Defunct for ten years already, where does the time go?
The fellow playing the bass is really an actual bass player and also the fellow who put together the music for P5, the great Yasuharu Konishi. What's he up to now? Oh, no sir, you have mistaken me for someone who pays attention.
The singer is the other half of the official group, Maki Nomiya. I admire her too.
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
One True Thing (Part 86)
I may not know much, but I can tell you one true thing:
No one on the outside can ever really know what goes on between a couple.
They might be a married or an unmarried couple, a conventional or unconventional couple, it doesn’t matter. It only matters that they are a couple, bound together by some bond of intimacy. In any couple so bound, only those two even have a chance of understanding what happens between them. No one besides them can hope to get it at all, to understand the chemistry that brought them together, the psychological dynamic that binds them, or the reasons or the meanings for the things that they do.
You may wonder why man “A” wishes to be with woman “B,” but never for a minute expect your wonderings to amount to much. You cannot understand it. Why would woman “X” remain married to man “Y?” Don’t waste too much time thinking about it, you don’t have enough information upon which to form an opinion. That information rests with the couple, with them alone.
So if you find yourself a’wind of something that is happening to a couple that you know, do not form any conclusions about the behavior, or, if you do form opinions, don’t share them with anyone. Your conclusions will be wrong, because they will be based on woefully inadequate information.
No one on the outside can ever really know what goes on between a couple.
They might be a married or an unmarried couple, a conventional or unconventional couple, it doesn’t matter. It only matters that they are a couple, bound together by some bond of intimacy. In any couple so bound, only those two even have a chance of understanding what happens between them. No one besides them can hope to get it at all, to understand the chemistry that brought them together, the psychological dynamic that binds them, or the reasons or the meanings for the things that they do.
You may wonder why man “A” wishes to be with woman “B,” but never for a minute expect your wonderings to amount to much. You cannot understand it. Why would woman “X” remain married to man “Y?” Don’t waste too much time thinking about it, you don’t have enough information upon which to form an opinion. That information rests with the couple, with them alone.
So if you find yourself a’wind of something that is happening to a couple that you know, do not form any conclusions about the behavior, or, if you do form opinions, don’t share them with anyone. Your conclusions will be wrong, because they will be based on woefully inadequate information.
In Memoriam: Compromise
I teach my students that the most important component of democratic, representative governance is the ability of all sides to compromise. I make this pronouncement with great confidence.
Of course there will be different sides, there will be differing points of view within the governing bodies of these democracies. The ability to compromise, to find common ground, is essential to any government where the differing groups share power. The differing points of view among the representatives reflect the differing views of their constituents, and shouldn’t all of them be equally represented? Even in most modern one-party states compromise is employed in decision making, I’m thinking of the remaining nominally communist states of the world, China, Lao, Vietnam, maybe Cuba. The power elites in these states tolerate diversity of opinion in their ranks and practice consensus decision making. This is not true, perhaps, in North Korea, but their results are not encouraging anyone to emulate them. I can think of a couple of other examples, but the cultures in those areas are so sensitive to criticism that I will refrain rather than offend anyone.
Somehow in Washington compromise has become a dirty word. This is strange. When were two parties more radically different than the Democrats and the Republicans in mid-Twentieth Century America? And yet, they routinely compromised on matters of great importance to the country. Within the two parties there was a range of opinions too, there were Republicans and Democrats who were conservative, moderate or liberal according to their own consciences, reflecting also the diversity in their respective districts. Those days are long gone.
Whatever you have heard from the media, this inability to compromise is not being practiced equally by the two parties in Washington. No, make no mistake, this total inability to get along, this “my way or the highway,” is all coming from the Republican side, and it has been for at least thirty years.
There’s no “both sides do it” argument to be made. There is still a range of opinion in the Democratic Party, there are “Reagan Democrats,” and “Blue Dog Democrats,” a few “Liberal Democrats,” and even a couple of weirdly independent Democrats. The Republicans, on the other hand, have purged all of the ideologically impure members of their party.
Democrats in congress can still be induced to compromise, although the net effect of this is to pull the discourse increasingly to the right. This is because to our modern Republicans, compromise means other politicians doing what the Republicans demand. And it happens sometimes, there are bills that must be passed, spending measures etc.
