Yo La Simpsons

I've watched The Simpsons a lot, and I've seen Yo La Tengo live about 10 times. But I've never seen these two worlds collide the way that they do in this awesome clip.

A statement from the Electronic Fronteer Foundation (EFF)

This is in response to today's decision by Congress to allow immunity to the telecommunications companies in the revision of the FISA bill.

Washington, D.C. - The U.S. Senate this afternoon passed the FISA Amendments Act, broadly expanding the president's warrantless surveillance authority and unconstitutionally granting retroactive immunity to telecommunications companies that participated in the president's illegal domestic wiretapping program. The House of Representatives passed the same bill last month, and President Bush is expected to sign the legislation into law shortly.

"It is an immeasurable tragedy that just after its return from the Fourth of July holiday, the Senate has chosen to pass a bill that betrays the spirit of 1776 by radically expanding the president's spying powers and granting immunity to the companies that colluded in his illegal surveillance program," said Senior Staff Attorney Kevin Bankston of the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF). "This so-called compromise bill represents a shameful capitulation to the overreaching demands of an imperial president. As Senator Leahy put it in yesterday's debate, the retroactive immunity provision of the bill upends the scales of justice and makes Congress and the courts handmaidens to the White House's cover-up of its illegal surveillance program."

The FISA Amendments Act won passage after several amendments intended to remove or modify the bill's immunity provision failed to pass. One amendment, offered by Senator Christopher Dodd, would have stripped immunity from the bill altogether. Another, introduced by Senator Jeff Bingaman, would have stayed the pending cases against the telecoms and delayed the implementation of the immunity provision until the Inspectors General of the Department of Justice and other U.S. government intelligence agencies finished their investigation into the spying program, thereby preventing Congress from granting immunity in the dark.

"We thank those senators who courageously opposed telecom immunity and vow to them, and to the American people, that the fight for accountability over the president's illegal surveillance is not over," said EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kurt Opsahl. "Even though Congress has failed to protect the privacy of Americans and uphold the rule of law, we will not abandon our defense of liberty. We will fight this unconstitutional grant of immunity in the courtroom and in the Congress, requesting repeal of the immunity in the next session, while seeking justice from the Judiciary. Nor can the lawless officials who approved this massive violation of Americans' rights rest easy, for we will file a new suit against the government and challenge warrantless wiretapping, past, present and future."

EFF is representing the plaintiffs in Hepting v. AT&T, a class action lawsuit brought on behalf of millions of AT&T customers whose private domestic communications and communications records were illegally handed over to the National Security Agency (NSA). EFF has been appointed co-coordinating counsel for all 47 of the outstanding lawsuits concerning the government's warrantless surveillance program.

And here is a similar statement by the ACLU

Today, in a blatant assault upon civil liberties and the right to privacy, the Senate passed an unconstitutional domestic spying bill that violates the Fourth Amendment and eliminates any meaningful role for judicial oversight of government surveillance. The FISA Amendments Act of 2008 was approved by a vote of 69 to 28 and is expected to be signed into law by President Bush shortly. This bill essentially legalizes the president’s unlawful warrantless wiretapping program revealed in December 2005 by the New York Times.

“Once again, Congress blinked and succumbed to the president’s fear-mongering. With today’s vote, the government has been given a green light to expand its power to spy on Americans and run roughshod over the Constitution,” said Anthony D. Romero, Executive Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. “This legislation will give the government unfettered and unchecked access to innocent Americans’ international communications without a warrant. This is not only unconstitutional, but absolutely un-American.”

The FISA Amendments Act nearly eviscerates oversight of government surveillance by allowing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) to review only general procedures for spying rather than individual warrants. The FISC will not be told any specifics about who will actually be wiretapped, thereby undercutting any meaningful role for the court and violating the Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable search and seizure.

The bill further trivializes court review by authorizing the government to continue a surveillance program even after the government’s general spying procedures are found insufficient or unconstitutional by the FISC. The government has the authority to wiretap through the entire appeals process, and then keep and use whatever information was gathered in the meantime. A provision touted as a major “concession” by proponents of the bill calls for investigations by the inspectors general of four agencies overseeing spying activities. But members of Congress who do not sit on the Judiciary or Intelligence committees will not be guaranteed access to the agencies’ reports.

The bill essentially grants absolute retroactive immunity to telecommunication companies that facilitated the president’s warrantless wiretapping program over the last seven years by ensuring the dismissal of court cases pending against those companies. The test for the companies’ right to immunity is not whether the government certifications they acted on were actually legal – only whether they were issued. Because it is public knowledge that certifications were issued, all of the pending cases will be summarily dismissed. This means Americans may never learn the truth about what the companies and the government did with our private communications.

“With one vote, Congress has strengthened the executive branch, weakened the judiciary and rendered itself irrelevant,” said Caroline Fredrickson, Director of the ACLU Washington Legislative Office. “This bill – soon to be law – is a constitutional nightmare. Americans should know that if this legislation is enacted and upheld, what they say on international phone calls or emails is no longer private. The government can listen in without having a specific reason to do so. Our rights as Americans have been curtailed and our privacy can no longer be assumed.”

In advance of the president’s signature, the ACLU announced its plan to challenge the new law in court.

“This fight is not over. We intend to challenge this bill as soon as President Bush signs it into law,” said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project. “The bill allows the warrantless and dragnet surveillance of Americans’ international telephone and email communications. It plainly violates the Fourth Amendment.”

I strongly support both of these organizations in their fight to uphold the Bill of Rights and our system of checks and balances.

God save the queen (with the safety pin through her nose)

(This was written when Queen Elizabeth II was celebrating 50 years on the throne, back in 2002).

This image, couresty of graphic artist Jamie Reid remains deeply iconic.



Now, no disrespect to the head of what remains of the British empire, but being an Yank (and one of Irish descent at that, not to mention a left winger), I must admit that it's hard for me to be too reverential toward royal traditions. I tend to see these Buckingham Palace dwellers as little more than a curious carryover from a bygone era, and probably not really worth the care and feeing costs involved. But, as an American, I also recognize that it's ultimately none of my business whether or not the British want to keep their Royals.


However, as an amateur, but passionate, pop historian and punk fan, the thought of the Queen celebrating an anniversary will always call to mind something else for me. The great punk year 1977 was 25 years ago. It was in this year that Johnny Rotten/Lydon got his face slashed by some nationalistic street thugs in retaliation for the symbolic slashing by him of the Queen. She was for him, and for many, an empty meaningless signifier, and so he, with his sense of ironic black humor, called her a "moron" and a "potential H-Bomb." With this, the punk poster/t-shirt of Elizabeth with a safety pin through her nose became one of punk's (and thus rock's) great signifiers - a thing of beauty (in the postmodern sense of beauty). It was a gesture, an act of toppling an apple cart or the throwing of a tomato at some revered object. The punks like Johnny Rotten instinctively knew that which I always tell my students in my sociology classes, namely to recognize what the norms are,
one might go about breaching them. And breach the norms the punks certainly did.


As I reminisce about this time, it occurs to me that, like myself, Johnny Lydon, Steve Jones, Ari Up, Jimmy Pursey, Joe Strummer, Rat Scabies, Mark P, Siouxsie Sioux, and whoever's left of the Bromley Contingent are all getting older, if not mellower. Hopefully, they have some contentment in their lives today, given the likelihood of their memories of an exciting and meaningful time in their youth. Hopefully, for them, as for me, the "official" celebrations of the Queen calls to mind the great punk safety-pin signifier and that this gives them some satisfaction and puts a little smile on their faces. Hopefully, they can hear the words, sung in that expressive Johnny Rotten voice:

...GOD SAVE THE QUEEN
SHE AIN'T NO HUMAN BEING
THERE IS NO FUTURE
AND ENGLAND'S DREAMING....

some thoughts on Elvis, Beatles, and Michael Jackson

(I originally wrote this about five years ago; it is revised from its original form)



Recent discussions of Michael Jackson have gotten me thinking about a comparison of Jacko with another musical icon - Elvis; i.e., two pampered, socially isolated megalomaniacs whose musical quality went steadly downhill as each approached middle age; Elvis turned into a karate kicking, jumpsuit wearing self-parody; Jacko has been a self-parody for some time now.

