Forty Questions

A Few of My Favorite Things

2009-12-30T06:00:00.000-08:00

Like most people, I like to read, watch and listen. Surprisingly, I didn't read a single book this year that I would recommend. Quite a few were for research, obscure things that are meant for Yiddishists and WWII buffs. Some were very worthwhile of course. The books I read for general audiences this year, though, were all kind of lame. Same with the pop music that I heard on CDs and mp3s this year. Maybe it's just my mood. Who knows? That said, I did have a good time now and then, even grumpy, curmudgeonly old me! A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned a few movies that I liked this year. Here are a few other memorable things that I heard or watched for the first time in no particular order.

Murray Perahia, Goldberg Variations, Columbia Records. I think this CD came out in 2000. The sound quality is fantastic. The playing is intelligent and joyful. Many moons ago when I was a student in college, I was an usher at a Perahia concert. He came out before the show when we were straightening stuff up, played on the keyboard a bit and then asked us ushers what we wanted for an encore. We gathered around and deferred to the one usher who was a serious piano student. She requested a specific piece by Bach. And that's exactly what he played. So maybe I'm in the tank for Perahia. But I swear this is a great CD.

Jim Hall, Ballad Essentials, Concord. A reissue of 1980s recordings. There is no better guitar player on this planet. I don't know how to explain this well, but so much of jazz is about what isn't played, the space between the notes. There's the beat, and then there are the hesitations and attacks around that beat. Jim Hall is amazingly good at leaving pregnant empty spaces. You can listen to this CD time and time again and learn something new about music.

Paul Motian Trio, Endless Love, Winter and Winter. This one came out in the 1990s. No one is putting together better jazz trios than Paul Motian. The musicians here are all masterful and there are things that Motian is doing with rhythm that are just so intuitively divine.

Tierney Sutton, Desire, Telarc. This CD came out this year. If Peggy Lee had stuck to jazz and been born in about 1965, she'd sound like this. The cover of this CD is ridiculous, but the music is definitely worth repeated listens. She is described as an "LA jazz singer," but really she is a Milwaukee girl with the thickest Wisconsin accent you'll hear outside of West Allis. Miraculously that accent disappears when she sings.

And here are some live things that I saw in no particular order:

Brief Encounter, Kneehigh Theater. This is playing in NYC right now on an extended run, but I saw it in SF. A theatrical adaptation of a 1940s British movie by a British theater troop, it's as funny and clever as anything you'll see on stage. This one had me laughing out loud even when I knew intuitively what sight gag was going to come next. If you're going to NYC, this show is better than 98 percent of what you'll find on Broadway.

Esperanza Spalding, Live @ Stanford, Dinkelspiel Auditorium. I wouldn't recommend any of her albums, but live this girl is a consummate entertainer. She is a true showman, an excellent musician who exudes charisma and knows how to grab an audience. I don't know how she'd come across in a big venue, but in a 500-1000 seater kind of place, there probably is no one as fun to watch play as Spalding.

Emmanuel Ax with the SF Symphony, Beethoven's Fourth Piano Concerto. The first time I saw Ax play he was a young man. So was I. We've both aged well I swear. He's not as good looking as me of course! But he does play piano just a might bit better than me. When I heard that Alfred Brendel was retiring, I felt so sad. No one plays better than him. But then when I hear someone like Ax, I realize that the talent level in classical music is so high right now that there is nothing to worry about when the greats retire.

Rickey Henderson's Hall of Fame speech. Forget about Barack Obama. He's good with words it's true, but he's worn out his welcome. I can't listen to that guy anymore. Words. Words. Words. He should just shut up and do his job right. But Rickey Henderson. Watch this speech. The greatest lead off hitter of my lifetime doesn't have Obama's education. He has a speech impediment as well. But Henderson has practiced this speech. You can tell he spent many, many hours putting it together and reciting it time and time again. The speech is funny. It's heart warming. It's pure Rickey. That cream colored suit he's wearing is at least a decade old, and he's still so trim that it fits him like a glove. He looks like he could still play the game.

And here are a couple of unique experiences for me as an audience member:

Jimmy Cobb playing Kind of Blue @ Stanford with a student-led band. Jimmy Cobb is 80 years old. He's been swinging for over 50 years and I think he got the original Kind of Blue gig back in 1959 because Philly Joe Jones was just too strung out on heroin. By a quirk of fate, by the time I got to this show the place was so packed that I couldn't get a seat. So instead, I pulled up a piano bench from the "stage" and sat behind Cobb touching distance away. The guy can still play. I learned more than I probably ever knew before about the tricks used to propel a band by watching him up close and personal for an hour.

Ernie Watts playing with Kurt Elling's band at Kuumbwa Jazz Center in Santa Cruz. Kurt Elling was just OK. But I got to sit right next to Ernie Watts and watch him play while chatting with his wife. For 20 years, Ernie Watts made his living by playing four and eight bar sax solos on countless numbers of rock and pop albums. That's mind numbing work, but it does pay the bills and then some. Now he's back to playing real music and there's no one with better chops and tone out there today.

Have a great New Years!

Mission Accomplished

2009-12-28T06:00:00.000-08:00

I'm nowhere near a decent athlete. As a kid, I was somewhat talented at football because I had a ridiculously high tolerance for pain and was incredibly aggressive and mean when I wore pads and a helmet. I was strong. But I was also slow as molasses and had no moves. Aggressiveness only gets you so far. My football career peaked in eighth grade.

You know when you go up against real talent just how limited you are. As a baseball player, I was solid on defense behind the plate and had some decent power. One week, though, when I was visiting friends in Kansas City, I played a sandlot game with some local boys. The pitcher for the other team was, like me, twelve years old. He was already six feet tall. He was probably already throwing the ball 75 miles per hour, all elbows and legs on the mound. I watched the balls whiz by. It was ridiculous. On my second at bat I blindly swung way ahead of the pitch. I miraculously hit a weak fly single over the first baseman's head, the only hit of the game on my side. That pitcher grew another five inches in his teens. He eventually would play for a number of teams in the major leagues and won the Cy Young Award one year. I can say I got a single off a Cy Young winner. But I also knew that day that I would never be a real ball player.

I was thinking about this the other day when I saw a half time basketball score posted somewhere. The New Jersey Institute of Technology was playing a traditional basketball powerhouse like Seton Hall. There was zero chance that those boys from NJIT would even come close to those real players and at half time they were already down by something like 40 points. Why did they even bother to schedule such a game? I think the answer is that everyone needs to learn their limitations. If any of those NJIT players had NBA dreams based on playing teams like St. Mary's Sisters of the Poor, their one scheduled game against a real team hopefully would disabuse them of their delusions.

Still athletic talent or no, there are some physical things that I truly believe any man without any disabilities should be able to do. He should be able to score over 100 every time he bowls. Well maybe that expectation should be limited to someone from the Midwest. But here's another one that likely should apply to all. A man should be able to hit over 50 percent of his free throws every time he walks on a basketball court. Think about it. The basket is a mere 15 feet away. There is no hand in your face to distract you. The ball is significantly smaller than the basket. Any man under the age of 70 should be able to regularly hit free throws. It should be a given.

Now I have had nasty tendinitis in my right elbow for the last three months from playing my guitar too much. My right knee locks up for no apparent reason now and then. I'm over 50 years old. Still there is no reason on Earth that I shouldn't be able to make over 50 percent of my free throws.

For the last three months, I've been working out at the new Jewish Center in my town. On my way to the workout room, I pass an indoor basketball court. I haven't played basketball in over 20 years. But about a month ago, I decided to pick up a ball and take some shots. It wasn't pretty let me tell you. There was a high school girl on another basket hitting 15 footers at about a 60 percent clip. Me, I was hitting about 2 in 10. I had no court sense. The rotation on the ball was non existent. I was doing my best imitation of flying toasters every time I launched the ball.

But I kept at it. Twice a week, I'd throw up 30 shots before I worked out. It really is like riding a bicycle. The mind starts to remember what to do. You don't even have to think after awhile. The ball starts to feel natural in your hands. And little by little you get better.

The other day I started to feel like I sort of knew what I was doing. No, I'm nowhere near the shot I once was. But a free throw? I should be able to do that. I threw up 50 shots from the line. Twenty six went in. Mission accomplished.

The Great Hanukkah Candle Experiment

2009-12-18T06:00:00.000-08:00

It's Hanukkah and of course I'm lighting candles. Last year, for the first time in my life I bought Hanukkah candles made in China. China! There's something wrong about that, really is. I didn't notice their origin until I got back to my house. I used them and they worked fine, but I was vexed.

This year I went back to the store and bought a new box. Ninety percent of the boxes contained candles made in China, but if you ferreted through the shelf you could find a few with candles made in Israel. Those are the ones I bought.

By the way, they don't make Hanukkah candles in the US as far as I know. Israel is supposed to be where these candles are made. I mean how many Jews are there in China anyhow?

Yesterday was the seventh day of Hanukkah. I still had some Chinese candles left as well as a full box of Israeli candles. I inspected both sets. They looked identical except for a slight difference in the tint of the orange ones. Now I'm a scientist by training. And I thought, what a great time for an experiment! I'll compare the behavior of the two sets.

First let's look at the boxes. Note the Chinese one is more colorful with the words "chanukah candles" written in both Hebrew and English. The other brand's box is plain and dull. The Chinese box has a picture of the Western Wall, but perhaps that's a picture of the Great Wall that's been Photoshopped to look like the Western Wall. You never know. Clearly, though, the Chinese are trying harder to impress. But really, who cares about the box. It's the candles that are the thing!

OK, so here's the set up. I have eight candles. The yellow and orange ones are Chinese. The white and blue ones are Israeli. Now there are variables I can't control in this simple set up. Different colors mean different dyes and it may be that one color burns faster than the other. But I've never noticed dye variations having any effect on candle flame characteristics before and believe me I've watched a lot of candles burn so I think I'm safe.

Then of course there is positioning. The shamas stands all by itself. The end candles are like semi-shamases. Now the question is what is the effect of positioning? Do the interior candles burn faster because of the "proximity effect," the fact that they soften a bit because of the presence of their lit neighbors? Or perhaps do the lit neighbors limit oxygen supply retarding burn time? These are important questions. I'm sure a dissertation could be written on them, maybe two or three. Perhaps they already have been written. A quick perusal on Google Scholar suggests that research on this "proximity effect" is wide open!

My own personal observation from many years of lighting is that the "proximity effect" is negligible. Shamases do not burn slower or faster than interior candles. There seem to be other random factors that are far more important. Of course, this an opinion not a quantitative observation with tables of numbers to back my claims. That's bad science I know.

Anyhow, let's just do this experiment, flaws and all. And yes, a one shot experiment isn't valid. I should do this one thousand times or so. But I don't have candles for that. Perhaps if I can get grant money...

OK, OK, you want to know the results. Enough meandering! And the results are shown below. Note the crappy video at the end. It looks much better when the file isn't compressed, honest! And..there is no difference between the two sets of candles. They burn the same way. They burn for essentially the exact same time. For all intents and purposes, the candles are the same. The Chinese make perfect imitations of the real thing. Let me tell you, Israelis do not make perfect imitations of Chinese food. Still, it doesn't feel right to be burning them. Just doesn't. I'll never buy those Chinese things again. Unless of course they're on sale at a rate of three for a dollar. I have my principles. But I'm also a sucker for a bargain.

