Noisemakers

The Daily Dish posted a reader's email regarding the iPod as the nail in the coffin of the album. It sounds right, but I don't think it really is. Sure, there were the Styx concept albums and all in the past, but most "Top 40" albums have for a long, long time been collections of songs, and often a bunch of boring, uninspired songs wrapped around a couple of catchy tunes anticipated to get radio play. Even the good albums, the ones that were listenable from start to finish, were most frequently still just a collection of really good songs, rarely thematically connected. The iPod didn't create that dynamic. I was making mix tapes twenty-five years ago. It's now simply easier to pick out the songs we like, and we can have much more variety, rather than being limited to the twelve or fifteen songs that the cassette could hold.

But more significantly, I think the reader is wrong about the existence of albums as albums. "All that's over now," the letter says.

You don't hear albums that are made to be listened to from start to finish anymore? I don't think anyone listening to many top notch artists (which doesn't necessarily mean popular artists) would agree. Listen to a Springsteen CD, for example. Or get outside of radioland and listen to some of the more creative, thoughtful performers on the music scene today. Listen to the new CD from Abigail Washburn, City of Refuge, that just came out last week, an album that is so coherent from beginning to end that it is almost a crime not to listen to the whole album, over and over, which I have been, on my iPod, doing since it's release.

Now, whether or not all audiences appreciate what some artists are doing, that's out of the artists' control. If the Dish reader isn't appreciating the albums for all that is there, he has nowhere else to look but in the mirror. For me, the iPod gives me the opportunity to take those albums with me. I don't have to pick out my favorite few songs so that I can have a variety in my car or in my Walkman. Which values the music more - having the entire album on an iPod, or just a couple of choice picks on the mix CD? Because let's face reality, those records were mostly sitting on a bookcase or a box, gathering dust, and music was created to be heard, not looked at or held. I can now take my whole collection with me wherever I go, and I can listen to and revisit entire albums, start to finish, knowing that tomorrow I can do it again, or listen to a whole other album start to finish, or shuffle through my collection, or explore something new. The iPod lets me appreciate more - more artists, more music, more albums, in their entirety or not, as I choose and as the artists intend.

Dinner there

Maybe it was too obvious a choice, or maybe she didn't fit into the jazz theme, or maybe you've just gotta have Herbie Hancock when you can have Herbie Hancock, but wouldn't Abigail Washburn have been absolutely pitch perfect at the State Dinner at the White House for Chinese President Hu Jintao last night?

Here's Abby, highlighting American goodwill toward the Chinese people. Wouldn't that have been an extraordinary message?

Preacher in the Ring

Since we're on a roll here about why Jews tend not to be in the GOP, here's Alabama's new Republican governor, Robert Bentley, speaking on MLK Day at Dr. King's former church:

"So anybody here today who has not accepted Jesus Christ as their savior, I'm telling you, you're not my brother and you're not my sister, and I want to be your brother."

My point here has nothing to do with Christian doctrine, or whether Bentley's statement is an accurate representation of the Christian view of "brotherhood." I'm not all that concerned about it. This isn't intended to sound glib, but I'm not looking for an invitation to pray alongside Robert Bentley in his church (though I think that is what he is actually asking me to do). Again, I have no idea whether what he says is an accurate understanding of his religious dogma, but his faith is his faith, and he is allowed to have whatever beliefs he wants.

Rather, my issue is about the public sphere, rather than any theological perspectives, and the way that the Christianist right-wing GOP uses their religious views to exclude others in the political environment, and how that impacts the interest of others in being part of their worldview. My issue is about the linkage of exclusionary religious (or quasi-religious) dogma with political ideology, and the resulting lack of affinity for an ideology as a result of that linkage.

I'm not saying that I would consider being a Republican if the voices of Republicans weren't fundamentally opposed to the personal religious (or non-religious, as the case may be) expression (or lack of expression) of, um, unbelievers. Look, some Jews have come to the opposite conclusion, and have decided that Republican adoption of an ostensibly pro-Israel position (which I disagree is pro-Israel, but that's off-topic) consitutes a pro-Jewish position. The disagreements go much deeper than that, and regardless of exclusion or inclusion, the essential issue is that my values do not align with theirs.

But it's not even worth the conversation when, frankly, even if you buy into the idea that the GOP is pro-Israel, and even if you take into account the Bill Kristols and the Ari Fleischers and the Henry Kissingers and the Eric Cantors and the Sheldon Adelsons and whomever else you want to name, the fact remains that Jews remain the other in populist right-wing Republican circles.