The most extreme manifestation of this Republican intransigence is seen in the matter of Federal judgeships. They just won’t ratify anybody that President Obama has tried to appoint. This is part of their declared intention to oppose every single thing that Mr. Obama tries to do, to insure that his presidency is seen as a failure. “Declared intention;” they have not made any bones about it, they have plainly stated for three years now that they don’t care who gets hurt, they’re going to oppose everything. Even a few ideas that were theirs in the first place. They paint the Democrats in general, and Mr. Obama in particular, and even the entire Federal government when it suits them, as evil, not just misguided but EVIL, and there is no compromising with EVIL.
It’s too glib to say that this is due to Mr. Obama’s race, although his otherness is definitely something that they use against him. His strange name, his Blackness, these are low hanging fruit for those who would do him political harm. But it must be remembered that the Republicans did these same things to President Clinton, albeit to a lesser extent. Even those were more civil times, even while they were persecuting him on a daily basis for eight years on one trumped up charge after another that never amounted to a hill of beans. Two good presidents by any objective measure, with nothing in their policies or performance to justify the rabid opposition.
This current ideological warfare has led to the death of compromise, and that is a danger to all that we hold dear, or what little there is left of it anyway.
Of course there will be different sides, there will be differing points of view within the governing bodies of these democracies. The ability to compromise, to find common ground, is essential to any government where the differing groups share power. The differing points of view among the representatives reflect the differing views of their constituents, and shouldn’t all of them be equally represented? Even in most modern one-party states compromise is employed in decision making, I’m thinking of the remaining nominally communist states of the world, China, Lao, Vietnam, maybe Cuba. The power elites in these states tolerate diversity of opinion in their ranks and practice consensus decision making. This is not true, perhaps, in North Korea, but their results are not encouraging anyone to emulate them. I can think of a couple of other examples, but the cultures in those areas are so sensitive to criticism that I will refrain rather than offend anyone.
Somehow in Washington compromise has become a dirty word. This is strange. When were two parties more radically different than the Democrats and the Republicans in mid-Twentieth Century America? And yet, they routinely compromised on matters of great importance to the country. Within the two parties there was a range of opinions too, there were Republicans and Democrats who were conservative, moderate or liberal according to their own consciences, reflecting also the diversity in their respective districts. Those days are long gone.
Whatever you have heard from the media, this inability to compromise is not being practiced equally by the two parties in Washington. No, make no mistake, this total inability to get along, this “my way or the highway,” is all coming from the Republican side, and it has been for at least thirty years.
There’s no “both sides do it” argument to be made. There is still a range of opinion in the Democratic Party, there are “Reagan Democrats,” and “Blue Dog Democrats,” a few “Liberal Democrats,” and even a couple of weirdly independent Democrats. The Republicans, on the other hand, have purged all of the ideologically impure members of their party.
Democrats in congress can still be induced to compromise, although the net effect of this is to pull the discourse increasingly to the right. This is because to our modern Republicans, compromise means other politicians doing what the Republicans demand. And it happens sometimes, there are bills that must be passed, spending measures etc.
The most extreme manifestation of this Republican intransigence is seen in the matter of Federal judgeships. They just won’t ratify anybody that President Obama has tried to appoint. This is part of their declared intention to oppose every single thing that Mr. Obama tries to do, to insure that his presidency is seen as a failure. “Declared intention;” they have not made any bones about it, they have plainly stated for three years now that they don’t care who gets hurt, they’re going to oppose everything. Even a few ideas that were theirs in the first place. They paint the Democrats in general, and Mr. Obama in particular, and even the entire Federal government when it suits them, as evil, not just misguided but EVIL, and there is no compromising with EVIL.
It’s too glib to say that this is due to Mr. Obama’s race, although his otherness is definitely something that they use against him. His strange name, his Blackness, these are low hanging fruit for those who would do him political harm. But it must be remembered that the Republicans did these same things to President Clinton, albeit to a lesser extent. Even those were more civil times, even while they were persecuting him on a daily basis for eight years on one trumped up charge after another that never amounted to a hill of beans. Two good presidents by any objective measure, with nothing in their policies or performance to justify the rabid opposition.
This current ideological warfare has led to the death of compromise, and that is a danger to all that we hold dear, or what little there is left of it anyway.
