Sticking up for the Boss

If you’re a cultural critic who writes for a major magazine, it helps to be cranky.  After all, the critic is a moralist who must ceaselessly war against cliché and vulgarity in order to to bring light to the darkness and to impart wisdom and understanding from works of literature and art. It's been that way since Plato.  One cannot hope to fight these battles without some measure of belligerence and peevishness.  Leon Wieseltier, the literary editor of The New Republic, possesses crankiness by the boatload.  And in his recent piece excoriating Bruce Springsteen and his witless fans, he practically chokes on it.

Sure, Springsteen worship is excessive and suspect.  Wieseltier isn’t wrong about that.  But he is so put off by the hagiography he sees all around him that he swings wildly in the opposite direction and misses badly.  His first target is David Remnick, whose 75,000 word profile in The New Yorker, is dismissed as fandom that “could have been written by the record company.”  I wonder what he was reading.  What makes Remnick’s article such an excellent piece of journalism is that he both investigates and offers new insights (Wieseltier does neither).  Remnick’s article provides a  surprisingly fresh perspective  for the kind of reader who picks up the magazine thinking they already know all there is to know about their subject.  For instance, Remnick has Steve Van Zandt recalling how scary Springsteen’s  Dad was.  Remnick shares the resentments and regrets of former drummer, now golf caddy, Vini Lopez who was fired just before the band made it big.   He takes us deeper into the relationship between Springsteen and his manager (and art collector), Jon Landau.  And he asks Patti Scialfa, the wife, holder of the unique position of part-time band member and full-time mother, about the conflict between isolation and human connection, the tension that informs so many of Springsteen’s best songs.

But this “derecho of detail” is uninteresting to Wieseltier.  For him, it is Springsteen’s inauthentic “Everyman”  that is so grating.   As if the measure of Springsteen’s artistry is his capacity for delivering a populist political message.   (One can almost imagine a bearded Wieseltier  backstage at the Newport Folk Festival in 1965, trying to shut down the power on Bob Dylan’s amplifiers  to preserve the purity of the protest tradition by protecting the masses from the vulgarities of the rock star.)  Wieseltier is hardly the first to criticize Springsteen’s “cornball sincerity” or insufficient radicalism. These criticisms are the very ones detailed in Remnick’s piece.  Springsteen is not a revolutionary in either his politics or his art.  He is not threatening.  Remnick quotes Tom Carson, who observed in 1985 that for Springsteen, “rock and roll was basically wholesome.  It was an alternative, an escape—but not a rebellion, either as a route to forbidden sexual or social fruit, or, by extension, as a rejection of conventional society. To him, rock redeemed conventional society.”
   

Springsteen is in many respects an artist who plays it safe.  But “Johnny 99” is as radical a song as you’ll ever hear played in an arena.  And there’s little that’s safe or sexless in “Highway 29,” “Reno” or the libido-driven “You’ve Got it” from his most recent album, Wrecking Ball.  But it’s not the safeness of Bruce Springsteen that so offends Wieseltier.   It’s his popularity.  It clearly galls him that conservatives like Chris Christie and David Brooks dance in the aisles at Springsteen’s big tent carnival-atmosphere concerts.

     

But that’s Springsteen the showman, the shaman, the cultural icon.  What about the music?  Here too, Wieseltier misses the mark.  He clearly prefers the older Springsteen catalog (his “once-magnificent music”) to the more recent material, but so what?  So do nearly all of his fans.   Wieseltier takes aim at the social consciousness expressed in Springsteen’s recent work and complains that the workers are stock characters lifted from Steinbeck and Guthrie and that the songs lack the “authenticity of acquaintance.”   But it is not “acquaintance” that makes for good songwriting.  It is empathy.   Does Wieseltier really suppose that because Springsteen is a multi-millionaire, he’s never known a factory worker?  That he’s forgotten his own father?  His hometown?  The experiences we have in childhood provide more than enough material to write for a lifetime.

Wieseltier targets Springsteen’s clumsier lyrics.  Fair enough.  But then he gets nutty:

"His anger that 'the banker man grows fat' is too holy: 'if I had a gun, I’d find the bastards and shoot ‘em on sight' is not a 'liberal insistence.' I prefer Dodd-Frank." 