I was recently watching and greatly enjoying a tape I had made of the ABC special on the Beatles, right about the time that the compilation with the song "Free as a Bird" was released; how poignant it was to see George, along with Paul and Ringo sitting around together and discussing old times.


Well, one discussion was about the time the fabs met Elvis; it sounded, from the way that they told the story, that they were pretty high, when they met The King (their onetime hero).


What was interesting, though, was how they were eventually made aware of the fact that, while Elvis may have been a rather gracious host during their afternoon in his house, he held a rather low opinion of them, in the final analysis (perhaps he was jealous, or perhaps they were a symbol of how out of touch Elvis was slowly becomming, 1968 comeback special to the contrary). Yet how gracious and even empathetic Paul and the other Beatles seemed to remain in discussing Elvis, even though it was clear how disappointed they seemed. Of course, though, to their credit, they choose to take the high road, and come out looking better.




Here's one account of what Elvis said to President Richard Nixon, during a meeting they had in the White house, wherein Elvis did a bit of trash talking about the Beatles; Nixon, of course, wanted John Lennon deported. (Please note, though, that while this incident may be interpreted in terms of politics, I am not about to discuss this politics here. As everyone probably knows, though, irony abounds in Nixon making Elvis an honorary "youth advisor" to help in the fight against drug use.)


from "Nixon the Narc"

The Prez and The King


Years later, as President, Nixon had a unique opportunity to meet another world-famous musician, Elvis Presley. In 1970, Elvis wrote Nixon a long, poorly handwritten letter requesting a visit with the President and suggesting that he be made a "Federal Agent-at-Large" in the Bureau of Narcotics and Dangerous Drugs. Elvis claimed to have made extensive study of "drug abuse and Communist brainwashing
techniques," and wanted to help save his country from hippies and communism.


Elvis was eventually received at the White House by Nixon, where the two spent some time in the Oval Office together. Although no transcript of their conversation exists, a summary of their talk written by Nixon's staff indicates that Elvis showed the President his collection of law-enforcement paraphernalia, and then derided the
Beatles, saying they had been a "real force for anti-American spirit."


Nixon clearly agreed with the King's assessment of the Fab Four, as John Lennon was already on Nixon's infamous "enemies list," with a thick FBI file investigating his anti-war activities. Nixon was personally behind efforts to deport Lennon in 1972.


Yet despite Elvis' claim to dislike the Beatles, five years earlier he had hosted them in his Hollywood home. For one enchanted evening, on the night of August 27, 1965, the lads from Liverpool and the King hung out, jammed and swapped stories about life on tour. "We all drank scotch and coke or bourbon and Seven Up," explained Lennon in a memoir of the event. "Elvis only had Seven Up. He didn't touch any of the cigarettes that were offered around, either."


While offering to serve as Nixon's anti-drug spokesman, Elvis was already a heavy user of prescription drugs. Within two years Elvis was admitted to hospital for hepatitis, pneumonia and overuse of prescription drugs. Five years later Elvis was dead at the age of 42, due to heart failure brought on by prescription drugs and poor attention to his personal health.

So basically, this little anecdote suggests that Elvis and Nixon - in spite of seeming to be worlds apart - were perfectly willing to exploit one another, at the expense of others (as well as of their own reputations), and to try to capitalize, socially, culturally, and politically, on their association with one another.

Meanwhile, here is a rather amusing clip, from around the same era, that shows just how willing John Lennon was to stand up for the people and the things that he believed in - a kind of skiffle/jugband version of a song by Lennon's friend (and hippy radical) David Peel. It is a performance that gleefully thumbs its nose at the Nixonian-era establishment, and is certainly one for the time capsule.

...Bronx keeps creating it!

Is hip-hop dead? Maybe not, but it's not sounding much like this any more. There may have been some progress from the classic "old school" era, but lots and lots of regress, as well. As Nas explains, in the song "Hip Hop is Dead,"

Everybody sound the same, commercialize the game
Reminiscin' when it wasn't all business
If it got where it started
So we all gather here for the dearly departed
Hip hopper since a toddler
One homeboy became a man then a mobster
If the guys let me get my last swig of Vodka
R.I.P., we'll donate your lungs to a rasta
Went from turntables to mp3s
From "Beat Street" to commercials on Mickey D's
From gold cables to Jacobs
From plain facials to Botox and face lifts

Scotland vs. New Zealand – a Matchup of Two Leading Indie Rock Meccas

If I can allow myself an admittedly simplistic analogy, it seems to me, based on my limited experiential knowledge, that the countries of Scotland and New Zealand – known for so much, are like the college towns of countries – urbane, sophisticated, environmentally conscious, principled, idealistic (in a good way), and filled with youthful energies and tolerances for difference. Perhaps I am overidealizing both places, but it just seems to me that they have a lot of very positive things going on.

And that is certainly true in terms of their musical output or noted music scenes, particularly their indie rock scenes. When I think of Scotland, I can’t help but think of some really great bands, from Orange Juice and the Skids, through the Jesus and Mary Chain and the Proclaimers, to the Pastels, Teenage Fanclub and Belle and Sebastian. The amount of musical talent from Scotland is truly staggering.

And of course, when I think of New Zealand, along with having vivid cinematic images of the rugged terrains shown in Peter Jackson’s Ring trilogy, I can’t help but think of the extraordinary Christchurch label, Flying Nun, and its long history of wonderfully quirky and massively seminal bands, starting with bands like the Clean, the Chills, the Straightjacket Fits, and the Tall Dwarves. The very wit-filled names of these (and other such NZ) bands, not to mention the use of a 60s pop reference to an example of a kind of kitschy pop Christianity (in a city given a "godly" name by a group of (most likely very serious, sober 19th century) clerics, in a time much different than our own), expresses for me a kind of humorous sensibility that strikes me as perhaps uniquely New Zealandish. The wit of New Zealanders - delivered with a poker faced charm by its musicians (or especially by the fictional band on the HBO carried show, Flight of the Conchords) - is a thing of great beauty.

So, as a purely academic exercise, one with no real practical concerns, I would propose that these two countries be held to a kind of matchup as two centers of indie rock greatness – a sort of U-Cal Berkeley vs. University of Wisconsin-Madison (the latter of which was once my place of residence for a few years).

Here, then, is who I would pick as the heavy hitters for each respective country – call it an indie rock top 10.

Over in the tartan corner, we have (in no particular order): The Jesus and Mary Chain, Teenage Fanclub, Pastels, Cocteau Twins, Mogwai, Belle and Sebastian, Orange Juice, The Vaselines, the Wake, and APB. All are really terrific bands, whose music holds up remarkably well to this day. In particular, The Pastels, Teenage Fanclub, and most especially, Belle and Sebastian are, for me, examples of genius bands, among the very best in rock music history. I listen to their music on a very regular basis and it never gets old for me.



And, over there, in the kiwi corner, we have another top 10 (actually top 11) to consider (though again, in no particular order); a number of these groups are connected, in one way or another, to one or to both of the Kilgour brothers - New Zealand indie rockers come across as communally spirited and generally willing to play in one anothers' bands: The Clean, The Chills, Tall Dwarves/Chris Knox, the Bats, Split Enz, Verlaines, Bailter Space, The 3Ds, The Sneaky Feelings, The Able Tasmans, Jean-Paul Sartre Experience. These too are some truly amazing bands, some focused on noisy experimentalism, others on melody and subtle arrangements, and a few on all of these altogether.



But, having spent lots of times listening to both the Scots and the New Zealanders, I would have to say – if push comes to shove – that the world’s indie rock capitol is, for me, by a relatively close margin, none other than .... New Zealand. Not only are there so many amazing bands from there, but the DIY spirit of punk seems to inform so much of what New Zealand is all about. And this spirit, too, appears to inform the possibility of these bands having full lives, both as musicians and as human beings - getting together to record, to play shows, and then to go live their lives, and then to get back together to record a bit more, and to play some more shows, with all of these things being woven together as an apparently seamless whole. Again, perhaps I am overidealizing these bands, but that is how I see it, just as I see their personalities and their passions coming across very clearly in the sublime music that they manage to produce.

