Saturday, October 31, 2009
Thursday, October 29, 2009
HMMMMMMM...
In a few places over the years, including the poem I wrote to be read the night before our military invaded Iraq, MARCH 18, 2003, I point out the connection between illegal drugs and our secret agencies, especially the CIA:
"Don't the links between the CIA and
drug smuggling date back to its beginnings?
In fact, can't you track which country the CIA is trying
to get something from or do something to
by which drug is the latest 'epidemic'?"
So, is it just a coincidence that most of the heroin in the world now comes from Afghanistan, and that the corrupt government there—set up and maintained for the last several years by the Bush/Cheney rightwing Republican administration—includes the Afghan president's brother who is on the CIA payroll and also heavily involved in the heroin trade, and the story our media is just beginning to cover (e.g. on The CBS Evening News earlier tonight) that there's a new epidemic of heroin over here so strong that white suburban kids are o.d.ing from snorting it, including some as young as middle school?
"Don't the links between the CIA and
drug smuggling date back to its beginnings?
In fact, can't you track which country the CIA is trying
to get something from or do something to
by which drug is the latest 'epidemic'?"
So, is it just a coincidence that most of the heroin in the world now comes from Afghanistan, and that the corrupt government there—set up and maintained for the last several years by the Bush/Cheney rightwing Republican administration—includes the Afghan president's brother who is on the CIA payroll and also heavily involved in the heroin trade, and the story our media is just beginning to cover (e.g. on The CBS Evening News earlier tonight) that there's a new epidemic of heroin over here so strong that white suburban kids are o.d.ing from snorting it, including some as young as middle school?
Wednesday, October 28, 2009
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
POETRY & ART
It's been a great week for the kind of sustenance I get only from the creative work of others.
Last Wednesday evening poet and friend John Ashbery came to my hometown, South Orange, to give a reading at Seton Hall University. When I was a kid, it was a college with only a handful of buildings on a small campus. And one of those was a boys' prep school. The latter moved to another town, and the college became a university, and many more buildings were constructed, so that now it's a crowded little campus.
John read in a lecture auditorium in the science building. Somehow seemed appropriate. I hadn't seen him in a while, but he was as warm and gracious and funny as he always is with me, and was the same with the audience when he read. He was also, as he always is, straight forward, answering a question at the end about how he composes a poem as clearly and simply as I've ever heard any poet or other kind of artist do. Most don't want to give away their secrets or are superstitious about letting people in on their process, or can't articulate it, but John referred directly to some of the approaches he uses, including waking up in the morning with a phrase or line already in his head, or hearing something on the radio or TV and finding it, even if familiar, somehow newly distinctive, and so incorporating it into the poem he's writing or planning to.
He called his method of putting these kind of found phrases and inspired ones together "managed chance" (a phrase I found accurate and original, though he may have said he got it from John Cage).
He read from his last book, A WORLDLY COUNTRY, and from an upcoming book (the title of which eludes me at the moment, wait I think it's PLANISPHERE), poems that were at once mundane yet profound, accessible yet mysterious and illusive, hilarious yet deeply serious, or at least evocative of the kinds of serious thoughts that age and experience, with all its loss and disappointment as well as wonder and appreciation, can bring. But all in that uniquely John Ashbery voice and style.
Anyway, I can't do the reading or his poems justice, but it was a delight to experience them in the town where I grew up.
Then on Sunday, late afternoon, at the Bowery Poetry Club there was a reading to celebrate the publication of Michael O'Keefe's book of poems, SWIMMING FROM BENEATH MY FATHER, at which Michael had asked some friends to read a few poems from the book, as well as reading some himself.
The first friend to read was Mary Louise Parker, who I can report is even more beautiful in person. I got to sit beside her on stage and felt blessed to be illuminated by her radiance. I know that sounds over the top, but that's how I felt. She had to split after she read, but she was followed by Saul Rubinek (I remember him mostly for his terrific performance in Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN as the reporter) who read a poem ("His Thumb Hooked Me") with dialogue, including a "Romanian" accent, and turned it into a mini-play so alive and perfectly rendered it left you feeling fortunate to have experienced it. Portia, a terrific New York actress whose stage work I've seen and am totally impressed by (as was The New York Times), gave the few poems she read a unique voice, and then I read a poem about "love" that was a lot more.
Michael ended by reading several poems in the book about his difficult but rich relationship with his father and moved the audience to shouts and applause. Another great poetry experience at the Bowery Poetry Club, which included seeing some old friends and making some new ones.
Then today, meeting my old L.A. friend (though originally a New Yorker and still is despite her address) poet artist and screenwriter Eve Brandstein at the Met, catching up in one of the cafes in that vast institution, and then checking out the Robert Frank exhibit, including many original prints of the photos from THE AMERICANS that made his reputation (and plagued him for years with its success, much as his friend Jack Kerouac, who wrote the preface for that book, felt about the success of ON THE ROAD).
Unlike paintings, which sometimes don't live up to the images I fell in love with when first encountering them in art books or art magazines, photographs almost always look even better in person, which was true in this case as well. Stunning. And the memories they evoke, of a different time and ways of being in the world. A great great show, well worth it if you can catch it.
And before we saw the Robert Frank photos, we checked out the Vermeer on loan to the Met of "The Milkmaid"—a surprisingly small painting so delicately and precisely crafted it was like a match to Frank's photographs of a moment in time captured so perfectly you feel like you're there. And in this case much more impressive in person than any reprint or photo, especially getting close enough to see the way the paint was applied to create the effect Vermeer obviously was striving for (that light!) and accomplished.
That was more than enough, as has been this whole week, an antidote to the loss of my niece and so many others this past year or so. Poetry and art, they continue to not just bring me pleasure and satisfaction, on every level, and so much more, but ultimately, they continue to save my life.
Last Wednesday evening poet and friend John Ashbery came to my hometown, South Orange, to give a reading at Seton Hall University. When I was a kid, it was a college with only a handful of buildings on a small campus. And one of those was a boys' prep school. The latter moved to another town, and the college became a university, and many more buildings were constructed, so that now it's a crowded little campus.
John read in a lecture auditorium in the science building. Somehow seemed appropriate. I hadn't seen him in a while, but he was as warm and gracious and funny as he always is with me, and was the same with the audience when he read. He was also, as he always is, straight forward, answering a question at the end about how he composes a poem as clearly and simply as I've ever heard any poet or other kind of artist do. Most don't want to give away their secrets or are superstitious about letting people in on their process, or can't articulate it, but John referred directly to some of the approaches he uses, including waking up in the morning with a phrase or line already in his head, or hearing something on the radio or TV and finding it, even if familiar, somehow newly distinctive, and so incorporating it into the poem he's writing or planning to.
He called his method of putting these kind of found phrases and inspired ones together "managed chance" (a phrase I found accurate and original, though he may have said he got it from John Cage).
He read from his last book, A WORLDLY COUNTRY, and from an upcoming book (the title of which eludes me at the moment, wait I think it's PLANISPHERE), poems that were at once mundane yet profound, accessible yet mysterious and illusive, hilarious yet deeply serious, or at least evocative of the kinds of serious thoughts that age and experience, with all its loss and disappointment as well as wonder and appreciation, can bring. But all in that uniquely John Ashbery voice and style.
Anyway, I can't do the reading or his poems justice, but it was a delight to experience them in the town where I grew up.
Then on Sunday, late afternoon, at the Bowery Poetry Club there was a reading to celebrate the publication of Michael O'Keefe's book of poems, SWIMMING FROM BENEATH MY FATHER, at which Michael had asked some friends to read a few poems from the book, as well as reading some himself.
The first friend to read was Mary Louise Parker, who I can report is even more beautiful in person. I got to sit beside her on stage and felt blessed to be illuminated by her radiance. I know that sounds over the top, but that's how I felt. She had to split after she read, but she was followed by Saul Rubinek (I remember him mostly for his terrific performance in Eastwood's UNFORGIVEN as the reporter) who read a poem ("His Thumb Hooked Me") with dialogue, including a "Romanian" accent, and turned it into a mini-play so alive and perfectly rendered it left you feeling fortunate to have experienced it. Portia, a terrific New York actress whose stage work I've seen and am totally impressed by (as was The New York Times), gave the few poems she read a unique voice, and then I read a poem about "love" that was a lot more.
Michael ended by reading several poems in the book about his difficult but rich relationship with his father and moved the audience to shouts and applause. Another great poetry experience at the Bowery Poetry Club, which included seeing some old friends and making some new ones.
Then today, meeting my old L.A. friend (though originally a New Yorker and still is despite her address) poet artist and screenwriter Eve Brandstein at the Met, catching up in one of the cafes in that vast institution, and then checking out the Robert Frank exhibit, including many original prints of the photos from THE AMERICANS that made his reputation (and plagued him for years with its success, much as his friend Jack Kerouac, who wrote the preface for that book, felt about the success of ON THE ROAD).
Unlike paintings, which sometimes don't live up to the images I fell in love with when first encountering them in art books or art magazines, photographs almost always look even better in person, which was true in this case as well. Stunning. And the memories they evoke, of a different time and ways of being in the world. A great great show, well worth it if you can catch it.
And before we saw the Robert Frank photos, we checked out the Vermeer on loan to the Met of "The Milkmaid"—a surprisingly small painting so delicately and precisely crafted it was like a match to Frank's photographs of a moment in time captured so perfectly you feel like you're there. And in this case much more impressive in person than any reprint or photo, especially getting close enough to see the way the paint was applied to create the effect Vermeer obviously was striving for (that light!) and accomplished.
That was more than enough, as has been this whole week, an antidote to the loss of my niece and so many others this past year or so. Poetry and art, they continue to not just bring me pleasure and satisfaction, on every level, and so much more, but ultimately, they continue to save my life.
Monday, October 26, 2009
MICHAEL O'KEEFE: SWIMMING FROM UNDER MY FATHER
Speaking of actors who also become poets, Michael O'Keefe (who you might remember as the "caddy" in CADDYSHACK, or for his Oscar nominated role as the eldest son in THE GREAT SANTINI, or the brother-in-law on ROSEANNE, or most recently the state trooper in FROZEN RIVER, or the Oscar worthy performance as the judge in AMERICAN VIOLET) has a book of poems out, his first, called SWIMMING FROM UNDER MY FATHER.
I wrote the preface, and for further full disclosure, he's an old and dear friend, but even if neither of those things were true I could still highly recommend this book.
First of all, it contains a collection of poems that will give you insights into an actor's perspective (mostly the stage version, which Michael started out as and has done a lot of over the years, on and off-Broadway, and having seen many of those performances I can attest to the consistency of his talent in that arena as well) both on and off stage, of a middle aged man dealing with the accumulation of life's triumphs and struggles, of the grown boy still addressing and perhaps finally transcending childhood trauma, of a zen priest's (yep, he's that too) take on the spiritual in the every day, or maybe the word "spiritual" isn't appropriate for Zen, more like the search for peace in reality, and more...
Here's an example of a Zen koan-like poem, not typical of what's mostly in this book (the center of which is a series of emotionally potent and poignant narrative poems about his relationship with his late father, along with several poems more lyrical but equally realistic about "love"—a word he writes has "been bandied about so often/it's the iceberg lettuce of the vocabulary"), but in many ways sums up the attitude that makes this particular group of poems uniquely Michael O'Keefe's:
"Put up your dukes! If your opponent
throws lefts or rights, take the punch.
A knockout won't do. You've got to let him
kill both of you."
Saturday, October 24, 2009
HARRY NORTHUP INTERVIEW
My friend, the poet Harry E. Northup, is interviewed on the web site Cult Film Freak, and it's well worth reading every word of.
Harry is one of the few other poets I know who've made their living acting in films and on TV. But unlike me, Harry was originally a film actor and then became a poet.
His book REUNIONS, which I've mentioned many times, including in lists, on this blog, remains one of my favorite books of poems.
It's a poetic journal turning the daily life of a working film actor and poet into exquisitely rendered lyrical takes that capture better than anything else I've ever read what it's like to live the life of any kind of freelance artist, filled with the daily creative and financial challenges and struggles, but also with sometimes small but precious creative rewards and insights. And all taking place on movie sets or in his L.A. neighborhood, a maybe less fashionable part of L.A. than we usually encounter in movies and books but a vibrant and vital one that is as unique as any great neighborhood can be. I highly recommend it (here's a link).
But this interview is mainly about his roles in films and what it was like working with Martin Scorcese and Jonathan Demme among the handful of great directors Harry's worked with almost exclusively (unlike me who made most of my rent payments with checks from playing bad guys on TV, and not classic TV either—I'm planning on trying to get any tapes I have of some of these performances onto DVDs so my grandkids can check them out someday, and in doing the first one, a JAG I played a hardcase detective turned psycho on, I had to not only laugh but was impressed with how grounded and real my performance was, thinking if I'd done the same turn on THE SOPRANOS I'd have probably gotten offers from some of these same great directors or at least had a shot at some more classic films than the ones I mostly appeared in).
So, here's the link to the interview, if your a film buff at all, I think you'll get a lot out of it, and you'll know who Harry is and the great contribution he's made to the art of film acting, as well as to the art of poetry.
Harry is one of the few other poets I know who've made their living acting in films and on TV. But unlike me, Harry was originally a film actor and then became a poet.
His book REUNIONS, which I've mentioned many times, including in lists, on this blog, remains one of my favorite books of poems.
It's a poetic journal turning the daily life of a working film actor and poet into exquisitely rendered lyrical takes that capture better than anything else I've ever read what it's like to live the life of any kind of freelance artist, filled with the daily creative and financial challenges and struggles, but also with sometimes small but precious creative rewards and insights. And all taking place on movie sets or in his L.A. neighborhood, a maybe less fashionable part of L.A. than we usually encounter in movies and books but a vibrant and vital one that is as unique as any great neighborhood can be. I highly recommend it (here's a link).
But this interview is mainly about his roles in films and what it was like working with Martin Scorcese and Jonathan Demme among the handful of great directors Harry's worked with almost exclusively (unlike me who made most of my rent payments with checks from playing bad guys on TV, and not classic TV either—I'm planning on trying to get any tapes I have of some of these performances onto DVDs so my grandkids can check them out someday, and in doing the first one, a JAG I played a hardcase detective turned psycho on, I had to not only laugh but was impressed with how grounded and real my performance was, thinking if I'd done the same turn on THE SOPRANOS I'd have probably gotten offers from some of these same great directors or at least had a shot at some more classic films than the ones I mostly appeared in).
So, here's the link to the interview, if your a film buff at all, I think you'll get a lot out of it, and you'll know who Harry is and the great contribution he's made to the art of film acting, as well as to the art of poetry.
Friday, October 23, 2009
WHEN FAMILY MATTERS MOST
For all our differences, and for all my youthful rebellion and rejection of so much I grew up with (while at the same time carrying with me so much, trying to make it only the parts I thought worthwhile or important or "good" etc.), I love my family, my extended family of cousins and nieces and nephews and my siblings' in-laws I've known since I was a boy...
Just back from my niece Cathy's funeral, I love them more than ever. To see nieces and nephews now grown with kids of their own and cousins once and twice removed and all the other designations most of us just shorten to "cousin" and then "cuz" etc., my niece's aunts and uncles from her mother's family I've know for decades, was so comforting.
To share our grief at the passing of someone so beloved the church she went to in Frederick, Maryland, was crowded with hundreds of people, some who flew in from great distances. To relieve, as much as possible, the deep loss of her sister Linda she talked with on the phone five times a day, by sharing stories that made us all laugh and remember the good times or turn the terrible times into stories whose sadness is trumped by humor and in turn become classics to be retold at future gatherings of the tribe, hopefully for reasons other than another death (as my a nephew said to my daughter he hadn't seen since his father's funeral: "We have to stop meeting like this."