From songwriters?  Dodd-Frank?  Woody Guthrie didn’t sing about the Farm Relief Bill and Johnny Cash didn’t sing about Medicaid.  We should be glad they didn’t.  Springsteen’s “Matamoras Banks” is beautiful and haunting song because it’s not about immigration reform.  It’s a singular story about a single immigrant.  Springsteen may not fit the classic model of a protest singer, but “Death to My Hometown,” his Celtic rebel-rouser is as powerful an expression of what ails us as anything you’ll hear from Occupy Wall Street.

  

But forget it.  Wieseltier  is rolling now:

"The joy is programmatic; it is mere uplift, another expression of social responsibility, a further statement of an idealism that borders on illusion. The rising? Not quite yet. We take care of our own? No, we do not."

Right.  We do not. But that’s precisely the point.  If Wieseltier can’t discern that, then he’s misreading Springsteen as badly as George Will and Ronald Reagan ever did.

   

Full disclosure here.  I’m a Springsteen fan. Not a worshiper.  Not an acolyte.  A fan. To be sure, being a fan means that I’m not objective.  But this is music. When it comes to music, of what use is objectivity?  Still, any fair-minded observer (or listener) ought to see what Wieseltier does not.  Springsteen has not decided to become a “Spokesman for America." He’s a songwriter who has been writing about the same subject for the past 35 years:  The margins between the American Dream and the reality he sees around him.  Sure, some songs work better than others.  But what the fans understand is that it’s the journey that makes it all worthwhile.  Don’t need no baggage.  Just get on board.

    

The real source of Wieseltier’s crankiness is probably revealed in his final paragraph:

“It is one of the duties of rock n roll to create nostalgia. There is a bliss that only the sounds of one’s youth can provide. (For me, it’s been downhill since Dion.)”

Downhill since Dion?  So there it is.  No wonder then that for him, rock and roll can deliver only illusion.

Before he became Springsteen’s manager, Jon Landau was himself a music critic armed with the usual tools of wit and sanctimony.  In May of 1974, he saw a concert at Harvard Square Theater in Cambridge and penned a review that is now the stuff of legends:

“I saw rock and roll's future and its name is Bruce Springsteen.   On a night when I needed to feel young, he made me feel like I was hearing music for the very first time"

Now this one WAS used by the record company.  But the experience of feeling like you are hearing music for the very first time is precisely what the greatest music does.  It rejuvenates you in way that the mere nostalgia cannot.  It’s what all great art does.  One gets the sense that Wieseltier has never had this kind of experience.  It makes me feel bad for him.

Or maybe it's just the Kool-Aid talking. 

______________________________

On the Road with Aaron Burr

The Heartbreak of Aaron Burr by H.W. Brands is not a classic work of history or a definitive biography but it does more to humanize America’s most notorious founding father than any book I’ve read.  (save perhaps for fiction)   It’s a slender volume, 173 pages in paperback, based primarily on the surviving letters between Aaron Burr and his daughter, Theodosia.   Burr’s relationship with his daughter is at the center of the story.  And while Burr is remembered by history for audacious things – the killing of Alexander Hamilton in a duel, his naked political ambition, his bold schemes to annex Western territory – it is Burr, the loving father who emerges in this book.  By focusing on Burr’s private correspondence rather than his public notoriety, we see Burr in a surprisingly sympathetic light.   Brands’ narrative focuses on Burr’s many disappointments, the defeat of his political aspirations, the loss of his fortune, but most poignantly, the loss of his family culminating in his daughter’s disappearance at sea.   But there’s also a sense of excitement in these pages.  Brands reminds us of how unique and remarkably thrilling Burr’s life was.