An Unnatural Order

2009-12-16T06:00:00.000-08:00

The picture on the left was taken during Passover 1978. I wasn't married yet. This was my first Passover with my sweetie's family. They were checking me out! The kid in the picture is a cousin of my sweetie. He was three in that picture. He's playing some board game for adults with his father and has reared back on the couch in joy with the knowledge that he just made a move his dad couldn't counter. My wife's aunt used to refer to all the kids in the family as "little geniuses." With this one, she was exactly right.

The boy in that picture grew up. He loved music and got an MFA in choral conducting with an eye one day of writing musicals of his own. He taught choir at a high school in the Chicago suburbs for many years and was a very popular instructor. He'd take his students to Europe every few years to give concerts. He was seriously thinking of going back to school and getting a Ph.D. several years ago. He'd fallen in love with someone about that time as well. Physically, though, he wasn't feeling quite right. He went to the doctor and eventually was diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor. He died this past week.

Through the years of his illness, he just kept going. If he felt down or defeated, he never showed it. Last summer, I spent a week with him and the rest of the family at the beach. It was the first time I'd seen him where physically he had deteriorated to such a degree that I felt he wouldn't be around much longer. I cherished those days with him. Again, he kept going.

Before he died, he wanted to visit all 50 states: really visit them, not just stop in a bunch of airports. By the time, I saw him he had one state to go, Nebraska. "Do you really want to see, Nebraska?" I kidded him. "I've been there. Really now, you could skip that one and you wouldn't be any worse for it." But he was insistent. It was on the list. He wasn't going to deviate. This past fall his mom, dad and sister went with him to Omaha.

His last conducting effort was during a concert in his honor. He was wheeled up to the stage by his sister. I wasn't there. I'm told that he conducted with a wobbly left hand and the use of his eyes. As you can imagine, many tears were shed that night.

When you know someone when you're an adult and they're no more than a toddler, somehow you just assume that they'll outlive you. That's the natural order of things or it seems like the natural order to me. In this case, that natural order was turned upside down. It hurts more when someone you care about dies young. It just doesn't seem fair. But I also know that the person in that picture above from so many years ago would want people to do something special in his honor instead of wallowing in sadness. That's how he lived his own life. He was creative. He made a positive lasting impact on many he taught and met. He'd want nothing less from those he loved.

How Dreams Are Made

2009-12-14T06:00:00.000-08:00

A few days ago, I finally got my library copy of Sarah Palin's autobiography. I'd already read three quarters of the book in the bookstore. It's not anything I'd recommend although it's a super quick read. Basically, Sarah Palin thinks she's infallible on everything under the sun and hates anyone she runs into who doesn't bow down to her. The woman is delusional to such a degree that she feels it necessary to put her delusions in print. My sweetie picked up my library copy, looked at the pictures, and declared that: 1) the pictures were very cute; 2) that's all she needed to "read" about Sarah Palin.

Then a couple of days ago, my sweetie and I drove up to SF to go have dinner and listen to the symphony. It was raining, and the normal 50 to 60 minute drive turned out to be a 105 minute slog. I was a basket case by the time I walked into the restaurant. I figured that if we were lucky, we'd be able to get a cup of coffee and a salad and even then might be late for the symphony. But then luck came our way. The restaurant served us super quick - fabulous food actually. We even had time to have some dessert, and there was absolutely no traffic from the restaurant to the symphony parking lot. Voila! We made it with 20 minutes to spare! And the concert was one of the better performances this year so far. I calmed down the second our food was served and actually had a fun night.

The next night I had a dream. I was driving on a foggy mountain road at night in a 1965 Pontiac LeMans convertible painted that aqua green that was popular in the 60s. Actually, I wasn't driving. A guy who was test driving the car and was going to buy it from me via Ebay was at the wheel. Sarah Palin was ahead of us on the mountain road. She was in this clunker of a 1950s two tone, red and white Chevy sedan and was driving like a maniac, hugging the Amalfi like cliffs of the road. My driver was, for some reason trying to keep up with Palin. Then on a treacherous stretch he decided to go high straight over the ridge instead of sticking to the curvy road. That turned out to be a bad idea. We off-roaded over the mountain top and lost control. The car flew over a cliff and squashed like a pancake after it hit the road 1500 feet down. Fortunately, the driver and I both jumped out of the car before it went airborne.

I watched the car descend. My first thought was shit, this Ebay sale is going to be a mess. I'm going to have to fill out a ton of electronic forms and the chance of this guy ever paying me for this car is zilch. He'll probably give me a negative sellers rating too, the s.o.b. Then I woke up.

Obviously, this isn't a very realistic dream. But I know where the Sarah Palin thing comes in. I also know where the treacherous drive comes from. I have a friend who owns a gold Pontiac Lemans circa 1965. The Ebay aspect of this dream? Who knows? And my sweetie is right. The pictures in the Sarah Palin book are very cute.

Adventures in Global Warming Part 1: The Conspiracy

2009-12-09T06:00:00.000-08:00

"When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is, in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I find this extremely disturbing." Tom Wigley, Climate Scientist, UCAR

The above quote comes from the "hacked emails" of the climate community that have made the news. Supposedly these emails show evidence that the scientific community is involved in a conspiracy to perpetuate a hoax that the Earth is warming and that this warming is due to human impact. Does the above plea for objectivity from one of the climate scientists supposedly involved in this supposed hoax sound like every scientist is moving in lock step to perpetuate a lie? That's a rhetorical question.

I've been going through these hacked emails to try to see why the press has made such hay of them. They are incredibly boring to read for the most part. It's fun to see names of people I know now and then. But the idea that there is any information in these emails that indicates the presence of a cabal of scientists trying to fool the public is delusional. I haven't found it yet that's for certain.

The best data suggest that the Earth has warmed about a degree over the last one hundred years. The best science says that humans are a significant influence on that temperature change. That much is known.

I'm not exactly a friend of the climate change community. I know quite a few of the scientists. Many of them I respect. Others are such ardent environmentalists that there is no way possible for them to be objective in their research. The ones I respect for their objectivity and quality of their work are not in disagreement on the two major points above. Let me repeat. The Earth's temperature is getting warmer. Humans have influenced that temperature change.

Much of the climate change community is involved in efforts to look back hundreds and thousands of years at the Earth's climate. It's interesting work to try and find proxies for the Earth's prehistoric temperature. However, trying to graft this paleoclimatic work onto the recent historical record to make a single curve for the Earth's temperature history at a resolution of a couple of tenths of a degree is a fool's errand. Most climate scientists recognize that this is a fool's errand. However, society in many cases expects and demands scientists to extract more from their data and models than is reasonably possible. I've been asked to do this with regard to groundwater contamination. Meteorologists are asked to do this for hurricane landfall prediction. We are expected to do more than we should. It's unfortunate that this is the case. Chalk it up to human misuse of science.

The press has made claims that the hacked emails show something shady and unseemly about the nature of climate research. I'm not seeing evidence of massive groupthink. There are some emails from ardent environmentalists who, despite their Ph.D.s, shouldn't be given a dime of grant money. But those nut jobs tend to be rebutted by reasonable and very smart people.

I think the press got so excited about the fact that these emails were hacked that they decided that something must be in them of substance. But these emails are pretty vacuous. It's like someone robbed a bank in a showy way, opened the safe and didn't find any money. If you want evidence of a global conspiracy perpetuated by the scientific community, you'll need to look elsewhere.

There is no global conspiracy, sorry folks. The people who are making these claims of a hoax are just as nutty as the members of the climate community chastised by Tom Wigley in the above quote. Recently, I heard one of the people making these claims, Representative James Sensenbrenner, on the radio. I know Representative Sensenbrenner fairly well. Back when I was a kid, he was the representative for my neighborhood in the Wisconsin State Legislature. He has no scientific background. He's an extreme conservative from a very wealthy Wisconsin family. He is completely opposed to the US doing anything about its CO2 emissions. When he says that scientists are involved in a hoax and the recent hacked emails show this to be the case, he is engaging in phony rhetoric. What he is really saying is the following: I want the US to keep burning as much fossil fuel as it desires and I will distort and misuse any piece of information I can find to fight efforts at curbing fossil fuel use.

James Sensenbrenner represents the caliber of the "opposition." They have no credibility. They should be ignored just like the people with megaphones on street corners crying "the end is near" are ignored by the press. The press does really well when it comes to things like finding Tiger Woods' many mistresses. When it comes to dealing with science, however, they are generally pathetic. Such is the case with their treatment of the science of global warming. There are exceptions of course. For example, Andrew Revkin had a nice article in the NY Times a couple of days ago about the climate change community. Thanks Andrew.

I have no idea what the impact of the observed one degree or so temperature shift on the Earth over the last one hundred years has been on our climate. Neither does anyone else. I have no idea what the impact of a several degree shift over the next one hundred years will be on our climate. Again, neither does anyone else. The impact could be severe. The impact could be mild. One thing is certain. The earth will continue to warm due to human impact. Unlike many in the scientific community, I am not at all optimistic that humans will do anything of substance to change their behavior with regard to fossil fuel use.

The James Sensenbrenners of the world will win this battle not because they are right, but because we lack the discipline to do anything beyond perpetuating the status quo. We will continue to run this experiment of pumping CO2 and methane into our atmosphere for the next fifty years, maybe more. What happens as a result is anyone's guess.

Society's response to the uncertainty of climate change can be described surprisingly well through the use of a well known movie monologue given by an actor who lives an hour and a half down the road from me in beautiful Carmel. His speech was a discourse about the uncertainty of the number of bullets remaining in his weapon. I quote:

"Did he fire six shots or only five? Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track myself. But being as this is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"

Do we feel lucky? We are certainly behaving like punks not responsible adults. And I sure hope we're lucky as can be.

My Year In Movies

2009-12-07T06:00:00.000-08:00

I don't think I'm much of a movie goer. Loud noises scare the hell out of me. Car chases and things blowing up are kind of boring. I have to close my eyes whenever there is blood or when someone uses a syringe. I'm a word person at heart.

That said, I probably watch about 25 or so moves a year. Most of those are obscure things that have negligible box office revenue. Hollywood used to have a few big budget movies that I liked every year. But nowadays major Hollywood studios spend so much money on each movie that they feel the need to have some tie in to guarantee a core audience. So they're focused on sequels and adaptations of: old TV shows, comic books, children's books, novels, memoirs of famous people, and true stories that made the news. There's so little use of and demand for original screenplays right now that it's hard to find five (this year ten I think) decent films in the Best Original Screenplay Oscar category. I think I read about this "crisis" in original screenplays in the NY Times.

Anyway, adaptations for movies tend to be bad. For example, I just saw Where the Wild Things Are. Oy vey. Spike Jonze and Dave Eggers concocted one lame, unintelligent stinker of a script. They confused pop child psychology with story telling. These kinds of misfires are fairly common. The move away from original screenplays to adaptations has for me meant less movies worth seeing.

There weren't any wonderful movies for me this year, the kind where I walk out of a theater feeling the glee of a sensory high. Many movie critics have said the same thing. It was a weak year. It was a weak year for novels and pop music as well. Who knows why?

OK, enough kvetching. Surely, I liked some movies this year. What were they? In no particular order:

Frozen River Really a fine indie, slice of life film about what it's like to be down on your luck. The people here aren't sanitized like you find in Hollywood movies. The lead actress isn't afraid to look bad without makeup and her desperation is palpable. The interplay between her and her son and her partner in crime evolve over time in a very realistic way. No, this isn't a date movie, but it is a well told yarn with some real grit.