So grateful for the Irish tradition, at least among my clan, of turning funerals into celebrations of the deceased, of family, of living connections and of life. There were tears, of course, but much laughter, and music—including group singing of Irish classics like my clan's anthem "The Fields of Athenry" (the town in County Galway my father's father came from, or a crossroads nearby actually).
PS: I didn't include in my earlier post on my niece's passing the fact she had battled breast cancer for fifteen years with humor, grace, determination, stoicism and an unbelievable capacity to not let it get in the way of her natural sweetness and drive to be of service to her family, her friends, and herself. She went back to school and earned a business degree that led to promotion after promotion in the corporation she worked for (Hallmark) that contributed to the well being of her family and served as an example as one of her sons and one of her nieces made clear in their elegies. Her niece Mary read a poem that was clear and direct, a litany of what "Cathy was" including"Cathy was a mother" and "Cathy was a goddess" and an example it was implied and more, and her son Steven read a eulogy that included another poem-like litany when he talked about how despite the cancer his mother still did so much—including getting that degree, going to work every day, being there for her family and friends every day, never losing her sense of humor or love of life—which he started with the admonition that "when you wake up with a frog in your throat and don't feel like going to work, just remember Cathy did" and went on with a list of more excuses most of us use every day to avoid responsibilities or following through on our ambitions and dreams or just being there for others, just remember despite the cancer she battled daily "Cathy did."
Happy to contribute, to respond to my sisters-in-law requests (all of our generation, what's left, there to represent) for me to play the piano, first with another dead brother's oldest son on guitar, a musical whiz since he was a kid, able to find whatever key anyone else is playing in and play foundation chords or beautiful licks over an improvisation, then with some old standards and family favorites (despite some problems with my usually better hand (my right)) then sing-alongs, one lead by one of my departed niece's sons' Irish-born girlfriend ("I'll Tell Me Ma" when I get home etc.), some hokey, most sentimental, a trait too many "intellectuals" I know disparage (see some of the critical reactions to BRIGHT STAR among some poets for instance), and even juvenile songs learned in elementary school, like that unicorn song where the chorus starts with "green alligators and long neck geese" and the adults were free enough (and some without any drink in them) to make the hand and arm figures of snapping alligators and long-necked geese and unicorns etc.) until everyone has ate enough and drank enough and cried and laughed and sang and hugged and talked enough to be exhausted enough to have gotten over the hurdle of one more day when a loss is still fresh, making it never okay but at least a little more acceptable.
In my niece Cathy's case, the gathering was in the late hours perhaps dominated by the Irish side of the family and its ways of dealing with loss, but the Italian side of her own heritage and the Portuguese side of her husband's were also duly represented. It was another good example of those times in life when family matters most. And I mean that to include the friends who become another branch of our personal families and in turn of the extended family I am grateful for.
Just back from my niece Cathy's funeral, I love them more than ever. To see nieces and nephews now grown with kids of their own and cousins once and twice removed and all the other designations most of us just shorten to "cousin" and then "cuz" etc., my niece's aunts and uncles from her mother's family I've know for decades, was so comforting.
To share our grief at the passing of someone so beloved the church she went to in Frederick, Maryland, was crowded with hundreds of people, some who flew in from great distances. To relieve, as much as possible, the deep loss of her sister Linda she talked with on the phone five times a day, by sharing stories that made us all laugh and remember the good times or turn the terrible times into stories whose sadness is trumped by humor and in turn become classics to be retold at future gatherings of the tribe, hopefully for reasons other than another death (as my a nephew said to my daughter he hadn't seen since his father's funeral: "We have to stop meeting like this."
So grateful for the Irish tradition, at least among my clan, of turning funerals into celebrations of the deceased, of family, of living connections and of life. There were tears, of course, but much laughter, and music—including group singing of Irish classics like my clan's anthem "The Fields of Athenry" (the town in County Galway my father's father came from, or a crossroads nearby actually).
PS: I didn't include in my earlier post on my niece's passing the fact she had battled breast cancer for fifteen years with humor, grace, determination, stoicism and an unbelievable capacity to not let it get in the way of her natural sweetness and drive to be of service to her family, her friends, and herself. She went back to school and earned a business degree that led to promotion after promotion in the corporation she worked for (Hallmark) that contributed to the well being of her family and served as an example as one of her sons and one of her nieces made clear in their elegies. Her niece Mary read a poem that was clear and direct, a litany of what "Cathy was" including"Cathy was a mother" and "Cathy was a goddess" and an example it was implied and more, and her son Steven read a eulogy that included another poem-like litany when he talked about how despite the cancer his mother still did so much—including getting that degree, going to work every day, being there for her family and friends every day, never losing her sense of humor or love of life—which he started with the admonition that "when you wake up with a frog in your throat and don't feel like going to work, just remember Cathy did" and went on with a list of more excuses most of us use every day to avoid responsibilities or following through on our ambitions and dreams or just being there for others, just remember despite the cancer she battled daily "Cathy did."
Happy to contribute, to respond to my sisters-in-law requests (all of our generation, what's left, there to represent) for me to play the piano, first with another dead brother's oldest son on guitar, a musical whiz since he was a kid, able to find whatever key anyone else is playing in and play foundation chords or beautiful licks over an improvisation, then with some old standards and family favorites (despite some problems with my usually better hand (my right)) then sing-alongs, one lead by one of my departed niece's sons' Irish-born girlfriend ("I'll Tell Me Ma" when I get home etc.), some hokey, most sentimental, a trait too many "intellectuals" I know disparage (see some of the critical reactions to BRIGHT STAR among some poets for instance), and even juvenile songs learned in elementary school, like that unicorn song where the chorus starts with "green alligators and long neck geese" and the adults were free enough (and some without any drink in them) to make the hand and arm figures of snapping alligators and long-necked geese and unicorns etc.) until everyone has ate enough and drank enough and cried and laughed and sang and hugged and talked enough to be exhausted enough to have gotten over the hurdle of one more day when a loss is still fresh, making it never okay but at least a little more acceptable.
In my niece Cathy's case, the gathering was in the late hours perhaps dominated by the Irish side of the family and its ways of dealing with loss, but the Italian side of her own heritage and the Portuguese side of her husband's were also duly represented. It was another good example of those times in life when family matters most. And I mean that to include the friends who become another branch of our personal families and in turn of the extended family I am grateful for.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
FAVORITE "BIOPICS"
There’s been a lot of criticism in the poetry world (at least on the blogs) of BRIGHT STAR, the movie about the romance between poet John Keats and Fanny Brawne.
I loved the flick and considered it incredibly well done. But there’s quite a few of my fellow poets who found the alterations in Keats’ and Brawne’s bios (she was even younger, some of the lines he recites as if for her were written earlier, etc.), at least from their reading, too much. Or they thought he was depicted as a wimp or too passive or simple minded or not lower class enough (or Cockney) etc.
In the end, it’s a matter of taste in terms of enjoyment of the movie, and whose research is more correct in terms of the facts of John Keats’ life and the inspiration he obviously got from his love for Brawne and how you perceive the performances and the story as movie (for instance I didn’t find the portrayal of Keats to he simple-minded, I find it intense and focused and passionate and quite believable, etc.)..
But it got me thinking about other movies based on real peoples’ lives or incidents in them, so I thought that would make a great list for me last night to help me sleep: those I truly like and could watch again anytime.
As they came to mind, I realized I usually didn’t care about the “facts,” I cared how entertaining or engaging or enlightening etc. the movie was for me.
So here are the ones I thought of (and some I had to look up the exact title for this morning, like CAMILLE CLAUDEL and WITHOUT LIMITS) (I did get carried away, took quite a while to fall asleep last night and kept waking up and thinking of other flicks):
AN ANGEL AT MY TABLE (maybe my favorite of all of these and, as I understand it, closest to the real facts) and ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN
BRIGHT STAR, BASQUIAT (Jeffrey Wright is one of those startling movie actor discoveries in this, as morbid as it is at times) BECKET (one of the few times Richard Burton lived up to his enormous talent), BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, BONNIE AND CLYDE (both these last ones much altered from reality in their “interpretation” but still worth the trouble) and BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (Tom Cruise at his best as an actor) (and before you comment that I’m leaving BIRD out, I had a tough time with the way they redid the music for that flick so it’s not a favorite.)
CINDERELLA MAN, CADILLAC RECORDS, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN (DiCaprio at his most charming), COAL MINER’S DAUGHTER, CAMILLE CLAUDEL, CARRINGTON (another on of Emma Thompson’s amazing performances) and CASINO (not Scorcese’s best, partly, in my opinion, because DiNiro is miscast, but it’s one of Sharon Stone’s best performances)
THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY, DOG DAY AFTERNOON, DONNIE BRASCO (one of Johnny Depp’s most subtle performances) and DEAD MAN WALKING (maybe Sean Penn’s greatest)
ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ (no idea how real this one might even be but a great flick to watch), THE ELEPHANT MAN and ELIZABETH (Cate Blanchett seemed born to play this role)
FRANCES (impeccable performance by a young Jessica Lange)
GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, THE GLEN MILLER STORY (another Hollywoodized version of “the truth” but still, with Jimmy Stewart and June Allyson at their most charming, it’s hard to resist, for me, I’m not embarrassed to dig romanticized, even sentimentalized versions of the truth if there’s something in the art of it, like their performances, and I love the music), GOODFELLAS and GORILLAS IN THE MIST
HILDAGO (More legend than fact but beautifully done, and Viggo Mortenson gives an old fashioned charismatic Hollywood movie star performance), HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSON (almost entirely fabricated, but Danny Kaye is a delight in it for my taste) and HEAVENLY CREATURES (my introduction to the amazing Kate Winslet and what an introduction)
IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER (brilliant) and INTO THE WILD
THE JACKIE ROBINSON STORY (This actually starred Jackie playing himself and recreating filmic versions of some of the struggles he faced as the first “black” man in professional baseball’s all-white white leagues (at least in the modern game, I understand in the 1800s and early 1900s there was some uncontroversial integration at times), so it wasn’t all that well acted, but as a kid it had an enormous impact on me and made him a lifelong hero of mine)
THE KILLING FIELDS (I’m not a fan of Sam Waterson’s but Hang S. Ngor made this film totally work and Waterson be palatable for me)
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, LA BAMBA, LEAN ON ME and THE LAST EMPEROR (another cinematic masterpiece you maybe had to see on the big screen to fully appreciate, I still listen to the soundtrack almost daily)
MIRACLE (another highly underrated performance by Kurt Russell), MICHAEL COLLINS (it has its problems but Liam Neeson is terrific as Collins and the story gets told, at least from one perspective, though Julia Roberts is miscast unfortunately), MASK, MOTORCYCLE DIARIES, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, THE MIRACLE WORKER, THE MUSIC LOVERS (as with most of Ken Russeell’s films this one’s way over the top in its bending of reality, but again, for me, it’s a knockout flick), MRS. PARKER AND THE VICIOUS CIRCLE (Jennifer Jason Leigh in one of her many amazing portrayals), MY LEFT FOOT (Daniel Day Lewis in a role that made his well earned rep as an actor’s actor), THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE and MISHIMA (one of the all time great cinematic masterpieces which I fortunately got to see in a screening in which John Baily, the great cinematographer, used three different kinds of spliced together film for the different effects he and Paul Shrader were going for in the separate parts of Mishima’s story, amazing experience, but even in the copies made for theaters on just one type of film it still was a unique and underrated work of film art and still is)
THE NAKED CIVIL SERVANT (I think I saw this on TV, it was a British flick, maybe made by the BBC, about Quintin Crisp’s early years as in many ways the first truly “out” gay man in Britain (well, obviously not the first, but in terms of flamboyance and modern perceptions) with John Hurt playing Crisp, the first time I saw that incredible actor)
OUT OF AFRICA (I resisted this for decades but finally gave in)
POLLOCK
QUIZ SHOW
REDS, RAGING BULL (though I found DiNiro’s weight gain distracting), THE RETURN OF MARTIN GUERRE (one of DePardieu’s greatest performances, though based on how much actual known history of this episode beyond the broad facts is obviously debatable) ROB ROY (who knows how true it is but Liam Neeson and Jessica Lange are perfect in it) and RUDY (I love this flick and Sean Astin is wonderful in it, even if it is obviously meant to be inspirational and all Hallmarky)
SONG OF MYSELF (this I saw on TV, probably PBS in the ‘70s with Rip Torn as Walt Whitman in the greatest performance he ever did for my taste, and a beautifully done bio of Walt though necessarily some speculation involved in the story), SERGEANT YORK, SPARTACUS (who even knows what’s the truth here, but man it’s an amazing film), SOMEBODY UP THERE LIKES ME (the young Paul Newman competes with Brando’s Oscar winning totally innovative performance in ON THE WATERFRONT and falls short, but still a gas to watch him try), SERPICO (talk about competing with Brando), SWEET DREAMS (another fantastic Jessica Lange performance as Patsy Cline as well as Ed Harris as her husband in a highly underrated flick), STAND AND DELIVER and SCHINDLER’S LIST
TOMBSTONE (another set of brilliant performances by the underrated Kurt Russel and Val Kilmer, the latter almost steals the movie with his portrayal of Doc Holliday) and THE TEMPTATIONS (my little guy loves to watch this with me)
U?
VIVA ZAPATA! (Great early acting jobs by Brando and Anthony Quinn even if the “facts” are Hollywoodized. Who can forget that final image?), THE VIRGIN QUEEN (Bette Davis in her most remarkably daring phase) and LA VIE EN ROSE
THE WILD CHILD (one of my favorites for sure, though I have no idea how close to “the truth” it is), WITHOUT LIMITS (first time I really dug Billy Crudup’s work, here as a track star, an otherwise boring topic for a film but he makes it work) and WHAT’S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT? (Angela Bassett made her mark with this one)
X?
YOUNG MISTER LINCOLN (One of Henry Fonda’s great roles) and YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (quite contrived but still a delight)
Z?
I loved the flick and considered it incredibly well done. But there’s quite a few of my fellow poets who found the alterations in Keats’ and Brawne’s bios (she was even younger, some of the lines he recites as if for her were written earlier, etc.), at least from their reading, too much. Or they thought he was depicted as a wimp or too passive or simple minded or not lower class enough (or Cockney) etc.
In the end, it’s a matter of taste in terms of enjoyment of the movie, and whose research is more correct in terms of the facts of John Keats’ life and the inspiration he obviously got from his love for Brawne and how you perceive the performances and the story as movie (for instance I didn’t find the portrayal of Keats to he simple-minded, I find it intense and focused and passionate and quite believable, etc.)..
But it got me thinking about other movies based on real peoples’ lives or incidents in them, so I thought that would make a great list for me last night to help me sleep: those I truly like and could watch again anytime.
As they came to mind, I realized I usually didn’t care about the “facts,” I cared how entertaining or engaging or enlightening etc. the movie was for me.
So here are the ones I thought of (and some I had to look up the exact title for this morning, like CAMILLE CLAUDEL and WITHOUT LIMITS) (I did get carried away, took quite a while to fall asleep last night and kept waking up and thinking of other flicks):
AN ANGEL AT MY TABLE (maybe my favorite of all of these and, as I understand it, closest to the real facts) and ALL THE PRESIDENT’S MEN
BRIGHT STAR, BASQUIAT (Jeffrey Wright is one of those startling movie actor discoveries in this, as morbid as it is at times) BECKET (one of the few times Richard Burton lived up to his enormous talent), BUTCH CASSIDY AND THE SUNDANCE KID, BONNIE AND CLYDE (both these last ones much altered from reality in their “interpretation” but still worth the trouble) and BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY (Tom Cruise at his best as an actor) (and before you comment that I’m leaving BIRD out, I had a tough time with the way they redid the music for that flick so it’s not a favorite.)