    

Among the founding fathers, Burr is regarded as a dark angel.  But he has a resume unlike any other:  He was the grandson of colonial America’s most famous pastor (Jonathan Edwards), a patriot and hero in the Revolutionary War, New York’s first Attorney General, a Senator to Congress, a leading attorney in New York City, Thomas Jefferson’s Vice President, a duelist who killed his political rival (Hamilton), a leading advocate for education and women’s rights, and an adventurer who was charged with treason for a plan to annex Spanish territory and establish an independent nation.   And we’ve only scratched the surface.   But in reading Brand’s account, one is struck by yet another side of Aaron Burr:  Burr the traveler. Aaron Burr might have been the most widely traveled American in the early years of the republic. 

As a soldier in the Continental Army, Burr serves throughout the Northern colonies and takes part in an expedition through the Maine wilderness in a failed attack on Quebec.  In the 1790s, he makes his residence at Richmond Hill (roughly three blocks north of the Holland Tunnel entrance in Manhattan) and over the next decade, politics and law take him from Albany to Washington DC.  But it is not until his middle age years that the adventure truly begins.  After killing Hamilton in 1804, Burr has to flee.   Dueling is illegal in New York and New Jersey and Burr has many political enemies who wish to see that law enforced.  He wants to visit his daughter in South Carolina but he’s a political pariah and doesn’t wish to expose her.  He journeys further south to Saint Simons Island where he stays at the plantation of Senator Pierce Butler.   Eventually, he returns to Washington where he resumes his duties as Vice President and presides over the Senate.
 

But soon his term will be up and he will flee again.  This time from creditors.   He goes where Americans go when they want to escape their past.  He goes west, from Philadelphia to Pittsburgh and then a houseboat down the Ohio River. He sees frontier towns – Wheeling, West Virginia, Marietta, Ohio and Louisville, Kentucky.  He visits Andrew Jackson in Tennessee before continuing down the Mississippi River to Natchez and New Orleans, the great port of the newly acquired Louisiana Territory.  President Jefferson has sent Lewis and Clark to explore this territory and the land further west but they haven’t been heard from in over year. Meanwhile Burr seems to be everywhere.  He meets Henry Clay in Kentucky and General James Wilkinson in St. Louis. He sizes up the land and the people of these western territories and he dreams of great things.

In 1806, Burr is reunited with his daughter and again goes west to the Ohio River.   A plan is hatched to gather an expeditionary force and seize Spanish territory in the south and west.  As far as President Thomas Jefferson is concerned, this is treasonous.  Federal agents chase Burr and apprehend him in Pensacola.  He is brought to Richmond, Virginia and tried for treason.  But whatever it was that Burr was planning, there was no evidence that he was levying war against the United States or aiding their enemies.   Burr is acquitted.  But his prospects in New York are limited and his creditors are growing in number.  He again takes refuge in flight.

 

This time, he sails for London where he visits with the famous writer and philosopher, Jeremy Bentham.  From across the sea, he still dreams up plans for Spanish Florida, the territory between St. Augustine and Baton Rouge. He longs to see his daughter, Theodosia.  But it’s a tough time for an American to be in England.  The two nations are on the verge of war.  Burr travels to Scotland and then to Sweden, where he marvels at the beauty of the women of Stockholm.  He travels to Germany and meets the famous poet, Johann Goethe (an episode curiously omitted from Banks’ book).  In 1810, he travels to Paris. But the journey is no longer a grand tour of romance and adventure.  Burr is now a man of modest means and the Paris of Napoleon is not friendly to him.  He wants to return to the United States, but is unable to secure a passport.  He is cold and must sell books in order to eat.   Eventually, he is able to sail but only back to England.  He finally lands in Boston and then sails under a fake name to New York City.

Like Odysseus, the wily Burr finally returns home. There, he learns that his only grandson has died of illness.  And the reunion with his daughter never comes to pass.  From South Carolina, Theodosia boards a schooner bound for New York but the ship never arrives.  There was a bad storm off of Cape Hatteras which may have been responsible.  There are also suspicions of piracy.  No trace of the ship is found.  Burr lives long enough to see his western schemes realized by Andrew Jackson and Sam Houston.  But they are remembered as heroes.  Burr will forever be a villain.  Burr’s life has all the makings of Greek tragedy.  But it also contains something else, a quintessentially American experience.  A great road story. 