Moving Midway You won't find another movie as steeped in the real heart of Carolina. I don't know if this movie will appeal to a general audience. I do know it will appeal to many who have spent time in the South and especially those who spent time in the Carolina Piedmont. A sweet story about Southern family and the changing tides of time. The people portrayed here are Southerners through and through. When they desperately speculate that their family must have treated their slaves well because everyone in the family is so kind, I felt like I knew these people. Even the construction of the movie has a Southern feel; laid back and quiet in his approach, the director lets the story simply show itself little by little.

Up Visually this movie is fabulous. The animation and organic use of 3-D (they aren't trying to get you to jump out of your seats, but simply enjoy the visuals more) are simply both wonder-inspiring and artful. However, the story, once you get past the amazing opening which could be a first rate short feature on its own, is only passable. There is a lot of little kid logic used to move the plot along. Then there are the cute to be cute elements that seem to be added in a very synthetic way. I felt a bit manipulated by the story and the characters, both of which I thought were a bit too stock and predictable. But let's get back to the visuals. They are easily worth the price of admission.

Goodbye Solo This film never tries to do more than be about a relationship between two ordinary men, bound by loneliness, who are ultimately at cross purposes. The script is understated throughout, and I have no idea how the people who put this thing together found Elvis Pressley's old buddy Red West, but he is spot on in his part.

Julie and Julia You can tell the book that this movie is based on is lousy. But bad books often make good movies. This one is very sweet and entertaining. I'm not generally a fan of Nora Ephron movies, but I found this one to be a whole lot of fun. It's a good date movie for grown-ups, full of warmth and laughs. Meryl Streep is a treasure as per usual. Amy Adams has the emotions of a just turned 30 striver down to a T. Then there is Stanley Tucci who plays a Fred MacMurray kind of character even better than Fred MacMurray did way back when. The dialogue is snappy of course. There is also of course no doubt that happiness will be in store for all the characters in the end.

Food, Inc. The approach in this movie is a bit scattershot, but Food, Inc. does get its points across. I think it would have been far better if the film makers would have ignored the issue of genetically modified foods and patent law and kept focused on the issue of what we eat and why. That said, overall the movie is well made, and clearly more money was put into this movie than most documentaries. It lifts the veil on the ugly world of agribusiness. You can read about this issue in books, but seeing it with your own eyes is something else entirely.

A New Swear Word

2009-12-05T06:00:00.000-08:00

I was sleep deprived, flying on a cross-continental plane that was heated to about 82 degrees. I wanted to strip down to my boxers, but I had a feeling that such a thing wouldn't be acceptable. Under such conditions, your mind does strange things.

My mind started out OK. As I dozed on and off, I started to think about Afghanistan and how we are going to pour another 60 billion a year that we don't have into another needless war. We should pay for it somehow. Some congressmen agree with me and have proposed a "war tax." But there is no way a tax is going to happen. Over the last thirty years, Americans have developed a visceral hatred of taxes. Democrat or Republican, we just would rather print money and have our country drown in a sea of red ink.

Then my mind started to wander... Taxes are now so evil that the word "tax" is the equivalent of a swear word. If a politician ever mentions the word "tax" in public, it's as if he said the word "f*ck" on national TV. His chances of being elected go to zero.

Then I went off the deep end... When you come to think of though, "f*ck" doesn't really make sense as a swear word at all. "F*ck you" should be a wish of good tidings not an invective. Who doesn't want to have sex? We should replace the "f-word" with the "t-word!" It makes perfect sense!

Think about it. You're pissed at someone and you really want to curse them. "Tax you!" It sounds much better and accurate than the "f-word" equivalent. You run into a spate a bad luck and what should you shout out? "Well tax me" or "man am I taxed!" And when someone makes your life miserable and they call you on the phone asking for something they don't deserve, doesn't "go tax yourself" sound about right as a retort? By the way, what do you call taxing yourself? Taxturbation of course!

I really did think that up all by myself, aren't I clever? You don't like it? Well tax you, you taxing little piece of sh*t. I'm done with using the f-word. In the sauna of my airplane, I've found a way to greatly improve my use of language.

That Faustian Bargain

2009-12-02T06:00:00.000-08:00

About a month ago, I was in a rental car listening to the CBC in British Columbia. I happened to come upon a hour-long interview with Sonny Rollins, someone who I think is a musical god. Most musicians are completely inarticulate when it comes to talking about their craft. Not so, Rollins. He is incredibly analytical and clearly has put a lot of thought into the process of becoming a world-class musician. He didn't pull any punches in his discussion about his past heroin addiction. He explained how heroin enhanced his creativity, but in the long term was destructive.

The value of drugs in music is a much debated thing. I have no doubt of their short-term enhancing effects. For those who maintain that there is no relationship between musical creativity and opiates like heroin, here's a video for you. It's of the vocalist Anita O'Day singing the oh so innocuous song Sweet Georgia Brown at the 1959 Newport Jazz Festival. A junkie for decades, Anita O'Day is as high as anything on that stage. The notes that come out of her singing are incredible. Could she have done anything as startling if she were straight? It's not possible.

Drugs help. Listen to Coltrane in his prime. Listen to Rollins. To Charlie Parker. They are doing things because they are high that are divine. It's amazingly alluring to listen to the stuff they created while under the influence. I think it's also true that for those who have managed to get off their drug addictions, somehow they can retain that magic in their music. I know that's true for Sonny Rollins. The other day I was listening to a live recording of him in New York just after 9/11. He does things that mere mortals can't even come close to doing.

For someone like him, it's as if he has had the best of both worlds. He's dipped into the creative well provided by heroin. Now he can still use it drug free in his ripe old age. For others, though, it really is a Faustian bargain. They burn bright for a brief time and never get straight.

Public Option Shmublic Option

2009-11-30T06:00:00.000-08:00

I recently finished T.R. Reid's book The Healing of America. I'm surprised that this book hasn't had much impact on the health care debate. I didn't agree with all of its points, but the book is well informed and quite readable. It was also depressing to read because there is a complete disconnect between the book's informed rhetoric and what has gone down in Congress. If the debates in Congress so far would have been half as intelligent as the content of Reid's book, I would have faith in our political system. But they have haven't been. And I really have lost faith in the ability of Congress to do anything truly meaningful on health care.

One of the stranger things in the news is how health care legislation has been hyped. The press is really trying to sell the idea that the proposed legislation represents major reform. But in truth, it isn't. The proposed legislation is really health insurance expansion not health care reform. Reducing the number of people unable to get insurance is a good goal mind you. It will lead to the reduction of people who die every year (currently a few tens of thousands per year) because they cannot get the insurance necessary to receive major medical treatment or have the possibility of early detection of life threatening diseases. But it is not major reform.

Major reform means a fundamental change in how we provide health care, not a change in insurance availablilty for 10 percent of our population. Why is the press hyping this battle? I think it's akin to hyping an upcoming Monday Night Football game between two mediocre teams. It's what's going on in Congress. The press is stuck with the fact that Congress is inept and owned by big business. So they have to hype it to grab the attention of the public.

Another strange thing is how much coverage the "battle" between having and not having a "public option" is getting. This is really a side show. The public option in the proposed legislation is a nothing thing. It has no teeth to bring down insurance or health care costs. If Congress was serious about controlling insurance costs, they would forget about this sideshow and work to do what other countries have done: mandate that all insurance companies be not-for-profit. As Reid notes in his book, no other rich nation has health care dominated by for-profit insurance companies. It's not surprising that no other country has so little of its medical dollars go toward actually helping patients.

Getting beyond the side show of a public option, it's clear that any changes in our health care system will be minor. Health care in the US will still be expensive, far more expensive than other countries. We will still be obsessed with expensive exotic and aggressive treatments that provide negligible benefit, but dramatically drive up the cost of health insurance premiums. For 90 percent of Americans, "health care reform" means no change in the status quo. So why is the press and public getting in such a lather over something that in the end is of so little consequence?

The Need To Do Something

2009-11-23T06:00:00.000-08:00

When my mother was dying of cancer, she went in for regular treatments of a chemotherapy drug approved by the FDA. I went through the research papers on this drug. As coincidence would have it, a former high school classmate had been involved in getting it approved and was a co-author on some of those papers. None of those papers showed that this drug really did anything at all in terms of prolonging life. Not a thing. What the drug did do was make a small percentage of the patients "feel better." On the basis of this "benefit" the drug was approved. Somehow the FDA didn't take into account that the overwhelming majority of patients didn't "feel better." Somehow the FDA ignored that fact that most would feel horrible for a day or two after taking this drug. That's what happens when you take poison through an IV.

The cost to my mother for this drug was small. But her insurance would pay 400 dollars every time. Thousands of dollars were spent on a drug that was completely worthless at best.

My mother knew I was looking at these research papers. I knew that she wanted to take this drug no matter what those papers said. When she asked me about what I had found, I told her that the side effects were minor. She never asked if the drug was going to prolong her life. I never told her.

One day I was talking to her on the phone about her real estate business. Out of nowhere, she said to me, "You probably think I'm a fool for taking this poison. But I need to do it. I need to feel like I'm doing something."

I understood her completely. Yes, it's irrational to purposely undergo chemotherapy that provides no real benefit. But if you want to live, what's the alternative? You live the lie that it will help because you can't just sit and wait and watch yourself slowly disappear.

Last week, the news came out that mammograms don't really help young women survive breast cancer. We would like to think that early detection is valuable. It gives us hope. But it isn't valuable. The alternative, though, is to give into hopelessness.

In my mother's case, doing something that provided no benefit was of minor consequence. She'd feel bad one day a week because of the poison in her system. But what of those women under forty with false positive mammograms and true positives for cancers that cannot be cured? They too, like my mother, will feel the need to do something. They won't be able to simply be idle. My guess is that they will often undergo treatments far more disruptive and far more expensive than my mother had. My guess is that despite the recommendation that regular mammograms not begin for women until they are in their 50s, younger women will continue to have tests. They'll want to know if they do have cancer. It's an irrational need really. But so much of what we do in life is driven by irrational needs.

Johnny Mercer Turns 100 And Rolls Over in His Grave

2009-11-20T06:00:00.000-08:00

I was at a Grammy thing the other night in the city on as fate would have it, Johnny Mercer's 100th birthday. Mercer was a genius. Think about this. A guy is driving in his car and hears a new Lionel Hampton tune on the radio. Words start coming to his head as he hears Hampton on the vibraphone. He pulls over. Calls up the radio station. Asks them to play that song again. Here's what eventually gets written down to the Hampton tune:

Your lips were like a red and ruby chalice, warmer than the summer night
The clouds were like an alabaster palace rising to a snowy height.
Each star its own aurora borealis, suddenly you held me tight
I could see the Midnight Sun.

I can't explain the silver rain that found me--or was that a moonlit veil?
The music of the universe around me, or was that a nightingale?
And then your arms miraculously found me,suddenly the sky turned pale,
I could see the Midnight Sun.

Was there such a night, it's a thrill I still don't quite believe,
But after you were gone, there was still some stardust on my sleeve.

The flame of it may dwindle to an ember, and the stars forget to shine,
And we may see the meadow in December, icy white and crystalline,
But oh my darling always I'll remember when your lips were close to mine,
And we saw the Midnight Sun.