CINDERELLA MAN, CADILLAC RECORDS, CATCH ME IF YOU CAN (DiCaprio at his most charming), COAL MINER’S DAUGHTER, CAMILLE CLAUDEL, CARRINGTON (another on of Emma Thompson’s amazing performances) and CASINO (not Scorcese’s best, partly, in my opinion, because DiNiro is miscast, but it’s one of Sharon Stone’s best performances)
THE DIVING BELL AND THE BUTTERFLY, DOG DAY AFTERNOON, DONNIE BRASCO (one of Johnny Depp’s most subtle performances) and DEAD MAN WALKING (maybe Sean Penn’s greatest)
ESCAPE FROM ALCATRAZ (no idea how real this one might even be but a great flick to watch), THE ELEPHANT MAN and ELIZABETH (Cate Blanchett seemed born to play this role)
FRANCES (impeccable performance by a young Jessica Lange)
GOOD NIGHT AND GOOD LUCK, THE GLEN MILLER STORY (another Hollywoodized version of “the truth” but still, with Jimmy Stewart and June Allyson at their most charming, it’s hard to resist, for me, I’m not embarrassed to dig romanticized, even sentimentalized versions of the truth if there’s something in the art of it, like their performances, and I love the music), GOODFELLAS and GORILLAS IN THE MIST
HILDAGO (More legend than fact but beautifully done, and Viggo Mortenson gives an old fashioned charismatic Hollywood movie star performance), HANS CHRISTIAN ANDERSON (almost entirely fabricated, but Danny Kaye is a delight in it for my taste) and HEAVENLY CREATURES (my introduction to the amazing Kate Winslet and what an introduction)
IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER (brilliant) and INTO THE WILD
THE JACKIE ROBINSON STORY (This actually starred Jackie playing himself and recreating filmic versions of some of the struggles he faced as the first “black” man in professional baseball’s all-white white leagues (at least in the modern game, I understand in the 1800s and early 1900s there was some uncontroversial integration at times), so it wasn’t all that well acted, but as a kid it had an enormous impact on me and made him a lifelong hero of mine)
THE KILLING FIELDS (I’m not a fan of Sam Waterson’s but Hang S. Ngor made this film totally work and Waterson be palatable for me)
LAWRENCE OF ARABIA, LA BAMBA, LEAN ON ME and THE LAST EMPEROR (another cinematic masterpiece you maybe had to see on the big screen to fully appreciate, I still listen to the soundtrack almost daily)
MIRACLE (another highly underrated performance by Kurt Russell), MICHAEL COLLINS (it has its problems but Liam Neeson is terrific as Collins and the story gets told, at least from one perspective, though Julia Roberts is miscast unfortunately), MASK, MOTORCYCLE DIARIES, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, THE MIRACLE WORKER, THE MUSIC LOVERS (as with most of Ken Russeell’s films this one’s way over the top in its bending of reality, but again, for me, it’s a knockout flick), MRS. PARKER AND THE VICIOUS CIRCLE (Jennifer Jason Leigh in one of her many amazing portrayals), MY LEFT FOOT (Daniel Day Lewis in a role that made his well earned rep as an actor’s actor), THE MADNESS OF KING GEORGE and MISHIMA (one of the all time great cinematic masterpieces which I fortunately got to see in a screening in which John Baily, the great cinematographer, used three different kinds of spliced together film for the different effects he and Paul Shrader were going for in the separate parts of Mishima’s story, amazing experience, but even in the copies made for theaters on just one type of film it still was a unique and underrated work of film art and still is)
THE NAKED CIVIL SERVANT (I think I saw this on TV, it was a British flick, maybe made by the BBC, about Quintin Crisp’s early years as in many ways the first truly “out” gay man in Britain (well, obviously not the first, but in terms of flamboyance and modern perceptions) with John Hurt playing Crisp, the first time I saw that incredible actor)
OUT OF AFRICA (I resisted this for decades but finally gave in)
POLLOCK
QUIZ SHOW
REDS, RAGING BULL (though I found DiNiro’s weight gain distracting), THE RETURN OF MARTIN GUERRE (one of DePardieu’s greatest performances, though based on how much actual known history of this episode beyond the broad facts is obviously debatable) ROB ROY (who knows how true it is but Liam Neeson and Jessica Lange are perfect in it) and RUDY (I love this flick and Sean Astin is wonderful in it, even if it is obviously meant to be inspirational and all Hallmarky)
SONG OF MYSELF (this I saw on TV, probably PBS in the ‘70s with Rip Torn as Walt Whitman in the greatest performance he ever did for my taste, and a beautifully done bio of Walt though necessarily some speculation involved in the story), SERGEANT YORK, SPARTACUS (who even knows what’s the truth here, but man it’s an amazing film), SOMEBODY UP THERE LIKES ME (the young Paul Newman competes with Brando’s Oscar winning totally innovative performance in ON THE WATERFRONT and falls short, but still a gas to watch him try), SERPICO (talk about competing with Brando), SWEET DREAMS (another fantastic Jessica Lange performance as Patsy Cline as well as Ed Harris as her husband in a highly underrated flick), STAND AND DELIVER and SCHINDLER’S LIST
TOMBSTONE (another set of brilliant performances by the underrated Kurt Russel and Val Kilmer, the latter almost steals the movie with his portrayal of Doc Holliday) and THE TEMPTATIONS (my little guy loves to watch this with me)
U?
VIVA ZAPATA! (Great early acting jobs by Brando and Anthony Quinn even if the “facts” are Hollywoodized. Who can forget that final image?), THE VIRGIN QUEEN (Bette Davis in her most remarkably daring phase) and LA VIE EN ROSE
THE WILD CHILD (one of my favorites for sure, though I have no idea how close to “the truth” it is), WITHOUT LIMITS (first time I really dug Billy Crudup’s work, here as a track star, an otherwise boring topic for a film but he makes it work) and WHAT’S LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT? (Angela Bassett made her mark with this one)
X?
YOUNG MISTER LINCOLN (One of Henry Fonda’s great roles) and YANKEE DOODLE DANDY (quite contrived but still a delight)
Z?
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
RAY DIPALMA: THE ANCIENT USE OF STONE
The subtitle of my old friend poet Ray DiPalma’s latest book is: JOURNALS AND DAYBOOKS 1998-2008. But don’t expect anything like a typical journal, or daybook for that matter.
As always, Ray’s work is not only challenging on many levels, but uniquely so. The best way to approach it, from my perspective, is as a work of art, or series of works of art.
And this book certainly is a work of art, even just as an object itself. (It's one of the initial offerings of a fairly new imprint from L.A.: Otis Books/Seismicity Editions.) DiPalma’s been fortunate in that many of his books (and he’s published more than me I believe, which means his count is probably up in the thirties) have been beautifully produced, so much so that even if you never read them you’d love to have them on your shelves.
Plus, Ray himself is an artist, who has produced books—some one of a kind—made up entirely of his “stamp” works: collages and art works made from ink stamps, often antiques, of generic figures and scenes.
I have a little, fold-out-book-like object called “Shivering Polar Bears” in which a figure of a polar bear is stamped twice in the same spot just altering the outline slightly so it looks like the bear is shivering, and then this procedure is done again several times the length of what is maybe a 2” by 16” folded piece of paper as it unfolds, and all on a beautiful bluish gray paper that is speckled with other colors on the other side. Lovely. And unique.
I also have a larger framed work of Ray’s in which he uses two fair-sized pieces of a soft beige art paper (maybe twelve by sixteen) to stamp many copies of a man’s head c. 1930s on one and a woman’s, same era, on the other, repeated in rows that begin at the right margin and then curve slightly down to the left, and each row diminishes in number from the upper right hand of the paper to the lower right hand corner (so that by the bottom there’s only one left in that row) giving the effect of the heads falling, or toppling over, or in mid-topple.
Like a lot of Ray’s writing, it seems to imply a lot more than the simple combination of symbols or figures initially might superficially mean. There is whimsy and a sense of playfulness on the surface, but at the same time something much more deeply serious and even, perhaps, threatening.
So too these journals and daybooks. There are some entries that are about as personal as Ray’s writing gets, more so than any I can remember actually, But the bulk of the writing in this book is more concerned with larger and/or more minute concerns than the personal.
Even the intellect behind them is much broader than the personal, except in the act of selection (and who knows how much that may have been determined by chance no matter how arbitrarily conferred on the material by Ray) because so much of the written material here seems taken from other sources: his reading that day, or memory, or as I say some arbitrary chance method of selection like randomly opening a book and dropping your finger to the page (not saying this is what he does, just that the juxtaposition of bits of writing from obviously different eras and authors suggest some randomness at times).
Or, as he puts it himself in an entry for March 5th of his “Jihadgraphy” journal:
“Not doing something with
language but doing something to
language”
(That "to" should be italicized but I can't figure out how to do it on the initial blog composition page!)
Or this from March 27th of the same journal:
“Meditative, unintelligible, beyond
the tides”
Or his made up words that resonate in ways beyond the obvious, like “choruspondence” etc.
Or the more personal entries that sometimes are obviously coming from Ray and his daily experiences and sometimes might actually be coming from the voice of another, though may resonate with Ray’s own, like this first stanza from August 1, 2005 in “An August Daybook”:
“I move more slowly now
because there is no one to go with me.
Once again the contrarian has reclaimed
a part of my temperament and demeanor—
back again, back again as always”
I remember the influence Beckett had on Ray, at least the way I saw it when we were both at the U. of Iowa Writer’s Workshop where we first became friends and I saw Ray perform on stage the lead in KRAPP’S LAST TAPE (in which he was excellent, decades later he was one of four actors in a play of mine at a poet’s festival in NYC and once again amazed me with his skills as a stage actor) which may be why I hear the resonance of Beckett’s voice in those lines above.
Maybe the best way to illustrate some of the many things he is doing with language and composition is to show you a page from the “Jihadgraphy” section (one of the most compelling of the journals because it includes Ray’s artwork in the margins of many of the pages, although in my scanning of this particular page some of the artwork gets cut off because I didn’t want to damage the binding to fit the page in the scanner, but it gives you an idea, especially if you click on it to enlarge it and read the text).
I could go on, but the main point I want to make is that if you treat each page of this book like a painting or sculpture in a gallery or museum and take the time to absorb what engages you initially, just on the surface, and then stick around to let deeper meanings or resonances sink in, I think you’ll be well rewarded. But even if you find the work at times too difficult to comprehend in any way that you’re used to or prefer, I think Ray wouldn’t mind if you skipped around and found pieces here and there that might better speak to you and then expand from those to explore the other multiple possibilities in Ray’s technique(s).
I’ll leave you with one more quote from the text, this one from the journal titled “Mules at the Wake” for July 18, 2006, that, to my mind, best encapsulates what Ray is doing in this book:
“Wet ink drying on the eyelids—
Ensorcelled mazes
Minimal insight plethoral possibility
A catalogue of the haphazard and abortive
Radical trajectories
A capacity for mutation at cross-purposes
The path of the misanthrope and panther”
Monday, October 19, 2009
"WE'VE GOT REPS"
Thanks to Butch from Waukegan who put a link to this hilarious YouTube video on my last post. It's so good I have to share it more directly here.
PS TO YESTERDAY'S POST
If you've been reading the posts on this blog that concern themselves with politics, and in the past year especially with the Obama administration, then you know that my goals have been stated over and over again as well as my credentials.
I have worked actively for most of my adult life for the kinds of changes that would secure the things that many on what the rightwing calls "the left" ("so-called "progressives" or "liberals"—many of whom are actually more in the center) seem to want Obama and the Democrats to secure. But experience and history have taught me that ignoring practical and powerful realities is not an option when you are trying to get a gigantic organism (the federal gov.) to change direction.
I've written many times that those who believe Obama should be doing more in terms of "progressive" or "liberal" goals should definitely be putting pressure on him and his administration, and even more so on Representatives and Senators in Congress. But the point of the article I linked to in the last post, as well as many of my own political posts on this blog, is that the combination of rightwing control and/or influence on the mass media plus their ability to rouse their troops to protest any slight change in the rightwing policies that have dominated the federal government for the past eight years, and longer, has given them an outsized power that the left hasn't matched or beaten except at the polls last Fall.
That right leaning media plus rightwing protestors' pressure on the federal government and policy makers and lawmakers etc. is constant and powerful, while the pressure from the left as the article I linked to contends, has been mostly confined to blogging and op-eds from some, and cynicism and disillusionment from too many.
There were two brief periods in recent history when the media took a slightly leftist bent, when Walter Cronkite decided to comment on the reality of the stalemate in Viet Nam and his courage sparked other journalists to report the realities on the ground in that war instead of the military talking points, and when the Washington Post uncovered the conspiracy behind the Watergate break-in and the involvement of the Nixon White House. There were small media outlets that had a more "liberal" bent that maybe covered these things and more, but the mainstream media pretty much followed the talking points of the corporate world and those they influenced in Washington. But in these two instances the stories were too big and their impact too powerful to ignore.
The rest of the time, the mainstream media has leaned either to the right or straddled the center. We now have MSNBC that has a few shows that report from a leftist perspective but base their reporting on factual events and evidence (Rachel Maddow is the best example), and The Daily Show often exposes the right's influence on the media. But that's about it.
If the left controls any of the mass media than as John Stewart pointed out in the links I had to him a few posts back, why were demonstrations by handfuls of "teabaggers" covered not just in passing but extensively—you couldn't get away from them on every network, every station—and when they marched on DC it received more coverage than any policy or bill passed since Obama's election, much much more, but when the gay rights march brought out as many people on DC it was ignored by most media outlets or given just glancing coverage?
That's proof positive of the rightwing control and/or outsized influence on the media. And there are endless examples I could give and that I even witnessed—like the demonstrations against Bush and the Republicans at the Republican convention held in NYC in '04 where more arrests were made than in any other demonstration in the city's recent and even most of its long term history, where thousands and thousands and thousands of people from all walks of live protested, and yet in the mass media, it was either glanced over or completely ignored. But when a handful of Republican operatives stage crafted a supposed "spontaneous" demonstration to stop the recounting of votes in Florida in 2000, so that a final full recount was never achieved, that was covered as though it was the second coming, et-endlessly-cetera.
I don't want to waste any more time, yours or mine, on the obviousness of all this, but it is a sign of the times and of the proof of the article I linked to in my last post, that much of political discourse now is over the results of the rightwing's capacity to spin the news in ways that are favorable to its positions, and how even those who are more in the center or on the left get sucked into the rightwing slant on current events rather than an objective recognition of what the realities truly are.
Which, in the case of Obama, and the Democrats, is that they do not have the kind of majority that could insure any bill they wanted passed getting passed, that the influence and pressure from the right is constant and seems to control the terms of the argument so that it favors their side in the media (the classic example of supposed "fairness" turning out to mean in practice any reality can be challenged and the challenger gets equal time if the challenge is from the right, but if it's from the left it gets ignored, except on some shows on MSNBC). (In other words, CNN may use so-called "pundits" from the "left" and right, but what they address is controlled by what the right is making the arguments of the day rather than the true facts that CNN should be uncovering and reporting, etc.)
Nonetheless, much has been achieved in the less than ten months Obama has been in office, on every front, things that would not have been achieved had McCain been elected. But there is so much more to do, and Obama seems so willing to compromise or accept less than many of his more leftist supporters would like (including me), the right seems to be scoring all the points while the left bickers or gives up in too many instances. All I've been saying is: don't. Organize, get active, find ways to put pressure on Congress and the administration to push for the progressive goals Obama seemed to represent to many of us.
But meanwhile, we should also be touting Obama's achievements so far, and the achievements of the Democrats in Congress who all seem as lame at touting their accomplishments and getting that information out to the public as they are at naming these achievements (a game the right has dominated ever since Gingrich figured out how to play it as in "The Contract With America" as opposed to the convoluted titles of much of the recent Democratic legislation and initiatives).