_______________________________________________________  

London Calling

Forget the Olympics.  For sporting drama, last weekend in London was unmatchable.  On Saturday, the Chelsea Football Club defied the odds and became the first soccer team from London to win the European Championship, beating Bayern Munich.   It was a victory as dramatic as it was improbable.   Improbable because:

• Chelsea looked terrible this year.   In the English Premier League they finished in 6^th place, their worst finish in 11 years.
• Their road to the European championship was daunting.  In the round of 16, they lost a first leg match to Napoli 3-1.  They not only reversed that result, they went on to beat Benfica and mighty Barcelona to reach the final.
• They fired their manager just two months ago.
• The final against Bayern Munich came down to penalty kicks.  And as everyone knows, when it comes to penalty kicks, the Germans are terrific and Chelsea is terrible.

Chelsea has come close before.  When Russian business tycoon Roman Abramovich bought the club in 2003 and spent gobs of cash on top players, Chelsea’s status as a perennial contender was assured.  Football traditionalists sneered at the nouveau riche from West London but you couldn’t argue with the results – 3 Premier League titles, 4 FA Cups and 2 League Cups.  But the greatest prize, the UEFA European Championship, eluded their ambition.  They came excruciatingly close in 2008 when they reached the finals and lost to Manchester United in a penalty shootout.  The following year, they lost in heartbreaking fashion to Barcelona in the semi-finals.   Chelsea’s nucleus of core players – Didier Drogba, Frank Lampard, John Terry and Peter Cech – were aging and this year it looked as if the window was finally closed.  And then, magically, thanks largely to Drogba’s heroics, it wasn’t.

Not only was Chelsea outplayed for nearly the whole game, but their opponents, Bayern Munich, enjoyed home field advantage.  The site was selected over a year ago – it was played in Munich’s Allianz Arena before 62,000 fans.  And even though the Champion’s League final is the biggest event in international sports, there was another soccer match played in London earlier in the day,  a match with even greater stakes played before 90,000 fans at Wembley.  The English Championship playoff final saw another London club, West Ham defeat Blackpool 2-1, earning promotion to England’s Premiership, the world’s leading domestic football league.

For uninitiated American soccer fans, there are two puzzling features of the European game.   The first is the way teams play in multiple tournaments at the same time during the same season.   Imagine if the NCAA basketball tournament wasn’t played in March.  Instead, teams merely qualify in March for the next season. Then, the following winter, tournament games are played on weekdays while ordinary conference games in the Big East and SEC  are played on weekends. That’s why a team like Chelsea can win the European championship while finishing in 6^th place in the domestic league.  Additionally, there are various cup tournaments, such as the FA Cup which was also won by Chelsea in this magically bizarre season.

The other curious aspect of the European game is the system of relegation and promotion.  The three teams that finish at the bottom of the standings don’t merely suffer the insult and indignity of losing - they get kicked out of the league and are forced to play in a lower league the following season.   Their places in the league are taken by the top 3 teams in the lower division.  Imagine the worst major league baseball teams being demoted to the minor leagues and replaced by the top Triple A squads.  It’s ruthless, cruel and very exciting.  Below the Premiership is England’s Championship Division.  (It would be like baseball's Triple A if the teams were independent, rather than farm teams).  The top two teams from that division, Reading and Southampton already qualified for promotion.  On Saturday, Blackpool battled West Ham in a playoff for that third promotion spot.  The financial stakes for the club and the emotional stakes for the fans are enormous.    By virtue of winning the match, West Ham will receive over $ 70 million dollars in added revenue, attract new talent and play some of the best teams in the world.  Blackpool will languish another season in the limbo of the minor leagues. There’s jubilation in East London and agony on the Blackpool seaside.


If it was the best of times for Chelsea and West Ham, it was the worst of times for another London club, Tottenham.  Ordinarily, if a team finishes in 1^st, 2^nd, 3^rd or 4^th in the English Premier League, they qualify for the biggest of tournaments, the UEFA Champion’s League, which crowns a European champion.   Playing in Europe means revenue and glory for the club and excitement for the fans.  It means you’ve reached the big time.  Tottenham finished fourth.  They should be playing in Europe next year.  But here’s the rub.   Even though Chelsea finished in 6^th, because they won the Champion’s League, they automatically qualify for the Champion’s League.   They take Tottenham’s spot. Tough luck Spurs.