Now that is f*cking brilliant. That melody is very tough, incredibly tough to do the backwards thing and add lyrics (most songs are written lyrics first). The song is in fourteen bar riffs, mostly a series of seventh chords. There's all this flat 7 and flat 3 chord stuff going on, changes from major to minor for no apparent reason other than to make you feel uneasy. It's not a singable tune at first blush. Only someone with the musicality of Ella Fitzgerald could carry it off and not make it sound forced.

Those ethereal high fallutin' lyrics fit those chord progressions perfectly. Most of those words, even the high falutin' ones, are very easy to sing. Like I said, Johnny Mercer was a genius.

So I walk into the Grammy thing thinking of Johnny Mercer and the club is loud and cheesy. Some funk jazz band is thumping along. The singer is awful, no style whatsoever. I reach into my bag to get out my earplugs and they aren't there. Waaaaa. OK, I'm a big spoiled baby it's true. I'm thinking Johnny Mercer must be rolling over in his grave. I'm in pain that's for sure.

Then a singer comes on with a cellist. She can barely play guitar. And I can tell she's writing her songs backwards relative to most everyone nowadays. She's coming up with melodies and then figures out the simplest chord progressions that could go with them. The melodies are a little unusual even if the chords are typical stuff.

The place is crowded and noisy. The sound guy absolutely doesn't know how to handle this little act of a soft singer and a cellist. He only knows how to deal with a thumping bass and a drum set. The sound is awful. So I move up close and listen. The singer can put words together. The rhymes aren't forced. She can mostly sing on key and I'm guessing that if the sound was better and she could actually hear herself, she wouldn't be having those pitch problems.

This girl has some talent. No she isn't the next Johnny Mercer. Not even close. But comparing anyone to Johnny Mercer just isn't fair. No one is listening to her at this gig, but someone like this could have an audience somewhere down the line. You never know. And maybe, just maybe Johnny Mercer isn't rolling over in his grave after all.

Everything Old Is New Again

2009-11-18T06:00:00.000-08:00

When I was a kid, there was a "personality" from the left, Abbie Hoffman. He essentially was an anarachist. Wait. That isn't quite right. Hoffman was really a self-serving bloviater who made a lot of money selling books that implored adults to act like spoiled children. He got a lot of press. Back then, there were only four channels on TV. Hoffman couldn't have his own talk show. But if cable TV had existed in the 1960s, he would have certainly been bloviating on the airwaves, behaving like an angry child. Hoffman probably would have had a loyal following of young people.

Back then the radical left influenced the Democratic Party to a fair degree. Democrats were still beholden to big money of course, but the party for some reason felt the need to try to appease much of the left. The end result was that they came up with George McGovern as a presidential candidate, someone who - while honorable to a fair degree - was completely unelectable. The radical left wounded the Democratic Party for a good decade or two.

The radical left is tiny now. Back in the 1960s, it probably comprised about 10-20 percent of the electorate. But everything old is new again, because the same thing that happened to the Democrats and the left in the 1960s is happening with the Republicans and the right now.

Like Abbie Hoffman of old, the right has a cadre of bloviators hawking books and screaming on TV telling their minions to act like children. Instead of the followers being young, they are old, often over sixty. Watching these golden agers behave like two year olds is even worse than watching 20 somethings behave that way.

In the sixties, the stupid slogan to promote infantile behavior was "don't trust anyone over 30." Nowadays, the radical right is essentially governed by another stupidity: don't trust anyone with a Ph.D. or an Ivy League degree. If you have a brain, you are suspect. If you believe in evolution, you are basically persona non grata.

Just like the radical left and the Democrats in the 1960s, the radical right is leading the Republican Party down a rat hole. Back in 1972, the Republican in office, Nixon, was mired in Vietnam. But the Democrats were so wounded by trying to appease the radical left that they had no chance of winning the presidency. I expect the equivalent thing will happen to the Republcians in 2012. The radical right will force them to choose a completely unelectable candidate.

There are of course differences between the 1960s and today. Television and the internet have created a no man's land in the middle. The radical right watches its own TV and reads its own web sites. The left, which lost its radical fringe over a decade ago, lives in its own echo chamber as well. The result is that both groups are completely ignorant of the other's views. They just assume the worst about the other side. There is hardly any real dialogue anywhere.

Still, voters - and most voters don't care much about the day to day of politics - are in that no man's land of the center. That was true in the 1960s as well. Like Nixon in 1972, I expect Obama - regardless of how well or poorly he does this term - will easily win in 2012. Just like the Democrats in 1972, the Republcans will be scratching their heads as to what went wrong. The answer is simple. The Republicans keep letting self-serving nut jobs like Beck and Limbaugh push them around. Eventually, they'll realize their error. But it will be awhile.

Ingrates From Hell

2009-11-16T06:00:00.000-08:00

Tomorrow, Sarah Palin's book, Going Rogue, comes out. I've actually ordered it from the library and I'll skim it. But the reports have already come out from several sources as to what this book is mostly about: payback and trying to make the case for becoming president in 2012. Sarah Palin has no chance - absolutely zero - of becoming president. She's electrified the dumb, anti-intellectual, white Christian segment of America's population. That's a big segment of America - probably on the order of 20 percent or so. But another 70 percent of America doesn't even think she's qualified to be president. So let's forget about her efforts to try to get into the White House. It isn't going to happen.

It's the payback aspects of her writing that are interesting to me. John McCain and his campaign manager, Steve Schmidt, made Sarah Palin. They gave her national visibility by selecting her as a VP candidate. They gave her a great writer so that she could deliver a wonderful - if error filled - speech at the Republican Convention. On the basis of that one speech, Palin catapulted to national icon status for a couple of weeks. Then people figured out that she didn't have a brain.

As a result of the McCain campaign, Palin is making millions. In another year or two, she will no doubt accumulate tens of millions of dollars from speaking engagements and sweetheart investment deals, taking full advantage of the crony capitalism that defines America today. Without McCain, Palin would still be governor of a remote state and would still be dealing with a slew of ethics investigations in that state.

Sarah Palin shouldn't be criticizing John McCain or Steve Schmidt one bit. She should be kissing their feet. She owes them everything. Sarah Palin is in fact an ingrate from hell.

This isn't anything new I know. It seems to be part of politics today. For example it's routine for some guy or gal to work for a presidential administration and then garner a name and a fat book contract from that work. These folks proceed in their book and the associated book tour to dump all over the president (their former boss) for having them do all those nasty, unethical things they had to do on the job. They never seem to note that before they were hired they did all kinds of nasty, unethical things to get noticed enough to get the job which they supposedly detested.

These tell all whiny books - written by Sarah Palin, Scott McClellan, George Stephanopoulos, and down the line - really serve no purpose. The press likes these books. The public likes them, too. But they like them for the dirt. The historical and political value of that dirt is almost always inconsequential because these people seem incapable of nuance. Plus they seem incapable of being all that honest about their own misdeeds. Personally, I'd have a lot more respect for these people if they cashed in on their ascent in the political world by doing it the old fashioned way: quietly.

Come to think of it, I still wouldn't have respect for them. I just don't want to hear about these slimy people anymore. Go away Sarah Palin. Go away Scott McClellan. Go away George Stephanopoulos. You're too slimy for me. You're too slimy for public consumption. You are ingrates from hell all of you.

Eye of the Tiger

2009-11-11T06:00:00.000-08:00

I was at a party in LA in a cheesy club. Maybe all clubs are cheesy, but this one was especially so. It was one of those industry mixers for music people. At one time, these kinds of events were filled with energy. Now, with the collapse of the music business, they are very warmed over things. You shmooze and find out that no one is doing particularly well.

Three bands were in the lineup for the party. The first one was bad. The second one had practiced a lot. The third one was Crystal Method. I never made it to the Crystal Method. I was already back in my hotel.

Just before I left, I ran into someone who looked sort of interesting. Tall guy in his late 50s with in a jeans jacket with lots of silver rings on his fingers. A Keith Richards light kind of person. He was holding onto an acoustic guitar in a case. "Are you going to go on the stage and play?" I asked.

"I want to, man, yeah, but they won't let me. They say they can't squeeze me in."

"Too bad."

"Yeah, I wanted to play Eye of the Tiger. That's my song, man. Wanted to energize the crowd, you know."

It really was his song. I knew he wasn't b.s.'ing me. Later I looked up the song online. I found a picture of the guy playing guitar on a stage somewhere.

"That's a fun song," I said. "Would be fun to hear you play that. Just for old times sake, you know."

"Yeah, better than that stuff, man." He pointed to the band.

"They're OK, rhythm section is tight."

"Yeah, but, man, they don't know how to write a song."

He was raring to go. He wanted an audience. This guy had probably written over one thousand songs. That's what songwriters do. They write a ton. If they're lucky they get known for one or two of them. He probably had another 50 that were just as danceable and fun as Eye of the Tiger. For whatever reason, they never became hits.

What does a songwriter do when his time comes and goes? I once asked a similar question to the playwright Edward Albee when he was in a prolonged slump. No one was producing his new stuff. Maybe 20 people were there to see him talk. He shot me a look. He was right. It was a mean question. A man writes one of the greatest plays in the 20th century, only 20 people show up to hear him talk, and some young bratty punk who has no doubt never written a decent line in his life (me) is saying he's a has been. "You keep on writing plays," he said.

I'm sure the Eye of the Tiger guy is still writing songs. He's even co-written a book, Songwriting for Dummies. It's probably decent. Albee, through persistence and luck, was able to become fashionable as a playwright once again. I doubt that will happen to the Eye of the Tiger guy. Playwrights don't have to be young. He was right though. The band at that party didn't know how to write a song.

Fame is fleeting sure, but that doesn't mean that those that get their 15 minutes of fame are happy with just 15 minutes. I decided to look up the lyrics to Eye of the Tiger just out of curiosity.

It's the eye of the tiger, it's the cream of the fight
Risin' up to the challenge of our rival
And the last known survivor stalks his prey in the night
And he's watchin' us all in the eye of the tiger

No that isn't Cole Porter. But it doesn't have to be. "Rival" and "tiger" isn't even a soft rhyme. But this is rock music. The rules are different for rock. It's about the lift in the chorus. It's about the mood. And that hook, eye of the tiger. That's a damn good hook. The dude deserved his 15 minutes. He deserves the mailbox money that he gets every quarter of the year from that one song, enough money every year to give him a comfortable living. You have to be lucky. You have to be good. He was both.

Denying Dysfunction

2009-11-09T06:00:00.000-08:00

I've read two chapters from an upcoming book, Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea by Barbara Demick, that I can't wait to get my hands on. The first chapter I read was in the Fall Issue of the Paris Review and told the story of a man and a woman just meant to be together, best friends since they were young. But in North Korea, everything is made difficult (and often impossible) by the government including love. The second chapter in a recent issue of the New Yorker was about a woman, a full believer in the North Korean government, who watched her loved ones, including her husband and a son, die of starvation in the 1990s. Over two million North Koreans starved to death over that time.

Demick is the Beijing Bureau chief for the LA Times. Her chapter in the Paris Review was especially gripping. But in both stories, simple declarative sentences are used time and time again to describe the agony and abject pain of lives under the cruelest and most incompetent of governments imaginable. What perhaps is most shocking is that these people believe for the longest time - despite all evidence to the contrary - that their country and leaders are beyond reproach and doing the best for all.

There's a recent article by Andrei Lankov in Foreign Affairs that talks about changing North Korea through an information deluge. The notion that Lankov promotes is that if the North Korean people somehow - through the internet and radio - can begin to understand just how they are being abused and misled, the government will have to change. He cites the former Soviet Union as an example of just how public knowledge of life in the West helped to cause the collapse of communism.

