fascinated (aren't we all?) by the line between genius and madness.

Last night J. and I watched a documnetary called "Dig!" which centered on The Brian Jonestown Massacre, and also featured The Dandy Warhols a lot.

At the beginning of the film, Anton Newcombe of BJM came off like a complete self-indulgent asshole whose drug problems and near-schizophrenic behavior overshadowed his talent.

Then as the film developed, I developed a sympathy, maybe even an empathy, for Anton. As Courtney of The Dandy Warhols kept expressing his lasting admiration for Anton's talent (which was on display at times in the film and which I witnessed live a few years ago) you got the sense that Anton was really just fucked up; couldn't help himself despite his talent.

A short time later I wavered back to my original opinion: Anton was a self-involved freak with some talent, but not enough to warrant the way he sometimes treated others. Mental illness or not, his hell was his own making. He had plenty of people who gave him a lot of support and help (including some talented musicians who stuck with him in very bad times while receiving harsh treatment).

By the end of the film, however, I came to the conclusion that there is no easy answer or judgement when it comes to the Antons of the world. "There but for the grace of God, go I," I thought.

The guy has talent, as I witnessed when I saw the band a few years ago, but he can't seem to make his way in the world, except through music -- or except in a Blanche DuBois type way: Relying on the kindness of strangers.

He seems to be off smack now, though, which should help.

I highly recommend this film to anyone interested in popular music, the line between genius and madness, or just good indie filmmaking.

PS: For Anton's take on the film (which he doesn't like) go here.

Newsboy's Toss

2004-11-05T11:49:00.000-08:00

...is a great song by Ray Mason.

But that's not the story I came to tell.

I just looked out the window and saw a shivering teenaged news carrier trudging by with his newspaper bag over his shoulder and a dog on a leash. The wind contorted his face into a frozen grimace (he is a teen after all) and even the dog looked cold.

But the sight gave me some hope during my post-election doldrums: A youth working at a job that isn't easy in this weather to earn a few meager dollars and with his faithful companion by his side. There was something nice about it.

The whole thing is maybe a bit Norman Rockwellian for me usually, but today it made me feel good. And I don't even know why, nor do I care.

Two Princes

2004-10-29T05:05:00.000-07:00

...no, not the silly Spin Doctors' song -- but one might be called a spin doctor.

I usually don't blog about local events, just as I eschew too-personal ramblings, but today I make an exception.

I feel so fortunate to live in an area where Tuesday I was able to see and hear poet and Nobel Laureate Seamus Heaney read at Smith College. Yes, baseball fans, I missed the first fewinnings of Game 3, because, well, poetry is simply more important than baseball...or at least Heaney's is.

If that weren't enough, today at noon, I'm going to the Valley Press Club luncheon where the esteemed Joe Napolitan (who is a Springfield native and still resides there part of the year)will speak. Napolitan virtually invented the field of political consulting and worked with JFK and LBJ, as well as President Valery Giscard d'Estaing of France and President Oscar Arias Sanchez of Costa Rica.

He also established the American Association of Political Consultants, which helps ensure ethical guidelines are followed by its members. I had the honor of having lunch with Mr. Napolitan before and he is a fascinating, brilliant and honorable man. His book, The Election Game and How to Win It, is a classic (though currently out-of-print).

Unfortunately for anyone intrigued by this, I believe the event is sold out. But I just thought I'd write about two great men who visited us this week.

The Joy of Sox

2004-10-28T06:42:00.000-07:00

First: There's no sense talking about it. The Sox won. No writer can do that justice, No words can describe the event adequately.

A few things, however:

1) It's odd to realize that the greatest sports event of my lifetime is over. No sports event in my life will ever equal this. Weird.

2) Although I'm ecstatic, I kind of feel like a person who was wrongly convicted then had his conviction overturned 38 years later (that's the length of my Sox fandom). It's happiness but an odd happiness mixed inextricably with relief.

3) The best thing i saw during the series was a pregnant Sox fan whose T-shirt read (referring to her soon-to-be born baby):

"Almost in my lifetime."

Classic.

Troops in Iraq tortured.

2004-10-22T06:55:00.000-07:00

This should probably be on my political blog Throwing Anvils, but I put it here instead:
This story is the most compelling reason to get troops home as soon as possible.

God help them.

Maybe I'm Amazed....

2004-10-20T21:24:00.000-07:00

Let me just say this for now:

I've never been so glad to have been so wrong.

God Bless you Red Sox Nation, and good night.

Two more Sox

2004-10-20T06:05:00.000-07:00

Two more things:

1) If you're ambivalent or a Yankees fan, there's some easy cash to made today from naive Red Sox rooters who think their team will win. I'd bet myself, but I can't bring myself to do anything that would cause even part of me to root against the Sox. I want them to win, I just know they won't.

2) The last time the Red Sox won it all during a presidential election year was 1916 when they beat the Dodgers in the World Series 4 games to 1. A Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, won that year. Just food for thought.

Won't get fooled again

2004-10-20T05:06:00.000-07:00

Maybe that song by The Who will be my theme for this ALCS.

I will say two things about this Red Sox team:

1) They certainly have a lot of heart and you have to hand it to them for not quitting after Saturday's horrendous loss put them in a 3-0 hole. They've been simply amazing in the last three games, as they were much of the regular season.

2) They certainly are creative at finding a new way to break fans' hearts this year. Who'd have imagined they'd bring people as far down as they were Saturday night, then bring them all the way back up last night, only to pull the football away, a la Lucy, tonight?

What I mean by the latter statement is this: I don't know how it's going to play out, but tonight, they will find a way to shatter fans' dreams again. Maybe it will happen early, with the Yankees jumping out to a big lead (of course the Sox will make a comeback but fall short.) Or maybe it will be a barn-burner, with the Sox down all game, coming back to tie it in later innings, then blowing it in the ninth. Or maybe the Sox will lead all game, and then let the Yanks tie it in the 8th, then have some ridiculous occurence, like a Miguel Cairo home run, beat them in the 11th. (Remember, the Yankees have crushed Sox dreams twice before with less-than-great hitters: Bucky Dent and Bret Boone.)

Whatever happens, it's going to be ugly. Again, I'm not a"curse" guy nor am I a pessimist by nature. But I've seen this film before.

Stop Draggin' My Heart Around...

2004-10-19T09:18:00.001-07:00

If the pain of losing unifies the Red Sox Nation, then the thrill of winning nail-biting cliff-hangers like the past two games divides them just as much.