For Tottenham’s north London rivals, Arsenal, the weekend was a mixed bag. The Gunners finished in 3^rd and can breathe easy because they will be playing in Europe next year while their arch-rivals won't.  But another rival, Chelsea, now has the ultimate prize, a shiny trophy that painfully eludes Arsenal.   Jealously and resentment make for rivalry.  And rivalry is what it’s all about.


There are 20 clubs in England’s Premier League.   Next season, six of them will be from London.  In addition to Chelsea, Arsenal, Tottenham and West Ham, there are Fulham and Queens Park Rangers, clubs with more modest ambitions.   But every year, there is something to fight for.  Sometimes it’s a trophy.  Sometimes it’s survival in the league.


It should be an interesting August.  Enjoy the Summer Olympics in London.  After that, the real fun begins.


________________________________________________________

Occupational Therapy

"They don't hate capitalism, they hate what's been done to it” - Bill Maher 

“Death to Capitalism”  -    Banner displayed at Occupy Wall Street Protests

"It's always best on these occasions to do what the mob do'

'But suppose there are two mobs?' suggested Mr. Snodgrass.

'Shout with the largest.' replied Mr. Pickwick"              

                                                                                                    -  Charles Dickens  

Liberals still don’t know what to make of OccupyWall Street.

  

Maybe that’s the point.  I sometimes think that the amorphous quality of the Occupy Wall Street movement is precisely the source of its appeal.  Got a grievance about the status quo?  Grab a banner and come on down.  Whatever it is that’s pissing you off about the powers that be - injustice, unemployment, wealth disparity - Occupy Wall Street has something to offer.

  

What enthusiasts describe as a “broad coalition,” others would call an incoherent mess.  Occupy Wall Street isn’t a big tent as much as it is an untidy confederation of sleeping bags.   They insist that their goals are clear and just.  But ask any two Occupiers what their goals are and you won’t get the same response – unless it’s an answer that is so general (“A fair society!”) as to be practically meaningless.  What's the practical result that you seek?  World revolution?  Banking reform?  Political reform?  Tax reform?  Job creation? A general condemnation of corporate greed?  Support for organized labor?  Criticism of U.S. foreign policy?   All of the above?  

Any fair minded person can find something they agree with in the cacophony of populist outrage.  But there’s much about Occupy Wall Street that seems useless, if not troubling and counterproductive. The most positive thing I can say about Occupy Wall Street is this:  It’s better than apathy.  When citizens come together to express outrage over a broken system, they are serving an essential function of democracy.   But is Occupy Wall Street bringing us closer to fixing any particular problem ailing us? The movement’s more measured defenders remind us that real change takes a long time to materialize. This is just the beginning of a conversation.  Conversation?  If I seem skeptical, it might be because of the experience I had when I stumbled upon an Occupy rally in downtown Boston last October.  The masked protesters blocking traffic, surrounding our car and marching with their “Death to Capitalism” banner didn't seem much interested in conversation. 

Now I realize that it’s unfair to judge a demonstration by the most outrageous demonstrators or the most extreme slogans. That’s a game that the media and political spin doctors play all the time. They show us the photograph of the idiot displaying hateful slogans scrawled in bad grammar to create the impression that the knucklehead is actually representative of the movement.  It works for the left as well as the right.

In the interest of offering a more balanced take on the views of the Occupiers, I reviewed a collection of photos posted on Facebook.  Here’s a random sampling of banners from last week’s May Day event:

•  “Healthcare is a Human Right”
•  “Stop the Greed”
• “Free Alkawaja – Support Democracy in Bahrain”
•   “Stop Raising Interest Rates for College Loans”
•    “Dear 1%, its Over.  We’d Like Our Stuff Back.”
• “The USA & CIA are the #1 Terrorists in the World”
•  “Long Live Communism”
• “Restore Glass Steagell”
• “NYU, the Debtors College”
• “Somos el nu se 99%”
• “Fuck Your Unpaid Internships”
• “Imagine World Peace”
• “Monsanto Herbicide Gets Sprayed on Your Food”
• “Why Work?  Make History! Celebrate May Day.  Join Workers, Immigrants and the 99% at Union Square."