So, therefore, I conclude - having expressed a true love for Scotland's bands, though I could also easily talk about great independent music from various other countries, including my own - that, nevertheless, New Zealand wins my trophy for best indie rock country. In fact, in realizing this, I kind of want to fly there right now, climb a few lush green hills, listen to a some church bells chiming, eat some local seafood with some regional side dishes, drink a few local drinks, and hear some bands!

Arguably Better than U2

I really like U2 and have seen them live a few times, but on the other hand, the band Stump is the band that make me proud of my Irish family roots. I just came upon this video for the song Charlton Heston, and, well, it's bloody genius.



This band, and its Captain Beefheart-esque music, were part of the musical soundtrack to my life, back in the mid to late 1980s, when I was grappling with Chi-Squares and qualitative data sets as a master's degree student at University of Wisconsin, and listening enthusiastically to Stump's A Fierce Pancake.


Their music was, and is, delightfully quirky, catchy, and full of wit and energy. You can clearly hear the Irishness in the vocal inflections of lead singer Mick Lynch. The song/video is great, too, in how it comedically and absurdly deconstructs spectacle, such as movies like the Ten Commandments - and religious spectacle even, i.e., as a kind of cross between Samuel Beckett and the Three Stooges. Sadly, they chose to break up soon thereafter rather than slog it out in the music world. Happily, though, their music lives on, via ITunes and in the memories of fans of the quirky and original.

Percussion

Last summer, I got invited to a "solstice party" in a neighbor's yard - a really fun time and a chance to meet some interesting folks. As the evening went on, some there had guitars and led those there in singing. Some of us played percussion instruments (I was given a maraca to shake), and it was s joyous experience to be making music together, to be part of a song circle, and to experience the warmth of creativity and communality with my fellow human beings.

Here, though, is another example of creative percussioning. This video is pretty amazing.

The Chills - Heavenly Pop Hit

I love this!

Rightwingers Again Supress Free Speech, This Time in Troy, NY

The NYCLU is currently filing a laswuit against the city of Troy, NY, an upstate city and home to Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and Russell Sage College, because the city's public works commissioner, Robert Mirch, also the majority leader of the Rensselaer County Legislature, did what empowered right wing thugs everywhere tend to do, that is, to abuse their power. And in this case, Mirch abused his power to suppress an idea that he did not like, that is, the idea of critiquing the Iraq war. And that this idea was being led by an Iraqi-born artist, Wafaa Bilal, is particularly egregious. Incidentally, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute's College Republicans played a strong hand in this shutdown.

Mirch, essentially, shut down the exhibit using the most bogus rationale, claiming as a city official, in effect, that the exhibit was being organized in a building that violated safety code violations; the building had previously been approved for such use, without incident, prior to this particular exhibit.

This abuse of Mirch's power - an assault on free speech and antiwar activities by an established government - should be vigorously opposed. I urge all who read this to protest this action.

The New York Civil Liberties Union (NYCLU) has more details.

The New York Civil Liberties Union filed a claim Thursday against the City of Troy concerning the city’s decision to close an arts and media center on purported code violations in March after a controversial art exhibit opened there.

The notice of claim was filed on behalf of The Sanctuary for Independent Media, whose gallery was ordered closed March 11, a day after the opening of Iraqi-American artist Wafaa Bilal’s art installation, “Virtual Jihadi.” The exhibit was intended to provoke thought about the roots of violence, but it angered some people who objected to its content.

Among those offended by the artwork was Robert Mirch, public works commissioner and majority leader of the Rensselaer County Legislature. Mirch, who oversees code enforcement, publicly denounced the exhibit and led a protest against it outside the Sanctuary. The NYCLU contends that Mirch used his official powers to have the building closed, which violated the Sanctuary’s First Amendment rights to free speech and expression.

“City officials cannot selectively enforce building codes to shut down an art exhibition they find distasteful,” said Melanie Trimble, director of the NYCLU’s Capital Region chapter. “It is troubling that Mr. Mirch would wield his authority to suppress the free speech rights of people he disagrees with.”

Before the controversial exhibit opened, the city had given no indication that it objected to the Sanctuary’s schedule for restoring the 106-year-old building. The Sanctuary had worked closely with the Bureau of Code Enforcement throughout the renovation process. Code enforcement officials inspected the building on April 23 and found no violations.

Here is a statement by Steve Peirce, a spokeman for the The Sanctuary for Independent Media, addressing this incident.

Since 2005, The Sanctuary for Independent Media has struggled to be a good citizen and a good neighbor. We've invested immense creative energy and toil and spent many thousands of hard-earned dollars to refurbish a historic former church in a neglected neighborhood of north Troy, striving to enrich the community through telecommunications production, media arts and education. Our efforts have proved beneficial in that we've succeeded in bringing internationally acclaimed filmmakers, graphic artists, musicians, authors, and other important cultural figures to a deprived area and fostered constructive public dialogue that informs and enlivens our democratic society.
-
On March 11, 2008, however, just as the Sanctuary was launching a month-long scheduled program of artistic exhibits, performances and discussions, the City of Troy abruptly closed the facility on codes violation charges -- because somebody didn't like one of our planned art exhibits. This is wrong. We must not allow our public officials to continue to act in such a manner.
-
The Capital Region New York Civil Liberties Union and attorney Peter Henner are among those who have stepped forward to assist the Sanctuary in protecting our constitutional rights and the rights of our artists and patrons.
-
We do not dispute the need to respect city laws and ordinances. Prior to this incident, the city knew we were operating in good faith to comply with the building codes and we had made and were continuing to make ample improvements to this 108-year-old structure. There wasn't any conflict. Our relations with the city's professional employees had been very positive and everyone recognized we were acting in a responsible manner. We were never warned we might be shut down. In fact, on March 10, the city's own building and fire inspectors gave us the green light to proceed with holding a major public event that night.
-
But then the city's public works commissioner, Bob Mirch, who oversees Troy code enforcement and holds a variety of other local political posts, railed on rightwing talk radio and he also physically led a vocal demonstration outside our facility to protest our showing of an exhibit he did not like. The next day, his department shut down the Sanctuary.
-
These events have been extremely upsetting and damaging. First, the whole incident has been fueled by wildly irresponsible misrepresentations of Wafaa Bilal and his work, using racial and jingoistic stereotypes that breed fear and misunderstanding. Second, Mr. Mirch has been allowed to abuse his official position to enforce his own political views - to use alleged code violations as a pretext to stifle political dissent. This kind of intimidation is wrong. His behavior has violated the civil rights of Mr. Bilal to express himself through his art, it has violated the civil rights of the Sanctuary to present art, and it has abrogated the civil rights of the public who wanted to view art by denying them that opportunity to make up their own minds. We urge the City of Troy to put an end to this kind of discriminatory action. We want to resume working in good faith with government officials to make sure that the law is upheld and people's rights are respected. This is the United States of America.

Here is a YouTube clip about this controversy.

Here is a link to a GamePolitics.Com article with more details about the artist in question.

Here is a link to a detailed timeline of this incident.

Lupe Fiasco's vision - a hip-hop anti-racist challenge

"We have known divisions, which must be healed to move forward in great purposes - and I will strive in good faith to heal them."
-George W. Bush, Second Inaugural Address, January 2005

"George Bush doesn't care about black people!"
-Kanye West, December 2005, in response to Bush's handling of the Hurricane Katrina disaster of August of that year.

"I think that an objective analysis of events that are taking place on this earth today points towards some type of ultimate showdown. You can call it political showdown, or even a showdown between the economic systems that exist on this earth which almost boil down along racial lines. I do believe that there will be a clash between East and West. I believe that there will ultimately be a clash between the oppressed and those that do the oppressing. I believe that there will be a clash between those who want freedom, justice and equality for everyone and those who want to continue the systems of exploitation."
-Malcolm X, January 19, 1965

I look to the culture - speeches, texts, performances, works of art, works of entertainment, etc. - as a gauge or an indicator of where we are as a society.