It certainly can't hurt to make the effort to inform North Korea's citizenry that the quality of their lives is dreadful in comparison to their neighbors in South Korea and even in China. But I wouldn't expect such efforts to achieve a tremendous change in attitudes. There seems to be something innate in humans that causes us to believe the simple lie that our government is always good. In Russia, there is pride over a government that continues to deny basic freedom and leaves most of its citizenry in poverty, numbed by cheap vodka. There's even nostalgia for Stalin, a man responsible for the death of 30 million of his own people and many million more Ukrainians through execution, a bungled war effort and starvation.

I recently watched a documentary on the death of children in the 2008 Sichuan, China earthquake. Schools collapsed due to shoddy construction. Thousands of children died because government officials clearly took bribes that allowed construction crews to avoid codes and save on building costs. The schools are surrounded by buildings that survived the earthquake in tact or suffered only minor damage. Yet the Chinese government claims no culpability. Parents of these deceased children have been paid a few thousand dollars each for their pain with the stipulation that they say nothing untoward about the Chinese government. In the documentary, people are filmed extolling just how good their government is. It's surreal to the degree these people are in denial.

We all want to believe our governments are good and look out for our interests. Although we in the US do seem to have an innate suspicion of government not possessed by other countries, ultimately we want to believe we are a great nation that can do anything. But look at our government. We had a completely avoidable disaster in New Orleans. For at least a decade it was known that the levees of the city were inadequate. Nothing was done. After Katrina hit and the levees failed, how well did our government perform? Terribly. How well is our government performing now in New Orleans? They continue to ignore the city. Democrat or Republican, it really doesn't matter. Our government has simply turned its back.

This isn't new by the way. In the floods of 1927, the American government did much the same thing in Louisiana and Mississippi. The one difference was that we weren't in the information age back then. The federal government could delude the American public into thinking that real assistance was taking place. The man in charge of this "assistance," Herbert Hoover, was able to use this disinformation campaign to get elected into the White House.

No I'm not trying to compare the US to North Korea, Russia, or China. Those countries have governments that are total failures. But we are coming up short, way short, of having a quality government. For instance, one basic item that any decent government should provide is vaccination during epidemics. It was well known that the H1N1 virus would come back this flu season. We should have been prepared. Just last week, a friend of my wife, a pregnant teacher, went to try to get a vaccine for H1N1. She was told she wasn't in a high enough risk group to receive a shot. We shouldn't be turning away pregnant teachers. We shouldn't be turning away anyone. I note that Goldman-Sachs and Citigroup have obtained their own private stores of H1N1 vaccine for their employees.

We are also facing a shortage of regular flu shots for this year. Again, I don't this is a failure caused by Republican or Democratic leadership. Democrat leadership during Katrina likely would have performed as poorly as did Bush.

No, the failure is endemic to how our country runs. It behaves poorly in times of crisis. It gets us involved in unnecessary wars that cost the lives of thousands of our young men and women and cost trillions of dollars. We like to believe we have the best government in the world. There is quite a bit of which to be proud I know. But we do not have anywhere close to a quality government. It's a catch as catch can kind of thing that tends to fumble along during crises and tends to be belligerent to other countries simply because it has an arms stockpile that it gets itchy to use.

A Pretty Good Decade

2009-11-06T06:00:00.000-08:00

I happen to think hate is a very wonderful emotion. It's like alcohol or any drug. Sure it f*cks you up, but when used sparingly and judicially, it can enhance your life. It's liberating to truly detest something in an unbridled way. And if you can't hate intensely, how can you possibly love intensely?

It's always good to have something or someone to hate. Not the whole world mind you. Just cherry pick a few obvious things and stick with them is my philosophy. One of my things is the Yankees. I can't stand them. You'll never seem me in pin stripes of any kind.

I've been hating the Yankees for as long as I can remember. They have that arrogance and swagger. They took forever to have any sort of a racially integrated team. George Steinbrenner was an a*hole who spent so much money for players that other teams had to follow. As a result, ticket prices for games nationwide are through the roof, mostly unaffordable to families except in the bleachers. The expensive tickets. The eight dollar beer. The five dollar hot dog. It's all George Steinbrenner's fault I swear. And it's all the Yankees fault. One thing I love about hate. There's no need to be rational.

That doesn't mean I don't like Yankees players. Derek Jeter is fantastic. CC Sabathia is a hoot and a wonderful talent. Paul O'Neil is one of my favorite players of all time. Mariano Rivera is a pitching god. I'd just like them 800 times better if they didn't wear that dreaded N and Y on their caps. Love the player. Hate the team. Although I have to say that Yankees past and present like Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez are great fodder for me. May they both burn in hell.

So the other night when the Yankees won the World Series (actually The Parts of North America Series), I was not a happy camper. The forces of darkness have once again taken over baseball. This is no way for a season to end. Superman has died from exposure to kryptonite. Mr. Rogers has been found out to be a pedophile. Goldman-Sachs has just purchased all of the real estate in DC including the White House and decided to rename the city Goldmanville and rename the Capitol building the Sachs Pavillion. And the Yankees have won again. Evil rules the world.

But I slept on this horrible state of affairs and when I woke I had a much better perspective. All in all it's been a pretty good decade for a Yankees hater. They've won a grand total of two times. All those billions of dollars spent and that's all they have to show for it. Man those people must be idiots.

Most decades the Yankees win more than twice. The 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, and 90s were truly dreadful decades for Yankees haters. The 1980s were haters heaven. They didn't win at all. Maybe that will happen next decade as well.

There's hope on the horizon. Rivera, Jeter, Damon, Matsui, and Pettite are getting way old. That's a lot of talent to replace even if you do have an infinite budget. Plus Rodriguez is still a wanker, albeit a talented one. It's been a long time since the Yankees have found All Star talent in their own farm system. This year's World Series victory just might be a last gasp. Perhaps the light will shine on our dear planet again for all of the next decade.

The Price For An Icon

2009-11-04T06:00:00.000-08:00

Suppose you were making a commercial and you wanted the theme to be about good times on a sunny day. You'd need background music of course. In the old days, you'd usually have some song guy or gal write a jingle for cheap. But nowadays, you want to get the attention of boomers, so you try to use songs that they know and like.

What song are you going to pick? Aim high now. This is a commercial for a huge corporation. They've got a ton of money. The ad time is going to run into tens of millions of dollars. What's iconic? The Beatles of course. Unfortunately for you, recordings of Lennon/McCartney tunes aren't available for use for commercials that aren't hawking Beatles products (the songs are, but not the original recordings). But lucky you, songs written by George Harrison are as long as the other Beatles aren't playing on the tune. And what song did George Harrison write that would be just perfect for your commercial? Times up. Here Comes The Sun.

You can just see it. All those positive images for your product on the screen and George Harrison singing his heart out in the background, "Here comes the sun and I say it's alright." Perfect!

You go to the company that handles the rights to the song. They ask what kind of commercial it will be. You say, travel, upbeat, and you mention the name of the company. They call back a few days later - they aren't in any rush, this is an iconic song - and say fine.

You ask how much.

They say three million dollars.

You ask if they can cut a deal. The music industry is tanking and all; you can get a song about the sun for next to nothing from some indy guy or gal. They say, fine, get a song for next to nothing. But this one costs three million dollars for commercial use.

Gulp. That's double the budget of the entire commercial.

You go to your client, which loved the idea of using Hear Comes the Sun. You mention the cost. They say no way.

So you go back to the company that controls the rights to Here Comes the Sun. And you say what else do you have. They come up with a list of songs. There's a new single coming out by Sheryl Crow that they mention. You could have that for 80K plus they're looking for a tie in to their video for that song. Sheryl Crow. Now that's a name a baby boomer could trust. She's pretty hot. You start thinking about using her, showing some skin, singing the tune.

You go back to your client. I got a whole new idea, you say. Sheryl Crow. New song that's coming on the charts. They want help on their video plus 80K. You sketch out the idea. They love it.

The above scenario happened a few years ago. If you want to use Here Comes The Sun in a commercial today it will still cost you three million dollars. I'm sure you can get Soak Up the Sun for a lot less than 80K today because it was already used extensively in one commercial campaign and the price of music for use in films and commercials is plummeting except for the truly iconic songs.

Will those icons like Here Comes the Sun ever drop in value? It true there is a ton of good music out there that can be bought for virtually nothing. Want a song like Here Comes the Sun for cheap? Here's one. It's by M. Ward. It's not half bad. Actually, it's about as good as Harrison's tune, which is a pretty dull throwaway tune in comparison to many in The Beatles catalog. But it's The Beatles. The recording doesn't have John, Paul or Ringo, but there is the distinctive voice of George, just like on the original Beatles record. The sentiment in Harrison's song is oh so sweet. And how many people of a certain age don't instantly smile when they hear that tune remembering when they were young? How much are those positive memories worth? Probably three million dollars or more for many years to come.

On Being a Pop Vocal God

2009-11-02T06:00:00.000-08:00

The Grammys are coming up early next year and the list of nominated CDs came out I don't know when. But what is funny as anything is that I have a CD that's been nominated for best pop vocal. I didn't find out until today. Yes, I've been anointed. I'm now a pop singing god. I don't know how this happened. It's a cosmic twist of fate. I'm right up there with Lily Allen and um...Barry Manilow. There are 220 CDs on the nominated list. Sometime in December, the Grammys will announce the final five. My chances of getting onto that final list are zero.

But still, I'll bask in the glow for the next few weeks. I'll put aside the fact that I don't really sing pop music. I'll work the pop music god angle to the hilt. The first thing I need is a new haircut. Maybe I should get some of that spray on tan stuff too. I definitely need to get some leather pants. And I need some groupies as well. Oh I forgot! I need an entourage. Man oh man, being a pop singing god comes with so many responsibilities!

Here's the funny thing about making it to the final five. Should it happen - and it won't - I have to pay for my tickets to attend. It costs something like 200 bucks a head. Then there is the limo. Then there are the new clothes. Then there are the jewels for my sweetie - maybe we can rent some from Harry Winston - and her dress and shoes. Dont forget airfare and a hotel down in LA. We're talking a 10K bill by the time all is said and done. Being a pop singing god is not only stressful, it's expensive as hell.