The fans seem to be divided into two camps that can be identified by musical themes. There’s the Journey camp -- "Don’t Stop Believin’" -- and the Vanilla Fudge/Supremes camp -- "You Just Keep Me Hangin’ On."
Put me in the latter. I’m no believer in the "Curse of the Bambino" nor am I a pessimist. I am just a realist when it comes the Sox. Consider these facts/questions:

1) Curt Schilling will be pitching on a bad ankle against a guy who shut down the Sox last time he faced him.
2) If Schilling falters early, who in the depleted bullpen steps up? Probably Wakefield, but sheesh....
3) The Sox have to win back-to-back games in New York.
4) IF the Sox get there, will it be Derek Lowe pitching Game 7 on two days rest? Yikes.
5) Will David Ortiz ever NOT be intentionally walked with the game on the line again?
6) Can Mariano Rivera be counted on the blow even more saves?

Look, I applaud the Sox for getting this far against the odds, but in the end, the real musical theme is going to be all Bonnie Tyler: "It’s a Heartache."

Stop Draggin' My Heart Around...

2004-10-19T09:18:00.000-07:00

If the pain of losing unifies the Red Sox Nation, then the thrill of winning nail-biting cliff-hangers like the past two games divides them just as much.

The fans seem to be divided into two camps that can be identified by musical themes. There’s the Journey camp -- "Don’t Stop Believin’" -- and the Vanilla Fudge/Supremes camp -- "You Just Keep Me Hangin’ On."
Put me in the latter. I’m no believer in the "Curse of the Bambino" nor am I a pessimist. I am just a realist when it comes the Sox. Consider these facts/questions:

1) Curt Schilling will be pitching on a bad ankle against a guy who shut down the Sox last time he faced him.
2) If Schilling falters early, who in the depleted bullpen steps up? Probably Wakefield, but sheesh....
3) The Sox have to win back-to-back games in New York.
4) IF the Sox get there, will it be Derek Lowe pitching Game 7 on two days rest? Yikes.
5) Will David Ortiz ever NOT be intentionally walked with the game on the line again?
6) Can Mariano Rivera be counted on the blow even more saves?

Look, I applaud the Sox for getting this far against the odds, but in the end, the real musical theme is going to be all Bonnie Tyler: "It’s a Heartache."

"Go to the light"

2004-10-18T06:14:00.000-07:00

If you've ever had the painful experience of watching someone die, you know that there comes a time when you should help ease them into the death experience. The will to live is a tenacious beast, rightly so, and some people's spirit is so strong that they fight death, even when it's futile and only serves to prolong the pain.

The point of the above paragraph is to pave the way for this one: Red Sox fans now need to ease their hopes of getting to the World Series toward death. I know, I know, it's hard. But those last gasps of life we saw last night are just the death throes of that great spirit the team has shown. Let's not prolong the inevitable. Call the priest, pull the plug and bury the dream (no Ted Williams-like cryonics for this team, please).

Move toward the light -- of next spring -- and rest in peace, just like the Sox' bats have been doing for a week now.

New Wave/Old Man

2004-10-15T07:32:00.000-07:00

You might not guess it from my blogs, but I’m a pretty happy guy – personally, that is, on a day-to-day basis. (Existentially, of course, I’m dissatisfied and searching for meaning; artistically, I’m frustrated; and politically, I’m angry.)

Overall, my life is good. I have a wonderful, brilliant, beautiful and hilarious wife (and don’t discount the hilarious factor, that matters a lot to me, right after the brilliant part). I write for a living and I have plenty of good friends. All in all, not bad.

I write the above statement so that no one confuses what follows with some longing for days gone by – it’s not. It’s simply a feeling I get once in a while that I cherish.

Every so often, I hear a song, see a photo or have some other experience that thrusts me back to the period of 1977-1980, the punk/New Wave era. I can’t describe the ineffable feeling this gives me. It’s not just one of briefly recapturing my youth, although I’m sure that’s part of it. There was just something special about the music and zeitgeist of that time, (Yes, I know, I’ve used zeitgeist two days in a row. Sorry.)

I’m sure every generation feels a kinship with whatever music mattered to them at some point in their maturation process, but I’m here to say that except for possibly the first British Invasion in the 1960s, the punk/New Wave era of 1977-1983 was the best era of popular music in my lifetime. (1977-1980 being the punk era and 1980-1983 being post-punk New Wave. After that, the New Romanticism movement taken over in. That movement had some good bands too, but true New Wave was pretty much over – although some will argue that the N.R. was part of the New Wave movement, and real punk was long gone.) Not all these fit into a pure punk or New Wave categorization, but they all came from that period and they all were influenced by the New Wave sound to a degree:

The Clash. The Jam. Elvis Costello. Joe Jackson. The Police (yes, Sting may have gone to seed, but he was great back then). The Smiths. U2. R.E.M. The Replacements. XTC. Talking Heads. The Buzzcocks. The dBs. The Residents. Lene Lovich. Peter Gabriel. The Pretenders. X. The Cars. The English Beat. The Cure. Gang of Four. Joy Division.

I apologize if I’ve left off one of your favorites. I did this off the top of my head, so I may have left off one of my faves as well. (And I didn’t even touch much on the synth-pop stuff; not because I don’t like it, but because I got sick of listing bands.)

But as you can see, this was a volcano of earth-shaking talent that erupted during that period.

But back to my main point: I almost always get a nostalgic feeling when I hear these bands, even when I put them on at home, but it’s more than nostalgia. I guess it’s the spirit of that era: One of iconoclasm mixed with a hearkening to rock n’ roll’s past and, sometimes, a look to a better future (or "No future, no future for you!" – depending on one’s outlook.)

Or maybe I’m just getting old.

Red Sox = Horseshoe Champions of the World

2004-10-14T09:02:00.000-07:00

As they say, "almost" doesn't count, except in horseshoes.

As I watched David Ortiz's 7th inning double (inches from being a home run) carom off the wall Tuesday night, it summed up the entirity of the Red Sox zeitgeist for me since I became a fan in 1966: I call it the "Almost Experience."

Ortiz's blast was almost a home run, (and to be fair, Matsui almost caught it,) but even as a double, it afforded the Red Sox almost enough runs to catch the Yankees.

Just like last year when they almost won the A.L. pennant. I almost want the Olde Town Team to change its name to the Boston Almosts.

Almost.