My favorite sign was one held by an elderly woman: “If you are not protesting today, ask yourself why?” Why, indeed?  

There are many possible answers:  Because of my own day job.  Because the stated goal of the event, “to block the flow of capital,” doesn’t seem productive to me.  Because I don’t feel comfortable marching alongside masked demonstrators who would be just at home at a Hamas rally.    Because the “us versus them” mentality driving this protest strikes me as divisive and simplistic.  Because I don’t agree with much of what is being expressed.  And because the sentiments that I DO agree with are little more than that – sentiments, rather than solutions.  An exception is “Restore Glass-Steagell.”  Now THAT is some sensible legislation that I can get behind.  But protests aren’t about sensible legislation.  They are about emotion and attention and demagoguery.  ( Paul Berman writes that "it is not the job of festivals to be articulate...it is the job of magazines to be articulate.") 

Occupy Wall Street also appeals to those baby boomers who are nostalgic for the protests of the 1960s.   I missed out on all of that. (I was two years old when the Kent State shootings occurred).   But I can’t help but wonder if younger Occupiers are trying to recreate the sense of purpose and social consciousness that they imagine the 1960s were about. They want to take part in a historical moment and are fueled by the intoxicating belief that their own generation's activism can make a real difference.  If you can get past the herd mentality thing, there’s something romantic, almost noble in the sentiment. There is the promise of community within the carnival.

But the 60s were quite different.  For all of the turbulence and counterculture, the essence of the political protest could be distilled to two concrete goals:  1) End the war in Vietnam, and 2) Promote equality by means of Civil Rights legislation.  The primary targets of Occupy Wall Street, Corporate Greed and Income Inequality, are shapeless by comparison. To be sure, the protests of the 1960s were not only about politics.  There was sex, drugs and music and the blossoming of a youth culture that would not be restrained. The rallies and gatherings themselves served a different purpose.  There was no Facebook or social media then – the rallies WERE the social media.  Quite simply, these are different times. 

It is possible to think of Occupy Wall Street as the left’s version of the Tea Party.  Both movements are driven by populist outrage, grassroots organization and us-versus-them rhetoric.   The Tea Partiers emphasize “liberty” and take aim at government and "special interests".  The Occupiers emphasize “justice” and take aim at corporate influence in government.  But they are largely warring against the same system although they come at it from a different place in our culture and with a different social agenda.  Some see Occupy Wall Street as part of a larger global movement but it’s far from clear how much traction or influence it will have on U.S. politics. The Tea Party on the other hand has already influenced the outcome of dozens of congressional elections and there is an official Tea party congressional caucus chaired by Michele Bachmann.  There are 66 republicans in Congress who are members.  There is nothing like that for Occupy Wall Street.

The comparative lack of coherence and organization on the part of the Occupiers reminds me of a point made by Antony Beevor in his excellent history of the Spanish Civil War.   Beevor's Introduction explains that the war was not simply a battle between left and right – there were other axes of conflict:  state centralism against regional independence and authoritarianism against the freedom of the individual.

"The nationalist forces of the right were much more coherent because, with only minor exceptions, they combined three cohesive extremes.  They were right wing, centralist, and authoritarian at the same time.  The Republic, on the other hand, represented a cauldron of incompatibilities and mutual suspicions, with centralists and authoritarians, especially the communists, opposed by regionalists and libertarians."

   

I am not remotely suggesting that a civil war is brewing.  But a “cauldron of incompatibilities” similar to the one that doomed the republic's forces in Spain also threatens to undermine Occupy Wall Street.  Does the movement seek to fix capitalism or tear it down?  At its heart, is it an expression of liberalism or radicalism?  If the movement really does have staying power, time will tell. 

