The World According to JazzBumpa

Lost in the Swamp - or - Who is a Conservative?

American history for well over a hundred years has been following a great arc of expanionistic imperialism - irrespective of who is in Congress or the White House.  The main drivers for imperialism are ego and the desire to take other people’s stuff: wealth, goods, trade routes, natural resources. The beneficiaries of American Imperialism have been corporations - formerly American, now International.  Repugnicants and Damorats are two branches of the same Corporatocracy.  The Repugnicants are worse, and the only thing the Damorats have going for them is that they are not Repugnicants.

Back in 1963 my father told me that every once in a while, if a crumb falls off the plate, the Dems might let you keep it.  The Reps won’t even do that.  At the time, I had no idea what he was talking about; but it stayed with me, and, by God, he was right.   I loath the Damorats, but dammit, they’re all we have.

People who think that they are conservative think that I’m a Liberal, but I’m not sure that’s true.  I believe the Repugnicants have so corrupted political discourse with their agenda of the unitary President, American Imperialism and hegemony, and their war on the middle class; along with their use of hot-button, but ultimately politically meaningless non-issues like gay marriage, abortion, and “family values” (whatever that is supposed to mean) that very few people have noticed that they no longer represent any valid platform of political principles that make sense in a republic or democracy.

The last real conservative in American politics was Barry Goldwater, and he evicted Nixon from the White House.  By current standards, he would be a flaming Liberal.  The Reps lost their soul under Nixon, and their mind under the vacuous Ronald (trickle down economics, government is the problem) Reagan.  This set the stage for the souless, mindless George W. Bush.  Note the thread of political actors going back to Nixon.  Karl Rove learned all his dirty tricks at Lee Atwater’s knee.  Cheney and Rumsfeld go back through Reagan to Nixon.

In this political swamp, the old labels of “liberal” and “conservative” don’t mean much, and, in fact, can be horribly mis-leading, relative to political parties.  Under cover of darkness, the Repugnicants have sailed off any political map that is recognizable to thinking Americans, into the region of authoritarian despotism, with a rich-take-all, international-corporatist mentality that has at its end-game either European medieval feudalism or South American banana-republic-style dictatorship.

Since their allegiance is to multi-national corporations, not the citizens of the U.S. (remember, we the people?) they are traitors.  Clearly, they don’t believe in democracy (which requires a strong middle class) separation of church and state, the bill of rights, or any of the Constitutionally guaranteed liberties. They are bad at government, because they do not believe in governance.  If you don’t believe me, just ask Grover Norquist.

I believe in real family values (including education, health care, a living wage and old age security) progressive taxation, liberty, justice, and the U.S. Constitution — You know, the same as Thomas Jefferson.  I think I am the real conservative, and the Repugnicants and their fellow travelers are mainly (and often unwittingly) proto-fascists.

There are many good, honest ordinary people in this country who are legitimate conservatives.  But, alas, there are among them many who are thoughtless dupes, poor saps who follow anyone who claims to be a “conservative” (frex: Rush Limbaugh) right into perdition.

Don’t be that guy.

Did you Ever Think Rush Was Patriotic?

Here is the one and only Rush Limbaugh hoping that President Obama fails.

Notable Quote (emphasis added):

“Why would I want that to succeed? I don’t believe in that. I know that’s not how this country is going to be great in the future, it’s not what made this country great.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481484,00.html

Uh, because the success of the country ought to be more important than your putrid ideology, you moron!

Worst Pop Singer Ever?

Ron Rosenbaum uses this long Slate article to excoriate Billy Joel:

http://www.slate.com/id/2209526/pagenum/all/

My first thought in reading Mr. Rosenbaum’s screed was - All right, you don’t like Billy.  We get it.  Then, geeze, man, it’s pop music.  Get over it.  Then, what the hell is this guy’s problem?  I mean, Billy is mostly harmless. And when he isn’t harmless, as in “Allentown” or “Down Easter Alexa,” he is speaking up for the downtrodden common man, and not with the sneering condescension that Mr. Rosenbaum imposes on him.  And throughout the article, Mr. Rosenbaum expresses his opinions - to which he has every right - as if they were facts - to which he has no right at all.

When you read an attack piece like this, it often tells you more about the writer than the subject - which in this case it illuminates not in the least.  To masochistically wallow in an entire boxed set of music you can’t stand, just to invigorate your hate-fest reveals some deep-seated personality problem.  And to fear the whithering opinion of the record store clerk: that borders on psychosis.   And what about judgement?  To take the time, and the mental and emotional effort to eviscerate Billy Joel suggests that Mr. Rosenbaum has no awareness of the real problems in the real world.  But what is really wrong-headed is that Rosenbaum uses his disliking for the music to attack Billy Joel as a person.  Basely done, Mr. Rosenbaum.

And why the comparison to Bruce Springsteen?  Is that of any relevance?  But, since it’s there, I’ll retort.  Billy is a composer.  He writes melodies that are often finely crafted, and always singable.  He was able to use a Beethoven piano sonata for the bridge of one of his tunes, without sounding ridiculous or pretentious.  Springsteen’s songs are meant to be intoned, rather than sung, because, underneath the grit and the gravel, the man has no voice.  Consider “Born in the USA”  That song has exactly six notes.  Six.  Notes.  Six notes, repeated and repeated and  … . .