Cell phone to cell block

2004-10-14T06:16:00.000-07:00

Maybe someone has to die. Maybe someone famous or beloved.

Look, I don't wish death on anyone, but sooner or later, someone is going to be killed (maybe it's already happened but didn't get a lot of coverage) because some idiot is talking on his/her cell phone while driving.

I haven't complained about this in a while so here we go again: Just the other day I saw another buffoon swerving in and out of lanes on an interstate highway, and sure enough, when I passed her, cellummox was jabbering away on her phone, oblivious to those lines until she had crossed them for a second or three. As I stated once in the Masslive Weblogs Forum, this is just another reason to move to Ireland

I mean, what is so important, that it has to be discussed while haphazardly guiding thousands of pounds of metal encasing an engine creating synchronized explosions down the road? Sure, there are emergencies that call for this, but why not pull over? Or if you can't pull over, why not make the call very brief?

Nothing will change, of course, until some celebrity or politician's relative dies because of this moronic behavior. Then maybe something will give. But probably not. Where are all the "Friends don't let friends drive chatty' campaigns? Or maybe a "Save a life, take the cell phone (away)" ad.

Bear with me

2004-10-11T06:39:00.000-07:00

Scott mentions some recent coyote attacks in Northampton. These critters aren't after roadrunners, but small dogs, unfortunately.

My wife J. and I recently had our own "Wild Kingdom" (or "Crocodile Hunter" for you younger folks) moment: A Momma Bear and two cubs paying a visit to our yard. We were coming home from work (I picked my wife up) and suddenly traffic seemed to slow right near our driveway. As we peered around the several cars ahead of us, we saw a black bear and two cubs trot right into our driveway. Great.

We pulled over in front of the house and J called 911 on her cell. They said they were aware of that little family and the bears had been running around Northampton all summer. Indeed, a later look at the mother revealed a collar on her neck ( I presume to track her movements.) After circling our house for a few minutes, Mother Bear decided to head back into the woods across from our house. The cubs soon followed. (I assume they found no food, we don't have a bird feeder or anything.)

Now when I moved to Northampton, I thought I was moving to a city. You know, Northampton has more than 30,000 people, a mayor, a vibrant downtown, etc. Instead, I find myself living in the jungle. We also have a resident rabbit (it's always in our yard so I presume that hole out there is where it lives) and a family of cardinals (OK, that's not too wild but not everyone has cardinals living in their trees.)

But despite my faux grumbling above, I admit it was thrilling to see the bears (although I don't want them hanging around too often.) They were beautiful animals, and I can't help but think that it's we humans encroaching on their space, as opposed to vice-versa.

The trouble with dancing on graves...

2004-09-21T08:36:00.000-07:00

is that you often fall in.

Why are so many bloggers so keen on claiming some sort of moral victory (with a "gotcha!" taunt) over Big Media because of the CBS Bush/National Guard memo debacle? Hey, CBS made a huge mistake. We all do sometimes. They should have been better and some bloggers caught it. Good for them.

But I'd put the percentage of errors commited by major news outlet against the number of errors in blogs any day.

But no, bloggers don't want to talk about that.

I still don't get this blog vs. mainstream media fight. They're different animals and both can exist independently of each other. Why the need to compare and/or tear down the mainstream? Did televison have to tear down radio or film?

One thing that is comparable to the blog vs. newspaper/TV journalism is that email has definitely brought good ol' letter writing to death's door. Does anyone think that's a good thing?
Although I use email even when I should write a real letter, I don't like that I do.

Some things are just better the old-fashioned way. Email can exist with regular letter writing -- both have functions. So why can't mainstream media and blogs coexist peacefully? Blogs can do things papers can't and vice-versa.

I don't get it.

Of course I'm not talking about YOU...

2004-09-20T11:33:00.000-07:00

I'm a nice guy, just ask me.

I'm not saying I'm in the Nice Guy Hall of Fame, like Scott B. or several of my work colleagues are. Those are guys are ridiculously nice and part of me envies them.

Part of me.

But it's like that old Groucho Marx joke: I'd never be part of any group that would have me as a member.

The thing with me is this: I'm a cheery bastard in many ways, brimming with love and hope and a faith in God. My political interests involve making the world a better place. I want the best for everyone, and I'm very forgiving. Much more forgiving than most of the people with whom I've locked horns. (Some of my misanthropy stems from the discovery of what intransigent, unforgiving pricks many people are after you fight with them. Grudge holders. I'm not a grudge holder, except for those who have rejected both my contrition and forgiveness. I have a special circle of hell for them.)

Unfortunately I have a problem that interferes with me becoming one of those uber-nice guys: I hate people.

OK that's not literally true. I love everyone, in what's called the Christian sense (that is to say: an abstract, we-are-the-world, don't-judge-others sort of way.) I also always love my wife and many of my good friends, who are among the greatest people on Earth. But, man, I can be a misanthrope with the best of them.

A lot of the time, many other people either bore me or annoy me--often times they do both.
I know everyone has faults, and I have as many as anyone, so it's not that I feel superior as a person. I can generally suck any given day of the week, and often do. But damn, I'm trying, you know. And many others aren't: I see so many people embracing cliche lifestyles, behaving with poor manners, engaging in phony appreciation of stuff they know is crap, and generally remaining ignorant when they could do better. As much as I'd like remain ignorant of them, I can't. So I have high blood pressure.

That's why I like stupid people. If you're just stupid, and can't do better, I can forgive that.

But most people aren't that stupid. They're just ignorant, blissfully so, it would seem. So if you are just stupid, or if you are not, but usually don't act ignorantly, you shouldn't take any offense at this post. And if that's the case, you're OK in my book (not that you care about that. I wouldn't.)

But this is why I have trouble in groups: When I see a problem, I tend to point it out, and this often rubs against the group dynamic. Since we're in blog land here, let me use a specific example: I would have a hard time at a blog meetup, because I'm sure there is all kinds of celebration of everyone's fabulous blogs at them and I would have trouble telling someone how great his or her blog is, when in fact I think it sucks. And despite how misanthropic I may seem, I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings; I have better things to do than that. But it would be phony for me to say otherwise, especially since I take writing seriously. I don't mind a bit of phoniness about things that don't matter ("Hey, that's a cool shirt, Doug!" -- even though Doug is wearing a horrible-looking shirt: Fashion is phony itself and doesn't matter, so a courteous lie is OK there, in my book.)