UPDATE: I see that Steve Benen over at The Washington Monthly has picked up on my theme (from the broader perspective of all minorities):

When Republicans ponder why they struggle with outreach to minority communities, they may want to reflect on these incidents.

UPDATE #2: Some people may want to convince Governor Bentley that his statement was inappropriate, but my guess is that you can't torquemada anything. If Governor Bentley really wants to make us his brothers, I suggest he send in the sisters.

Collectivist Secretive Ideology, continued

Jeffrey Goldberg on Glenn Beck, again making my prior point about why Jews tend to not be Republicans (and please, spare me the argument that Beck is not a GOP spokesman).

UPDATE: Goldblog has more on Beck's Jewish problem.

Hot House Ball

This is a fascinating story about the U.S-Israeli collaboration to undermine the Iranian nuclear program through the Stuxnet computer worm - which, combined with the use of sanctions, has set it back farther than a military strike would have achieved.

Though American and Israeli officials refuse to talk publicly about what goes on at Dimona, the operations there, as well as related efforts in the United States, are among the newest and strongest clues suggesting that the virus was designed as an American-Israeli project to sabotage the Iranian program....

The biggest single factor in putting time on the nuclear clock appears to be Stuxnet, the most sophisticated cyberweapon ever deployed.

And then there's this:

The worm itself now appears to have included two major components. One was designed to send Iran’s nuclear centrifuges spinning wildly out of control. Another seems right out of the movies: The computer program also secretly recorded what normal operations at the nuclear plant looked like, then played those readings back to plant operators, like a pre-recorded security tape in a bank heist, so that it would appear that everything was operating normally while the centrifuges were actually tearing themselves apart.

But the most incredible part to me is not the worm itself - which is pretty remarkable - but the way the Israelis acquired spinning centrifuges just like those the Iranians had acquired from Pakistan, and mocked up the Iranian operation, and then tested the worm to ensure that it would work.

But here's the question. Do the Iranian's treat this as an attack, or as run-of-the-mill espionage? Is cyberwarfare now real, and what are the consequences?

China Doll

Last weekend, we went to a screening of an Israeli movie, Noodle. You may have seen it, since the movie is a few years old, but it was new to me. The film involves an El-Al flight attendant who ends up unexpectedly taking care of the undocumented 6 year old son of her Chinese housekeeper who is abandoned when the housekeeper suddenly disappears.

Without giving too much of the story away, late in the film the action shifts from Israel to Beijing. The movie already had me thinking of Abigail Washburn, as it sought common ground and understanding between Chinese and Western cultures. But then, the flight attendant gets on a bus, and a traditional version of Kangding Qingge was playing on the radio. As my wife - who still doesn't quite understand that "Chinese square dance" - and friends looked at me quizzically, I grinned and said "I know this song," and quietly sang along. OK, I'm sure I rendered the words incomprehensible, but I had the tune right.


The Hebrew in the movie is subtitled, but in an interesting choice by the filmmaker, the Chinese is not. We’re to watch from the perspective of the Israeli characters, not quite being able to understand everything that a Chinese-speaking audience would. They would understand what the boy is saying as he struggles to communicate, and they would understand that cute little folk love song about a boy and a girl that would have been simply background noise to me if it wasn’t for Abigail. While I couldn’t translate the song literally as I sat there, Washburn gave me a connection that made the Chinese something other than “other,” and added to the film another layer of meaning for me. Her music routinely does that for me - makes my world both bigger and smaller.

And now, City of Refuge. Wow. My musical interests gravitate toward musicians who invite me to grow and explore with them. I’m always a bit apprehensive - where are we going now? But I learned a number of years ago to embrace the ride - from following the many directions of Bruce Hornsby, to his collaborations with Bela Fleck (luck guy) and Ricky Skaggs, to exploring bluegrass on a path that led me to Uncle Earl and Abby (and then Bela, again), and with each turn wondering if the next step on the journey will abandon those things that worked so well (no more Red and Blazings?), only to discover so much more.

I've tried to think of comparisons for this CD. Bring Me My Queen evokes a bit of Allison Moorer's Mockingbird disk, for instance, but that doesn't capture enough. At the end, City of Refuge is City of Refuge. I can tend toward wordiness, and this post is too long already, but I will just add one more comment. I am completely blown away by Burn Thru.

Abby was originally supposed to be in Asheville tonight, but since a 10-hour road trip to Asheville today wasn't a terribly sane idea anyway, I'll be spending tonight in Lake Wobegon (WMFE 90.7, at 6pm), where this weekend the kids will be that much more above average.

