Skip to content

Friday Night Music-Something Completely Different

Friday, May 7, 2010

When I got my first CD player, sometime around 1986, I started to branch out a bit, musically speaking. Partly that was because, at first, there was more classical music on CD, and partly because I wanted to learn about classical music. I also started listening to a lot of pre-rock stuff. I quickly got hooked on all things George Gershwin-in my opinion the greatest American songwriter/composer of the 20th century, who was lucky enough to have a brother who was among the greatest lyricists.

Rhapsody in Blue was one of the first Gershwin compositions I picked up. Is it classical, or jazz? Whatever it is, it’s great, and far and away more of a joy to listen to than any other classical piece (if that’s what it is) composed in the last 100 years. This video is a movie by one Adrian Marthaler, made in 1981. Seems to me he catches the mood pretty well. The piece is about 16 minutes long, longer than youtube allows, so it’s in two segments. A big investment of your time, but give it a shot if you’ve never heard it. It’s truly wonderful music.

That being the meal, assuming you’ve got this far, here’s some Gershwin dessert. Ella Fitzgerald singing Summertime

and the man himself performing I’ve Got Rhythm

Tomorrow, back to blogging. Depending on your point of view, that’s either a promise or a threat.


Filed in Music | | Comments (0)

No Ice Cream this time

Friday, May 7, 2010

Gerry Garcia dropped by at last night’s Drinking Liberally, no doubt the last politician of note (not counting founding and faithful member Betsy Ritter) we will see until the next election cycle.

Gerry is an impressive guy. We Democrats have the bad or good fortune, depending on how you look at it, of having an embarrassment of riches as far as the people running for secretary of state (or is is secretary of the state) are concerned. Come to think of it, that’s the case for all the offices. Why are the Republican candidates all such mediocrities, I wonder?

When Gerry came to our town committee meeting a few weeks ago he passed out ice cream, Ben and Jerry’s of course, but, alas, could not do so last night.

I should say here that there was a bit of confusion about last night, as word was circulated that Dan Malloy was going to come as well. In fact, Dan never committed to come, or even, so far as I know, said he would come, so that was an error, though of course he would have been welcome.

This has been a truly busy week for me. I do hope to actually get to serious posting at some point, but this is the best I can do for now.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Ned comes to Groton

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

As advertised yesterday, Ned Lamont and Mary Glassman came to visit the local convention delegates here in Groton tonight.

For what it’s worth, I think Ned is leading among us Grotonites.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Corporations can speak freely, and quash speech too

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

This sort of thing is all too familiar:

VoteVets, a progressive organization founded by veterans of the war in Iraq and Afghanistan, unveiled a strong television ad last week, connecting a climate bill to the nation’s national security interests. The spot notes that “a clean energy climate plan would cut our dependence on foreign oil in half and cut oil profits for hostile nations.” Sounds right to me.

The ad has already aired on CNN and MSNBC, but not on Fox News. It’s not because the group didn’t try; it’s because the network refused the commercial. A spokesperson for VoteVets said Fox News rejected the ad as “too confusing.”

The sad truth is that it is progressive messages that are most likely to be banned, for reasons that should be mystifying, but are actually quite clear. When they don’t run counter to the narrative of overtly political networks like Fox, the run counter to the narrative of the corporations that control the supposedly non-political networks. And then, sometimes, their just too controversial, like the spot referenced in the linked article in which the United Church of Christ propounded the un-Christian message that it welcomed all comers.

They are our airwaves or, in the case of cable systems, regulated monopolies or quasi-monopolies. They are analogous to public accommodations, and Congress should step in and forbid these corporations from refusing to air political messages based on content, unless that content is obscene. To ease feigned concerns, Congress could at the same time relieve the networks from any liability for libel or slander arising from the content of the ads. This will never happen of course; Republicans like the current system too much; and Democrats are too spineless and too addicted to the crumbs they get from the corporate table to do something so clearly in their theoretical interest.