So I'm not much of a "joiner." And I'm sure you're all glad for that.

I can't go on. I'll go on.

2004-09-15T07:18:00.000-07:00

Hi.
I have nothing to say here really, so I'm writing about having nothing to say.

That's not totally true, of course. I have a lot to say, but little time right now to put anything here. I write so much elsewhere (both professionally and privately) that lately I'm out of gas when it comes to blogging. Not as far as thought or words — I have plenty of those — but just energy.

So I'll be back here soon, but figured I owed anyone who checks this blog an explanation. See ya soon.

Wilco to Won'tco

2004-08-11T10:25:00.000-07:00

My wife and I just watched (for the fourth time - we own the DVD) "I Am Trying to Break Your Heart" the Sam Jones' documentary about the trials of making Wilco's "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot." ¶
Although I love(d) the band, the film is independently great on its own merits (that is to say: you'll like if you like Wilco, but you'll probably like it even if you don't, as long as you're into the workings of a rock band.) ¶
Watching it made me want to play music again; be in a band again. But I realize that's probably not a good idea. First, I'm a fossil, and second, I can never find the right mix of people to work with (probably more my fault than the others.) In my last band, everyone was a good player, but I really only shared a musical vision with Scott, who also wrote and sang songs. The other guys were great, but lived different lives, liked different music, had opposing politcal beliefs and had a different idea of the shape of the band. ¶
I'm pretty loose when it comes to playing in bands. I like to play with people who know what they're doing and just do it. Because of this, I'm also impatient, which leads to problems. I'm not proud of this, but I realize it's true.

I liked the Wilco film because I really identify with Jay Bennett. If you don't know the story by now, you're not going to get it here; there is a nauseating amount of deconstruction of the Tweedy-Bennett schism out there already.

But suffice it to say that I've never been the hub of the wheel in a band. Even when I wrote most of the songs, as I did in a 1980s band I was in, someone else sang them and "led" the band.
In most bands since then, I've had a co-leader, and I usually let the other be the onstage centerpiece (but behind the scenes I insisted on equal power.)

Basically, I've never called all the shots (except very briefly in a band in the early 1990s.) I've usually felt like second banana, even though I write a ton of songs.

I guess I've finally figured out that music isn't my life. I still write and record, and feel it is my true calling. But there is just not enough room for everyone. I have a musical vision, but its often too ecelctic and it's ever-changing. So no more bands for me, I guess. It's sad.

As that great thinker David Lee Roth said; Might as well jump. Anyone got a parachute?

Chalk up a coupla more to idiocy

2004-08-03T10:52:00.000-07:00

Since it's "Humanity Sucks Day" over in at Ye Olde Weblogs Forum, let me add my nickel's worth of vitriol (although what follows doesn't compare to the tales of idiocy and immorality offered by Sean and Joe.)

Two brief things:

1) Am I the only one who notes that these latest terror warnings have a familiar ring? Let's see, they're focused on NEW YORK'S FINANCIAL DISTRICT and some of the info is up to FOUR YEARS OLD. Hmmmm...wasn't the WTC near the financial district and would plans for that attack been laid maybe, oh, let's say FOUR YEARS AGO?

I'm not saying there's no threat and of course we have to cover all bases, but...duh! Soon we'll be getting some warnings about Japan attacking Hawaii. Wait and see.

2) Henning recently reported his joy over the newly refurbished frontage to the Old First Church in Northampton. As I walked by yesterday, I wanted to relish the beauty myself, but instead I saw a bunch of freakin' morons defacing the newly laid concrete with their pointless chalk graffiti. I mean, OK, it wasn't spray paint (otherwise several 20-somethings would have had some graffiti in their throats) but c'mon. I mean, do these idiots have no respect for the workers who just completed the job? The folks who put down the nice, new cement probably take some pride in making the walkway to the church look nice, so why would anyone want to deface it, even with pastel chalk?

This isn't "art." It's self-expression of the worst kind: Letting loose with total disregard for others. Thank God it's raining right now. Let it pour and wash away their sins.
Sheesh.

"There ain't no good guy, there ain't no bad guy..."

2004-07-28T09:25:00.000-07:00

Sorry for quoting Dave Mason there...but Sean and I simply disagree.

I’m not going to try to contradict Sean’s points in his recent salvo: He makes a good argument on many fronts, but misses the overriding point I’m making: That half a loaf is better than none, or in this case, half a loaf is better than a poison loaf. (OK, maybe Sean doesn’t miss my point, he just disagrees.) What good is winning the battle if you lose the war? (Of course Sean probably would say the same about my views. Fair enough.)

But I will say this: Sean says a political creation should be mobile not stationary. (He’s referring to my likening politics to constructing a building or what-have-you.) But our political creation, the US Government, is a structure, founded on the Constitution. Of course it can be changed (amended) and the structure needs repair almost constantly, but it is a structure, not a mobile, fluid, amorphous glob that can be shaped easily. No one would want that: That’s tantamount to anarchy.

Politics and government should be pliable, but also solid and able to withstand assault by forces, whether they be external or internal.

My last word, as Sean and I agree to disagree, is to say this: The trouble with Sean’s view is that he basically wants a third party. And unfortunately (no matter how much he wishes it weren’t so) some of this now party would come directly from the Democrats, with very little being taken from the Republicans. This would divide progressives for years and throw the balance of power to the right for the foreseeable future. I won’t risk that, not for myself, or for some great progressive uber-cause. My idea is to work from within. Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean proved you can push back without toppling the whole building. They’re still with us and have made a mark. Yes, Kerry got the nomination, but the voters decided that, not some backroom bosses as before.
If for no other reason, consider this: Roe v. Wade is already only surviving 5-4 at SCOTUS. One more Scalia on the bench and you can kiss abortions goodbye in any term. It will be back to the back alley and coat hangers.

We don't need Einstein; we need a a good carpenter's level

2004-07-27T11:46:00.000-07:00

Sean thinks politics is like physics; or to be more exact (in my view) sort of like a pendulum. He says the only way to correct the rightward creep of the country is to push as hard to left as possible, thus allowing a reasonable balance to be restored.

This is a decent theory, but like many theories, it doesn't really have practical application.

First, I don't believe the country as a whole is creeping rightward. The government is right now, but that is because the right has become very good at marketing itself and controlling its message and its footsoldiers. The left has often acted like children fighting while trying to make breakfast for Mom: Good intentions but they keep getting in each others' way and in the end it's a big mess. But we're getting better.