I was in college back in the early 1980s, listening to a variety of musical forms, such as 1960s political folk, Afro pop, and post-punk, in between my classes and term papers. This was the era of hip-hop's "old school," that is, of pioneering artists such as Grandmaster Flash, Eric B and Rakim, Afrika Bambaataa and the Zulu Nation, and Boogie Down Productions and of songs like "Rapper's Delight," "The Message," and "Planet Rock." I thought then, and still think, that, following the decadence and mindlessness of the late 70s disco era, rap music breathed new life into Black popular music, just as punk at more or less the same time did so for rock and roll.

When I graduated from college, I then moved to the Bronx, hip-hop's cradle, so as to, like Barack Obama, practice my progressive beliefs as a community organizer. I organized tenants' associations and neighborhood groups in a neighborhood in the border zone between the North and South Bronx. I heard hip-hop playing in the beackground of the neighborhood on a fairly regular basis.

Since then, I have, selectively, made room in my music listening habits for various figures from the world of hip-hop. Most recently, I have discovered a young MC named Lupe Fiasco, an associate of Kanye's, and have been watching a pretty impressive video of his.



What to make of this? And what of the opening quotes by such opposed figures as Kanye, Malcolm X and George Bush?

First off, this song is actually not all that political in terms of its (somewhat surreal) lyrical content, but what is political here, theoretically, is the triadic relationship that the song establishes amongst Lupe, the thug chorus, and the cynical, clowning WASP character. Both the chorus and the WASP tell Lupe to "Dumb it down," and yet Lupe refuses. In fact, the initial chorus

You goin' over niggas' heads Lu (Dumb it down)
They tellin' me that they don't feel you (Dumb it down)
We ain't graduate from school nigga (Dumb it down)
Them big words ain't cool nigga (Dumb it down)
Yeah I heard Mean And Vicious nigga (Dumb it down)
Make a song for the bitches nigga (Dumb it down)
We don't care about the weather nigga (Dumb it down)
You'll sell more records if you (Dumb it down)

and the Wasp's lines

You've been shedding too much light Lu (Dumb it down)
You make'em wanna do right Lu (Dumb it down)
They're getting self-esteem Lu (Dumb it down)
These girls are trying to be queens Lu (Dumb it down)
They're trying to graduate from school Lu (Dumb it down)
They're starting to think that smart is cool Lu (Dumb it down)
They're trying to get up out the hood Lu (Dumb it down)
I'll tell you what you should do (Dumb it down)

are perhaps the key to the song, but, more deeply, a key to what's happening more generally in society, particularly for young persons, including young persons of color. As opposed to the rhetoric, the reality is that this society, with its dumbed down government, wants its young to be dumbed down. It is, in a sense, easier that way. That is, it is easier for those in power - be they local thugs or members of the Power Elite - to maintain control when certain conditions exist, conditions that rationalize holding tightly onto the levers of power.

During the Reagan 1980s, when, again, I was organizing the poor in a poor place, the Bronx, I was perpetually struck by the institutional racism of a conservative government that, for example, allowed poverty rates to rise and to disproportionately affect young people of color. As William Spriggs points out in an article in the American Prospect

During the Reagan administration, the United States suffered its highest national unemployment rates since the Great Depression. In the black community, the effects were devastating: The unemployment rate for adult (over age 20) black men peaked at more than 20 percent in December 1982; during the entire Reagan presidency, the unemployment rate for adult black men remained in double digits. The highest recorded unemployment rate for adult white men was 9 percent in November and December 1982. But for black men, the unemployment rate remained above that mark for 182 straight months (15 years), from October 1979 to November 1994. Because children do not work and need working adults to support them, it is hardly surprising that during that period, black child poverty rates remained intractable above 40 percent.

And then

Under Reagan, who ridiculed antipoverty efforts, the number of black children living below the poverty line increased by 200,000, from 3.9 million in 1980 to 4.1 million in 1988. During the Clinton years, the black child poverty rate fell steadily, from 46.3 percent to a record-low 30 percent, lifting about 1.6 million black children out of poverty. For all children, the poverty rate fell annually during the Clinton's presidency, reaching a 30-year low of 15.6 percent when he left office. But those reduced poverty rates may be the best we can achieve simply by getting jobs for parents. While lower than during the Reagan years, they do not equal the lows America has achieved for its senior citizens, or the general population. And those gains reversed course when George W. Bush became president.

Of course, such reality makes a mockery of Bush's grand quote about "healing" our divisions and underscores, instead, the quote by Kanye West.

Rolling Stone magazine has also recently published a wonderfully comprehnsive report on the failures of our "war on drugs" a war that has taken a heavy toll on America's inner cities, and that "now costs the United States $50 billion each year and has overcrowded prisons to the breaking point - all with little discernible impact on the drug trade." The article points to a lack of poitical will to carry out necessary reforms.

But despite their evident success, the most forward-looking programs remain buried at the fringes of drug policy, featured not in the president's budgets but in academic journals and water-cooler talk in cities like High Point. Experimentation at the community level is more imaginative than programs that are federally sanctioned. "We haven't had the kind of national leadership that blesses this and encourages it," says Caulkins, the RAND researcher from Carnegie ­Mellon. "So this kind of innovation stays below the radar." Thirty-five years after Richard Nixon launched the War on Drugs, the most promising ­programs continue to be shunted aside by Washington's unswerving emphasis on law and order.

And as a parallel, the New York Times recently reported on a Big Increase in Black Men as Inmates Since 1980

The number of black men in jail or prison has grown fivefold in the past 20 years, to the point where more black men are behind bars than are enrolled in colleges or universities, according to a study released yesterday.

The increase in the black male prison population coincides with the prison construction boom that began 1980. At that time, three times more black men were enrolled in institutions of higher learning than behind bars, the study said.

The study found that in 2000 there were 791,600 black men in jail or prison and 603,032 enrolled in colleges or universities. By contrast, the study said that in 1980 there were 143,000 black men in jail or prison but 463,700 enrolled in colleges or universities.

Something's not right here.

I certainly do believe that while there is racism and bigotry to be found in many different realms and institutions, I also am hopeful that racism, as a disease of the mind, is curable. However, racism is many things, and in addition to being a subjective attitude, it is also a structural series of positions, one of, as Malcolm X alluded to, exploiter and exploited. Just as exploitive Bush, Cheney and their neocon associates have set forth the conditions for the exploitation of Iraq and its recources for decaded to come, the right wing and all it represents stands for the exploitation of the minority poor, its rhetoric notwithstanding. By disinvesting in progressive government, in meaningful effective education, and by leaving poor and weak individuals to their own devices, the right wing - with George W. Bush as its figurehead - places the profits of a few over the well being of the many. And this is shown in a whole variety of social indicators - crime and poverty rates being up, growing numbers of poor young minorities, suddenly gowing teen pregnancy rates giving lie to "abstenance education," parts of New Orleans remaining unlivable and ungovernable.

Yet, as with the Lupe song, speaking truth to power must be accompanied by some sort of vision. Malcolm X, paradoxically, began to see himself as emancipated from mental slavery, as Bob Marley once put it, while serving a prison sentence. He experienced a paradigm shift, just as we all must if we want to move our society beyond the ugliness of the Bush era.

In the meantime, going back to hip-hop, here is a nauseating reminder of the trivializing of this form of an essentially Black popular culture by those who hold power. It reduces hip-hop to little more than a minstrel show.



Totally whack!!!!

Antiwar scholar denied a visa simply because of his views

(Crossposted on Daily Kos.)

I am a member of the American Sociological Association and teach sociology at CUNY. Yesterday, my copy of the association newsletter arrived in my mailbox, offering this bit of news on scholar Adam Habib and his struggles with attempting to secure a visitor's visa from the U.S. State Department. While Habib has been invited by such organizations as National Institutes for Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the World Bank, Columbia University and the Gates Foundation to appear at colloquia, somehow his anti Iraq War views has led the State Department to refuse Habib a visa after months of inaction, claiming that he is barred because he has “engaged in terrorist activities.” There is no evidence of this.

The ASA newsletter announces a legal filing on behalf of Habib by the ASA as well as the ACLU.