Monday, May 28, 2012
eddie & ernie - outcast
The great Eddie and Ernie, referenced in the below post. An example of the great productions that Ike Turner was turning out at Sue Records in New York in the early 60's. With Ike's band, and Ike playing the guitar.
Great "video" post too, all still pictures of mid-60's English Mods for some reason. Maybe Eddie and Ernie were popular with the Mods, who knows?
Sure I like Tina, but I love Ike. Maybe the new troll will call me gay again, see if I care! Sue me! Get it?
Great "video" post too, all still pictures of mid-60's English Mods for some reason. Maybe Eddie and Ernie were popular with the Mods, who knows?
Sure I like Tina, but I love Ike. Maybe the new troll will call me gay again, see if I care! Sue me! Get it?
Oh! Canada!
And what is happening with our neighbors to the north? They are by reputation the "more civilized" America, but lately they've been anything but.
I usually think of Canada this way:
Holland: Germand :: Canada: America
Like Holland is Germany Light, like Germany with a smile, Canada has always been the polite America, with real social services, real social security, and, you know, no aircraft carriers and all. So what's come over them?
First: Quebec has decided to unilaterally declare many tens of thousands of unmarried couples to be suddenly, legally married. Lots of people, it seems, co-habitate and check "couple" on their taxes, and the government has decided to just declare them married by fiat. Doesn't seem right, now does it?
Second: They've got these new weird copyright laws floating around. A member of parliament recently talked about taking your CD's and putting them on your computer so you could listen on MP3 players, etc. Sounds innocent enough, I mean you paid for the music, right? No, no, no, not for the new copyright police. This guy sounded like a lawyer for an American music conglomerate. He said that ripping your CD's for other uses was "like buying a pair of shoes, and then going back and stealing the socks to go with them." Where do they get these cute ideas?
Third: Evidently someone has decided that the National Archive of Canada is not really worth preserving after all. So their budget is down to nothing, the process of digitizing everything is being neglected, and the archive is being decentralized so that research will be much more difficult.
Fourth: Tuition riots, again in Quebec.
Fifth: Law 78 (honest, you can't make this stuff up). An "anti-protest" law, who knew that they had a big protest problem in Canada? The law has led to, wait for it! PROTESTS.
That's all I can think of right now. But Canada, what happened? We thought we knew yee.
I usually think of Canada this way:
Holland: Germand :: Canada: America
Like Holland is Germany Light, like Germany with a smile, Canada has always been the polite America, with real social services, real social security, and, you know, no aircraft carriers and all. So what's come over them?
First: Quebec has decided to unilaterally declare many tens of thousands of unmarried couples to be suddenly, legally married. Lots of people, it seems, co-habitate and check "couple" on their taxes, and the government has decided to just declare them married by fiat. Doesn't seem right, now does it?
Second: They've got these new weird copyright laws floating around. A member of parliament recently talked about taking your CD's and putting them on your computer so you could listen on MP3 players, etc. Sounds innocent enough, I mean you paid for the music, right? No, no, no, not for the new copyright police. This guy sounded like a lawyer for an American music conglomerate. He said that ripping your CD's for other uses was "like buying a pair of shoes, and then going back and stealing the socks to go with them." Where do they get these cute ideas?
Third: Evidently someone has decided that the National Archive of Canada is not really worth preserving after all. So their budget is down to nothing, the process of digitizing everything is being neglected, and the archive is being decentralized so that research will be much more difficult.
Fourth: Tuition riots, again in Quebec.
Fifth: Law 78 (honest, you can't make this stuff up). An "anti-protest" law, who knew that they had a big protest problem in Canada? The law has led to, wait for it! PROTESTS.
That's all I can think of right now. But Canada, what happened? We thought we knew yee.
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Ike & Tina Turner "Fool In Love" & "Work Out Fine" medley
It's two (snap), two (snap), my two favorite Ike and Tina Turner cuts, all in one on the TNT show in 1965 (an English TV show).
These are both on "The Sue Story," a great compilation of New York soul from Sue Records. Lots of Sue's hits showcase Ike as producer and bandleader, like the great Eddie and Ernie hits ("I'm Going For Myself Now," "Time Waits For No One"). Ike playing the guitar too.
Ike was the king! You can look it up. "Rocket 88," FIRST ROCK AND ROLL RECORD, among other claims to fame. Tina was a great find, no doubt, but Ike was already justifiably famous, and he produced everything.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