I see politics not as physics, but rather, I liken it to construction. If the structure you're building starts to list one way or the other, you don't just push hard in the other direction; you make small adjustments to straighten it out – a shim here, a counterweight there. After all, physics is a natural science that exists as a governing force ab aeterno, while politics is a man-made art more akin to carpentry. One is a system imposed on us, the other a system we impose upon ourselves.

Maybe the building of our democracy is leaning to the right under the current extremist administration. But the answer isn't to simply push as hard as we can the other way. When we do that, the opposition can employ the techniques of aikido – using their opponents' energy against them (i.e. "Look at the how liberal they are, so out of touch with the rest of country!!!")

Better that we be the aikido experts and use their energy against them. I believe this is possible with the current extremists in office.

Grasp the pebbles from my hand grasshopper.

A Place Called "Nope"

2004-07-27T09:40:00.000-07:00

As much I as respect and admire Sean over at The Moon Hoax, I vehemently disagree with him on his take on the modern American political scene. The odd thing is, we’re both progressives (although he would deny me that title.) It’s just that we take a different view of what can and should be done.

I won’t bother addressing all his points tit-for-tat; in fact, I agree with some of his criticism of the Democratic party. But I also disagree that the Democrats are a party of conservatives. Some are, but some are moderates and others are as progressive as Sean is.

My main point here is to address the reality of American politics. Long ago (actually in 1987) I realized that my views (liberal, progressive, left of center — whatever you want to call it these days) were out of step with much of middle America. While that didn’t mean I was going to change my views, it did mean that I started to see that my favorite presidential candidates, even if they captured the nomination, were probably not going to be elected.

Why? Because most of America is neither liberal nor conservative in the extreme sense, and majority rules.

Most of the country is fairly centrist, I believe. Of course there are leaners within that center, who tend to vote either more progressive or conservative most of the time, but who don’t identify with the fringe elements.
I also think that the fringe elements are fairly small, but large and passionate enough to cause a fuss. I put the extremes (which include both backers of Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader – and hey, this year Nader is running on Buchanan’s old ticket in some states, how’s that for irony!) at about 5-10 percent on each end.

The trouble with the extremists is they don’t see themselves as such. They think they represent what America wants, or at least what it should want. Well, hell, I think everyone should agree with me too. After all, I’m a reasonable, open-minded, smart guy who only wants what’s best for everyone.

The difference between me and the extremists is that I recognize that my way may not be right; that I realize a lot of good folks disagree with me and aren’t going to vote the way I want no matter what; and that I need to compromise a bit to get half a loaf. But exremists on both sides think they are the center. hey, as i said: i'm a progressive ideologically, but practically sepaking, I usually pick the centirst candiate with whom I agree most.

Ideally, I’d love to see a really progressive agenda enacted. But I’m also old enough to have seen that it never happens, because it’s not what most people want. What most people want is the list Bill Clinton laid out in his superb speech last night at the convention: jobs, a sense of security and hope; affordable health care and a good education for their children. Of course both the left and the right say they want these things too, but as Clinton said, it’s how we get there that causes problems.

Sean writes that he won’t vote for John Kerry no matter what the consequences. Well, that’s his right and I respect it. But backing Nader – who doesn’t really want to president (his own admission); who couldn’t begin to govern even if he were elected, and who is now taking support from those who he supposedly reviles the most (extremely conservative Republicans) – seems to be biting off your nose to spite your face, as my Mom used to say. The odd thing is, even though i think he'd make a horrible president, if Nader looked like he had a chance and Kerry ,I'd hold my nose and vote for Ralph. (I say this becuase Ralph has shown he's not so pure after all, as stated above.)

Despite what Sean claims, there are some Nader voters who might otherwise vote for Kerry, even if a lot, like him wouldn't (polls bear this out.) In a close election, every vote matters, and I can't believe any progressive really believes that we wouldn’t be better off today with Al Gore in the White House. I think it’s pretty clear we wouldn’t be mired in Iraq now had Gore won. That whole scenario was orchestrated by the neocons and had been on the table long before 9-11. The attacks just gave then an excuse (a bad one, but an excuse nonetheless.) Nor would we have a ridiculous tax cut benefiting the wealthiest one percent ; nor would we have a rollback of environmental regulations, nor would we be acting unilaterally (thereby losing respect throughout the world.)Considering all that, I think you have a pretty good case that electing Kerry this time matters more than Sean, and others who think like him, might care to admit. Again, I love Sean. He's one of the best writers and thinkers I've ever read – and I don't just mean locally. But he's wrong on this one. Hey, we're all wrong once in a while, even me.

I’d love a really progressive world, I really would, but it ain’t going to happen in my lifetime. I’m a realist. But like Bill Clinton, I still believe in a place called Hope. Unfortunately, it seems Nader backers believe in a different place, which although exists, is mostly a figment of the minds of children – and Michael Jackson: Neverland.

A penny for my thoughts on the tenner

2004-07-26T06:15:00.000-07:00

After reading Joe's blog mentioning Alexander Hamilton and who's pictured on current currency, I felt the need to clarify a few things:

Since Ronald Reagan died, the idea of supplanting Hamilton with ol’ Ronnie on the ten dollar bill has gained in popularity among conservatives. I oppose this for a number of reasons. First, Hamilton deserves to be there, and second, as Joe’s kid suggests, maybe we ought to have someone like Martin Luther King on a bill before we worry about Reagan.

Right now, I figure we have two spots on currency where we could put a woman and a person of color, without upsetting too many folks: Lincoln and Washington both have two slots each, Lincoln on the penny and the fiver; Washington on the one and the quarter.

Why not give someone the penny and someone the quarter? Of course people would quibble over who gets what and no one would want the poor old penny, but we could simply choose two people and then, well, flip a coin, to see who goes where. MLK Jr. seems an obvious choice, although Frederick Douglass might be good too. For women, you could go old-school with Betsy Ross, Dolly Madison (whose husband gets stiffed even though he was important as Hamilton and Jefferson) or put a more modern bent on it with Susan B. Anthony (that dollar coin shouldn’t be held against her) or Eleanor Roosevelt. (There are plenty of others, I’m just giving examples.)