Toys with the motorized blinkin' eyes

Timothy B Lee does not want us to believe in Cylons. Which is what any Cylon would say, isn't it?

(h/t Sully.)

Heaven's healing grace

Sheesh. Abe Foxman invokes strawman, comes to Sarah Palin's defense:

“It was inappropriate at the outset to blame Sarah Palin and others for causing this tragedy or for being an accessory to murder,” Abraham Foxman, the [Anti-Defamation League's] national director, said in a statement. “Palin has every right to defend herself against these kinds of attacks.”

Well, at least he wishes she didn't use the phrase "blood libel."

In the past I could have said that Foxman just doesn't get it. Because Jeffrey Goldberg tells me that Foxman is a better man than that.

Heard a gunshot ring

It's starting to feel like the aftermath of Katrina all over again, with the conservatives and the media running around denouncing the "Blame Game" (and too many others taking the bait and feeding the fire).

UPDATE: On cue, here's George Will.

UPDATE # 2: To be clear, what I am talking about is the inability for introspection and reflectiveness and humility. Instead, we get finger-pointing and complaining about others placing blame. The whining about the so-called "Blame Game" is a diversion. Commentators provide little dialogue, no frank discussion, just point-scoring, defensiveness and petty whining about strawman offenders. The actual shooting rampage and attempted assassination seems, to the punditry, simply a side note, to put into context the bitter war between right and left.

I'm not sure why we need to know exactly what influenced Jared Lee Loughner. But if this act cannot start an open discussion of decency in political life, I'm not sure that anything can. We needn't wait until we can directly and specifically trace a straight line to political assassination from dangerous rhetoric. (And I'm not sure that could ever be possible; we cannot know or pinpoint everything that influenced someone's behavior, and just because it may appear apolitical does not mean that the behavior-as opposed to the philosophy-was not somehow influenced by the rhetoric.)

I don't accuse Sarah Palin or Glenn Beck or the myriad other right-wing flame throwers for causing this incident. Sometimes crazy is crazy. But if we are to concede the point that nasty speech is not the cause of the Tuscon massacre, we should also acknowledge that the same type of speech is unseemly, a reflection of the dangerous atmosphere, of the basest instincts of content-free political demagoguery.

Each of these pundits is accountable for their own rhetoric, whether or not the cause of darker acts. And they do not only inspire some form of reaction to it, they want a reaction - or else they would not do what they do, say what they say, and provoke the reactions that they provoke. Whether or not the calls to arms are figurative or literal, can anyone guarantee that those words are perceived as "intended" (which intent I will take at their word)? Pundits and radical ideologues (of all stripes - I have not been shy about my critique of those who have stolen the "Progressive" label, either) encourage reacting in bitterness and anger over any perceived slight, whether the slight was intentional or not. It's only reasonable to expect them to be at the forefront of addressing the practical effects of those offending words. If they're incapable of taking responsibility or toning down the hostility, that's worth noting. Accountability and responsibility for your own actions do not mean culpability for the crime, but that distinction may be too complex for our knee-jerk punditry to grasp.

When bad things happen, it is natural for most people to think about how they have behaved, and whether that behavior set the standard for how you would like to be remembered. We've all heard it many times - admonishments to never leave home angry with your spouse or kids, for example, because you never know what can happen, because that could be the final words you speak to that person. We all screw that up, sometimes more often than we care to admit, and we hopefully don't end up regretting it later. Because nobody who really cares wants to have to spend their lives remembering that the last words they ever spoke to someone they cared about were in anger, or were unseemly. You don't have to have caused the incident that took someone away from you. A moral person still regrets the words that offended or caused pain. That's simply a matter of self-awareness and conscience and maturity - to take responsibility and, to the best of your ability, to make things (if not right then) better.

Sarah Palin has demanded apologies and accountability from David Letterman for making insensitive jokes about her daughter's out-of-wedlock pregnancy, and from Rahm Emanuel for using the word "retarded." Conservatives routinely criticize violent music and violent video games like Grand Theft Auto. It's a mainstay of Republican ideology that words and symbolism have consequences.