November 14, 2007

ASA News
Media Contacts:
Sujata Sinha or Lee Herring
(202) 247-9871
pubinfo@asanet.org

ASA and ACLU Rebuke U.S. Government for Denying South African Scholar’s Visa

ACLU Renews Legal Challenge, Says U.S. Unfairly Maligning Distinguished Professor

BOSTON – In response to the unjustified denial of a visa to renowned South African scholar Adam Habib, the American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Massachusetts today renewed their legal challenge against the Departments of State and Homeland Security. The State Department refused Habib a visa after months of inaction, claiming that he is barred because he has “engaged in terrorist activities,” but the government failed to explain the basis for its accusation, let alone provide any evidence to prove it. The ACLU, in today’s legal complaint, is now demanding that the government substantiate its ban on Habib or grant him a visa.

“In one fell swoop, the U.S. government has stifled political debate in this country and maligned the reputation of a respected scholar without giving one shred of evidence to support its claims,” said Melissa Goodman, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project. “It appears that Professor Habib is being excluded not because of his actions but because of his political views and associations.”

Today’s legal challenge amends a lawsuit, filed in September in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts, charging that the government’s exclusion of Professor Habib amounts to censorship at the border because it prevents U.S. citizens and residents from hearing speech that is protected by the First Amendment. The ACLU went to court on behalf of organizations that have invited Professor Habib to speak in the U.S., including the American Sociological Association (ASA), the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC) and the Boston Coalition for Palestinian Rights (BCPR). The lawsuit asks the court to prevent the government from excluding Professor Habib unless it comes forward with evidence to substantiate its accusations.

Habib is a renowned scholar, sought after political analyst, and Deputy Vice-Chancellor of Research, Innovation and Advancement at the University of Johannesburg. He is also a Muslim who has been a vocal critic of the war in Iraq. Until the government suddenly revoked his visa in October 2006 without explanation, he never experienced any trouble entering the U.S.; in fact, Habib lived in New York with his family for years while earning a Ph.D. in Political Science from the City University of New York.

The ASA press release goes on to add that Habib, in attempting to fly to the U.S. in 2006 "was detained for seven hours and interrogated about his associations and political views" and that "Armed guards eventually escorted him to a plane and deported him back to South Africa. The State Department later revoked the visas of Professor Habib’s wife and two small children, again, without explanation." Habib tried again in 2007, to no avail.

It offers the following conclusions:

“The American Sociological Association has become increasingly concerned about apparent systemic U.S. government interference in scientific exchange and the associated corrosion in the luster of the nation’s democratic face to the world. ASA has become sufficiently concerned about the need to defend our country’s commitment to free exchange. We seek to wrest a long-awaited explanation from the U.S. Departments of State and Department of Homeland Security as to why they refuse to admit internationally known South African scholar Adam Habib into the United States for purposes of scholarly exchange,” says Sally Hillsman, Executive Director of the ASA.

Professor Habib’s exclusion is part of a larger pattern. Over the past few years, numerous foreign scholars, human rights activists, and writers – all vocal critics of U.S. policy – have been barred from the U.S. without explanation or on vague national security grounds. In 2006, the ACLU filed a similar lawsuit on behalf of U.S. academic groups and Professor Tariq Ramadan, a widely respected Swiss scholar of the Muslim world. When the government revoked his visa in 2004, Professor Ramadan was prevented from assuming a tenured teaching position at the University of Notre Dame. The Ramadan lawsuit challenges the legality of his exclusion and the constitutionality of the Patriot Act provision under which he was initially excluded. He remains excluded from the U.S. to this day.

To repeat, Professor Habib’s exclusion is part of a larger pattern. Over the past few years, numerous foreign scholars, human rights activists, and writers – all vocal critics of U.S. policy – have been barred from the U.S. without explanation or on vague national security grounds.

This story has also recently been covered by the Christian Science Monitor which notes

Habib is just one foreigner of many who have faced either strenuous interrogation or expulsion by US immigration officials since 9/11. But his legal challenge shines a media spotlight on a visa process that has become more opaque in recent years, raising questions about the rights of individuals to free speech and to due process.

"This is a problem that is much bigger than just Professor Habib," says Melissa Goodman, an attorney with the ACLU who is handling Habib's case. "Since 9/11, writers, artists, and other have found it much more difficult to get into the US. What they have in common is that, like Professor Habib, they are vocal critics of US foreign policy."

Also, a South African news outlet, Independent Online, did a profile on Habib and found no explosive skeletons in his family's closet offering the following details on the possible bases for this case.

Habib said he was then told by a highly placed South African government official that his exclusion was apparently related to photographs taken of him addressing an anti-Iraq war rally in Durban.

"But the strange thing about that is that I know other people who addressed the same rally, and also had their pictures taken, and they, too, have not been denied entry."

He said that he had "of course" exchanged e-mails with Muslim scholars worldwide: "In the course of my job, I get about 70 e-mails a day from a variety of scholars from all over the world, Jewish ones, Islamic scholars, Christians, Marxists, neo-conservatives, fascists, deists - you name it".

Habib said that, in terms of Muslim practice, he also gave charity ("zakat") to various organisations.

"But I'm pretty careful about where I send my money and I focus on education and HIV/Aids in South Africa. I have also given to the Gift of the Givers, but they operate in co-operation with the department of foreign affairs - so if the US government wants to suggest that the department is also a terrorist organisation, well."

Habib said that, as far as he could tell, his exclusion from the US seemed to be the result of a mixture of "racial profiling" - "I'm a Muslim, after all" - and what the American Civil Liberties Union calls "ideological exclusion".

"It's scary. These days if the US government doesn't like what you say, or the views you apparently hold, well, it just won't let you in.

"But I think," Habib said, "the problem is much bigger than the case of Adam Habib and I think it's pretty serious - and that it's time our government did something about protecting its innocent citizens from being targeted and labelled in this way."

Habib said he had encountered a number of people who were targeted for no apparent reason.

"I have been told of a Canadian dentist of Muslim extraction who was whisked out of New York to Guantanamo Bay. It was all a big mistake, but it took his family nine months to get him out - and he was completely traumatised by then.

"You know, the constitutional court recently found that our government had an obligation to make sure that the mercenaries in Africa were not tortured, murdered, etc. How much more so does our government have a duty to its citizens - those falsely accused [like Habib] - and others?"

Here, too, is what the ACLU says about Ideological Exclusion Here is some further documentation.

Denying international scholars a chance to enter this country and to express their views freely is just a disgusting, totalitarian practice that needs to stop. Insinuating that someone is a "terrorist" because they happen to have an Arabic last name and don't support the Administration's views is part of the reason why we are distrusted by the very Arabic societies whose hearts and minds we are supposed to be winning over. This needs to stop.

UPDATE: Here is a link to a podcast of Habib discussing this case.

Congress and the President can't be trusted. Can the courts keep us free?

Recently, a Federal court struck down a Patriot Act regulation that had allowed the FBI to issue National Security Letters (NLSs) demanding private information about people within the United States without court approval, and to gag those who receive NSLs from discussing them. The court has ruled that the gag rule is unconstutional. The courts have also recently court found that secret searches of a "terror suspect's" house and office violated the Fourth Amendment's guarantee against unreasonable search and seizure.

Score two for the Bill of Rights.

Since the presidency, at least under the Republicans, and the Congress appear not willing and able to continue bothering to uphold the Constitution, perhaps we need to turn to the courts - as well as to mass movements - as among the only things left to keep us free and living under the rule of law.


Internet Business Law Service has a story that broke a few weeks ago.

NEW YORK - A federal court struck down the amended Patriot Act''s National Security Letter (NSL) provision. The law has permitted the FBI to issue NSLs demanding private information about people within the United States without court approval, and to gag those who receive NSLs from discussing them. The court found that the gag power was unconstitutional and that because the statute prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review of gags, it violated the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.

U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero wrote, "In light of the seriousness of the potential intrusion into the individual''s personal affairs and the significant possibility of a chilling effect on speech and association - particularly of expression that is critical of the government or its policies - a compelling need exists to ensure that the use of NSLs is subject to the safeguards of public accountability, checks and balances, and separation of powers that our Constitution prescribes.

"As this decision recognizes, courts have a constitutionally mandated role to play when national security policies infringe on First Amendment rights. A statute that allows the FBI to silence people without meaningful judicial oversight is unconstitutional," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU''s National Security Project.