Now, as far as Hamilton is concerned, I know Joe is a teacher but I guess I can assume he’s not an American history teacher. So for the record: Alexander Hamilton never became president, but he was a key cog in the wheel of inventing our governmental system. Anyone who believes in a strong federal government (which I do) owes him a debt of gratitude: He was the prime force behind establishing our federal system. If left to Jefferson alone, it would have a been a much more "states rights" type of system.

Along with James Madison, Hamilton organized the Constitutional Convention and helped write a series of news articles about the work of the Convention and arguing for ratification of the proposed Constitution. Later known as "The Federalist Papers," these articles provide a keen insight into the Constitution.

Hamilton was later appointed as Secretary of the Treasury by Washington, who had earlier made Hamilton a Lt, Colonel and personal advisor during the Revolutionary War. Hamilton established the first Bank of the United States and rebuilt the nation’s economy which had been destroyed by war. In 1800, even though he was an opponent of Jefferson, he helped elect him, because he thought that Jefferson's opponent, Aaron Burr, would destroy the country if elected. Four years later Burr killed Hamilton in a foolish duel, where Hamilton allegedly missed on purpose, thinking Burr would do the same.

I say keep him on the ten. I think he earned it.

He who is without stones, cast the first sin....

2004-07-22T06:42:00.000-07:00

I have a kidney stone so I'm home in pain and medicated. Here are some random musings:

4Does anyone ever look up the word "dictionary" in the dictionary?

4 I've had kidney stones before and I was going to blog about the situation, but I figured it would be boring, and anyway, Dave Eggers already wrote the only words needed on the subject in his book , "A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius." No one else should even bother trying to be funny about it -- Eggers nails it. Trying to best him would be like trying to record a better version of "Respect" than Aretha's. Read it sometime; especially if you've had stones.

4Why does the Weather Channel bother with those 7-day forecasts during "Your local on the 8s"? I know they can look at patterns and hazard a decent guess, but I also know enough about weather to say that I could make an equally compelling guess by flipping a coin. The trouble is, I like seeing the seven-day forecast when I have some weather-dependent activity occurring the following weekend. But of course it doesn't matter: If it says it will be sunny, I'm happy (even though I don't believe they can possibly know) but if they predict foul weather, I simply say "What do they know? They can't possibly forecast out that far into the future with any real accuracy!" How's that for making your own reality?!

4 I've yet to see "Fahrenheit 9-11" but I just bought a local documentary by the Northampton-based Media Education Foundation called "Hijacking Catastrophe." We watched the DVD on Tuesday and it's great. While I've read that Michael Moore can be accused of playing with the order and/or timing of events in his film, "Hijacking Catastrophe" is a straightforward documentary that serves as a blistering indictment of Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and especially Wolfowitz. You can buy it at Pleasant Street Video if you live in Northampton (and members get a discount) or you can order it from the groups website .

4OK, the ol' K-Stone is back with a fresh battalion of pain recruits...gotta go lie down and whimper for a bit...

Happy Wanksgiving

2004-07-21T05:31:00.000-07:00

I've decided to start celebrating a new holiday: Wanksgiving.

This may just be the best holiday ever, because it occurs every day.
It's also the worst holiday ever because what it marks is some people's infinitely incaculable penchant for being total wankers.

The thing that led me to this new holiday was a Saturday morning TV show I stumbled across last week while channel dancing (I don’t channel surf...TV is not a wave, it’s a rave.)
I didn’t bother to catch the title of this show, but I can describe it: Two guys dressed in full camouflage gear hidden in a small thatch of trees, using their human guile to lure a wild turkey into the open so they could blow its head off. Not an elephant; not a lion; not even a fox or a deer. A turkey. Don’t they sell these at supermarkets? Are they really safari material?

Now I’m a vegetarian, but it's a purely personal choice and I never proselytize on the subject. I’m usually quite loath to broach the topic, as it sometimes leads to a game of "gotcha!" on the part of whoever is listening. These folks, maybe out of guilt, try to trap me and point out inconsistencies in my behavior (such as the fact that I wear leather, and am therefore a hypocrite.) But since I don’t ever try to force my beliefs on others, why they feel the need to do this is beyond me. I do what I think is right for me; what’s the big deal?

My point here is that I’m a vegetarian because I think killing animals is horrible, but I don’t feel the need to convince others to feel that way. You either get it or you don’t. People are going to keep on eating meat anyway. I’m not here to judge anyone on that count.

People are also going to keep on hunting, although I find that practice disturbing too. Look, if you have to hunt to survive, go for it. But most people hunt for what they call "sport."
The absurdity of doing armed combat with deer or whatever (by using a high-powered rifle) and calling it "sport " has been mocked before. So let me just say it's about as much a sport as me trying to score a touchdown, alone, without a helmet or pads, against the entire New England Patriots defense, suited up.

So anyway, there I was, having a cup of coffee on Saturday morning, weeding through a tangle of cartoons, religious programming and infomercials, when, lo and behold, I happen upon the hunting show. Now, one would expect me to dislike such a show based on my vegetarianism. But what took this into the realm of loathing (and what also amused me to no end) was that it took two of these idiots to conduct Operation Drumstick.

One of these fine gentlemen had the main assignment: Blast the great wattled one into oblivion. This being such a complex task, however, he also needed as assistant to make what I assume were turkey mating calls using some contraption that looked like a New Year’s Eve noisemaker. (I tell ya, this specialization in sports is killing them.)

So while chucklehead #2 produced the ersatz gobbling, the lone gunman, as it were, waited until a rather portly Tom Turkey ambled innocently out into the open. (An aside: Is it really fair to use mating calls for this blatant murder? I mean, don’t we as humans have a big enough advantage with superior intellect, guns, and camouflage? Do we need to lead the poor bird on, thinking he’s going to get laid, just so we can get a clean shot at him? It’s sort of like going on a blind date and getting a cap put in your ass when you show up at the assigned meeting place.) Once it got close enough, Our Hero discharged his weapon and dispatched the mighty beast with one shot.

Afterward, in what was literally a post-mortem, the dynamic duo celebrated as if they had rid the town of an evil villain. Like a ballplayer recounting a walk-off home run, the shooter gleefully described the thrill of victory -- a triumph of idiocy over decency, in my book.
Now remember, people: This wasn’t some survivalist in a loincloth running about after a rhino with a bow and arrow -- although I’d find that less than wonderful, I’d respect the even playing field a bit more. This was two guys, dressed in full camo gear, and using a gun that evoked Rambo, all to bag a Butterball.