I have worked actively for most of my adult life for the kinds of changes that would secure the things that many on what the rightwing calls "the left" ("so-called "progressives" or "liberals"—many of whom are actually more in the center) seem to want Obama and the Democrats to secure. But experience and history have taught me that ignoring practical and powerful realities is not an option when you are trying to get a gigantic organism (the federal gov.) to change direction.
I've written many times that those who believe Obama should be doing more in terms of "progressive" or "liberal" goals should definitely be putting pressure on him and his administration, and even more so on Representatives and Senators in Congress. But the point of the article I linked to in the last post, as well as many of my own political posts on this blog, is that the combination of rightwing control and/or influence on the mass media plus their ability to rouse their troops to protest any slight change in the rightwing policies that have dominated the federal government for the past eight years, and longer, has given them an outsized power that the left hasn't matched or beaten except at the polls last Fall.
That right leaning media plus rightwing protestors' pressure on the federal government and policy makers and lawmakers etc. is constant and powerful, while the pressure from the left as the article I linked to contends, has been mostly confined to blogging and op-eds from some, and cynicism and disillusionment from too many.
There were two brief periods in recent history when the media took a slightly leftist bent, when Walter Cronkite decided to comment on the reality of the stalemate in Viet Nam and his courage sparked other journalists to report the realities on the ground in that war instead of the military talking points, and when the Washington Post uncovered the conspiracy behind the Watergate break-in and the involvement of the Nixon White House. There were small media outlets that had a more "liberal" bent that maybe covered these things and more, but the mainstream media pretty much followed the talking points of the corporate world and those they influenced in Washington. But in these two instances the stories were too big and their impact too powerful to ignore.
The rest of the time, the mainstream media has leaned either to the right or straddled the center. We now have MSNBC that has a few shows that report from a leftist perspective but base their reporting on factual events and evidence (Rachel Maddow is the best example), and The Daily Show often exposes the right's influence on the media. But that's about it.
If the left controls any of the mass media than as John Stewart pointed out in the links I had to him a few posts back, why were demonstrations by handfuls of "teabaggers" covered not just in passing but extensively—you couldn't get away from them on every network, every station—and when they marched on DC it received more coverage than any policy or bill passed since Obama's election, much much more, but when the gay rights march brought out as many people on DC it was ignored by most media outlets or given just glancing coverage?
That's proof positive of the rightwing control and/or outsized influence on the media. And there are endless examples I could give and that I even witnessed—like the demonstrations against Bush and the Republicans at the Republican convention held in NYC in '04 where more arrests were made than in any other demonstration in the city's recent and even most of its long term history, where thousands and thousands and thousands of people from all walks of live protested, and yet in the mass media, it was either glanced over or completely ignored. But when a handful of Republican operatives stage crafted a supposed "spontaneous" demonstration to stop the recounting of votes in Florida in 2000, so that a final full recount was never achieved, that was covered as though it was the second coming, et-endlessly-cetera.
I don't want to waste any more time, yours or mine, on the obviousness of all this, but it is a sign of the times and of the proof of the article I linked to in my last post, that much of political discourse now is over the results of the rightwing's capacity to spin the news in ways that are favorable to its positions, and how even those who are more in the center or on the left get sucked into the rightwing slant on current events rather than an objective recognition of what the realities truly are.
Which, in the case of Obama, and the Democrats, is that they do not have the kind of majority that could insure any bill they wanted passed getting passed, that the influence and pressure from the right is constant and seems to control the terms of the argument so that it favors their side in the media (the classic example of supposed "fairness" turning out to mean in practice any reality can be challenged and the challenger gets equal time if the challenge is from the right, but if it's from the left it gets ignored, except on some shows on MSNBC). (In other words, CNN may use so-called "pundits" from the "left" and right, but what they address is controlled by what the right is making the arguments of the day rather than the true facts that CNN should be uncovering and reporting, etc.)
Nonetheless, much has been achieved in the less than ten months Obama has been in office, on every front, things that would not have been achieved had McCain been elected. But there is so much more to do, and Obama seems so willing to compromise or accept less than many of his more leftist supporters would like (including me), the right seems to be scoring all the points while the left bickers or gives up in too many instances. All I've been saying is: don't. Organize, get active, find ways to put pressure on Congress and the administration to push for the progressive goals Obama seemed to represent to many of us.
But meanwhile, we should also be touting Obama's achievements so far, and the achievements of the Democrats in Congress who all seem as lame at touting their accomplishments and getting that information out to the public as they are at naming these achievements (a game the right has dominated ever since Gingrich figured out how to play it as in "The Contract With America" as opposed to the convoluted titles of much of the recent Democratic legislation and initiatives).
Sunday, October 18, 2009
BETTER THAN I HAVE
Here's an article making the points I've been making since before the last election and in response to those who continue to contend (and in my perspective pretend) that there's no difference between Democrats and Republicans etc., only doing it better than I have.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
QUOTE (POEM) FOR TODAY
Here's a small poem I always dug:
"DIFFICULTY ALONG THE WAY
Seeking Perfect Total Enlightenment
is looking for a flashlight
when all you need the flashlight for
is to find your flashlight"
—Lew Welch
"DIFFICULTY ALONG THE WAY
Seeking Perfect Total Enlightenment
is looking for a flashlight
when all you need the flashlight for
is to find your flashlight"
—Lew Welch
Friday, October 16, 2009
STEWART NAILS REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY
Here. (Be sure to watch the video at the end.) This is the way the "mainstream media" should have covered this story. (See this Daily Show excerpt for Stewart's nailing CNN coverage of SNL skit as news, and again scroll down for the video.)
[PS: Thanks Willy. Here's Stewart exposing rightwing media hypocrisy visa vis the Gay March on DC. Gotta watch it, and the ones above, to the end to get the full impact. And I gotta figure out how to embed them in posts.]
[PPS: Here's a pretty good summary of how "patriotic" the rightwing Republicans are.]
[PS: Thanks Willy. Here's Stewart exposing rightwing media hypocrisy visa vis the Gay March on DC. Gotta watch it, and the ones above, to the end to get the full impact. And I gotta figure out how to embed them in posts.]
[PPS: Here's a pretty good summary of how "patriotic" the rightwing Republicans are.]
Thursday, October 15, 2009
FAVORITE SONGS WITH “OF” IN THEIR TITLES
Some friends have been kidding me about the basis for my latest lists of books and movies (they had to have “of” in their titles). So I figured I’d confirm that by adding a list of SONGS with “of” in their titles.
I came up with this last night to help me fall asleep. As always, they have to be things I dig, not just any old song with “of” in the title. And as these lists always do, it worked (i.e. helped me fall asleep).
ALL OF YOU (Sinatra) [woops, I meant ALL OF ME! thanx Tom]
BLUE MOON OF KENTUCKY (Elvis), BOOTS OF SPANISH LEATHER and BALLAD OF A THIN MAN (both Dylan), BRIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD (Van Morrison) and THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (Terence Winch)
COMBINATION OF THE TWO (Janis & Big Brother) and CHAIN OF FOOLS (Aretha)
DUKE OF EARL (Gene Chandler)
EAST OF THE SUN AND WEST OF THE MOON (Charlie Parker on that album he made with strings)
F?
G? [of course: GREAT BALLS OF FIRE, can't believe I didn't think of that one, thanks Lonnie]
HEARTS OF STONE (The Charms, but I also dug the cover by The Fontane Sisters), HOUSE OF THE RISIN’ SUN (Eric Burdern and The Animals) and HEART OF GLASS (Blondie)
I’M SITTIN’ ON TOP OF THE WORLD (Les Paul & Mary Ford), [PS: left off one I did think of last night but then forgot to write here so am now: IN THE STILL OF THE NIGHT (the Five Satins)] I LET A SONG GO OUT OF MY HEART (Monk’s version), I DON’T STAND A GHOST OF A CHANCE WITH YOU (Chet Baker), I GET A KICK OUT OF YOU (Clifford Brown & Max Roach), IN MY TIME OF DYIN’ (Dylan) and IN PRAISE OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE (Terence Winch)
JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS (Bud Powell)
KEEPIN’ OUT OF MISCHIEF (Barbra Streisand) and KISS OF LIFE (Sade)
THE LONESOME DEATH OF HATTIE CARROLL (Dylan)
MEMORIES OF YOU (Sinatra) and MASTERS OF WAR (Dylan)
THE NEARNESS OF YOU (Nat Adderly)
OUT OF MY DREAMS (Shirley Jones) and OUT OF NOWHERE (Miles Davis’s version)
PIECE OF MY HEART (Janis & Big Brother)
QUEEN OF THE SLIPSTREAM (Van the man)
RIVERS OF TEXAS (The Bog Wanderers)
STRING OF PEARLS (Glen Miller), SOUTH OF THE BORDER (Bing and the Andrews Sisters), STUCK INSIDE OF MOBILE WITH THE MEMPHIS BLUES AGAIN (Dylan), SUNSHINE OF YOUR LOVE (Cream), THE STREETS OF BELFAST (Terence Winch), SHE’S OUT OF MY LIFE (Michael Jackson) and STAR OF THE COUNTY DOWN (Van Morrison with The Chieftans)
THESE ARMS OF MINE (Otis Redding), A TASTE OF HONEY (Streisand), THESE DREAMS OF YOU (Van Morrison) and TOWER OF SONG (Leonard Cohen)
U?
VISIONS OF JOHANNA (Dylan)
WHO WROTE THE BOOK OF LOVE (The Monotones?)
X?
YOU STEPPED OUT OF A DREAM (Glen Miller) and YOU BROUGHT A NEW KIND OF LOVE TO ME (Sinatra)
ZING WENT THE STRINGS OF MY HEART (Judy Garland)
I came up with this last night to help me fall asleep. As always, they have to be things I dig, not just any old song with “of” in the title. And as these lists always do, it worked (i.e. helped me fall asleep).
ALL OF YOU (Sinatra) [woops, I meant ALL OF ME! thanx Tom]
BLUE MOON OF KENTUCKY (Elvis), BOOTS OF SPANISH LEATHER and BALLAD OF A THIN MAN (both Dylan), BRIGHT SIDE OF THE ROAD (Van Morrison) and THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES (Terence Winch)
COMBINATION OF THE TWO (Janis & Big Brother) and CHAIN OF FOOLS (Aretha)
DUKE OF EARL (Gene Chandler)
EAST OF THE SUN AND WEST OF THE MOON (Charlie Parker on that album he made with strings)
F?
G? [of course: GREAT BALLS OF FIRE, can't believe I didn't think of that one, thanks Lonnie]
HEARTS OF STONE (The Charms, but I also dug the cover by The Fontane Sisters), HOUSE OF THE RISIN’ SUN (Eric Burdern and The Animals) and HEART OF GLASS (Blondie)
I’M SITTIN’ ON TOP OF THE WORLD (Les Paul & Mary Ford), [PS: left off one I did think of last night but then forgot to write here so am now: IN THE STILL OF THE NIGHT (the Five Satins)] I LET A SONG GO OUT OF MY HEART (Monk’s version), I DON’T STAND A GHOST OF A CHANCE WITH YOU (Chet Baker), I GET A KICK OUT OF YOU (Clifford Brown & Max Roach), IN MY TIME OF DYIN’ (Dylan) and IN PRAISE OF THE CITY OF BALTIMORE (Terence Winch)
JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS (Bud Powell)
KEEPIN’ OUT OF MISCHIEF (Barbra Streisand) and KISS OF LIFE (Sade)
THE LONESOME DEATH OF HATTIE CARROLL (Dylan)
MEMORIES OF YOU (Sinatra) and MASTERS OF WAR (Dylan)
THE NEARNESS OF YOU (Nat Adderly)
OUT OF MY DREAMS (Shirley Jones) and OUT OF NOWHERE (Miles Davis’s version)
PIECE OF MY HEART (Janis & Big Brother)
QUEEN OF THE SLIPSTREAM (Van the man)
RIVERS OF TEXAS (The Bog Wanderers)
STRING OF PEARLS (Glen Miller), SOUTH OF THE BORDER (Bing and the Andrews Sisters), STUCK INSIDE OF MOBILE WITH THE MEMPHIS BLUES AGAIN (Dylan), SUNSHINE OF YOUR LOVE (Cream), THE STREETS OF BELFAST (Terence Winch), SHE’S OUT OF MY LIFE (Michael Jackson) and STAR OF THE COUNTY DOWN (Van Morrison with The Chieftans)
THESE ARMS OF MINE (Otis Redding), A TASTE OF HONEY (Streisand), THESE DREAMS OF YOU (Van Morrison) and TOWER OF SONG (Leonard Cohen)
U?
VISIONS OF JOHANNA (Dylan)
WHO WROTE THE BOOK OF LOVE (The Monotones?)
X?
YOU STEPPED OUT OF A DREAM (Glen Miller) and YOU BROUGHT A NEW KIND OF LOVE TO ME (Sinatra)
ZING WENT THE STRINGS OF MY HEART (Judy Garland)
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
EVAN MANN: GOOD MORNING MIDNIGHT
The title of Evan Mann's collection of photographs, GOOD MORNING MIDNIGHT, you might know as the title of a song most memorably recorded by Billie Holiday. Or the title of one of Jean Rhys's novels.
Both these previous works of art are in my personal canon. Now Evan Mann's book is too. I've added a link to his blog where some of his photographs can be found, like this one I attempted to scan to include here but couldn't do well without destroying the book.
Even is my sister-in-law's boyfriend (full disclosure), a Southern California native now living in Manhattan with Luloo and some other friends they share an apartment and a band with. They work in restaurants and bars to support their creative projects and interests and travels to exotic locations and landscapes.
He photographs moments from their lives and the lives of their friends and those they encounter with a ferocious precision that evokes an entire universe he allows us to glimpse in a way that sucks us in to each moment captured as if it were created just for our reaction, whether it be awe, or being disturbed and fascinated at the same time (you'll have to see the book for examples of those photos), etc. Here's another example.
I knew Evan was musically talented and could work a skateboard but I had no idea his photography was so potently arresting or startlingly original. You get the impact better from seeing them in this self-published (using the great gifts of the internet age the way we poets and other artists used the mimeograph machine and xeroxing when they were the quickest and cheapest means available for getting our work out to others) collection, partly because the book uses no titles for individual photographs, it lets the images speak for themselves and in their collective spontaneity and sometimes brutal honesty they create a narrative of what it is like to be young, adventurous and honest in these times.
I highly, highly recommend it. Go to his blog DISCREET INDISCRETIONS for ordering info.
Monday, October 12, 2009
BRIGHT STAR
When I'm sad, where I often find the most relief is in a dark movie theater. Since my childhood. Maybe that was one of the few places, surrounded by darkness and people restraining their tongues (at least for the most part, especially back then) where I could fully focus on the art object before me—the film.
So I went to the movies tonight. Many friends had recommended BRIGHT STAR, a film I already wanted to see, and it's playing right up the street from my apartment in the local movie theater so...
It's one of the most intense movies ever made about love. And it's rated PG. Which only made it more intense.
As you probably already know, it's the latest Jane Campion movie, the brilliant Australian filmmaker who made one of my all time favorites AN ANGEL AT MY TABLE (though she's better known for THE PIANO).
Campion is one of the few people who truly earns the right to the often abused "a film by..." since she not only directed BRIGHT STAR but wrote and produced it as well.
No movie I've seen this year (or in most years) that concerns itself with the love between two adults can touch the passion and precision of this one. BRIGHT STAR is at the top of my list for any awards for 2009, beginning with Campion for writing and directing, Ben Whishaw for the part of John Keats, Abbie Cornish as his love Franny Brawne, Kerry Fox as her mother and Paul Scheinder as Keats' friend Charles Brown (a performance that challenges almost every expectation for this "supporting" role).