NSLs may be used to obtain access to subscriber, billing or transactional records from Internet service providers; to obtain a wide array of financial and credit documents; or even to obtain library records. In almost all cases, recipients of NSLs are forbidden, or "gagged," from disclosing that they have received the letters, even to close family and friends. This has been a severe hardship on NSL recipients, who not only have been forced to keep this major event secret, but who have been prevented from meaningfully participating in public discussions about NSLs. The court today held that because the gag provisions cannot be separated from the entire amended statute, the court was compelled to strike down the entire statute. Recently, too, a federal district court struck down two search and surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional.

This decision was also reported on in Wired which wrote

A federal district court judge struck down two key pillars of the Patriot Act Wednesday, ruling that using a secret spying court to wiretap and secretly search Americans' homes for criminal prosecutions violates the Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Federal district court judge Ann Aiken struck down the government's ability to get orders from the secret spy court for anything other than acquiring foreign intelligence activities, saying that using that court and its lowered standards -- instead of getting a traditional criminal wiretap order -- violates the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling applies to Patriot Act changes to wiretapping laws and to so-called sneak-and-peak searches, where the government can search someone's home secretly and never have to disclose the search to the individual.

The ACLU commented on this, saying

The Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement is one of the most important safeguards against an overreaching government. By allowing the FBI to conduct searches and wiretaps in criminal investigations without first demonstrating criminal probable cause, these Patriot Act provisions allow an end run around basic constitutional rules. There is no reason why the FBI can't investigate criminal activity - including terrorism - while at the same time complying with the Constitution."

The courts are thus, thankfully, chipping away at aspects of the Patriot Act, though perhaps it may be too little too late. But it is certainly better than nothing and worth celebrating as a victory for the Constitution.

Of course, the Patriot Act still allows some injustices and abuses of powers and these must be addressed by the courts. This includes such provisions as those that allow federal agents to "'shop' for judges that have demonstrated a strong bias toward law enforcement with regard to search warrants. It for the prosecution of those found to be offering "material support of terrorism," with groups labelled terrorist in such a sweeping manner that it could include just about anyone; giving support, for example, to the African National Congress, the anti-apartheid organization, a group labelled a terrorist organization by our government, could very well get a U.S. citizen arrested and sent to Gitmo. Alas, the Patriot Act still allows for indefinite detention upon secret evidence.

These provisions are all apparently indended to be sunsetted, though Bush's allies in Congress, led by Mitch McConnell and no doubt assisted by Lieberman and, likely, by some right wing Democratics, will try to extend it into law, indefinitely. Here, for example, is some classic McConnell dissembling

Unfortunately, some members of Congress have allowed the passage of time and the success of our efforts under the Patriot Act to dull their sense of urgency. Others have caved into the fears of a political base that has become increasingly radicalized in its opposition to anything the president supports. Two senators in particular have recently said they plan to block the full Senate from taking up a FISA reauthorization bill that was reported out of the Intelligence Committee last week with near-unanimous, bipartisan support.

Opponents of the reauthorization bill say they oppose it because it would give phone companies protection from lawsuits alleging they were wrong to share customer information with intelligence officials. This, despite the fact that U.S. businesses have always viewed sharing information to save American lives as being a patriotic duty they were only too happy to fulfill. Opponents also worry about an update that allows agents to listen in on phone calls that emanate from terror suspects abroad. But the Bill of Rights was never meant to cover terrorists in Diyala, Karachi, or Tehran.

Indeed, if there is any criticism at all with the proposed FISA reauthorization, it is that it does not go far enough. Most Americans have the common sense to recognize that FISA and every other tool we have used in this fight are worth making permanent. An open secret on Capitol Hill is that most Democrats do too. If there is one lesson from Sept. 11 that we should have learned by now, it is that the people who protect us from terrorism should have more, not fewer, tools to do their jobs. The Patriot Act and FISA are among the most valuable. It is time we acknowledged as much.
The Democrats, if they have spine for this, should prepare for an epic battle; since we cannot count on this, we need to look to the courts, which may be our best hope for restoring this country, right wing neo-fascictic activist judges, notwithstanding.

Internet Business Law Service has a story that broke a few weeks ago.

NEW YORK - A federal court struck down the amended Patriot Act''s National Security Letter (NSL) provision. The law has permitted the FBI to issue NSLs demanding private information about people within the United States without court approval, and to gag those who receive NSLs from discussing them. The court found that the gag power was unconstitutional and that because the statute prevented courts from engaging in meaningful judicial review of gags, it violated the First Amendment and the principle of separation of powers.

U.S. District Court Judge Victor Marrero wrote, "In light of the seriousness of the potential intrusion into the individual''s personal affairs and the significant possibility of a chilling effect on speech and association - particularly of expression that is critical of the government or its policies - a compelling need exists to ensure that the use of NSLs is subject to the safeguards of public accountability, checks and balances, and separation of powers that our Constitution prescribes.

"As this decision recognizes, courts have a constitutionally mandated role to play when national security policies infringe on First Amendment rights. A statute that allows the FBI to silence people without meaningful judicial oversight is unconstitutional," said Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU''s National Security Project.

NSLs may be used to obtain access to subscriber, billing or transactional records from Internet service providers; to obtain a wide array of financial and credit documents; or even to obtain library records. In almost all cases, recipients of NSLs are forbidden, or "gagged," from disclosing that they have received the letters, even to close family and friends. This has been a severe hardship on NSL recipients, who not only have been forced to keep this major event secret, but who have been prevented from meaningfully participating in public discussions about NSLs. The court today held that because the gag provisions cannot be separated from the entire amended statute, the court was compelled to strike down the entire statute.

Recently, too, a federal district court struck down two search and surveillance provisions of the Patriot Act as unconstitutional.

This decision was also reported on in Wired which wrote

A federal district court judge struck down two key pillars of the Patriot Act Wednesday, ruling that using a secret spying court to wiretap and secretly search Americans' homes for criminal prosecutions violates the Constitution's protections against unreasonable searches and seizures.

Federal district court judge Ann Aiken struck down the government's ability to get orders from the secret spy court for anything other than acquiring foreign intelligence activities, saying that using that court and its lowered standards -- instead of getting a traditional criminal wiretap order -- violates the Fourth Amendment's ban on unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling applies to Patriot Act changes to wiretapping laws and to so-called sneak-and-peak searches, where the government can search someone's home secretly and never have to disclose the search to the individual.

The ACLU commented on this, saying

The Fourth Amendment's probable cause requirement is one of the most important safeguards against an overreaching government. By allowing the FBI to conduct searches and wiretaps in criminal investigations without first demonstrating criminal probable cause, these Patriot Act provisions allow an end run around basic constitutional rules. There is no reason why the FBI can't investigate criminal activity - including terrorism - while at the same time complying with the Constitution."

The courts are thus, thankfully, chipping away at aspects of the Patriot Act, though perhaps it may be too little too late. But it is certainly better than nothing and worth celebrating as a victory for the Constitution.

Of course, the Patriot Act still allows some injustices and abuses of powers and these must be addressed by the courts. This includes such provisions as those that allow federal agents to "'shop' for judges that have demonstrated a strong bias toward law enforcement with regard to search warrants. It for the prosecution of those found to be offering "material support of terrorism," with groups labelled terrorist in such a sweeping manner that it could include just about anyone; giving support, for example, to the African National Congress, the anti-apartheid organization, a group labelled a terrorist organization by our government, could very well get a U.S. citizen arrested and sent to Gitmo. Alas, the Patriot Act still allows for indefinite detention upon secret evidence.

These provisions are all apparently indended to be sunsetted, though Bush's allies in Congress, led by Mitch McConnell and no doubt assisted by Lieberman and, likely, by some right wing Democratics, will try to extend it into law, indefinitely. Here, for example, is some classic McConnell dissembling

Unfortunately, some members of Congress have allowed the passage of time and the success of our efforts under the Patriot Act to dull their sense of urgency. Others have caved into the fears of a political base that has become increasingly radicalized in its opposition to anything the president supports. Two senators in particular have recently said they plan to block the full Senate from taking up a FISA reauthorization bill that was reported out of the Intelligence Committee last week with near-unanimous, bipartisan support.