Frankly, I’d have enjoyed a program where two guys held up a package store for some Wild Turkey bourbon more than the show that was aired. At least there would be a chance that the store owner kept a sawed off shotgun behind the counter, which would have made the broadcast interesting, as we watched the pair soil their Army and Navy store issue camos.

Finally, (whew this was long, huh?) what the hell was this show doing on Saturday morning? Haven’t they all but declawed cartoons so as not to expose kids to violence? (A move I question as well: I wasn’t scarred by seeing Wile E. Coyote repeatedly blown up by misfiring Acme explosives.) But with one flick of the remote, little Joey could witness the very real execution of a harmless bird, not a cartoon cat.

No, it’s not the worse thing in the world today, but its enough for me to say: "Happy Wanksgiving."

We've come a long way, baby...not!

2004-07-14T14:07:00.000-07:00

So as of July 5, smoking is basically banned in any indoor public place in Massachusetts, even bars.
For me, this is great. I’ve never smoked; I’ve never even had a lit cigarette in my mouth (I used to let an unlit one dangle from my lips on stage once in a while when I played music, just to make fun of the idea that smoking makes a rock musician look “cool” (See Sean’s take on smoking/coolness...I agree totally.)

I always hated coming home from a night out smelling of smoke. The thing is, it’s not even smoke smell; it’s stale smoke smell, which is worse. So although I know some smokers whom I like, and therefore pity a bit over their newly created exile, overall this is a good law: Smoking is one vice that impinges on anyone nearby when you do it. So it’s unlike, say, drinking or gambling (or dancing, for all you Seventh Day Adventists reading this -- I hear I have a large SDA following) in that regard.

Of course, the other “vice” that impinges on other people in public places is ignorance. Loud talking; boorish behavior; thinking your time/money/position is more important than anyone else’s; drunkeness (drinking isn’t bad, but overindulgence leading to idiocy is.) All these things stem from ignorance. If only we could pass a law forcing ignorant people to go outside, or better, to a specially designated area (after all, a lot ignorant behavior occurs outside, too) until they stop acting stupidly.

A lot of people started smoking when they were young and caved to peer pressure and Madison Avenue. Since it’s addictive, I feel sorry for those who want to quit but have failed.

But ignorance is another deal altogether. Ignorance is simply laziness. I’m not talking about stupidity here, where someone is just a simpleton and can’t learn much --those folks are usually pretty well-mannered, oddly enough.
I’m talking your Common Field Lummox here: someone who chooses ignorance or who simply can’t be bothered to learn how to act right. Most people act fairly well most of the time, so it’s not like role models are unavailable. Using one of my biggest pet peeves, talking during films, it’s incomprehensible to me how someone can see everyone around him/her not talking and then proceed to talk. Loudly.

But since it seems some of our own legislators can’t act properly, I suppose I shouldn’t expect an anti-ignorance law anytime soon.

Carolina on his mind

2004-07-06T12:21:00.000-07:00

I'm glad John Kerry has annointed John Edwards as his veep choice. The remaining field wasn't that sexy: Bill Richardson took himself out of the veepstakes last week; the Democratic regulars still haven't accepted Wes Clark; Tom Vilsack has too odd a last name and is an unknown; Dick Gephardt and Bob Graham, as great as they are, just aren't exciting enough to either stimulate the the Democratic base or sway swing voters.

So John-boy it is.

On the upside, Edwards is a tireless campaigner and fundraiser and he resonates with a lot of blue collar types (coming from a poor background himself.) He's also good-looking and, although I'm leery of a "southern strategy" for the Dems, he's a good ol' boy and that can't hurt.

His downside is inexperience. He has only served in the Senate for one term and that has been his only politcal experience. While that may help him in some ways – giving him that "outsider" cachet even though he's a Beltway Boy – I'm sure the Rove Trove (or trough) will use it to smear him in so many ways.

But the Dems should be ready with an easy rebuttal: G.W. Bush had only served one term as governor before running – and he wasn't just running for VP.

So if experience matters for veep, how much moreso should it have mattered for Commander in Chief?

In addition, Edwards is a very successful trial lawyer who is a self-made man (unlike Bush.) And he's 51 – it's not like he just passed the bar.

So its Double-John vs. Dubya-Dick. Stay tuned.

Fore-play

2004-07-01T10:47:00.000-07:00

Scott's blogging from the US Women's Open leads me to this musing:

Is there any sport worse to watch than golf?

Seriously.

Now, I understand how difficult it is to maneuver that little tightly wound sphere down a narrow swatch of grass and into a tiny cup (I know all too well: I've tried to play with mediocre to poor results.) So I appreciate the talent involved is such a discipline.

But it's beyond me why anyone would want to watch it, either in person or on TV. In person, you can only see one hole – or follow one golfer. Is there another sport where you don't get to see almost all the action and the entire field (and I use the word action loosely here: It is golf we're talking about, after all.)

On TV, you get to see more, but it's almost impossible to follow. People say hockey is hard to watch because the puck is so small. Well, a puck is about four times the size of a golf ball and at least it stays within a framed boundary.

I will say this: Those camera operators who follow the flight of a tee shot are amazing. They actually give you a look at the ball in flight, sort of. But this turns out to be useless until it actually lands somewhere; you can't tell where it's going against a background of sky. Of course the commentators let you know if it's a good shot or not, but they could do the same thing on radio, and you'd have the same information.

I can appreciate subtle drama as well as, if not better than, anyone. I know that a long putt for the lead creates the tension needed for good narrative. But most of the chip shots and drives leading up to these (rare) High Noon moments are like watching someone cast fishing lines (Hey! Now there's a sport that's more boring to watch!)

As far as I can tell, the best thing about golf is that it preserves some nature, even if it grooms it a bit too much.

Ironing & Whining

2004-07-01T08:10:00.000-07:00

(Note: if you don't "get" the title, don't worry, you still can be "hip.")

We have made amazing technological advances in the past 50 years with many coming in the past 20. The atom bomb – I’m not saying was good, but it was amazing – space travel, ATMs, computers, the Internet, digital technology, and now wireless communications of all sorts. These mostly, but arguably, (and one can debate the point) have enhanced our quality of life.

But there are other advances that fall below the radar. They may not be as important but they are interesting – yet sometimes troublesome. I speak here of two products that I have used but also ones which I question: sprays like Febreze that rid clothes of odors and ones like Downey Wrinkle Release that allow you to forgo ironing.