If you haven't seen it, don't wait for the DVD or to see it on TV, if you can, see it in a theater on a large screen in the dark where the beauty of some of the scenes will overwhelm you, at least they did me.
I laughed out loud, probably confusing the few other people in the theater, at some scenes, just because I was so delighted with how wonderfully they were framed and shot and directed. Exquisite.
Maybe too exquisite for those with a more jaundiced eye (and ear for that matter, as some of the dialogue is just lines from Keats's poems), but for me, it was two hours of movie heaven, not escape but affirmation of a lifetime of aesthetic pleasure from poetry and films and now here, tonight, combined into one deeply satisfying evening's experience.
Thank you Jane. I needed that.
So I went to the movies tonight. Many friends had recommended BRIGHT STAR, a film I already wanted to see, and it's playing right up the street from my apartment in the local movie theater so...
It's one of the most intense movies ever made about love. And it's rated PG. Which only made it more intense.
As you probably already know, it's the latest Jane Campion movie, the brilliant Australian filmmaker who made one of my all time favorites AN ANGEL AT MY TABLE (though she's better known for THE PIANO).
Campion is one of the few people who truly earns the right to the often abused "a film by..." since she not only directed BRIGHT STAR but wrote and produced it as well.
No movie I've seen this year (or in most years) that concerns itself with the love between two adults can touch the passion and precision of this one. BRIGHT STAR is at the top of my list for any awards for 2009, beginning with Campion for writing and directing, Ben Whishaw for the part of John Keats, Abbie Cornish as his love Franny Brawne, Kerry Fox as her mother and Paul Scheinder as Keats' friend Charles Brown (a performance that challenges almost every expectation for this "supporting" role).
If you haven't seen it, don't wait for the DVD or to see it on TV, if you can, see it in a theater on a large screen in the dark where the beauty of some of the scenes will overwhelm you, at least they did me.
I laughed out loud, probably confusing the few other people in the theater, at some scenes, just because I was so delighted with how wonderfully they were framed and shot and directed. Exquisite.
Maybe too exquisite for those with a more jaundiced eye (and ear for that matter, as some of the dialogue is just lines from Keats's poems), but for me, it was two hours of movie heaven, not escape but affirmation of a lifetime of aesthetic pleasure from poetry and films and now here, tonight, combined into one deeply satisfying evening's experience.
Thank you Jane. I needed that.
CATHY LALLY FREITAS R.I.P.
My niece. The oldest of my siblings' (and my) children. Who I've known since she was born and became a sweet little girl and then a sweet woman, who always seemed to be doing her best to do the right thing, and usually did (actually, as far as I know, always did).
She had been battling a cancer that began over a decade ago. So we were lucky to have her these past years and I guess she was fortunate to leave after the suffering had become too much. But still. How can death even exist for our loved ones? It seems so impossible, at least emotionally, despite the reality our intellects can grasp or at least understand.
No matter how well prepared we might be, as my older son and I were saying last night discussing this loss, it still is inconceivable, a shock, a deep disappointment.
I'll miss her. I can't even imagine how her husband and children and mother and sister and brothers must feel. (Her father, one of my brothers, passed over a decade ago himself.)
But I am grateful that I got to spend time with her over the past several years and talk and laugh and hopefully make clear the love I felt, and still feel, for her. May she rest in peace.
That's her on her mother Catherine's lap shortly after her birth. I'm the kid in the back with the floral shirt, my brothers to my right—Tommy who by then was Father Campion, Jimmy (or "Buddy" as we called him to distinguish him from my father) Cathy's father in the tee shirt, and Robert, the brother-leaning-down, and his wife Marie (known to us as "Sis") all the way to my right. My two sisters, Irene and Joan, with the pixie cut, are in front of my mother and her mother, my father all the way to my left sitting on the edge of the couch. A moment in time, or "the eternal now" as my friend Selby used to call it. Always.
She had been battling a cancer that began over a decade ago. So we were lucky to have her these past years and I guess she was fortunate to leave after the suffering had become too much. But still. How can death even exist for our loved ones? It seems so impossible, at least emotionally, despite the reality our intellects can grasp or at least understand.
No matter how well prepared we might be, as my older son and I were saying last night discussing this loss, it still is inconceivable, a shock, a deep disappointment.
I'll miss her. I can't even imagine how her husband and children and mother and sister and brothers must feel. (Her father, one of my brothers, passed over a decade ago himself.)
But I am grateful that I got to spend time with her over the past several years and talk and laugh and hopefully make clear the love I felt, and still feel, for her. May she rest in peace.
That's her on her mother Catherine's lap shortly after her birth. I'm the kid in the back with the floral shirt, my brothers to my right—Tommy who by then was Father Campion, Jimmy (or "Buddy" as we called him to distinguish him from my father) Cathy's father in the tee shirt, and Robert, the brother-leaning-down, and his wife Marie (known to us as "Sis") all the way to my right. My two sisters, Irene and Joan, with the pixie cut, are in front of my mother and her mother, my father all the way to my left sitting on the edge of the couch. A moment in time, or "the eternal now" as my friend Selby used to call it. Always.
Sunday, October 11, 2009
POETRY AT THE ETHICAL
Did another talk/reading at the local Ethical Culture Society meeting hall. It was great fun and very satisfying. I was asked to speak on poetry and the internet, but as usual I didn't prepare, just thought of a few things as I was getting ready to go over there and grabbed a few books and winged it.
I love doing that. It's like the "blowing" (as Frankie Rios—Frank T. Rios on his books, the Brooklyn then Venice original "man in black" street Beat poet still was calling it ala jazz jams when I was back in L.A.)—i.e. spontaneous poetry improvised in the moment. I found a place to begin and had a general idea of where I wanted to end and then just filled in the middle for an hour of going off on related tangents that seemed to get farther away from the topic until I found a way to bring them back around again.
In those situations I rely a lot on what the audience is giving me, what's generating their interest and what's losing them. It is a lot like playing jazz, but more like the audience is the rest of the group you're jamming with. And a delightful audience it was, including a group of kids around pre-teen early teen I'd guess, for which I adjusted some of the poems I was thinking of reading for others not as graphic.
There were some friends and fellow poets there, as well as many strangers. An audience that filled the room nicely and bought a lot of books afterward which always makes me happy, the idea that my poetry and other writing is getting into the hands and heads and hopefully hearts of some more readers. You can see how much fun I was having by this photo one of the audience, Nancy Heinz-Glaser, took of me during it and e mailed to me:
I love doing that. It's like the "blowing" (as Frankie Rios—Frank T. Rios on his books, the Brooklyn then Venice original "man in black" street Beat poet still was calling it ala jazz jams when I was back in L.A.)—i.e. spontaneous poetry improvised in the moment. I found a place to begin and had a general idea of where I wanted to end and then just filled in the middle for an hour of going off on related tangents that seemed to get farther away from the topic until I found a way to bring them back around again.
In those situations I rely a lot on what the audience is giving me, what's generating their interest and what's losing them. It is a lot like playing jazz, but more like the audience is the rest of the group you're jamming with. And a delightful audience it was, including a group of kids around pre-teen early teen I'd guess, for which I adjusted some of the poems I was thinking of reading for others not as graphic.
There were some friends and fellow poets there, as well as many strangers. An audience that filled the room nicely and bought a lot of books afterward which always makes me happy, the idea that my poetry and other writing is getting into the hands and heads and hopefully hearts of some more readers. You can see how much fun I was having by this photo one of the audience, Nancy Heinz-Glaser, took of me during it and e mailed to me:
Saturday, October 10, 2009
NAT ADDERLY JR. & SINATRA
Last night, on the way back from our local ice cream shop (Hershey's, not my favorite but my little guy likes it), my now twelve-year-old son picked up his skate board and crossed our street to an elegant Italian restaurant that often features live jazz, and other music, in it's front room lined with French doors facing the street. When they're all open, as they were last night, the room's not only easily accessible but totally inviting, especially when there's live music playing.
I always dig it when my son shows interest in things I find important, like good jazz. So I followed him across the street. It was a trio—piano, drums and upright acoustic base—and they were very good. Some friends were at the bar for a night out and one was outside talking to his young son on his cell and called out "Lally" and handed me the phone so I could say hi.
Meanwhile my son was watching the drummer closely, his hands and sticks since our vantage point from the street was behind the drummer, sort of over his shoulder. When I handed the phone back I checked out the piano player who was crouched over the keys, his face almost touching them at times, wailing away. Sweet.
Then I noticed the portable sign outside with the chalked info on the evening: Live Jazz! Nat Adderly Jr. Trio. Turns out my friend with the phone who used to work for Luther Vandross knew Nat Jr. because he played piano for Luther!
I couldn't believe it. Nat, the coronet and trumpet playing younger brother of the better known jazz saxophonist "Cannonball" Adderly, is one of my alltime favorite jazz musicians, particularly for an overlooked LP from the very early '60s called NAT TO THE IVY LEAGUE. On one cut on it he plays "The Nearness of You" initially in the standard way of the time, a pretty straight forward rendering of the tune the first time through, then a relatively straight forward improv on the tune the second time through, but then he takes the song and basically—as I would use it for for years—gives a lesson in jazz improvisation. He not only uses what seems like an infinite variety of alternate melodies over the chord changes in each bar, he introduces quotes from all kinds of other songs, including a TV commercial jingle very well know at the time for Alkaseltzer.
It's so much fun and so easy to follow, it was the perfect introduction to what improvising is about for novice jazz fans. Now here was his son, older than Nat, it looked like, when he made that record. What was he doing across the street from my apartment playing jazz so that when my son and I finally went home so we could go to sleep, we could still hear it wafting across our street from the open French doors in the restaurant?
My guess is he lives in the area, at least somewhere in North Jersey. New Jersey has always been a home base for a lot of musicians as well as the birthplace for many of the greats (I based one of my many lists on that idea a while ago). Like the most famous or at least the greatest for my taste, Frank Sinatra.
So it delighted me even more when in the car today on our way to a highway discount store to get my son new sneakers (the last pair fell apart from the intensity of his skateboard tricks and trying to learn them) we were listening to the Jonathan Schwartz show on WNYC and he was doing a special mini-tribute to Sinatra by playing choice live recordings from different shows over the years, the most amazing set being one from the late '50s where he swings "Night and Day" with a blasting brass dominated band followed by one from '62 (in Paris if I remember correctly) where he does the same song only as a really slow, bluesy ballad with only a single guitar for accompaniment.
It was so startling and so original, more so than any of the recordings I've heard him do over the years (some of which are on my iTunes now) that I almost cried in appreciation. But what really got me was my little guy appreciating it too and proving it by comparing some unexpected, more-than-an-octave drops in tone Sinatra made at one point—changing the intent and even the meaning of the line, bringing out other colors and aspects to it than the way it was written, yet still incorporating the original intentions of the songwriter—and my boy not only digs it but excitedly begins comparing it to his doing skateboard tricks and the ways that too is like making a kind of music he says—the variations on the basic themes (though he said that differently but that's the way I heard it) and format is the thrill in not just learning known skate tricks but adding and changing them in your own unique way to make them yours.
He even used the term "feeling the board" in a way that I knew, as a musician, exactly what he meant. Thanks Frank, and Nat, and Nat Jr. and New Jersey and music and skate boarding and my youngest child for keeping it all meaningful and worth while.
I always dig it when my son shows interest in things I find important, like good jazz. So I followed him across the street. It was a trio—piano, drums and upright acoustic base—and they were very good. Some friends were at the bar for a night out and one was outside talking to his young son on his cell and called out "Lally" and handed me the phone so I could say hi.
Meanwhile my son was watching the drummer closely, his hands and sticks since our vantage point from the street was behind the drummer, sort of over his shoulder. When I handed the phone back I checked out the piano player who was crouched over the keys, his face almost touching them at times, wailing away. Sweet.
Then I noticed the portable sign outside with the chalked info on the evening: Live Jazz! Nat Adderly Jr. Trio. Turns out my friend with the phone who used to work for Luther Vandross knew Nat Jr. because he played piano for Luther!
I couldn't believe it. Nat, the coronet and trumpet playing younger brother of the better known jazz saxophonist "Cannonball" Adderly, is one of my alltime favorite jazz musicians, particularly for an overlooked LP from the very early '60s called NAT TO THE IVY LEAGUE. On one cut on it he plays "The Nearness of You" initially in the standard way of the time, a pretty straight forward rendering of the tune the first time through, then a relatively straight forward improv on the tune the second time through, but then he takes the song and basically—as I would use it for for years—gives a lesson in jazz improvisation. He not only uses what seems like an infinite variety of alternate melodies over the chord changes in each bar, he introduces quotes from all kinds of other songs, including a TV commercial jingle very well know at the time for Alkaseltzer.
It's so much fun and so easy to follow, it was the perfect introduction to what improvising is about for novice jazz fans. Now here was his son, older than Nat, it looked like, when he made that record. What was he doing across the street from my apartment playing jazz so that when my son and I finally went home so we could go to sleep, we could still hear it wafting across our street from the open French doors in the restaurant?
My guess is he lives in the area, at least somewhere in North Jersey. New Jersey has always been a home base for a lot of musicians as well as the birthplace for many of the greats (I based one of my many lists on that idea a while ago). Like the most famous or at least the greatest for my taste, Frank Sinatra.
So it delighted me even more when in the car today on our way to a highway discount store to get my son new sneakers (the last pair fell apart from the intensity of his skateboard tricks and trying to learn them) we were listening to the Jonathan Schwartz show on WNYC and he was doing a special mini-tribute to Sinatra by playing choice live recordings from different shows over the years, the most amazing set being one from the late '50s where he swings "Night and Day" with a blasting brass dominated band followed by one from '62 (in Paris if I remember correctly) where he does the same song only as a really slow, bluesy ballad with only a single guitar for accompaniment.
It was so startling and so original, more so than any of the recordings I've heard him do over the years (some of which are on my iTunes now) that I almost cried in appreciation. But what really got me was my little guy appreciating it too and proving it by comparing some unexpected, more-than-an-octave drops in tone Sinatra made at one point—changing the intent and even the meaning of the line, bringing out other colors and aspects to it than the way it was written, yet still incorporating the original intentions of the songwriter—and my boy not only digs it but excitedly begins comparing it to his doing skateboard tricks and the ways that too is like making a kind of music he says—the variations on the basic themes (though he said that differently but that's the way I heard it) and format is the thrill in not just learning known skate tricks but adding and changing them in your own unique way to make them yours.
He even used the term "feeling the board" in a way that I knew, as a musician, exactly what he meant. Thanks Frank, and Nat, and Nat Jr. and New Jersey and music and skate boarding and my youngest child for keeping it all meaningful and worth while.
Friday, October 9, 2009
MORE MEDIA MEDIOCRITY
I couldn't believe what I was hearing on the tube today from not just the usual rightwing misinformation and propaganda purveyors but the major outlets like say NBC news where the "White House Correspondent" as well as Brian Williams or whoever manages the Evening News there need a history lesson.
Treating the story of our president winning a Nobel Prize for Peace like it was unheard of in the history of the award for it to go to anyone who hadn't achieved some kind of major world peace agenda after a lifetime's effort was just plain silly, let alone ignorant or at least ill informed.
Who does the research for these guys, and isn't there anyone there who's old enough to even remember that Kissinger won the bleepin' Nobel Peace Prize while he was still running the then longest war in the history of the USA and one that was completely pointless in the end (as well as the beginning but not many saw it at the time except for "peaceniks" and lefties and such) and it went on for quite a while after the award (and parts of it were "secret" and even more illegal and killed millions who otherwise might still be alive even today were there any real "peace" achieved) and ended in a complete fiasco not in any Kissinger inspired or led peace!