But we see what happens when those who demand accountability from others are faced with having to account for their own words. Unfortunately, there is no attempt at consistency, only politics. There is no leadership, no attempt to say that we're going to use this tragedy to change the way we do things, to make good on our promises of civility and democracy, to ensure that tragedies like this remain rare, to change the tone rather than serve as an example of what is wrong, to be a leader rather than a troublemaker. And there is no attempt at genuine sympathy, except as passing words on the way to decrying the "politicization," the nefarious motives of critics, the blame game. Instead of sucking the oxygen from the fire, we instead get the stoking of the flames. Instead of joining in "liberal" calls to cool the flames, we get more inflammatory rhetoric. Instead of saying we're sorry for the way we treated you, the way we were dishonest about your motives, the way we incited people against you, instead of any of that, we get petty insults of the "liberal" media and the "Democrat" party, we get the invocation of the "Blame Game". (As a side note, it seems that John Boehner has taken the higher ground on this. I wouldn't have thought he would be the leader of a movement toward GOP decency, but I'm glad to see it.)

On the day of the tragic shootings, Andrew Sullivan posted an email from a reader who recounted overhearing two people speaking in a Tuscon Costco as he learned of the incident:

I am standing in the aisle at Costco when I found out my Congresswomen, Gabrielle Giffords, has been shot dead up on the north side.

While I’m scrambling with my phone, two couples in front of me are talking about it and suddenly I hear one of the women say, “Well, that’s to be expected when you’re so liberal.”

And the other woman says, “Ohh, so we get to appoint a Republican?”

I did not trust myself to speak. I’m a Soldier. Please remind me what country I am fighting for? At least seven people are dead. She happens to be the only member of Congress married to an active duty military — he’s a Navy officer serving as an astronaut.

We should all reflect on that.

UPDATE #3: Bill O'Reilly, not to be left out.

UPDATE #4: Contrast all of that with President Obama's speech at the Tuscon memorial service. The cheering and applause aside - which I struggled to get my head around, finally realizing, I think, that the crowd was trying to celebrate the lives of those who were taken, and to thank those who heroically risked their own lives to end the bloodshed - our President once again demonstrated how to rise above and lead.

Maybe I'll get a job making little skinny curly fries

Shortly after reading this in this weekend's New York Times, I received a call from another lawyer in town, someone whom I have known for a number of years. Our practice areas are similar and we have moved in many of the same professional circles. Though not in the same grades, our children all went to the local JCC. I wouldn't say we were close friends, but close enough that that we've occasionally sent small matters to each other, and we would sit together at conferences and Chamber events and the like.

Well, after a number of years of depending on himself, maintaining a practice focused on growth companies and running a legal/executive office suite business, his income has dried up. There has been no significant legal work in his practice area in the region in a couple of years. Nobody needs a finance lawyer right now. Nobody is looking to, or can afford to, rent law office space.

So now, as his debt load builds, he called me for advice on breaking back into a large firm.

And this, unfortunately, is the other side of the coin from the Times article.

[A] generation of J.D.’s face the grimmest job market in decades. Since 2008, some 15,000 attorney and legal-staff jobs at large firms have vanished, according to a Northwestern Law study. Associates have been laid off, partners nudged out the door and recruitment programs have been scaled back or eliminated.

And this:

This gets to what might be the ultimate ugly truth about law school: plenty of those who borrow, study and glad-hand their way into the gated community of Big Law are miserable soon after they move in. The billable-hour business model pins them to their desks and devours their free time.

Hence the cliché: law school is a pie-eating contest where the first prize is more pie.

One of the troubles with the profession, aside from the fact that it eats away at your soul, isn't simply that new graduates struggle under mountains of debt and anemic job prospects which are unfulfilling at best. The not-so-hidden story is that, even if you are one of those proud, lucky ones, one of those top-tier students from high-ranked law schools who lands one of those high-wage, elite, mega-firm spots -- which this friend, like I, did -- none of that provides any guarantee these days that fifteen or twenty years later, you will not wind up back in the same spot as those middle or lower tier law-school graduates who cannot get out from under the weight of their law-school debt. However, this time there's a mortgage to pay, a family to support, with fewer options and even less flexibility.

And even where you don't suddenly find yourself in a hole, it's not necessarily any better, because you're sometimes instead in a prison, with no chance of escape, because even if you can cross the moat and swim across the shark-infested bay, there's still nothing waiting for you on the other side, except those same conditions that you spent your entire career trying to avoid, telling yourself that the life of a lawyer was, if not the prize, the path to the prize.

Well, good luck with that.

Banjo wind

Abigail Washburn on NPR's Tiny Desk.

The same tired flames burn

I see this type of comment, in this case to an article on the President's tactics in the legislative success of the lame duck session, on the internets all the time:

... Progressives think they have been rolled.

And I just can't help but thinking, what the #$%^.

That is all.