We all have had times when there is precious little time for ironing – like most mornings in my case. Because of this, my wife and I are big believers in the wrinkle release concoction. I have become a master at the spray and wriggle (you have to sort of jostle the wrinkly area to shake them out after dampening the article of clothing with the spray.)

My only concern (along with ruining the clothing if it’s not made from a type of material that takes kindly to this treatment) is that I’m substituting some unknown chemical for good ol’ elbow grease. No purist I, I’m not averse to this sort of thing, but it does give me pause.
But hey, it’s just clothing, right?

But Febreze and its imitators are another bucket of beetles altogether. It’s one thing to get some wrinkles out of your clothes the lazy way, but odors?

I mean, sometimes I wear a piece of clothing more than once between washings. I have neither an unlimited wardrobe nor unlimited time to do laundry. Plus, over-washing clothes can hasten their demise.
But if your clothes smell bad enough that you feel the need to do something about it, is merely misting them with a chemical the answer? I can understand how this may be enhancing your quality of life, but ask yourself: is it enhancing the quality of life of those who have to sit near you in your work cubicle?

Now ostensibly, Febreze is to be used mainly on carpeting, drapes etc., but the Febreze website says (my bold): “Use it on furniture and drapes, car interiors, carpeting, clothing, and canvas shoes.“

Face it, they know that there are plenty of lazy slobs out there who think: “Hey, with Febreze, I can get another three days of wear out of this shirt. Now I can watch those reruns of Fear Factor I taped instead of going to the Laundromat.“

And I hate flossing, but now I see Listerine is saying you can use their product in place of flossing. Right. How long will it be before Ban or Gillette comes out with “Shower -Free –The total body spray-on deodorant for when you just don’t have time to bathe“?

Me? I'm waiting for "Ab-Solution – the one-step spray to cleanse your soul."

A Ghost in the Machine is Born...or something like that

2004-06-30T11:29:00.000-07:00

Another blog (which reviewed a Sting concert) linked to this one about Monday's Wilco post (albeit in a none-too-flattering way: I hardly have my "undies in a bunch" about Wilco) and it got me thinking about music, aging and what is supposedly "hip."

I find it odd that people even give more than a second's thought to what is "hip" or who "the cool kids" are. I realize those terms are used facetiously sometimes and ironically at other times. But when it comes to music, the stakes seem to get serious for some folks.

First let me be clear: I have no interest in being "cool." Cool is one step from cold, and cold is something I'm not.

So when people think I like certain indie bands or other bands, such as Wilco, because it's "hip" to do so, they miss the point with me.

I like good music; sometimes its poppy, sometimes it's challenging, often its both. I like mainly indie bands not to be cool, but for a similar reason that Willie Sutton gave when asked why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is," Sutton said. Well, I like indie bands because that's where the best music is.

I don't begrudge others their tastes. I like Sting to a degree (although that degree gets lower each year) and I have plenty of mainstream, major label releases that I consider good, and even great.

What I don't understand is the great psychological skulking around about whether one is cool or not. Like what you like; don't apologize for it. If some people want to snicker at your tastes, that's their problem not yours.

As one gets older, the fact is that tastes may become less "hip" and more middle-of-the-road. Not for all of us, but most. So what? If you feel sheepish about what you like, then you should ask yourself why. If it's because music snobs like me don't agree with you, you should say "who cares?" and move on. If it's because you have three kids and haven't had time or energy to keep up with Magnet magazine or look for the new Black Heart Procession CD, well, forgive yourself: No one can get to everything and you've made different choices.

I guess what I'm trying to say is: Like what you like; be able to defend it, or don't, but will everyone please stop using music as a barometer of how cool ceratin people are/aren't?

To me, Sting and Annie Lenox are near wash-ups. That doesn't mean I judge their fans as stupid or lesser beings than myself. Wilco, for all the faults of the new CD, is still vibrant (although is that a death rattle on track 4, or just Tweedy making more noise for noise's sake?)

But liking Wilco, or Beulah, or Olivia Tremor Control doesn't mean anything other than you have similar tastes to me. Of course, I think my tastes are impeccable, but who doesn't? And if you don't like your own tastes, you might consider getting some help, because that's a bigger problem than just preferences.

A Blog is Born

2004-06-28T14:49:00.000-07:00

Good day.

I'm back, although unless you know who I am that will mean little.
Although I seriously question this whole concept of blogging as a serious enterprise, a recent event has prompted me to go blog-hog wild again. I'm referring to the release of Wilco's new album, "A Ghost is Born."

Where do I begin? Certainly not at the beginning. So let's just say that although I find "Ghost" a not-too disagreeable little work with some good songs, I think Mr Tweedy has lost his way. If a film were to be made of this CD's recording (as one was made of the band's previous release, "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot") it might be titled "I am trying to fake some art."

It's not that "Ghost" is bad; it's just that it seems random, unfocused and hit-or-miss. There are some really good songs and other good musical moments, but it just doesn't have the pop punch of "Summerteeth" or the aesthetic depth of "Yankee Hotel Foxtrot." And as my wife and I observed separately, it's pointless to compare the new Wilco with the "Being There" and "A.M." versions. Might as well compare apples and orangutans...or Lou Reed with Hank Williams.

Several songs sound like outtakes from the Loose Fur (Tweedy's side project with drummer Kotche and producer O'Rourke) CD. it makes one wonder: If Tweedy was simply going to make Wilco sound like Loose Fur, why bother having a side project? Maybe he was finding his way, looking for a new sound in the post-Jay Bennett Wilco-world. I liked Loose Fur, but didn't want Wilco to wind up sounding the same as that project.

And, as my wife pointed out, some other parts of the new CD sound like samples or rip-offs of classic rock riffs that you can't quite recall (for the record, she likes "Ghost" more than I do, and has a superb Wilco acumen.)

Tweedy also seems to be singing differently, and not in a way that enhances the songs. He sounds like he's trying too hard to stay on key. This is odd, since a good part of his whole appeal in the past was his offhand, I-don't-give-a-fuck, and somewhat atonal delivery of tunes - which somehow still sounded sweet and melodic.

I'm still a fan, and I'm sure I'll find a lot to like about this CD. But right now it's only ahead of "A.M." on the depth chart. I just hope this isn't the start of the Great Decline that hits all bands. Tweedy is smart enough to keep reinventing Wilco. But I just hope the new version doesn't end up being like one of those Rube Goldberg machines: A lot of fuss and frippery when, in the end, all it does is drop the ball.