Still, one can dream. After all, we on the left are already bombarded with messages with which we disagree. It could only get better for us.


Filed in Corporate Crime, Politics | | Comments (0)

Haven’t we heard this story before?

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

Are there any right wing anti-gay preachers who aren’t gay? (via Kos):

On April 13, the “rent boy” (whom we’ll call Lucien) arrived at Miami International Airport on Iberian Airlines Flight 6123, after a ten-day, fully subsidized trip to Europe. He was soon followed out of customs by an old man with an atavistic mustache and a desperate blond comb-over, pushing an overburdened baggage cart.

That man was George Alan Rekers, of North Miami — the callboy’s client and, as it happens, one of America’s most prominent anti-gay activists. Rekers, a Baptist minister who is a leading scholar for the Christian right, left the terminal with his gay escort, looking a bit discomfited when a picture of the two was snapped with a hot-pink digital camera.

Reached by New Times before a trip to Bermuda, Rekers said he learned Lucien was a prostitute only midway through their vacation. “I had surgery,” Rekers said, “and I can’t lift luggage. That’s why I hired him.” (Medical problems didn’t stop him from pushing the tottering baggage cart through MIA.)

The call-boy actually appears to have more professional ethics than his client, since he was apparently rather reluctant to rat out the man.

Really, though, how many times do we have to read variations of this squalid little tale? I can understand self loathing, I can understand staying in the closet, but why go out of your way to attack people whose sexual preferences you share. Can’t you be a right wing preacher while maintaining a discrete silence on that issue. After all, there’s plenty of other people to hate in Jesus’ name.


Filed in Hypocrisy, Religion | | Comments (0)

Ned Lamont to visit Groton tomorrow

Tuesday, May 4, 2010

I have been encouraged by the Lamont campaign to invite my vast readership to come to the Fisherman tomorrow at 7:00 PM to meet Ned. For those unfamiliar with the territory here, the Fisherman is on Groton Long Point Road in Groton, just outside the entrance to Groton Long Point. Down the hill past Fitch, keep going until you get to the Bridge, then stop.

For me, it’s practically close enough to walk.

C’mon folks, turn out, or all my pretensions to being a widely read pundit will be exposed for what they are.


Filed in Local issues | | Comments (0)

Government of the People

Monday, May 3, 2010

Funny that the teabaggers can’t seem to get upset about this sort of stuff (via Atrios):

As top Federal Reserve officials debated whether there was a housing bubble and what to do about it, then-Chairman Alan Greenspan argued that the dissent should be kept secret so that the Fed wouldn’t lose control of the debate to people less well-informed than themselves.

“We run the risk, by laying out the pros and cons of a particular argument, of inducing people to join in on the debate, and in this regard it is possible to lose control of a process that only we fully understand,” Greenspan said, according to the transcripts of a March 2004 meeting.

We common folks are only allowed to look at these minutes five years after the meetings take place, and, because of the fact that they are dumped only yearly, it actually works out to six. More than enough time for the only people who “fully understand” the workings of the economy to destroy it without us being in on the coming disaster.

There is actually a measure of bi-partisanship behind Bernie Sander’s attempt to mandate audits of the Fed. The Fed, at this point, is a fourth branch of government (unless you count the CIA) and it’s more secretive than the Supreme Court. We really should have a right to know what our betters are doing to us in the comfy confines of their paneled offices, but my guess is that such a radical step will never be taken.


Filed in Economics | | Comments (1)

Public Option

Sunday, May 2, 2010

Although I never wrote about it, I remember thinking at the time that nationalizing the banks was being discussed that it would not be a bad idea to have a permanent national bank of some sort to keep the private banks honest, much like the late lamented health care public option might have kept the insurance companies honest.

Well, it looks like the idea is coming up on the state level:

At least eight U.S. states are considering proposals to start state-run banks in the wake of an economic crisis where many private banks ceased or greatly decreased their lending, literally shrinking the money pool available in state economies.