Obama's already made more changes in the world visa vis "peace" than Kissinger ever did! Like the spokesman for the Nobel committee said in the announcement, just by changing the tone from belicose to open-to-diplomacy has altered the urgency of a lot of possible wars that haven't happened yet and may never thanks to his change in "tone" as they put it.
And if that means nothing to rightwingers who hate any achievement of Obama's and would rather see him lose anything than their country win anything (like the Olympics etc.) then they have just proven once and for all how unpatriotic they are and how little this country means to them. All they care about is seeing Obama fail and their rightwing cronies returned to power.
None of that was on the major newscasts about the award. Just speculations about what calculations were in the minds of the Nobel committee, like the new Meet the Press guy has some telepathic connection to the Swedes in charge. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Where are the Cronkites and Moyers (oh yeah, the latter's on PBS doing great journalism)? The Murrows and Rathers (oh yeah, the latter got kicked out for investigating the last president's actual personal "peace" initiative, avoiding the Viet Nam war and even the duty he signed up for at home)? Rachel Maddow's doing a great job of exposing stuff the mainline media should be doing, and Keith Olberman did a great report on the healthcare situation the other night (which my COOL BIRTH old friend Tom noted and linked to yesterday).
But most of the rest of these posers. It's a shame, because I'm a news junkie and actually enjoy some good investigative journalism and sound reporting in the old evening news format. I know, I know, thank God for PBS and the BBC and a lot on MSNBC. But they don't have the coverage we used to get on the old network shows with their foreign correspondents (there's still a few great ones left, like Lara Logan on CBS and Richard what's his name on NBC). Oh well, I'm starting to sound like my grandmother lamenting what's passed and gone.
Hopefully someone out there's going to come up with a new format that still uses the basics of great journalism to do the research and base the story on actual facts and historic precedents rather than on speculation and horse race analogies.
[PS: Some folks didn't get that I was being a little tongue-in-cheek-ish about supposedly not knowing or remembering the names of NBC reporters Chuck Todd, David Gregory and Richard Engel, etc. as a way of demonstrating lack of research or knowledge in "reporting" etc.]
[PPS: For another valid take on all this, and a more reasoned guess at the Nobel Prize Committee's thinking go here.]
[PPS: Yet another, equally valid take, from Howard Zinn who I admire and appreciate and even read with not so long ago but who I don't entirely agree with in terms of absolutes.]
Treating the story of our president winning a Nobel Prize for Peace like it was unheard of in the history of the award for it to go to anyone who hadn't achieved some kind of major world peace agenda after a lifetime's effort was just plain silly, let alone ignorant or at least ill informed.
Who does the research for these guys, and isn't there anyone there who's old enough to even remember that Kissinger won the bleepin' Nobel Peace Prize while he was still running the then longest war in the history of the USA and one that was completely pointless in the end (as well as the beginning but not many saw it at the time except for "peaceniks" and lefties and such) and it went on for quite a while after the award (and parts of it were "secret" and even more illegal and killed millions who otherwise might still be alive even today were there any real "peace" achieved) and ended in a complete fiasco not in any Kissinger inspired or led peace!
Obama's already made more changes in the world visa vis "peace" than Kissinger ever did! Like the spokesman for the Nobel committee said in the announcement, just by changing the tone from belicose to open-to-diplomacy has altered the urgency of a lot of possible wars that haven't happened yet and may never thanks to his change in "tone" as they put it.
And if that means nothing to rightwingers who hate any achievement of Obama's and would rather see him lose anything than their country win anything (like the Olympics etc.) then they have just proven once and for all how unpatriotic they are and how little this country means to them. All they care about is seeing Obama fail and their rightwing cronies returned to power.
None of that was on the major newscasts about the award. Just speculations about what calculations were in the minds of the Nobel committee, like the new Meet the Press guy has some telepathic connection to the Swedes in charge. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
Where are the Cronkites and Moyers (oh yeah, the latter's on PBS doing great journalism)? The Murrows and Rathers (oh yeah, the latter got kicked out for investigating the last president's actual personal "peace" initiative, avoiding the Viet Nam war and even the duty he signed up for at home)? Rachel Maddow's doing a great job of exposing stuff the mainline media should be doing, and Keith Olberman did a great report on the healthcare situation the other night (which my COOL BIRTH old friend Tom noted and linked to yesterday).
But most of the rest of these posers. It's a shame, because I'm a news junkie and actually enjoy some good investigative journalism and sound reporting in the old evening news format. I know, I know, thank God for PBS and the BBC and a lot on MSNBC. But they don't have the coverage we used to get on the old network shows with their foreign correspondents (there's still a few great ones left, like Lara Logan on CBS and Richard what's his name on NBC). Oh well, I'm starting to sound like my grandmother lamenting what's passed and gone.
Hopefully someone out there's going to come up with a new format that still uses the basics of great journalism to do the research and base the story on actual facts and historic precedents rather than on speculation and horse race analogies.
[PS: Some folks didn't get that I was being a little tongue-in-cheek-ish about supposedly not knowing or remembering the names of NBC reporters Chuck Todd, David Gregory and Richard Engel, etc. as a way of demonstrating lack of research or knowledge in "reporting" etc.]
[PPS: For another valid take on all this, and a more reasoned guess at the Nobel Prize Committee's thinking go here.]
[PPS: Yet another, equally valid take, from Howard Zinn who I admire and appreciate and even read with not so long ago but who I don't entirely agree with in terms of absolutes.]
AND FAVORITE MOVIES WITH “OF” IN THEIR TITLES
Another fun list for me, helping me fall asleep to the sound of the rain and memories of the pleasure these movies gave me and still do.
ANATOMY OF A MURDER
THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES and THE BELLS OF ST. MARY’S
CHILDREN OF PARADISE
DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES
EAST OF EDEN (a lot of which I find overblown melodrama, but a lot of which I also find original and unique movie acting and storytelling)
FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS
GRAPES OF WRATH
HEART OF GLASS
IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER and IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH
JESUS OF MONTREAL
KILLER OF SHEEP and KING OF THE HILL
THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS (Michael Mann’s version)
THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN’S CREEK
THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER
OUT OF THE PAST
THE PIRATES OF THE CARRIBBEAN
Q?
RUGGLES OF RED GAP and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
SHADOW OF A DOUBT and THE SANDS OF IOWA JIMA
THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE
THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG
V?
THE WIZARD OF OZ
X?
Y?
Z?
ANATOMY OF A MURDER
THE BEST YEARS OF OUR LIVES and THE BELLS OF ST. MARY’S
CHILDREN OF PARADISE
DAYS OF WINE AND ROSES
EAST OF EDEN (a lot of which I find overblown melodrama, but a lot of which I also find original and unique movie acting and storytelling)
FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS
GRAPES OF WRATH
HEART OF GLASS
IN THE HEAT OF THE NIGHT, IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER and IN THE VALLEY OF ELAH
JESUS OF MONTREAL
KILLER OF SHEEP and KING OF THE HILL
THE LAST OF THE MOHICANS (Michael Mann’s version)
THE MIRACLE OF MORGAN’S CREEK
THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER
OUT OF THE PAST
THE PIRATES OF THE CARRIBBEAN
Q?
RUGGLES OF RED GAP and RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK
SHADOW OF A DOUBT and THE SANDS OF IOWA JIMA
THE TREASURE OF THE SIERRA MADRE
THE UMBRELLAS OF CHERBOURG
V?
THE WIZARD OF OZ
X?
Y?
Z?
Thursday, October 8, 2009
WILL INMAN R.I.P.
I first met Will in Washington DC around 1970 or so. He was an older white bearded gentle man (and a gentleman too) with a very frail young wife. Both were so soft spoken at a time when I seemed to be the loudest poet on the block that I felt a mild and quiet criticism of my high octane poetic explosions.
But Will let me know privately and quietly that he appreciated my work and my style, that there was room for all kinds of approaches to the art of poetry we both devoted so much of our lives to.
He even kept in touch, which I became notoriously bad at for a few decades (and can still be sometimes) over the years (he sent me one of his recent books not that long ago, with a sweet note). But don't get me wrong, he wasn't all sweetness and light, he stepped on probably as many toes as I did, only more gently, and maybe even more relentlessly.
This obit is a pretty good summary of what he was about. I like the quote from him at the end so much I'll reproduce it here for anyone who doesn't bother to check out the link to the article (or as I just discovered when I checked the link, doesn't want to sign up to try and read the thing!):
"We live in a time of broken spirits," he said in a 1992 Star article. "We live in a Lazarus age. We're all partly dead, and we need to learn how to raise each other from the dead — without pretending to be Jesus in the process."
"Everybody is broken, but everybody has the capacity to help each other."
But Will let me know privately and quietly that he appreciated my work and my style, that there was room for all kinds of approaches to the art of poetry we both devoted so much of our lives to.
He even kept in touch, which I became notoriously bad at for a few decades (and can still be sometimes) over the years (he sent me one of his recent books not that long ago, with a sweet note). But don't get me wrong, he wasn't all sweetness and light, he stepped on probably as many toes as I did, only more gently, and maybe even more relentlessly.
This obit is a pretty good summary of what he was about. I like the quote from him at the end so much I'll reproduce it here for anyone who doesn't bother to check out the link to the article (or as I just discovered when I checked the link, doesn't want to sign up to try and read the thing!):
"We live in a time of broken spirits," he said in a 1992 Star article. "We live in a Lazarus age. We're all partly dead, and we need to learn how to raise each other from the dead — without pretending to be Jesus in the process."
"Everybody is broken, but everybody has the capacity to help each other."
IRVING PENN R.I.P.
Another great Jersey boy who shared his talent humbly. Today's NY Times has a pretty extensive obit here.
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
NIKKI NASH
Time for an art break. And just in time. On this, the eighth anniversary of the start of the war in Afghanistan, when the partisan rhetoric continues to mount to even more surreal levels, sometimes the only response (after we've done what we can to fight for what we believe needs to be done to resolve that conflict) is to find some art that revives a sense of the amazing capacity humanity has to transcend the unfairness of so much in life, including the reality that those most often with less—fewer of the rewards of life in this country—end up doing the dirty work (like fighting our wars).
The art of Nikkie Nash is the break I needed. I just added her web site to my recommended list on the right. Check it out and hit all the links to the other pages besides her home page for a taste of her talent and her wit (and hit on the images of her paintings to enlarge them and really get the impact of all that goes on in them).
Nikki was a good friend of mine in my years in "Hollywood." Her day job was behind the scenes in show biz, the kind of jobs that demand manual labor and organization. She could as easily have worked in front of the cameras, like had her own TV show, because she was not only one of the most attractive women in that world, but one of the funniest.
Her wit was always so quick and on target, it would have intimidated me if it was mean spirited in any way. But it never was. It was just funny in a self-aware but gentle way. You can see it at work in the comments on her site on the various pages, especially in the photos of her "at work" which also show how foxy she is, in or out of costume.
But it's her paintings that are the focus of the web site. In the ten years since I left CA for NJ, Nikki's been busy building a body of work that is as attractive and as witty as she is. And as original. There is no one doing what she's doing—her subjects and the ways she approaches them with the kind of humorous takes that are not only instantly funny but have a delayed impact that creates deeper meanings that are even funnier, and more telling.
Her technique is impeccable, her perspective original, and the results delectable. But don't take my word for it, go back up to the link above and check it out for yourself.
The art of Nikkie Nash is the break I needed. I just added her web site to my recommended list on the right. Check it out and hit all the links to the other pages besides her home page for a taste of her talent and her wit (and hit on the images of her paintings to enlarge them and really get the impact of all that goes on in them).
Nikki was a good friend of mine in my years in "Hollywood." Her day job was behind the scenes in show biz, the kind of jobs that demand manual labor and organization. She could as easily have worked in front of the cameras, like had her own TV show, because she was not only one of the most attractive women in that world, but one of the funniest.
Her wit was always so quick and on target, it would have intimidated me if it was mean spirited in any way. But it never was. It was just funny in a self-aware but gentle way. You can see it at work in the comments on her site on the various pages, especially in the photos of her "at work" which also show how foxy she is, in or out of costume.
But it's her paintings that are the focus of the web site. In the ten years since I left CA for NJ, Nikki's been busy building a body of work that is as attractive and as witty as she is. And as original. There is no one doing what she's doing—her subjects and the ways she approaches them with the kind of humorous takes that are not only instantly funny but have a delayed impact that creates deeper meanings that are even funnier, and more telling.
Her technique is impeccable, her perspective original, and the results delectable. But don't take my word for it, go back up to the link above and check it out for yourself.
Tuesday, October 6, 2009
AND DEMOCRATIC HONESTY
Here. I like this guy.
[Thanks to my friend Alameda Tom's site BIRTH OF THE COOL for this great commentary on Grayson.]
[Thanks to my friend Alameda Tom's site BIRTH OF THE COOL for this great commentary on Grayson.]
Monday, October 5, 2009
FAVORITE BOOKS WITH “OF” IN THEIR TITLES
This was a fun list to make while falling asleep last night (I thought of it because at my recent reading in Great Barrington I read from my book OF, which I rarely do because it’s a booklength poem and I always think it needs to be dug in its entirety rather than piecemeal, but it turns out that certain small excerpts work quite well, and one of my best known shorter poems actually comes from OF so…)
For this list I only used collected and selected books if the “of” was part of the title, so for instance Jimmy Schuyler’s COLLECTED POEMS doesn’t use the “of” in the title, but O’Hara’s does, (and I double checked them this morning) thus:
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ALICE B. TOKLAS by Gertrude Stein,
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS,
THE ADVENTURES OF MR. AND MRS. JIM AND RON by Ron Padgett and Jim Dine
AN ADVENTURE OF THE THOUGHT POLICE by Peter Schjeldahl,
THE ART OF THE NOVEL by Milan Kundera,
THE ART OF LEE MILLER
and THE ANCIENT USE OF STONE by Ray DiPalma
BY THE WATERS OF MANHATTAN by Charles Reznikoff (actually two different books, one an early novel from the 1930s, and later he used the same title for his selected poems in the 1960s, both favorites of mine),
BIG SUR AND THE ORANGES OF HIERONYMUS BOSCH by Henry Miller (maybe my favorite book of his),
THE BOOK OF LAUGHTER AND FORGETTING by Milan Kundera,
BORN OF A WOMAN by Etheridge Knight,
BLUES OF THE EGYPTIAN KINGS by Jim Brodey,
BIRTH OF THE COOL by Lewis MacAdams
and THE BOUNDARIES OF BLUR by Nick Piombino
THE COMPLETE POETRY OF JOHN DONNE,
THE COMPLETE POEMS OF JOHN KEATS,
THE COMPLETE POEMS OF STEPHEN CRANE,
CONFESSIONS OF ZENO by Italo Svevo,
THE CANTOS OF EZRA POUND (that’s the full title on my old hardback copy),
CONFESSIONS OF AN IRISH REBEL by Brendan Behan,
THE COLLECTED WORKS OF JANE BOWLES,
THE COLLECTED POEMS OF FRANK O’HARA,
CITY OF GLASS by Paul Auster,
THE CORNERS OF THE MOUTH by Elaine Equi
and THE COLLECT CALL OF THE WILD by Bob Holman
THE DESCENT OF WINTER by William Carlos Williams
and THE DRIFT OF THINGS by Terence Winch
THE EATER OF DARKNESS by Robert M. Coates
and EMPIRE OF SKIN by Tom Clark
THE FACE OF WAR by Martha Gelhorn
and THE FALL OF AMERICA by Allen Ginsberg
GREAT BALLS OF FIRE by Ron Padgett
and THE GREAT BIG BOOK OF TOMORROW by Tom Tomorrow
A HISTORY OF AMERICA by Bill Hutton
THE INVENTION OF SOLITUDE by Paul Auster
THE JOURNAL OF ALBION MOONLIGHT by Kenneth Patchen
and THE JUKEBOX OF MEMNON by Ray DiPalma
K?