Equally irrelevant is the off-hand reference to Barry Manilow.  But, there it is, so I’ll admit it — I hate Barry Manilow.  Not the man, who I understand to be quite a splendid fellow, but his body of work.  But I have to give him this: his music has a melodic, harmonic, and textural richness that is rare in pop music.  My not liking it is mere personal preference, not, I trust, a deep flaw in either Mr. Manilow or me.

As a final point, how can a reader ever take seriously a writer who considers anyone from Lon Guyland to be the worst pop singer, in a universe that contains Bobby Vinton?

Praise Song for the Day

I have mixed feelings about Elizabeth Alexander’s Inauguration Poem, PRAISE SONG FOR THE DAY.  It is better read than heard. That might not be a defect, but it certainly is not a strength.

Some examples:

“Repairing the things in need of repair” scans like a half-line from a limerick. In a serious poem, it’s awful.

There are some good lines (notably excluding “about to speak or speaking”) but there are also these:

Someone is trying to make music somewhere,
with a pair of wooden spoons on an oil drum,
with cello, boom box, harmonica, voice.

A woman and her son wait for the bus.
A farmer considers the changing sky.
A teacher says, Take out your pencils. Begin.

The first tercet is a big, vague, poorly organized “so what?” The second is as well, and so random it verges on incoherence. It isn’t even especially good prose. Nor does it scan. “Begin.” just thuds.

I’m not much of a poet,

http://jazzbumpa.tumblr.com/post/71954472/inaugural-poem

but I would be embarrassed by those verses.

The words of the next tercet seem good, both for reading and for hearing.  It has vivid imagery and is evocative of our history as nation, but it is also clotted with inelegant multiple redundancies.

All about us is noise. All about us is
noise and bramble, thorn and din, each
one of our ancestors on our tongues.

The middle section is stronger.  I like the rhythms, the word choices (but not the word repetition,) the images, the specificity of the ideas expressed, the invitation to think on things only hinted at.

We encounter each other in words, words
spiny or smooth, whispered or declaimed,
words to consider, reconsider.

We cross dirt roads and highways that mark
the will of some one and then others, who said
I need to see what’s on the other side.

I know there’s something better down the road.
We need to find a place where we are safe.
We walk into that which we cannot yet see.

Say it plain: that many have died for this day.
Sing the names of the dead who brought us here,
who laid the train tracks, raised the bridges,

picked the cotton and the lettuce, built
brick by brick the glittering edifices
they would then keep clean and work inside of.

There are still problems, though.  Upon rereading, I find less in it, not more.  And, too often, the lack of logical flow makes lines seem just thrown together.  After these verses, she loses her way again, sinking into platitudes, redundancy, repetition that looks and feels like padding, and incoherent scansion.

Rule number 1 of the musician’s code is “Always end on a good note,” and Alexander finds the poet’s equivalent with this fine final line:

praise song for walking forward in that light.

All in all, a very uneven effort.  Not everyone agrees with my assessment, of course.  For a more charitable opinion, follow this link.

http://biancasteele.typepad.com/bianca_steele/2009/01/praise-for-the-day.html

Two Views of the Inauguration Address

I have mixed feelings about Time Magazine’s Joe Klein.  Today, I’ll give his commentary on the Inauguration address a passing mark.

Notable Quote:

“And let it be recorded that Obama’s first act as President was to correct Chief Justice John Roberts, who managed somehow to mangle the 35-word oath of office, misplacing the word faithfully, as in “faithfully execute the office of President …” Roberts then mangled it a second time, Obama raised an eyebrow, and Roberts moved on, a bumpy beginning and something of a metaphor: one of the new President’s functions will be to correct the mistakes of George W. Bush’s benighted tenure. Obama made that very clear in his sharply worded address, which contained few catchphrases for the history books but did lay out a coherent and unflinching philosophy of government.”

http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1872924,00.html

I do not have mixed feelings about Paul Krugman.  But he has mixed feelings about the Inaugural Address.

Notable Quote:

“But my real problem with the speech, on matters economic, was its conventionality. In response to an unprecedented economic crisis — or, more accurately, a crisis whose only real precedent is the Great Depression — Mr. Obama did what people in Washington do when they want to sound serious …”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/opinion/23krugman.html?_r=1&th&emc=th

Inaugural Poem

On the Inauguration

A Villanelle

It started with a call of “Yes, we can!”
While focusing on all we have to gain.
Now we await unfolding of the Plan.

Hope began to flourish as he ran,
Thinking of the things we could attain.
It started with a call of “Yes, we can!”

Throughout this land we hold and all we scan
From mountain, on to ocean, over plain,
Now we await unfolding of the Plan.

Encountering the words as partisan,
Overcoming hatred, lies and pain,
It started with a call of “Yes, we can!”

All in common, all within the span
Of America, and what we can obtain:
Now we await unfolding of the Plan

Now, with hope, we stand behind the man
We’ve chosen for his spirit and his brain.
It started with a call of “Yes, we can!”
Now we await unfolding of the Plan.

Thought on the Inauguraton

Does anyone else feel that, at long last, there is an adult in charge?