Opponents of the reauthorization bill say they oppose it because it would give phone companies protection from lawsuits alleging they were wrong to share customer information with intelligence officials. This, despite the fact that U.S. businesses have always viewed sharing information to save American lives as being a patriotic duty they were only too happy to fulfill. Opponents also worry about an update that allows agents to listen in on phone calls that emanate from terror suspects abroad. But the Bill of Rights was never meant to cover terrorists in Diyala, Karachi, or Tehran.

Indeed, if there is any criticism at all with the proposed FISA reauthorization, it is that it does not go far enough. Most Americans have the common sense to recognize that FISA and every other tool we have used in this fight are worth making permanent. An open secret on Capitol Hill is that most Democrats do too. If there is one lesson from Sept. 11 that we should have learned by now, it is that the people who protect us from terrorism should have more, not fewer, tools to do their jobs. The Patriot Act and FISA are among the most valuable. It is time we acknowledged as much.

The Democrats, if they have spine for this, should prepare for an epic battle; since we cannot count on this, we need to look to the courts, which may be our best hope for restoring this country, right wing activist judges, notwithstanding.

A bit of surreality, courtesy of Renaldo and the Loaf

I've been exploring music videos recently, including videos made for relatively obscure musical performers, like the Rubinoos, Josef K, the Residents, and one, in particular, that I found surreally beautiful. It's a video for the experimental British duo, Renaldo and the Loaf.

I'm so happy for the existence of websites that allow for such exploration.


Anyway, here's a music video by this group. It's truly bizarre, in a sort of David Lynchian/surrealistic sort of way. I really like it.

Why not a turn - perhaps even just a quick turn - to surrealism, and to its interest in all things absurd, and in the subconsiousness?

It was the goal of the surrealists (and their dadaist allies) in the 1920s and 1930s to challenge the very cognitive and ideological foundations of the modern, western world, and to truly free the imagination. In that sense, the surrealists were truly radical.

Such a radical and subversive spirit - which was reawakened during the counterculture - is probably needed in today's world.

And as an example, we have this one example, a video and a sample of music by a very odd pair of experimental musicians, about whom, the All Music Guide describes their music as something "guaranteed to rid your house of unwanted guests."

Here's Wikipedia's take on this inventive duo.

An English duo active in the late seventies and most of the eighties, Renaldo and the Loaf consisted of a pathologist (David Janssen or "Ted The Loaf") and an architect (Brian Poole or "Renaldo Malpractice") who made music often considered strange.

By their own assertion, they achieved their unique sound in part by striving to get unnatural synthesizer-like sounds using only what instruments they had available (acoustic ones.) To that end they routinely used muffled and de-tuned instruments, and often to striking effect, tape loops / manipulation. The two released four full length albums, one collection, various songs on compilation albums, and several self-produced demos. They were "discovered" by The Residents when Brian dropped off a tape at Ralph Records headquarters in San Francisco, during a visit to the US. After being signed to Ralph, they collaborated with The Residents on Title in Limbo.

By 1989, the collaboration had lost its steam, and the duo disbanded after recording a sea shanty, "Haul on the Bowline," which appeared only on a Ralph various artists release. Brian/Renaldo contributed to sporadic recordings in the 1990s. In 2006 upon the launch of the new Renaldo & the Loaf web site, the duo were reunited for the first time in the better part of 2 decades.

All blessings to the surrealists of all eras!

Fire of Love - the Gun Club

I remember when the Gun Club emerged in the mid 80s out of L.A., as it was a truly exciting time for independent and alternative music. And the Gun Club were a key part of them. I had the good fortune to see them live, at a small, but rather well regarded club in Hoboken, NJ and they had some majestic moments, moments in which they kicked into a great, noisy groove and elevated everyone there. Thinking back, I realize how much I miss them (and various other bands from that golden era).

Here, on their stunning debut, the Gun Club, led by hellbound lead singer Jeffrey Lee Pierce, offer 11 fine tracks of bluesy, countrified music. It makes sense to classify it as "roots punk," that is, as a mix of the underlying elements of rock (i.e., blues, country, rockabilly, African/Carribean voodoo music, etc.) filtered through the rebelliousness of punk. It sounded great back then, and it still sounds great. Highly recommended for listening while driving down a highway, particularly around sunset.

Taking Drugs to Make Music to Take Drugs To

I was just listening to a bit of the brilliant group, the Spacemen 3, a group, about which, the All Music Guide states the following:

Spacemen 3 were psychedelic in the loosest sense of the word; their guitar explorations were colorfully mind-altering, but not in the sense of the acid rock of the '60s. Instead, the band developed its own minimalistic psychedelia, relying on heavily distorted guitars to clash and produce their own harmonic overtones; frequently, they would lead up to walls of distortion with overamplified acoustic guitars and synths. Often the band would jam on one chord or play a series of songs, all in the same tempo and key. Though this approach was challenging, often bordering on the avant-garde, Spacemen 3 nevertheless gained a dedicated cult following. After releasing several albums in the late '80s, the band fell apart after in 1991.

The Spacemen 3 are a band that liked to play with the textures, generally guitar driven ones, of their songs, resulting in a sort of "trance-like neo-psychedelia." And their songs, and LPs, as the above example demonstrates, simulated an altered state of consciousness associated with drug use. The band, while certainly not the first band of counterculturalists to turn to pharmacueticals for inspiration, were to rock music something like what William S. Burroughs was to literature, with the LP Sound of Confusion being their Junky and, I suppose, Perfect Perscription, the record playing on my CD spinner downstairs, being their Naked Lunch. It should be noted that this recording evokes everything from Lou Reed to gospel to Sun Ra filtered through the MC5.

My wife's top 20 rock bands

This is a list that my wife, Jolie, put together a while ago (actually in 2002) of her top 20 rock and roll bands. Pretty good list, if you ask me. She and I got to see, together, live shows by two former Beatles (Pete Best, and Paul McCartney), a Kink (Ray Davies), an Animal (Eric Burdon) a Hermit (Peter Noone) and the reconstituted New York Dolls, as well as the reconstituted Soft Boys and reconstitued Buzzcocks (where we got caught up, for a moment, in the moshpit up toward the front of the stage, and Jolie found herself bumping into the lead singer from Everclear. We also saw, in a packed theater, the T Rex concert film Born to Boogie; T Rex and David Bowie producer Tony Visconti was in the audience then. And another piece of trivia is that my wife works just blocks from where Jimi Hendrix started up a recording studio and recorded Electric Ladyland, and also a slight distance from the building which was photographed for the Led Zeppelin LP Physical Graffitti - two pieces of rock trivia we always point out to visitors when we are showing them around Manhattan.

1. The Beatles 2. The Kinks 3. Led Zeppelin 4. The Ramones 5. The Who 6. The Sex Pistols 7. The Heartbreakers (NOT Tom Petty's Heartbreakers!) 8. Fairport Convention 9. The Incredible String Band 10. Jethro Tull 11. Pink Floyd 12. The New York Dolls 13. The Stylistics 14. Sly and Family Stone 15. T. Rex 16. The Rolling Stones 17. The Jimi Hendrix Experience 18. Deep Purple 19. The Clash and 20. The Misfits

Twenty Five Greats

What makes for rock music greatness is not necessarily commercial success, longevity, or even a great deal of musical ability; rather, greatness seems to emenate from those groups that manage to be very creative and to develop a style and a sound all their own. Bo Diddley, back in the 50s, developed a style all his own, with the underlying basis of his sound being the "bo diddley beat," which Bo himself explained as deriving from a style of dance known as the "hambone," a style involving the stomping as well as slapping and patting the arms, legs, chest, and cheek, and derived from African culture via the Southern plantations and various Caribbean locales. Or, another example is the Kinks, a British Invasion band whose sound was rooted in a more aggressive version of the early 60s British rock but then was refined a few years later through more complex arrangements of their hook-filled songs.

I posted this once before elsewhere a few years ago, and am reposting an edited version of it here. These are arguably the 25 greatest bands in rock history.