For what it's worth, here's my competition:

001. TOI-MÊME
The All-American Rejects
WHEN THE WORLD COMES
DOWN
002.
Lily Allen
003. IT'S NOT ME, IT'S YOU
Anjulie
004. ANJULIE
Aqualung
005. WORDS AND MUSIC
David Archuleta
006. DAVID ARCHULETA
Kit Dylan Arrieta
007. CRY ON CUE
Asa
008. ASHA
Ashford & Simpson
ASHFORD & SIMPSON: THE REAL
THING
009.
Dan Auerbach
010. KEEP IT HID
Burt Bacharach With The Sydney
Symphony Orchestra
LIVE @ THE SYDNEY OPERA
HOUSE
011.
Basia
012. IT'S THAT GIRL AGAIN
Basix
013. DIVERSITY
The Beautiful Ones
014. GRANDIO CITY
Bella Ciao
015. FESTIVUS ITALIANO
The Pete Best Band
016. HAYMANS GREEN
Diane Birch
017. BIBLE BELT
The Bird And The Bee
RAY GUNS ARE NOT JUST THE
FUTURE
018.
The Black Eyed Peas
019. THE E.N.D.
Ken Block
020. DRIFT
Stephanie J. Block
021. THIS PLACE I KNOW
Richie Booker
022. SHINE THE LIGHT
Neal E. Boyd
023. MY AMERICAN DREAM
Sarah Brightman
024. A WINTER SYMPHONY
Teresa Bright
025. TROPIC RHAPSODY
Olivia Broadfield
026. EYES WIDE OPEN
Buddhist Monks
027. LIVE MANTRA
The Cabriolets
028. DEMO
Colbie Caillat
029. BREAKTHROUGH
A Camp
030. COLONIA
Corrin Campbell
031. EXHIBIT A
Care Bears On Fire
032. GET OVER IT!
Cash Cash
033. TAKE IT TO THE FLOOR
Celtic Thunder
034. TAKE ME HOME
Celtic Woman & The High Kings
035. A CELTIC FAMILY CHRISTMAS
Lorissa Chapa
036. SELFISH
Chester French
037. LOVE THE FUTURE
Fred Christoffer Featuring Lindsay
Mazza
038. AMAZED
Peter Cincotti
039. EAST OF ANGEL TOWN
Kelly Clarkson
040. ALL I EVER WANTED
Cobra Starship
041. HOT MESS
Leonard Cohen
042. LIVE IN LONDON
Burt Conrad
043. HOME AT LAST
Corneille
044. THE BIRTH OF CORNELIUS
Chris Cornell
045. SCREAM
David Correy
046. URBAN ROCK ODDYSEY
Samantha Crain & The Midnight
Shivers
047. SONGS IN THE NIGHT
Dawes
048. NORTH HILLS
Kristinia DeBarge
049. EXPOSED
Gavin DeGraw
050. FREE
Dido
051. SAFE TRIP HOME
Joy Dion
052. JOY & PAIN
Division Kent
053. GRAVITY
James Domine
054. THROUGH YOUR WINDOW
Kelly Domino
055. HOLD ON TO YOUR DREAMS
The James Douglas Show
056. THE NEW BLACK
Jessica Drake
057. JESSICA DRAKE
Dream Street
058. DREAM STREET
The Duke & The King
059. NOTHING GOLD CAN STAY
Shane Dwight
060. GIMME BACK MY MONEY
© The Recording Academy 2009 - all rights reserved 52nd GRAMMY Entry List
(Continue Next Page)
Field 1 - Pop
Category 11 - Best Pop Vocal Album
Page 17 of 19
Elizabeth & The Catapult
061. TALLER CHILDREN
Enya
062. AND WINTER CAME...
Marianne Faithfull
063. EASY COME EASY GO
Troy Fernandez
064. RIDE TIME
Dan Ferrari
065. DON'T LET IT FALL
Fiction Family
066. FICTION FAMILY
Courtney Fortune
067. SPEAK LOVE
The Fray
068. THE FRAY
Gordon Free
069. SUPERCONSCIOUS
Melody Gardot
070. MY ONE AND ONLY THRILL
Gary Go
071. GARY GO
Gemma Genazzano
072. SI ME QUIERES/IF YOU LOVE ME
Tiffany Giardina
073. NO AVERAGE ANGEL
Gladstone
074. PAPER SKY
Grand Army
075. TOYS FOR CHAOS
Cristen Grey And The Moving
Dunes
076. 10,000 THINGS
Oksana Grigorieva
077. BEAUTIFUL HEARTACHE
Trevor Hall
078. TREVOR HALL
Daryl Hall & John Oates
079. LIVE AT THE TROUBADOUR
Nichole Halleen & The Projects
NICHOLE HALLEEN & THE
PROJECTS
080.
Colin Hay
081. AMERICAN SUNSHINE
Imogen Heap
082. ELLIPSE
Anne Heaton
083. BLAZING RED
Matt Hires
084. TAKE US TO THE START
Hula Honeys
085. GIRL TALK
Hyim
086. SEX IN THE MORNING
Il Divo
087. THE PROMISE
The Inspirations
088. THEN AND NOW
Chris Isaak
089. MR. LUCKY
Marty Jabara
090. THE SOURCE
Jessie James
091. JESSIE JAMES
Michael Johns
092. HOLD BACK MY HEART
Craig Hella Johnson
093. THORNS ON THE ROSE
Jonas Brothers
LINES, VINES AND TRYING
TIMES
094.
Phoenix Jones
095. SOUNDTRACK OF MY LIFE
Tom Jones
096. 24 HOURS
Angela Kaset
UNDERNEATH A VINCENT VAN
GOGH SKY
097.
Keane
098. PERFECT SYMMETRY
Mat Kearney
099. CITY OF BLACK & WHITE
Sally Kellerman
100. SALLY
Keri-Lynn
101. NOTES ON A PIANO
Cheryl Keyes
102. LET ME TAKE YOU THERE
Bill LaBounty
103. BACK TO YOUR STAR
Lal Meri
104. LAL MERI
Terry Lauber And The Seattle
Sound
105. ACROSS THE SOUND
Ben Lee
106. THE REBIRTH OF VENUS
Ute Lemper & Various Artists
BETWEEN YESTERDAY AND
TOMORROW
107.
Andrew Lipke
108. MOTHERPEARL & DYNAMITE
The Little Ones
109. MORNING TIDE
Liverpool Dreams
110. JAMRUN
Lo Torc
111. GOTTA MAKE A MOVE
Crosby Loggins
112. TIME TO MOVE
Kevin Lucas Orchestra
113. GREEN AND BLUE
Luce
114. CORNER OF THE WORLD
Carolyn Malachi
REVENGE OF THE SMART
CHICKS II: AMBITIOUS GODS
115.
Barry Manilow
THE GREATEST SONGS OF THE
EIGHTIES
116.
Debra Mann
117. HOME
Charlie Mars
118. LIKE A BIRD, LIKE A PLANE
Luba Mason
119. KRAZY LOVE
Matisyahu
120. LIGHT
Imelda May
121. LOVE TATTOO
Erin McCarley
122. LOVE, SAVE THE EMPTY
© The Recording Academy 2009 - all rights reserved 52nd GRAMMY Entry List
(Continue Next Page)
Field 1 - Pop
Category 11 - Best Pop Vocal Album
Page 18 of 19
Loreena McKennitt
123. A MIDWINTER NIGHT'S DREAM
Jon McLaughlin
124. OK NOW
Meg & Dia
125. HERE, HERE AND HERE
Ingrid Michaelson
126. EVERYBODY
Rhett Miller
127. RHETT MILLER
Jacqui Naylor
128. YOU DON'T KNOW JACQ
Nevada
129. OF THE WORLD…
Never Shout Never
130. THE SUMMER EP
Stevie Nicks
131. THE SOUNDSTAGE SESSIONS
Tatiana Nicole
132. TIME 3:16
Paolo Nutini
133. SUNNY SIDE UP
Dolores O'Riordan
134. NO BAGGAGE
Owl City
135. OCEAN EYES
Painted On Water
136. PAINTED ON WATER
Parachute
137. LOSING SLEEP
Pamela Payge
138. LOVE AND HATE
Kate Pazakis
139. UNZIPPED: LIVE AT THE ZIPPER
Avi Pearce
140. CIRCLE OF LIVES
Elvis Perkins In Dearland
141. ELVIS PERKINS IN DEARLAND
Elli Perry
THE SECRET TO SCALING A
MOUNTAIN
142.
Madeleine Peyroux
143. BARE BONES
Pink
144. FUNHOUSE
Pitbull
145. REBELUTION
Playing For Change
146. SONGS AROUND THE WORLD
Paul Potts
147. PASSIONE
Asha Puthli
148. LOST
Queen Latifah
149. PERSONA
John Rensink
150. JOHN RENSINK
Lionel Richie
151. JUST GO
Stuart Rosh And The Geniuses
152. FUNDAMENTAL
Professor RJ Ross
153. FACE TO FACE
Kevin Rudolf
154. IN THE CITY
Sam & Ruby
155. THE HERE AND THE NOW
Heather Schmid
156. THE GODDESS AWAITS
Kate Schutt
157. TELEPHONE GAME
Allison Scola
158. A BRAVER KIND
The Script
159. THE SCRIPT
Paul Seaforth
160. SOMETHING REAL
Seal
161. SOUL
Shakeys Brother
162. SHAKEYS BROTHER
Duncan Sheik
163. WHISPER HOUSE
Jason Shulman
164. BUDDHA-CLOUD
Terry Silverlight
165. COLLABORATIONS: VOLUME I
Terry Silverlight
166. COLLABORATIONS: VOLUME II
Terry Silverlight
SONGWRITER/PRODUCER:
VOLUME I
167.
Terry Silverlight
SONGWRITER/PRODUCER:
VOLUME II
168.
Single File
169. COMMON STRUGGLES
16 Frames
170. WHERE IT ENDS
Sly & Robbie
171. J PARADISE
Mindy Smith
172. STUPID LOVE
Phoebe Snow
173. LIVE
Jordin Sparks
174. BATTLEFIELD
Spatial Unity
175. KNOCK ME OFF MY FEET
Regina Spektor
176. FAR
Matthew Sweet And Susanna Hoffs
177. UNDER THE COVERS VOL. 2
Swing Out Sister
178. BEAUTIFUL MESS
Taragirl
179. THE CITY: SOUL SUITE
James Taylor
180. OTHER COVERS
Anna Ternheim
181. LEAVING ON A MAYDAY
Rob Thomas
182. CRADLESONG
Arie Thompson
I’LL KNOW WHO YOU ARE WHEN
I SEE YOU AGAIN
183.
Glenn Tilbrook And The Fluffers
184. PANDEMONIUM ENSUES
Ashley Tisdale
185. GUILTY PLEASURE
Tino Tomas
186. STAY
© The Recording Academy 2009 - all rights reserved 52nd GRAMMY Entry List
(Continue Next Page)
Field 1 - Pop
Category 11 - Best Pop Vocal Album
Page 19 of 19
Tonemah
INK BLOTS & RANDOM
THOUGHTS
187.
The Uptown Band Featuring Erich
Cawalla & Jenifer Kinder
188. WAITING FOR HER
Utada
189. THIS IS THE ONE
Cindy Valentine
190. BLAME YOURSELF
Philip Vandermost
191. THE LONG PATH
Various Artists
BEN FOLDS PRESENTS:
UNIVERSITY A CAPPELLA!
192.
Various Artists
HIT MAN: DAVID FOSTER &
FRIENDS
193.
Various Artists
THE HOTEL CAFÉ
PRESENTS...WINTER SONGS
194.
Various Artists
LISTEN: A BENEFIT ALBUM FOR
OUR TIME
195.
(Nat King Cole &) Various Artists
196. RE:GENERATIONS
Various Artists
SCOTT WALKER 30 CENTURY
MAN
197.
Various Artists
198. WAR CHILD PRESENTS HEROES
Various Artists
WARDELL QUEZERGUE MUSIC
FOR CHILDREN, AGES 3 TO 103:
THE ST. AGNES SESSIONS
199.
Various Artists
200. WIZARDS OF WAVERLY PLACE
Kate Voegele
201. A FINE MESS
Ron C. Walters
AMANDA RUN - THE
SOUNDTRACK
202.
Sara Wasserman
203. SOLID GROUND
Kanye West
204. 808S & HEARTBREAK
Wet Cookies
205. SOUL PROTECTION
Brian Willoughby
206. BRIAN WILLOUGHBY
Wilson Hawk
207. THE ROAD
Ellen M. Wilson
208. SONGS OF ASCENT
Kip Winger
209. FROM THE MOON TO THE SUN
Anushka Wirasinha
210. BRAVE
Yale Alley Cats
211. GHOST OF A CHANCE
Rachael Yamagata
ELEPHANTS...TEETH SINKING
INTO HEART
212.
Yanni
213. VOICES
Yom Hadash
214. A NEW DAY
Bora Yoon
215. PHONATION
Pete Yorn & Scarlett Johansson
216. BREAK UP
Pete Yorn
217. BACK & FOURTH
Jenny Owen Youngs
218. TRANSMITTER FAILURE
Zap Mama
219. RECREATION
Zucchero
220. LIVE IN ITALY

Waiting For a Miracle

2009-10-28T06:00:00.000-07:00

I stopped going to Nashville about a year ago. The market for songs in the music industry tanked with the rise of peer to peer to network music downloads. Almost all of my contacts in Nashville were being laid off or had been laid off. When I walked into an office, people would use me as a crying pillow instead of listening to songs. In ten short years, the number of employees working in the record business has dropped 90 percent.