LEAVES OF GRASS by Walt Whitman,
THE LIVES OF LEE MILLER by Anthony Penrose (her son),
THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE BOG by John Norton,
THE LONG EXPERIENCE OF LOVE by Jim Moore
and LIFE OF A POET: Rainer Maria Rilke by Ralph Freedman
MOMENTS OF THE ITALIAN SUN by James Wright,
THE MORNING OF THE POEM by James Schuyler,
MOTION OF THE CYPHER by Ray DiPalma
MERCY OF A RUDE STREAM by Henry Roth (the overall title of his last series of autobiographical novels),
THE MEMORY OF ALL THAT by Betsy Blair,
MEMOIRS OF A STREET POET by Frank T. Rios
and THE MOUTH OF JANE by Bobby Miller
THE NOTEBOOKS OF MALTE LAURIDS BRIGGE by Rainer Maria Rilke,
THE NOTEBOOKS OF JOSEPH JOUBERT edited and translated by Paul Auster,
A NEST OF NINNIES by John Ashbery & James Schuyler
and NONE OF THE ABOVE edited by Michael Lally (an anthology of poets in the early ‘70s I dug)
OF MICE AND MEN by John Steinbeck,
ONE DAY IN THE AFTERNOON OF THE WORLD by William Saroyan,
OF BEING NUMEROUS by George Oppen,
ORDERS OF THE RETINA by Thomas M. Disch,
OF by Michael Lally
and OUT OF OUR MINDS by George O’Brien
THE POEMS OF CATULLUS,
THE POEMS OF FRANCOIS VILLON translated by Galway Kinnell,
THE POETRY AND PROSE OF WILLIAM BLAKE (a giant paperback I’ve had for decades),
A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce,
PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG DOG by Dylan Thomas,
THE POEMS OF ALFRED STARR HAMILTON,
POEMS OF A DOGGY by Chris Mason,
A POCKETFUL OF DREAMS: Bing Crosby the Early Years by Gary Giddins,
PURITY OF ABSENCE by Dave Margoshes
and POCKETS OF WHEAT by Geoff Young
Q?
RECOLLECTIONS OF MY LIFE AS A WOMAN: The New York Years by Diane di Prima
and A RUMOR OF INHABITANTS by Robert Slater
STORIES OF GOD by Rainer Maria Rilke,
THE SYSTEM OF DANTE’S HELL by LeRoi Jones (before he was Amira Baraka),
SPRING IN THIS WORLD OF POOR MUTTS by Joe Ceravolo,
SONG OF THE SILENT SNOW by Hubert Selby Jr.
and SELECTED LETTERS OF MARTHA GELHORN
THIS SIDE OF PARADISE by F. Scott Fitzgerald,
TROPIC OF CANCER and TROPIC OF CAPRICORN by Henry Miller,
THE TIME OF YOUR LIFE by William Saroyan,
THE TEMPLE OF GOLD by William Goldman
A TESTAMENT OF HOPE: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King Jr.
THE UFOS OF OCTOBER by Robert Bove
VISONS OF GERARD, VISIONS OF CODY and THE VANITY OF DULOUZ all three by Jack Kerouac
and THE VILLAGE OF LONGING by George O’Brien
THE WINE OF ASTONISHMENT by Martha Gelhorn
and THE WIFE OF WINTER by Michael Dennis Browne
X?
YEARS OF PROTEST edited by Jack Salzman (a terrific anthology of writing from the 1930’s)
Z?
For this list I only used collected and selected books if the “of” was part of the title, so for instance Jimmy Schuyler’s COLLECTED POEMS doesn’t use the “of” in the title, but O’Hara’s does, (and I double checked them this morning) thus:
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF ALICE B. TOKLAS by Gertrude Stein,
THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF WILLIAM CARLOS WILLIAMS,
THE ADVENTURES OF MR. AND MRS. JIM AND RON by Ron Padgett and Jim Dine
AN ADVENTURE OF THE THOUGHT POLICE by Peter Schjeldahl,
THE ART OF THE NOVEL by Milan Kundera,
THE ART OF LEE MILLER
and THE ANCIENT USE OF STONE by Ray DiPalma
BY THE WATERS OF MANHATTAN by Charles Reznikoff (actually two different books, one an early novel from the 1930s, and later he used the same title for his selected poems in the 1960s, both favorites of mine),
BIG SUR AND THE ORANGES OF HIERONYMUS BOSCH by Henry Miller (maybe my favorite book of his),
THE BOOK OF LAUGHTER AND FORGETTING by Milan Kundera,
BORN OF A WOMAN by Etheridge Knight,
BLUES OF THE EGYPTIAN KINGS by Jim Brodey,
BIRTH OF THE COOL by Lewis MacAdams
and THE BOUNDARIES OF BLUR by Nick Piombino
THE COMPLETE POETRY OF JOHN DONNE,
THE COMPLETE POEMS OF JOHN KEATS,
THE COMPLETE POEMS OF STEPHEN CRANE,
CONFESSIONS OF ZENO by Italo Svevo,
THE CANTOS OF EZRA POUND (that’s the full title on my old hardback copy),
CONFESSIONS OF AN IRISH REBEL by Brendan Behan,
THE COLLECTED WORKS OF JANE BOWLES,
THE COLLECTED POEMS OF FRANK O’HARA,
CITY OF GLASS by Paul Auster,
THE CORNERS OF THE MOUTH by Elaine Equi
and THE COLLECT CALL OF THE WILD by Bob Holman
THE DESCENT OF WINTER by William Carlos Williams
and THE DRIFT OF THINGS by Terence Winch
THE EATER OF DARKNESS by Robert M. Coates
and EMPIRE OF SKIN by Tom Clark
THE FACE OF WAR by Martha Gelhorn
and THE FALL OF AMERICA by Allen Ginsberg
GREAT BALLS OF FIRE by Ron Padgett
and THE GREAT BIG BOOK OF TOMORROW by Tom Tomorrow
A HISTORY OF AMERICA by Bill Hutton
THE INVENTION OF SOLITUDE by Paul Auster
THE JOURNAL OF ALBION MOONLIGHT by Kenneth Patchen
and THE JUKEBOX OF MEMNON by Ray DiPalma
K?
LEAVES OF GRASS by Walt Whitman,
THE LIVES OF LEE MILLER by Anthony Penrose (her son),
THE LIGHT AT THE END OF THE BOG by John Norton,
THE LONG EXPERIENCE OF LOVE by Jim Moore
and LIFE OF A POET: Rainer Maria Rilke by Ralph Freedman
MOMENTS OF THE ITALIAN SUN by James Wright,
THE MORNING OF THE POEM by James Schuyler,
MOTION OF THE CYPHER by Ray DiPalma
MERCY OF A RUDE STREAM by Henry Roth (the overall title of his last series of autobiographical novels),
THE MEMORY OF ALL THAT by Betsy Blair,
MEMOIRS OF A STREET POET by Frank T. Rios
and THE MOUTH OF JANE by Bobby Miller
THE NOTEBOOKS OF MALTE LAURIDS BRIGGE by Rainer Maria Rilke,
THE NOTEBOOKS OF JOSEPH JOUBERT edited and translated by Paul Auster,
A NEST OF NINNIES by John Ashbery & James Schuyler
and NONE OF THE ABOVE edited by Michael Lally (an anthology of poets in the early ‘70s I dug)
OF MICE AND MEN by John Steinbeck,
ONE DAY IN THE AFTERNOON OF THE WORLD by William Saroyan,
OF BEING NUMEROUS by George Oppen,
ORDERS OF THE RETINA by Thomas M. Disch,
OF by Michael Lally
and OUT OF OUR MINDS by George O’Brien
THE POEMS OF CATULLUS,
THE POEMS OF FRANCOIS VILLON translated by Galway Kinnell,
THE POETRY AND PROSE OF WILLIAM BLAKE (a giant paperback I’ve had for decades),
A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce,
PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG DOG by Dylan Thomas,
THE POEMS OF ALFRED STARR HAMILTON,
POEMS OF A DOGGY by Chris Mason,
A POCKETFUL OF DREAMS: Bing Crosby the Early Years by Gary Giddins,
PURITY OF ABSENCE by Dave Margoshes
and POCKETS OF WHEAT by Geoff Young
Q?
RECOLLECTIONS OF MY LIFE AS A WOMAN: The New York Years by Diane di Prima
and A RUMOR OF INHABITANTS by Robert Slater
STORIES OF GOD by Rainer Maria Rilke,
THE SYSTEM OF DANTE’S HELL by LeRoi Jones (before he was Amira Baraka),
SPRING IN THIS WORLD OF POOR MUTTS by Joe Ceravolo,
SONG OF THE SILENT SNOW by Hubert Selby Jr.
and SELECTED LETTERS OF MARTHA GELHORN
THIS SIDE OF PARADISE by F. Scott Fitzgerald,
TROPIC OF CANCER and TROPIC OF CAPRICORN by Henry Miller,
THE TIME OF YOUR LIFE by William Saroyan,
THE TEMPLE OF GOLD by William Goldman
A TESTAMENT OF HOPE: The Essential Writings of Martin Luther King Jr.
THE UFOS OF OCTOBER by Robert Bove
VISONS OF GERARD, VISIONS OF CODY and THE VANITY OF DULOUZ all three by Jack Kerouac
and THE VILLAGE OF LONGING by George O’Brien
THE WINE OF ASTONISHMENT by Martha Gelhorn
and THE WIFE OF WINTER by Michael Dennis Browne
X?
YEARS OF PROTEST edited by Jack Salzman (a terrific anthology of writing from the 1930’s)
Z?
Sunday, October 4, 2009
FOX, THE RIGHT AND POINTING
There was an article in TIME last week, and a related story on NPR's RADIO LAB this weekend about experiments done with foxes in Russia over the last sixty years and more recent studies done with various dogs.
The Russian experiment (originally Soviet) separated foxes into two groups: those that backed off and showed fear or aggression (snapped their teeth etc.) when scientists walked up to their cages and put a hand on the bars and those who approached the scientists.
They bred the ones who didn't slink off and snap. Meanwhile they raised another group of foxes that they let breed randomly. Forty generations of these foxes later the foxes bred specifically for the less fearful and aggressive traits have developed into doglike foxes who will run up to people and wag their tails. The others remain more feral and wild fox like.
Meanwhile studies with dogs seem to prove that they are the only animal other than humans who can follow a pointing finger or even a toe or foot. Even puppies close to newborn can follow where a human's finger is pointing, and now the specifically bred foxes can too, while the regular foxes, like all other animals cannot.
I put that together with some recent studies of the brains of "liberals" and "conservatives" and their "fear" reactions (as you might expect, the thought of global warming had the "liberal" brains lighting up the fear centers of the brain while the conservatives' brains remained unmoved, and vice versa for other expected concepts).
The idea, as some scientists see it, is that humans, like dogs, as they became more domesticated, could more easily cooperate and build communities or relationships based on mutual interests, whereas more primitive humans (as the fossil record show, we once had much bigger sharper teeth etc.) would find females wanting to mate with the biggest and strongest who could secure more food than weaker males, eventually the smaller males could band together and through cooperation and community building create something even more sustaining foodwise and force the bigger aggressive male into exile or capital punishment, so the females started looking for the community builders, etc.
So my thought is, it's no accident FOX news is named that, and the reason so many followers of that network fall for it's outright lies and misdirection and misinformation is because it reinforces their particular set of fears, and when "liberals" try to use logic and POINT OUT or even POINT TO the reasons why these people, especially the working folks among them, have more in common with "liberal" aspirations for government and community and will reap greater benefits from it, they can't follow the pointing finger!
Just a theory, based on some real science that maybe hasn't caught up to my theory yet. But keep watching.
The Russian experiment (originally Soviet) separated foxes into two groups: those that backed off and showed fear or aggression (snapped their teeth etc.) when scientists walked up to their cages and put a hand on the bars and those who approached the scientists.
They bred the ones who didn't slink off and snap. Meanwhile they raised another group of foxes that they let breed randomly. Forty generations of these foxes later the foxes bred specifically for the less fearful and aggressive traits have developed into doglike foxes who will run up to people and wag their tails. The others remain more feral and wild fox like.
Meanwhile studies with dogs seem to prove that they are the only animal other than humans who can follow a pointing finger or even a toe or foot. Even puppies close to newborn can follow where a human's finger is pointing, and now the specifically bred foxes can too, while the regular foxes, like all other animals cannot.
I put that together with some recent studies of the brains of "liberals" and "conservatives" and their "fear" reactions (as you might expect, the thought of global warming had the "liberal" brains lighting up the fear centers of the brain while the conservatives' brains remained unmoved, and vice versa for other expected concepts).
The idea, as some scientists see it, is that humans, like dogs, as they became more domesticated, could more easily cooperate and build communities or relationships based on mutual interests, whereas more primitive humans (as the fossil record show, we once had much bigger sharper teeth etc.) would find females wanting to mate with the biggest and strongest who could secure more food than weaker males, eventually the smaller males could band together and through cooperation and community building create something even more sustaining foodwise and force the bigger aggressive male into exile or capital punishment, so the females started looking for the community builders, etc.
So my thought is, it's no accident FOX news is named that, and the reason so many followers of that network fall for it's outright lies and misdirection and misinformation is because it reinforces their particular set of fears, and when "liberals" try to use logic and POINT OUT or even POINT TO the reasons why these people, especially the working folks among them, have more in common with "liberal" aspirations for government and community and will reap greater benefits from it, they can't follow the pointing finger!
Just a theory, based on some real science that maybe hasn't caught up to my theory yet. But keep watching.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
AUTUMN IN THE 'SHIRE
A glorious day up in the Berkshires and beyond. Traveled forty-five minutes into NY state to spend the afternoon at an old fashioned indoor rollerskating rink, with a fenced in section just for skateboarding with ramps and half pipes etc.
My about-to-be-twelve-year-old youngest son mastered the kick-flip finally (jumping on the board and flipping it in the air so it does an entire 360 degree flip and landing back on top of it as your feet meet the board and the board meets the street etc.), so well that he did four in a row perfectly several times.
My eleven-year-old meanwhile did a 180 off a grind on the edge of a box to turn backwards on a ramp and return the way he came from. Probably there's a skateboard term for that I don't know and you probably wouldn't either. Suffice it to say it was an accomplishment, worked long and hard to achieve, and he did today.
On the way there the sun came out and shone on the blasting reds and yellows of a New England Autumn, exactly what I returned to the East for. I couldn't stop saying "thank you" the whole way, up and down rolling hills through farmlands and woods. Too beautiful to articulate now, tired from a full day (I rollerskated quite a bit while they skateboarded, and my daughter, my oldest, rollerskated with me, though faster and more steady, and longer).
There is suffering everywhere, some places more intense, more widespread and more fateful. A lot of that suffering is manmade. But there are also many working to alleviate that suffering or its causes. Today some of my family and me were fortunate to not be suffering, at least not seriously (my little guy injured his hand just before we were ready to leave, one of many injuries he has sustained from skateboarding. We iced the swollen base joint of his thumb but it's still swollen and some Tylenol is helping with the pain, and my granddaughter—who was also with us and won one of the many little games and contests they had for kids, this one dancing—is suffering from a bad cold that makes her sound like Lauren Bacall at thirty-five rather than the seven-year-old she is, etc.).
For our good fortune I thank God and my ancestors and all who have helped to make our world a little better and continue to work in the helping professions that make life easier than it was for even my parents and even older siblings. There is much more work to be done, especially for those less fortunate than us, to all who contribute to that work I also say thank you and hope I can continue to make my small contributions to your good work.