One state has a pubic option in banking already, and guess what:

North Dakota is the only one out of the 50 U.S. states that is still operating with a fiscal surplus, and some economists argue it is in part due to the state-owned Bank of North Dakota – the only bank of its kind in the U.S. – which has been able to pump money into its own economy by making loans to farmers, small businesses and families.

I would suggest that a bank of this sort makes sense in every state. I’d love to see states get away from tax “incentives” to businesses, and just get into the business of investing in promising businesses the way the private economy does it-through direct investment or lending. A bank like this could be a useful device for economic development. Tax breaks are lose-probably lose propositions for states and towns. They lose the tax revenues and get no return on that investment except future tax revenues once the breaks expire-revenues they should have been getting all along. If they loaned money or took a stake, then they would get a return when the businesses succeed.

Of course, the devil’s in the details, and you’d have to make sure you didn’t hand the bank over to corrupt operators-imagine Rowland with his hand in that cookie jar.

I’d be interested to know what our gubernatorial candidates think about this, and the next time I talk to either of them I’ll try to find out.


Filed in Economics | | Comments (0)

Friday Night Music-Randy redux

Friday, April 30, 2010

Okay, I know I’ve done him before, but I’m a Randy Newman fanatic, and anyway, this has more than a a passing relevance to current events.


Filed in Music | | Comments (1)

A missed opportunity, brought to you by the elusive search for “bi-partisanship”

Friday, April 30, 2010

During the election campaign Obama abandoned his previous opposition to off shore drilling. It was a patently political move, disappointed many, pleased no one, and fooled no one. If not for the desperation felt by so many to rid ourselves of all things Bush, it might very well have lost him 3 votes for every one he gained. As it was, everyone swallowed hard and soldiered on. It was hard to believe then, and it’s hard to believe now, that anyone in the “Drill Baby Drill” crowd voted for Obama. In a nutshell, he abandoned his principles, and more importantly, he abandoned sound policy, for nothing.

Last month he doubled down, by at least theoretically opening up major chunks of the oceans to the pubic spirited oil companies that have only our best interests at heart. This had the effect of raising the issue’s prominence. Maybe it was a smokescreen to send the media baying in one direction while he imposed stricter mileage requirements, but the fact is, he still did it. He could have imposed the requirements without destroying the oceans, but he chose not to do that.

Now he finds himself in the position of having to defend a policy with which he has probably never agreed, and from which he has derived not a particle of political advantage. Digby may be right that he was trying to get Lindsey Graham to let him kick the climate change football. If so, he forgot that Lindsey’s not the only Republican that can pull it back. Not that he wouldn’t in the end, anyway. If Graham really cared about climate change, if he really appreciated the risk it poses to the world, he wouldn’t threaten to scuttle it for transparently ridiculous reasons.He is and always has been the Susan Collins/Chuck Grassley of climate change.

On some issues, there is a right and a wrong. A “compromise” between opposing positions sometimes is just as wrong as the extremely wrong position. Had Obama stuck to his guns, he’d be looking great right now, without having suffered a bit of actual political disadvantage for having done the right thing in the first place. In fact, there might just be a little more enthusiasm on our side of the divide if, on this one issue, Obama had deviated from his pattern and actually stood up for principle. It’s not like an oil spill like this was unexpected-it’s the very reason informed people oppose off shore drilling.

A little off point, but worth noting: this idea of bi-partisanship is warped in many ways, but it must be said again that the “mid-point” has been steadily moving to the right for years. The right has gotten crazier, but gets respect and deference (witness the kid glove treatment of the tea baggers) and is allowed in the debate, while truly non-radical left positions (single payer, anyone) are simply not allowed to enter the debate. The latter statement is literally true. We are frozen out while insurance company lobbyists were embedded in the process and the country spent serious time talking about death panels. This is part of a pattern. Truly effective “left” positions are read out of beltway policy debates from the very start, while so called moderates seek common ground with right wingers whose positions drift ever rightward.


Filed in Obama | | Comments (0)