As legitimate as the grievances are, Occupy Wall Street does not speak for most Americans.  Neither does the Tea Party.  But it’s usually the loudest and most radical elements that get the most attention (and raise most of the money). Political moderates hope to steer such movements to the center where consensus can be reached and practical solutions may be realized.  But radicalism has a mind of its own.  In Europe, for example, the influence of extremist political groups is on the rise.

 

I’m reminded of the banner which was displayed in 2010 at Jon Stewart’s semi-satirical Rally to Restore Sanity:

            What  Do We Want?

            Evidence-Based Change!

            When Do We Want It?

            After Peer Review!

Now THAT’s the stuff that gets the blood pumping.  

_______________________________________________

Nuclear Option

Andrew Sullivan is an insightful and eloquent political commentator.

An original thinker who doesn’t tow any party line, he is a self-described political conservative who adores Ronald Reagan but who endorsed Barack Obama in the 2008 Presidential election. An early supporter of the Iraq war, he lost faith in the Bush administration and has called the war a mistake. As an advocate of small government, he supported Ron Paul but he was not shy about criticizing the candidate for his irresponsible handling of racist newsletters. Sullivan is not afraid to change his mind, to wring his hands and to write from the heart. This is part of his appeal. Although his views can surprise and frustrate the reader, he doesn’t back down or squirm away - he defends his positions and shifting opinions thoughtfully.

Most of the time.

Earlier this month, Sullivan’s blog, The Dish, offered an entry under the  heading, “Why Ron Paul Is Right and Obama Is Wrong About Iran.”  OK, I’m interested.

According to Sullivan, Obama’s stance – that the U.S. must not allow Iran to develop or acquire nuclear arms – is foolish. Foolish because Iran will eventually have this capacity regardless of our demands. Sullivan says that Ron Paul, alone among the candidates, understands that Iran sees international sanctions against it as an act of war and that our own policies are only motivating Iran to try harder to obtain weapons. Sullivan also argues that 50 years ago the U.S. didn’t want China to get nukes either but things didn’t work out so badly. I’m not persuaded by this line of argument (Is theocratic Iran really like China?) but it’s standard fare. One side says that an Iran with nukes would be catastrophic. The other side says “oh, come on, How bad would it really be?”

But then Sullivan gets interesting:

"Obama also argues that he opposes Iran's nukes because of proliferation in the region. At which point one must loudly cough "Ahem." Only one country in the region has illegally, in defiance of internatinal [sic] law and the NPT and US policy, has nuclear weapons and it's Israel, not any Arab state."

This is hogwash. Yes, everyone understands that Israel has nuclear weapons. It’s probably the worst kept secret in the history of geopolitics. But possessing such weapons violates no law. Israel is not a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and cannot be in violation of its terms. It’s certainly the case that most nations in the world want Israel to sign the NPT, which would subject Israel to international IAEA oversight and commit them to eventual disarmament. But as a sovereign nation they don’t have to sign the treaty.

But here is what a nation cannot do: 1) sign the treaty, 2) receive the benefits the treaty provides – exchange of technology, assistance and aid in developing nuclear energy etc. - and then, 3) violate, with impunity, the terms of the treaty and their agreed upon obligations to the IAEA, European Union and United Nations. That is precisely what Iran has done.

What are the United States and the International community to do about that?  What are we to make of Iran's history of proliferating the weaponry it already possesses to the likes of Hezbollah? These are fair topics for argument. But the familiar trope “If Israel has nuclear weapons, then why not Iran” attempts to draw a false equivalence. Sullivan ought to know better. It’s the sort of rhetoric that undermines an honest assessment of the vital issue – the consequences of allowing the Islamic Republic of Iran to enter the nuclear club and the costs of preventing it.
____________________________________________________________

Gingrich Country

 "South Carolina is too small for a republic and too large for an insane asylum"

- James Petigru, 19th century Congressman after South Carolina seceded in 1860

I didn't watch the full South Carolina debates - no man deserves that much entertainment. 

But there's that stunning clip of Rick Perry, the swaggering Texan, at the debate held on Martin Luther King day.   Here was the exchange:

Moderator:   Are you suggesting on this Martin Luther King Jr. Day that the federal government has no business scrutinizing the voting laws of states where minorities were once denied the right to vote?