My about-to-be-twelve-year-old youngest son mastered the kick-flip finally (jumping on the board and flipping it in the air so it does an entire 360 degree flip and landing back on top of it as your feet meet the board and the board meets the street etc.), so well that he did four in a row perfectly several times.
My eleven-year-old meanwhile did a 180 off a grind on the edge of a box to turn backwards on a ramp and return the way he came from. Probably there's a skateboard term for that I don't know and you probably wouldn't either. Suffice it to say it was an accomplishment, worked long and hard to achieve, and he did today.
On the way there the sun came out and shone on the blasting reds and yellows of a New England Autumn, exactly what I returned to the East for. I couldn't stop saying "thank you" the whole way, up and down rolling hills through farmlands and woods. Too beautiful to articulate now, tired from a full day (I rollerskated quite a bit while they skateboarded, and my daughter, my oldest, rollerskated with me, though faster and more steady, and longer).
There is suffering everywhere, some places more intense, more widespread and more fateful. A lot of that suffering is manmade. But there are also many working to alleviate that suffering or its causes. Today some of my family and me were fortunate to not be suffering, at least not seriously (my little guy injured his hand just before we were ready to leave, one of many injuries he has sustained from skateboarding. We iced the swollen base joint of his thumb but it's still swollen and some Tylenol is helping with the pain, and my granddaughter—who was also with us and won one of the many little games and contests they had for kids, this one dancing—is suffering from a bad cold that makes her sound like Lauren Bacall at thirty-five rather than the seven-year-old she is, etc.).
For our good fortune I thank God and my ancestors and all who have helped to make our world a little better and continue to work in the helping professions that make life easier than it was for even my parents and even older siblings. There is much more work to be done, especially for those less fortunate than us, to all who contribute to that work I also say thank you and hope I can continue to make my small contributions to your good work.
Friday, October 2, 2009
PROGRESSIVE?
I had a passionate discussion on the phone this morning with my friend Tom G (in LA). He asked me when I would stop defending the Democrats and admit that they are wrong because they seem incapable of bringing about the kind of healthcare reform he advocates.
I don't think we ever got to exactly what his version of the best way to bring universal healthcare to our fellow citizens would be. But my side of the discussion was that if the kinds of changes that are already in the proposed healthcare reform bill had come about somehow under the previous administration and/or Bush Senior's or Reagan's, Democrats, at least what some still call "liberal" Democrats and what many now call "Progressive" Democrats would have (or at least should have) been dancing in the street.
The idea that no one will be able to have their health insurance cut off if they lose their job or move from one to another or because of a "pre-existing condition" or any of the myriad other ways the insurance companies have found to deny coverage or limit it to the point of uselessness should have all Democrats, and especially the "liberals" and "progressives" very pleased.
But because the terribly labeled "public option" (it sounds like a restroom or worse) may not make it into the final bill, many so-called "liberal" and even more so-called "progressive" Democrats are acting like Hitler just invaded Poland or the details of the Holocaust have just been revealed.
Sorry, but my lifetime's experience coupled with a lifetime of reading and studying history etc. leads me to conclude that progress is progress and if that's what you're for you should rejoice in whatever progress can be made while working for more.
When I was young I wanted change to be instantaneous and I joined movements that pushed for change to come faster and more universally in Civil Rights and later in stopping the clearly senseless (especially in retrospect for those not there at the time or not informed enough to realize) war in Viet Nam, and for equal rights for women and for people not as easily defined in terms of gender and for people whose attractions were for the same gender as their own and etc.
I also fought and worked for more democracy, more equality and more transparency on every level. In some cases those struggles brought about real change that may have come much more slowly or not at all if there hadn't been those of us fighting for those changes.
But, they still didn't come overnight, even if in some cases it seemed like it. The struggle for equal rights for women is formally over a century old and informally it's been going on for far longer. And ditto for many other changes. In some areas, there seems to be no turning back, and then, unfortunately, some segments of humanity do (slavery, racial and gender discrimination and oppression, etc.).
The point is, those who become impatient and leave the fight for change through legal and democratic means—in order to try and force change through violence, or drop out of the struggle entirely because change isn't occurring fast enough—only contribute to the backward trend in whatever areas they were struggling for progress in.
Despite the worst financial crisis in our history, maybe the world's at least in the past few centuries, FDR was not able to push through Social Security as we know it. He was able to initiate the program and establish the justification for it for widows and children and over the next several years was able to expand it. Then over the next several decades it was improved on more and now is where we know it and most of those receiving it are very grateful for the help it provides.
Even LBJ with a much greater majority in Congress than Obama has was only able to get Medicare established so that older people could be guaranteed healthcare, but he was unable to get through universal healthcare. If I had my way, we'd just expand Medicare to cover everyone, and pay for it with tax increases for the rich (taxes were almost twice as much on the wealthiest even after Reagan got through with his tax cuts!) whose portion of the wealth in the USA has grown exponentially since the rightwing Republicans began to have more and more influence not only over our national government but over the media and its discussion of these issues. [And over an economy that they brought to the brink of destruction, and will again if or when they regain power.]
But the reality is I don't get my way. Nor do most of us (and if we did there'd be chaos because we'd all have a different version of what would be best, just read the comments on this blog or any blog that deals with any of these issues). What we get is either gradual change, either progressive or backward, depending on who is controlling the government and the media and therefore the public discussion of what options are even viable.
When there is actual large scale and abrupt change in either direction, it is usually if not always (I'd say always but I don't want an endless comment thread referring to various inaccurate and unreliable Internet sources for wingnut arguments) a result of violence or causes great violence, and if you're pushing for that kind of change then you have to be ready for the violence that ensues.
Our last president wanted to bring about that kind of large scale and abrupt change in the Middle East, so we invaded Iraq. You wanna tell all those who lost loved ones and continue to as a result of that that it's all worth it because Iraq actually had elections? I don't. Nor do I want to see rightwing Republicans regain power as a result of too many voters and activists and bloggers and commenters and etc. losing faith in Obama and his "progressive" credentials because change doesn't happen fast enough or on a large enough scale to satisfy their ideals.
ideals are easy, change is very very difficult. I'm grateful for the changes this administration has already brought about. There are already more people covered by healthcare insurance than were just six months ago, there are less people losing their jobs (though still too many obviously so don't bother to make that comment, but even with the rise in that figure according to the latest data, it is still less than a third of the number who lost their jobs in January just before Obama took office and began to change things), the world financial system is at least for the moment much more stable than it was when Obama took the oath of office and there are more people working in government with progressive ideals than there are those with fundamentalist Christian ideas that demand obedience to their interpretation of the Bible (or their leaders') over the Constitution than there were ten months ago.
And there's much more. That isn't universal healthcare or a total withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan or holding accountable those who caused the financial crisis etc. etc. nor is it creating two million new jobs etc. etc. But if you think that can happen over night or even in one year, then your not a big fan of democracy in action only in theory. Fight for what you believe is best, but expect a long struggle with many setbacks and don't get discouraged. And if you do, shake it off and get back in the struggle, and as Joe Hill once said:
"Don't mourn, organize!"
[PS: It would be so easy to just post a simple statement of what my ideals are and what I'd like to see happen. I'd like, as my friend Sue and others have said, to see either Medicare expanded to include everyone, or everyone to get the same kind of healthcare that those in Congress do. I also believe everyone has the right to food and shelter and education and a job that does no harm but in fact contributes to the community, including the world community. But those are just ideals, something to work toward, which I have done for most of my life. In the meantime, real every day life goes on in which these ideals are mostly meaningless to most people in dire situations regarding all of the above. So any kind of change for the better, no matter how small, I'm for.]
[(from a response to some of the comments on this post—PPS: I would love to see healthcare coverage for everyone. I marched on Washington, and in Washington, many times over the years, and took part in demonstrations and protests around the country many times for many issues and at locations that focused on various branches of the government and their agencies under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Some of these protests had half a million people or more at them, some only a dozen or so. But I did it regularly for years and years and years. Some of it helped change some things, and some didn't. But along with many others, I still did it, and still do it. Where are the protestors marching and demonstrating in DC for "the public option" or whatever version of healthcare reform they champion and feel is not being recognized or enacted? All I see is rightwing protests in which the main focus seems to be denigrating Obama and anything he is trying to do. It's as if the only people protesting and demonstrating in any larrge numbers in the '60s were the so-called "hardhats" (short for the rightwingers of that time) and none or very few against the war. Now's the time for a major march on DC in favor of radical change in healthcare coverage and other more left leaning goals (i.e. not backward to more of the rightwing practices that got us into the mess we're in in the first place), even if all it accomplishes is pushing Obama and this Congress a little bit further in that direction, rather than responding to the pressure from corporate power on one side and rightwing media/misinformed angry crowds on the other. In other words, all the pressure coming from the right. Lefties, get some of your idealist friends together and organize a massive march on DC. We did it. Several times.]
I don't think we ever got to exactly what his version of the best way to bring universal healthcare to our fellow citizens would be. But my side of the discussion was that if the kinds of changes that are already in the proposed healthcare reform bill had come about somehow under the previous administration and/or Bush Senior's or Reagan's, Democrats, at least what some still call "liberal" Democrats and what many now call "Progressive" Democrats would have (or at least should have) been dancing in the street.
The idea that no one will be able to have their health insurance cut off if they lose their job or move from one to another or because of a "pre-existing condition" or any of the myriad other ways the insurance companies have found to deny coverage or limit it to the point of uselessness should have all Democrats, and especially the "liberals" and "progressives" very pleased.
But because the terribly labeled "public option" (it sounds like a restroom or worse) may not make it into the final bill, many so-called "liberal" and even more so-called "progressive" Democrats are acting like Hitler just invaded Poland or the details of the Holocaust have just been revealed.
Sorry, but my lifetime's experience coupled with a lifetime of reading and studying history etc. leads me to conclude that progress is progress and if that's what you're for you should rejoice in whatever progress can be made while working for more.
When I was young I wanted change to be instantaneous and I joined movements that pushed for change to come faster and more universally in Civil Rights and later in stopping the clearly senseless (especially in retrospect for those not there at the time or not informed enough to realize) war in Viet Nam, and for equal rights for women and for people not as easily defined in terms of gender and for people whose attractions were for the same gender as their own and etc.
I also fought and worked for more democracy, more equality and more transparency on every level. In some cases those struggles brought about real change that may have come much more slowly or not at all if there hadn't been those of us fighting for those changes.
But, they still didn't come overnight, even if in some cases it seemed like it. The struggle for equal rights for women is formally over a century old and informally it's been going on for far longer. And ditto for many other changes. In some areas, there seems to be no turning back, and then, unfortunately, some segments of humanity do (slavery, racial and gender discrimination and oppression, etc.).
The point is, those who become impatient and leave the fight for change through legal and democratic means—in order to try and force change through violence, or drop out of the struggle entirely because change isn't occurring fast enough—only contribute to the backward trend in whatever areas they were struggling for progress in.
Despite the worst financial crisis in our history, maybe the world's at least in the past few centuries, FDR was not able to push through Social Security as we know it. He was able to initiate the program and establish the justification for it for widows and children and over the next several years was able to expand it. Then over the next several decades it was improved on more and now is where we know it and most of those receiving it are very grateful for the help it provides.
Even LBJ with a much greater majority in Congress than Obama has was only able to get Medicare established so that older people could be guaranteed healthcare, but he was unable to get through universal healthcare. If I had my way, we'd just expand Medicare to cover everyone, and pay for it with tax increases for the rich (taxes were almost twice as much on the wealthiest even after Reagan got through with his tax cuts!) whose portion of the wealth in the USA has grown exponentially since the rightwing Republicans began to have more and more influence not only over our national government but over the media and its discussion of these issues. [And over an economy that they brought to the brink of destruction, and will again if or when they regain power.]
But the reality is I don't get my way. Nor do most of us (and if we did there'd be chaos because we'd all have a different version of what would be best, just read the comments on this blog or any blog that deals with any of these issues). What we get is either gradual change, either progressive or backward, depending on who is controlling the government and the media and therefore the public discussion of what options are even viable.
When there is actual large scale and abrupt change in either direction, it is usually if not always (I'd say always but I don't want an endless comment thread referring to various inaccurate and unreliable Internet sources for wingnut arguments) a result of violence or causes great violence, and if you're pushing for that kind of change then you have to be ready for the violence that ensues.
Our last president wanted to bring about that kind of large scale and abrupt change in the Middle East, so we invaded Iraq. You wanna tell all those who lost loved ones and continue to as a result of that that it's all worth it because Iraq actually had elections? I don't. Nor do I want to see rightwing Republicans regain power as a result of too many voters and activists and bloggers and commenters and etc. losing faith in Obama and his "progressive" credentials because change doesn't happen fast enough or on a large enough scale to satisfy their ideals.
ideals are easy, change is very very difficult. I'm grateful for the changes this administration has already brought about. There are already more people covered by healthcare insurance than were just six months ago, there are less people losing their jobs (though still too many obviously so don't bother to make that comment, but even with the rise in that figure according to the latest data, it is still less than a third of the number who lost their jobs in January just before Obama took office and began to change things), the world financial system is at least for the moment much more stable than it was when Obama took the oath of office and there are more people working in government with progressive ideals than there are those with fundamentalist Christian ideas that demand obedience to their interpretation of the Bible (or their leaders') over the Constitution than there were ten months ago.
And there's much more. That isn't universal healthcare or a total withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan or holding accountable those who caused the financial crisis etc. etc. nor is it creating two million new jobs etc. etc. But if you think that can happen over night or even in one year, then your not a big fan of democracy in action only in theory. Fight for what you believe is best, but expect a long struggle with many setbacks and don't get discouraged. And if you do, shake it off and get back in the struggle, and as Joe Hill once said:
"Don't mourn, organize!"
[PS: It would be so easy to just post a simple statement of what my ideals are and what I'd like to see happen. I'd like, as my friend Sue and others have said, to see either Medicare expanded to include everyone, or everyone to get the same kind of healthcare that those in Congress do. I also believe everyone has the right to food and shelter and education and a job that does no harm but in fact contributes to the community, including the world community. But those are just ideals, something to work toward, which I have done for most of my life. In the meantime, real every day life goes on in which these ideals are mostly meaningless to most people in dire situations regarding all of the above. So any kind of change for the better, no matter how small, I'm for.]
[(from a response to some of the comments on this post—PPS: I would love to see healthcare coverage for everyone. I marched on Washington, and in Washington, many times over the years, and took part in demonstrations and protests around the country many times for many issues and at locations that focused on various branches of the government and their agencies under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Some of these protests had half a million people or more at them, some only a dozen or so. But I did it regularly for years and years and years. Some of it helped change some things, and some didn't. But along with many others, I still did it, and still do it. Where are the protestors marching and demonstrating in DC for "the public option" or whatever version of healthcare reform they champion and feel is not being recognized or enacted? All I see is rightwing protests in which the main focus seems to be denigrating Obama and anything he is trying to do. It's as if the only people protesting and demonstrating in any larrge numbers in the '60s were the so-called "hardhats" (short for the rightwingers of that time) and none or very few against the war. Now's the time for a major march on DC in favor of radical change in healthcare coverage and other more left leaning goals (i.e. not backward to more of the rightwing practices that got us into the mess we're in in the first place), even if all it accomplishes is pushing Obama and this Congress a little bit further in that direction, rather than responding to the pressure from corporate power on one side and rightwing media/misinformed angry crowds on the other. In other words, all the pressure coming from the right. Lefties, get some of your idealist friends together and organize a massive march on DC. We did it. Several times.]
Thursday, October 1, 2009
"SOCIALIST?"
Here's as good a response to that ridiculous charge the right has been throwing at Obama since before he even got elected. It's also one voice representing a different "Christian" perspective on these issues. And no, I don't agree with everything in this article (I rarely agree with everything in any link I put up, with the exception usually of Jon Stewart!).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)