1. The Velvet Underground
What made them great: hung out with Andy Warhol and were the Factory's house band, released 4 classic and influential LPs, combined noise/art/drones with well crafted songs, gave us two great talents - Lou Reed and John Cale, influenced punk, post-punk and indie rock from the 1970s on. It has been said that very few people owned the Velvet Undergound's LPs in their time, but that everyone who did was inspired to start a band of their own, or to, in some way, create. Perhaps.

2. The Kinks
What made them great: The Kinks, unlike a lot of other bands of their day, exposed their own weaknesses and vulnerabilities, not to mention their utter Britishness - with their music filled with references to village greens, royalty, afternoon tea, to music hall and to various memories of ordinary British life. They perfected the concept album and were also pioneers of the theatrical side of rock band performance. Much of their music is truly gorgeous and moving (e.g., Waterloo Sunset, Days, Starstruck, Hollywood Blvd., etc.). And their leader, Ray Davies, is undoubtedly a genius, one of rock's greatest geniuses, in fact. In short, they made both pop and art and combined the two in a way only they could.

3. The Beatles
What made them great: The Beatles caused the whole world to fall in love with them, and all with a few basic chords and a few well placed "yeah, yeah, yeahs." The Beatles' greatness, in addition to deriving from both their personalities and their music, has something as well to do with how intertwined they were with their decade - the 1960s. Much was packed into a short span of time, particularly from 1964 until around the time of the moon landing and Woodstock.

4. The Stooges
What made them great: The Stooges are a band now understood to be as seminal as the Velvet Underground for punk rock and other forms of modern music. But whereas the VU were something like a group of art school misfits, the Stooges were more a motley collection of trailer park dirtbags and lowlives, from the wilds of Ypsilanti, Michigan (thus also tied to the great Detroit garage band/biker band scenes). The Stooges seemed to thrive on tension and on stage, this consisted of confronted the audience, in the studio, one another, and when not playing music, themselves. Musically, they captured what is essential about rock, namely its noisy, rhythmic power - no surprise that one of their classic albums was called "Raw Power."

5. The Ramones
What made them great (from a personal review of their 1st LP): I first heard the Ramones debut record in early 1977, shortly after reading a review of them in a music magazine (I think it might have been Trouser Press or perhaps Hit Parader) when I was 15, and I was blown away by its stripped down sound. Hearing them made me an instant fan, as I suspect it did for many others. I remember just loving the Ramones' sound and their twisted sense of humor, not to mention their look (kudos to Roberta Bayley and Arturo Vega for the band photos), and beginning with them, embracing the punk revolution as a breath of fresh air. Here indeed was a band for kid who grew up on Mad Magazine, Famous Monsters of Filmland, comic books, Ed Sullivan, and late 60s bubblegum, and who came of age in the middle of the anomic 1970s. Here the Ramones are sounding extremely stripped down and raw. Recorded for just a few thousand bucks (cheap even by mid 70s prices) the raw sound is a perfect compliment to these songs - some of the Ramones great classics. Songs like Blitzkrieg Bop, Beat on the Brat, 53rd and 3rd, and I Don't Wanna Walk Around With You have well stood the test of time. And with a cover of the oldies song Let's Dance, the Ramones link themselves to rock's glorious past, its transistor radio era. In short what we have here is the start of a musical/cultural revolution.

6. The Who
What made them great: They were tied, at the start of their career, to an anglicized version of Motown/R&B, as well as to the "mod" subculture, and later explored these roots in the LP and (very underrated) film Quadrophenia. They embraced pop art and the swinging 60s, but brought to these things a great deal of testosterone fueled aggression, making their acts of aggression into pop art itself. However, they also balanced their aggressiveness with insightful moments of introspection and reflective insight into the human condition. They were a highlight of Woodstock and released the classic Who's Next, filled with anthems. They then stuck around for several more years, adding to their legion of devoted fans.

7. The New York Dolls What made them great: Not so much their musical skills, which were somewhat limited, as their attitude, one based on their outer boroughs New York personalities, their aggressive androgyny, and their association with drug induced decadence and anomie, all of which made rock music once again seem rebellious, after a long time of not being so. They were the perfect contrast to the corporately sponsored mellowness of mid-70s, Seals and Crofts-era, rock. This attitude and contrastiveness paved the way for the punk scene a few years later.

8. The Fall What made them great: Their droning, atonal sound and the personality of band leader, lead singer and lyricist Mark E. Smith. Even when he's doing things like reading British football scores in the voice of someone with a bad hangover, Mark E. commands the performance space. In short, the Fall, while flirting here and there with commercial success, have been a creative force in indie/underground rock
for decades, and for very good reason.

9. My Bloody Valentine What made them great: They invented/perfected an ethereal style of play, known as "shoegazer." Their music is extremely powerful and seductive and leaves the listener wanting much more.

10. Joy Division What made them great: They captured a moment, when punk seemed dead and the world of possibility was completely opened up, with their music, which is haunting, intense, powerful, and mournful about the various tragic elements of essential existence.

11. T Rex What makes them great: Moved from hippy to glam and thus helped to create the 1970s. And, they are one of a handful of performers/groups (such as Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, AC/DC, Motorhead, Ramones, and ZZ Top) with a patented sound of their own.

12. Yo La Tengo What makes them great: They encompass the history of rock's critical and indie highlights in its entirety in their recordings and performances, and embody the principle of refraining from selling out. Plus, since I like cheering on the home team, and since I have a bit more of an identification with Hoboken's later renaissance than with its 1940s Sinatra-era glory days, I cheer for YLT as my musical home team.

13. Sex Pistols What makes them great: They took anarchism and made it into a band ethos. And they inspired Greil Marcus to write his great Lipstick Traces, which found connections between punk and situationism.

14. The Raincoats
What makes them great: They managed to combine punk and feminist impulses, and gave us a homey, lovely sound.

15. The Beach Boys What makes them great: The musical genius of Brain Wilson, as demonstrated in the LP Pet Sounds and the song "Good Vibrations."

16. Sonic Youth What makes them great: Sonic Youth represents the triumph of the Lower East Side's early 1980s post-punk "no wave" scene, but whereas most of the bands associated with this scene were producing their music almost as an art project - not necessarily meant to last for very long, SY actually dedicated themselves to their band as a career, and produced an extensive body of work, merging guitar noise and conventional song structures.

17. Guided By Voices What makes them great: They've got bulldog skin and they knew how to make lo-fi rock as hard as a metal band.

18. The Television Personalities What makes them great: Someone had to be the cheekily ironic commentators on the punk revolution. Why not them?

19. Hot Tuna What makes them great: They are the anti-Starship, a Jefferson Airplane spinoff band actually better than the band from which they emerged, and thus a continuation of the ideals of the 1960s and of roots rock. And having seen them live, I can easily vouch for their musicianship.

-also, some bonus points here for the fragile, lovely music of Jefferson Airplane alumni, Skip Spence.

20. Stereolab What makes them great: Marry 50s lounge music to 90s synth-pop, and do so perfectly. Listening to their music always puts me in a better mood.

21. The Buzzcocks What makes them great: they were, as the Spin Alternative Record Guide puts it, a "pop band born in punk heaven."

22. TheClean What makes them great: Their total commitment to lo-fi musical greatness and their pioneering status as New Zealand's first great indie rock band - a further instantiation of Beat Happening's notion of an "international pop underground."

23. The Ex What makes them great: Their idealism and their experimental approach to music.

24. Pink Floyd What makes them great: starting with Syd Barrett, one of the great conceptually oriented rock bands, with a great interest in alienation and dystopia.

25. The Minutemen What makes them great: Their energy, their commitment to truth and to ideas, and the fact that they could really play, in a style like no other band of their era.

It was 40 years ago today....

...according to my copy of The Billboard Book of Number One Hits, that two really great pop tunes were in the top five.

For the week of April 15, 1967, the number 2 song in the country was the Turtles' Happy Together, a song written by Gary Bonner and Allen Gordon (these guys also wrote She'd Rather be With Me.)

And the number 5 song was the Monkees' A Little Bit Me, a Little Bit You, a song written by Neil Diamond. (I've yet to hear the Ventures' version, at least in its entirety.)

Both songs - I love them both - bring me back to more innocent days.