There are still people in record companies, just a lot fewer of them. There are still old and new acts being promoted by record companies, just a lot fewer of them as well. The music industry has undergone a very profound diet.

In rock music, it's quite possible for a new act to ignore all of the dead bodies in the music business and make a go of it. You work the social networks. You give away your music for free. You play 100 gigs a year, maybe more. And from all of that, you hope that through word of mouth and buzz, you take off. This kind of grass roots effort takes a tremendous amount of work, but it can reap big dividends.

In contrast, country music isn't like that at all. It doesn't work from the ground up. There are no real gigs to play except maybe in the Texas circuit, and that circuit is limited to Texans playing rough and tumble music that holds little interest to mainstream country music fans. Social networking seems to yield little benefit.

Country music fans are different. I think it's because they are almost all Republican and conservative. They don't believe in discovering their own music in a dive club and passing the word. Rather they wait for the music industry to tell them what is good out there. It's a top down approach. Country music fans still believe in authority figures. They want and expect the music industry - though battered and decimated - to give them new acts to hear on radio or see on CMT videos; then they decide which of those new acts they like.

What this means for a new act is that they are entirely dependent on labels for discovery and promotion. Mostly they sit and wait. Then they sit and wait some more. They play out a little locally in Nashville, but no one shows up to their gigs because they are unknown. Their managers go to the record companies' offices and promote them, hoping to get a record deal. Because the industry has contracted to a pin point, it's almost impossible for a new act to get signed, but some do. Then they wait some more.

Finally, they go to the studio and cut a couple of "sides" (otherwise known as songs). Then they wait even more. A single is launched from one of those sides. It's given to radio. Usually that single doesn't do very well on the radio because the act isn't very distinctive and there are already many other successful similar sounding acts out there. Sometimes they are dropped by the record company after than one single. But if they are lucky, they wait again. Then they cut a couple of more sides. The process is repeated.

Basically, new acts are waiting for a miracle and most new acts fail. In fact every new act I've interacted with on any level that has been associated with a Nashville label has failed. Don't blame me. It's just par for the course.

But for some, the miracle happens. They launch a single. The single takes off on the radio. And suddenly this nobody act is a somebody act. Now they don't wait anymore. They travel the county and state fair circuit playing gigs for decent cash (country music fans will not pay money for new acts in a concert setting); they'll open for established acts for little dough but in an effort to try to get some recognition (this rarely works, actually; third bill acts in a country music concert are doing the equivalent of the graveyard shift).

Most country acts rising from the muck on the basis of a single don't last more than a year. But some are propelled for several years or more on the basis of a single or two. Over my time going to Nashville, there were a few acts that emerged with some degree of staying power. The country trio now duo (their lead songwriter and backup singer was a bit butch for the country music world) Sugarland, Carrie Underwood, maybe Big and Rich, and finally of course, Taylor Swift. But I don't really view Swift as a country act; she made her success by crossing over into kiddie pop.

Why did these acts have their miracle when others with the same amount of hype, publicity and payola flounder? The lead singer of Sugarland has a very distinctive voice and their lead songwriter (exiled from the band, but still writing in Nashville) has a very unusual retro-Mama and Papas style. Carrie Underwood had the weight of the American Idol machine behind her and the standard bearers of country music divadom - Faith Hill, Trish Yearwood, Martina McBride et al. - were getting long in the tooth. Big and Rich had huge personalities and brought in the party hearty crowd. Taylor Swift was perhaps the first country singer to exploit the teen and pre-teen crowd. They were all unique in their own way.

Over the same time period these acts rose to stardom, at least 70 acts failed or are currently in a kind of purgatory still playing to small crowds at fairgrounds, still playing #3 on a big act's concert tour, and still hoping for a new big single to launch them some day in the future. I met about a dozen of them. Some were quite distinctive and talented, but there is always a risk that an act that is unusual will simply be too unusual to attract a following. But most were indistinguishable from many, many other acts out there. They sang the same kind of songs you hear on country radio every day, but no particular song that would grab an audience. They had the same personality that many country acts have, the same kind of vocal style. I would watch them and know they weren't going anywhere.

Several years ago I heard an act play in Los Angeles. It was completely unhip. Their songs were all so sincere. They reminded me of Jewel. I listened and thought, well if Jewel was going to make it today, she'd have to go to Nashville. That's what I told that act to do. I gave them unsolicited advice. Go to Nashville. With your style of music that's where you belong. Surprisingly they took that advice. Actually, I'm sure it wasn't just me who said this to them. It was obvious.

They moved. Then they waited. And they waited. Eventually their manager got them a record deal. A single was cut. It didn't go anywhere. But for a good half year, they had a nice expense account and were pampered. Is that a miracle, too? I think so. Asking for anything more than that probably is being greedy. They can tell their grandchildren that once upon a time they were almost country music stars. They'll have a video or two to show their grandkids as well. And when their grandkids watch that video and say "grandma you were beautiful," how cool is that?

Rolling The Dice on California

2009-10-26T06:00:00.000-07:00

California is my adopted home. I can't imagine living anywhere else. I have my choice of two major cities if I want to experience some urban life. Then there are the hundreds of miles of mostly unspoiled coast. Then there are the mountains. Then there is all that great produce. Then there is the we-don't-care-one-way-or-the-other-how-eccentric-you-are mentality. It's a wonderful state.

That's all in the plus column. But there is one big minus. California's government stinks.

It wasn't always this way. But in the 1960s, an amendment was added to the constitution requiring a 2/3 vote to pass a state budget. Then in 1978, citizens overwhelmingly passed Prop. 13, which slashed revenue from property taxes. Over subsequent years, gerrymandering divided state legislature districts along ideological lines. Finally, in 1990 Californians passed Proposition 45, which created term limits for politicians.

The end result is that state politics are dominated amateur politicians who tend to be ideologues because their districts are either on the left or the right. They have no experience with or desire to compromise. The state has no money during recessions because of the absence of a property tax cushion. Budgets would be hard enough to pass if the politicians knew how to compromise and you needed a simple majority. Neither is the case.

California is creeping backwards. Our public schools are pathetic. Our state universities don't have the classes necessary for students to graduate in four years. Our flagship universities are forced to charge high tuition, keeping many from modest income homes out. Without education, there is no reliable, future high-quality workforce.

Those are just education issues. Our prisons are overcrowded and prison policy is heavily influenced by the prison guard union. Our Department of Motor Vehicles looks like something out of 1982. It just goes down the line. My state is running on fumes.

Obviously, I'm not the only person who knows the our state government is broken. A majority of the voting public feels that way too. But polls indicate that while they know there is a problem, they don't want to solve it. Voters continue to believe in overwhelming numbers that Prop. 13 was a good thing and remains a good thing. They continue to believe that term limits are a good thing. While they know California is short of cash, a majority believes that the shortfall is simply due to fat and inefficiencies in government. If only it were so.

There is one ray of hope in public opinion. A majority believes that the California constitution needs to be changed via a constitutional convention. So while on specifics, the California voter is out to lunch, they have left a potential way out of our mess by, in general, supporting revamping the constitution.

There's a group out there trying to take advantage of this ray of hope, Repair California. It's an organization started by a consortium of businessmen from Northern California, the Bay Area Council. This is not some left-wing cabal. It's not a right-wing cabal. It's a group of people that knows that when government runs well, businesses can run well. And it's fed up with the screwed up nature of California's government.

This week Repair California will announce that they will be placing two initiatives on the November 2010 ballot. One will allow for initiatives to call for a constitutional convention (currently constitutional conventions cannot be called this way; that power was stripped many years ago by the state legislature). The other explicitly will call for a constitutional convention. The convention will be limited in scope, focusing strictly on governance issues. Taxes will not be one of the issues on the table.

Here's the kicker. The proposal will call for participants to be chosen by lottery. That's right. Any shmo potentially can be part of the constitutional convention. At first blush, this seems ridiculous. But the alternatives probably are worse. You could have an election. You could have participants appointed. Money and corruption would influence both.

I'm all for rolling the dice and having a constitutional convention composed of lottery winners.There of course need to be mechanisms in place to make sure these lottery winners aren't influenced by money once they are selected. The key is that no matter what they end up doing, we can't possibly have anything worse than we have now. They aren't going to make budget approvals require more than a two thirds majority. I hope not at any rate. Whatever they create will likely be an improvement. Hopefully, that improvement will be significant. We have no place to go but up.

Adventures in Pop Psychology, Part I: Teenage Narcissism

2009-10-21T06:00:00.000-07:00

Sometime around the age of fourteen, perfectly decent and wonderful kids tend to turn rotten. This rotten stage can last...forever. But usually, thank god, it seems to last for six to nine years at most. Then those same kids, now adults, return to being perfectly decent and wonderful human beings.

I know that I was like this. When I think about how awful I was - narcissistic, rude and basically uncaring - in my teenage years, I cringe. My parents should have shoved me in a closet for a few years and thrown away the key. I wasn't fit for public interaction at all. My sense of privilege and entitlement was off the charts. My ability to see beyond my own nose was non-existent.

Those that study such things say that narcissism among teens is on the rise. They tend to ascribe it to the cultural fashion of boosting self-esteem among children. I never understood those boosting efforts. B.S.'ing your kid or your student and making him or her think they possess talent they don't really have is just plain silly. A child should know their strengths and weaknesses. When I was a kid, my teachers told me I stank at drawing. My parents said I drew like an infant. They were right. I have no talent in the visual arts, absolutely zero. Why should someone have lied to me and said otherwise?

But even before this little self esteem boom we've undergone over the last twenty years, teenage narcissism was prevalent. As I watch teenagers today behave just as bad as I did (which is very bad), I've been trying to understand just why. My tendency is to assume that most aspects of our nature represent some optimum for development. Why do I think this? It just seems to fit. It's an assertion really and probably untestable.

For example, think about an infant. At about three months they learn to smile. Why don't they smile right out of the gate? OK, here's my take on it. After a couple of months of sleeplessness and changing diapers, a parent is ready to throw in the towel. It's time to just give that baby up or worse. Life is too short to deal with such mishagoss. And just when you're about to say "enough already!" that little tyke starts to smile at you. Oh my. Now he or she has got you. The timing is just right. Another month or so without that positive reinforcement of a smile and that kid would be off to a baby resale shop.

OK, another few months go by and damn you're still changing diapers and not getting enough sleep. That smile is getting old, way old. You're starting to think "baby resale shop" again. And then what happens? That kid starts to laugh. Oooooh. Now that is something new and cute. Just in the nick of time too!

So my theory is that infant development over the years has been tuned to the patience of the parent. Kids that smiled and laughed right out the gate didn't have any new tricks to show until language development. That's way, way too long a wait. Out they went before they could show their stuff. I know that sounds crazy. And it is. That's what blogs are for after all. Crazy thoughts. And I hope it's funny too in a weird way.

So what about this teenage narcissism? What's its purpose? Well for one, I think it makes it far, far easier for a parent to see their kid leave home. Think about it. If your kid is sweet and wonderful at 18, why would you want to see them go? He or she is your shining beacon of hope. Who wants to let go of a shining beacon of hope?

But if your child is rotten and has been so for four years causing all kinds of havoc at home, well then, how do you feel about your kid leaving for college or to move in with his/her ex-con boyfriend/girlfriend or whatever? Euphoric? You bet. You can't wait to get that kid out of the house. And then when they are 21 or so and are sweet again, you'd like to get them back but it's too late. They're already gone for good.

Again, this is evolutionary tuning at work. Way back when sweet kids never left home. They never went off and had kids in their own caves. Instead they remained dutiful sons and daughters until their parents' dying days. But the rotten ones were different. They went off - "good riddance to bad rubbish!" - during their child bearing years and made babies. Then when they needed help caring for those babies, they got sweet again. The grandparents helped out of course because they were so thankful their kid was nice again. And then those babies eventually smiled. And then they laughed. The cycle kept repeating.

We are the product of behaviors that are optimally timed to allow for the successful propagation of our species. I'm sure there is a crackpot paper in this theory somewhere. And I'm sure that such a crackpot paper has already been written.

Bulls, Bears and Pigs

2009-10-19T06:00:00.000-07:00

As the saying goes on Wall Street, bulls make money, bears make money, but pigs get slaughtered. That saying came to mind as I was watching the Yankees play the Angels in the Divisional Playoffs. The best seats in the house at Yankee Stadium are occupied by our country's newly created untouchable class. They run the financial companies that Democrats and Republicans alike have decided are too big to fail. Pigs don't get slaughtered anymore. Instead they make money too. The old Wall Street rule of thumb needs a makeover. It should be bulls make money, bears make money, and pigs get trillion dollar backing and multi-billion dollar loans from the government.

When you've decided that a company is too big to fail, you've made our country beholden to a small group of crony capitalists who we are committed to keeping rich no matter what. This is something new under the sun for America. We have decided to create a permanently super-wealthy class. Perhaps worse yet, these a*holes think they are entitled to be treated this way.

Inherent in the American ethos has been the idea that this country is special partly because it holds the possibility for upward mobility for just about anyone. It's not actually true that America allows for more upward mobility than any other country, but it is true that we think it does. What's left unsaid but implied is that downward mobility is possible as well for those that have lost their drive or make stupid decisions. But if gravity doesn't operate anymore for a certain class of individuals, then there's no room for new faces to be seen among the elite.

As you get older, you tend to see patterns repeat themselves. You tend not to panic. You've seen it all before. The world isn't going to end. But this end of downward mobility and retardation of upward mobility is something I haven't seen before. And it implies that a cornerstone of American exceptionalism - that anyone can become wealthy if they work hard enough - is disappearing. You can hear it in the tone of voice when people talk about the wealthy nowadays. Before there was admiration mixed with a hint of "I could get there too eventually" hopefulness. Now there is suspicion and derision mixed with a strong dose of "I'll never get there because the system is rigged" hopelessness.

When I was a kid, the news was full of stories of welfare cheats. Somehow a small number of the poor of this country found ways exploit our social welfare system to buy Cadillacs and filet mignon. These isolated cases fueled resentment of the poor and the partial dismantling of our social safety net.

We now have a new class of welfare cheats. They aren't poor. They already own condos worth tens of millions of dollars in Manhattan, but they want more. They are exploiting our system of corporate welfare and crony capitalism. We print hundreds of billions of dollars and run trillion dollar deficits so these people can create a new financial bubble within a year after the old one collapsed (I note that the Dow crossed the 10,000 threshold despite no real signs of economic recovery). This new generation of welfare cheats is far worse than the ones I grew up hearing about. They cost this country far more.

It's been over a year since Lehman Brothers collapsed and we entered our Great Recession. Our banks still are not loaning out money. Instead they continue down many of the investment paths that got us into our current mess, this time with government guarantees they don't deserve. Two out the three largest banks - Citigroup and Bank of America - are still in zombie mode. We keep pretending that they aren't. They should have been nationalized. I have no doubt that if they had been nationalized this country would be significantly better off today. Money would be available for businesses to borrow. We would have not established an untouchable class of financial titans. Citigroup should be no more. Bank of America should be no more. And all of their top employees should have been kicked to the curb.

I watched the Yankee game the other night and looked at the people in those prize seats going for four to five figures a pop. Many of them are there because we continue to print money to keep them in business. We have a president who is unwilling to make the tough decisions necessary to reign in the corruption on Wall Street. It's even worse. Obama is aiding and abetting their corruption.

Obama has tried to justify the ridiculous salaries these people earn by comparing them to sports figure salaries. What he fails to note is that as a result of those athletes' salaries, the tickets for major sports events are now unaffordable to the middle class. Greed in any sector of the economy has its negative repercussions. In the financial sector, the impact is particularly severe. Well over ten percent of this country is unemployed, defaults on loans continue to rise, and what is being done? Unfortunately, the answer is nothing of substance.

The rationale for creating this untouchable economic class is nonexistent. Congressman Barney Frank tries to make analogies to Baathists in Iraq. We can't just summarily throw these financial titans out, he says. We have to continue to prop up them up because they are the power behind our financial industry. Similarly, Secretary Geithner has tried to claim that these people are too important to the health of Main Street to dismiss them. These rationalizations try to make it seem as if we have no choice but to keep all the players in their seats.

We don't have to shut down all of Wall Street. But we do have to shut down its non-functioning elements. Continuing to prop up entities that are dead weight makes no sense. Over four trillion dollars worth of assets are being held by two banks that are essentially zombies. How can this be good for our country? It's not just bad for our current economy. It bodes poorly for our future. Our current economic path is one that will continue to promote the creation of financial bubbles and entrenches a financial culture that believes in risk without repercussions.

I Humbly Accept

2009-10-16T06:00:00.000-07:00

OK, so five loony tune Norwegians gave our president a peace prize even though he's involved in two wars, still holds prisoners of war in Cuba, still sends people overseas for likely torture, and is trying his best to ignore the torture of foreigners under Bush. Some peacenik Obama has turned out to be.

That said, this is par for the course for the Nobel committee that awards the peace prize. One year they gave it to Yassir Arafat who went on to promote and endorse the use of female suicide bombers. They gave it to Al Gore as well for his error filled movie - well he didn't make the movie, but he was the star - about global warming even though Gore waffled on carbon cutbacks when it really more or less counted: The Kyoto Protocol. These Nobel folks don't know what they are doing quite honestly. You might as well fire them and use a random award generator.

That said for some reason people are asking Obama not to accept this award because "he doesn't deserve it." I've never heard this kind of call before. No one asked Arafat to not accept his Nobel. Ditto for Gore. People who don't deserve this award win it with such frequency that it's odd to hear these kinds of requests. For me, these calls of "give it back" are just part of the overall attempt to completely delegitimize Obama as a political figure. He wasn't born here supposedly. He's a socialist trying to create a one world nation supposedly. The political right wing has gone completely nuts.

No I don't think Obama should reject this award. And yes, I think that Obama doesn't deserve it. But as long as certain people are clamoring that Obama do something other than travel to Europe and accept the award, I have a better idea. He should give it to me.

I have not sent one person off to war (except through my taxes). And I've done a lot for peace this past year. Just this past week I intervened at a scuffle in a Canadian bar. Those two adversaries were good buddies again all because of me. See! I even work in the international sector!

Two weeks ago, a woman was shouting at the Palo Alto public works head over some trees that had been cut down in my neighborhood. Her eyes were wild with rage. For all I know, she could have been packing heat in her little $600 purse. I stepped in between them and made a joke about planting banana trees in our neighborhood and having an annual banana daiquiri day. Humor is a great tool to defuse potentially violent situations I know. I may have saved a life!

Speaking of humor, I just thought of a great strategy for Obama vis a vis Iran. After Israel, fed up with the equivocations of Europe and the US, decides to bomb Iran's nuclear facilities, he should get in front of the piano, turn on his Flip and make a Youtube video singing the Ray Charles hit (slightly modified) " I hate to be the one to say Ay-ya-tol-ya so, but Ay-ya-tol-ya-so, you know Ay-ya-tol-ya-so." It would be hilarious. You can't start a world war when you're laughing. Then Obama would truly deserve the Peace Prize.

But enough about giving advice to Obama. My recent heroic efforts were not isolated incidents. Once a week or so I'm saving people from death or worse. I have not started any wars. I have not authorized any renditions. I don't have a weapons stash. I try to be accurate in my discussions with others about the cause and impact of global warming. In every way imaginable, I have been a steward of peace, far more than Obama. If he had any integrity, he would give the medal to me.

I would of course humbly accept. I'd wear that medal every day under my shirt. It would be a reminder not of what I've done (and I've done so much already I know), but that I can do more. Just thinking about wearing that medal has made me a better person I swear.

Ten Things I Learned About Canada

2009-10-14T06:00:00.000-07:00

I hadn't been in Canada for a few years. Here are a few things I learned.

1) They don't like Americans in general, but tend to like me (they have good taste!).

2) Their version of conservative politically is our version of centrist.

3) In general, middlebrow culture is a lot easier to find in Canada.
a) Their radio stations are far and few between, but they tend to have things like great hour long interviews with people like Sonny Rollins and Vera Lynn. Then again maybe nobody is listening.
b) They have official highway signs with an "A" for artist, telling you that an artist lives x km down the road at the next intersection. The first time I saw one I remembered another kind of sign, an official highway exit sign in Las Vegas that said "Hotels 0.1 mi" right in front of all the towers of The Strip.

4) They clip all of their consonants when they speak, something I tend to associate with brains in the US. In Canada, it's just how they speak, smart or not.

5) They must not have many law suits relative to the US because warning signs telling you not to do things that anybody with an IQ over over 20 or with an alcohol blood content of less than 0.30% would never do are rare.

6) They have lots of trout.

7) Their beef is excellent stuff.

8) Their currency has rebounded against the US.

9) They ripped off our Thanksgiving complete with turkey and pumpkin pie and pushed it up to October because it gets so damn cold so early. I think we should rip them off and move our Thanksgiving to October as well. I think we should rip off their health care system too, but that's a whole other story.

10) Their longest car ferry (the longest free one in the world) is wonderful and gives you a long look at some great landscapes, but is completely superfluous and likely is a big waste of money. It's essentially the ferry to nowhere.

Oh, a funny thing happened as I got close to the US border on my way home. Up popped Bruce Cockburn's Coldest Night of the Year on my iPod. I don't have much Canadian stuff on that thing. And it was very cold for that time of year. Coincidence is a wonderful thing. But then just as I approached the US inspection station that tune was followed by Tom Lehrer's The Old Dope Peddler. I rushed to turn off my iPod and then rolled down my window to talk to the US guard.