Perry:  I'm saying that the state of Texas is under assault by the federal government.  I'm also saying that South Carolina is at war with this federal government and this administration...

The Myrtle Beach audience roared.  It may have been the the loudest applause of the night.  For Perry, it was his last big moment in the spotlight.  He would end his Presidential bid three days later and back Newt Gingrich. 

So did the Republic of South Carolina. 

25 Best Albums of 2011

I admit it.  I'm heavy on the retro-rock, alternative country and punk/power pop.  Here are my favorite albums of 2011:

25.  Drive by Truckers – Go-Go Boots

Another year - another solid Drive by Truckers album.

24.  Okkervil River – I Am Very Far

Literary rockers from Austin deliver a big sound.

23.  Middle Brother – Middle Brother

It might be a bit much to call an outfit consisting of members of Deer Tick, Delta Spirit and Dawes a "supergroup” but in the tradition of Monsters of Folk, these guys deliver like one.

22.  Sloan - The Double Cross

One of the truly underrated bands out there, Sloan has been making great  pop-rock records for 20 years.  This year's Double Cross is among their best.

21.  The War on Drugs - Slave Ambient

Nice album with an atmospheric, spacey classic rock feel.

20.  Tedeschi Trucks Band – Revelator

As one would expect, soulful singing and kick-ass slide guitar define this rootsy offering.

19.  Smith Westerns – Dye it Blonde

The kids in this Chicago band average age 20 – but their version of glam rock and power pop would have made T-Rex proud.

18.  Dave Alvin – Eleven, Eleven

The rocker from the Blasters and X is still going strong. Judging from this fine album, very strong.

17.  Beirut – The Rip Tide

Lush and full of diverse world influence, Beirut’s best and most accessible album to date.

16.  Gillian Welch – The Harrow & the Harvest

Welch’s spare and hauntingly beautiful album is aptly titled. It’s No Depression’s album of the year.

15.  The Mountain Goats – All Eternals Deck

John Darnielle’s quirkiness and nasal delivery aren’t for everyone but there’s something beautiful and captivating about this album.

14. Dawes – Nothing is Wrong

In capturing their laid-back Los Angeles sound, Dawes has left nothing to chance – bringing in the likes of Jackson Browne and Benmont Tench.  It works. 

13.  Deer Tick – Divine Providence

Raw and surprisingly fun - Deer Tick’s John McCauley does his best to channel Paul Westerberg.

12.  Foo Fighters - Wasting Light

Dave Grohl’s best album in years.

11.  Frank Turner – England Keep My Bones

English folk singer with a punk heart, Turner wears everything on his sleeve as he delivers one convincing anthem after another.

10. Over the Rhine – The Long Surrender

The husband and wife team Linford Detweiler and Karin Bergquist have made a beautiful timeless-sounding album.

9. Decemberists – The King is Dead

Their loyal fanbase might prefer their earlier, more eclectic albums. I prefer this one – a solid, accesible roots rock sound with a touch of early REM.

8. Ryan Adams- Ashes & Fire

Writing great songs is like breathing for Ryan Adams. He makes it seem so easy.

7. Wild Flag - Wild Flag

An indie supergroup consisting of members of Sleater-Kinney and Helium, the garage rock energy of this album packs a punch.

6.  The Pains of Being Pure at Heart – Belong

A great guitar sound reminiscent of The Jesus and Mary Chain and the Smashing Pumpkins.

5.  My Morning Jacket – Circuital

The musical range of this band is so impressive – their style and influences range from Otis Redding to Radiohead. It's all really good.

4.  Portugal. the Man – In the Mountain in the Cloud

Terrible name, terrific band. A wonderfully listenable blend of glam rock and pyscyhedelia.

3.  Girls – Father, Son Holy Ghost

Impressive follow-up by the SF band. Lots of lush and infectiously catchy songs here.

2.  Ry Cooder – Pull up Some Dust and Sit Down

The political and social commentary is wittier and far more eloquent than anything you’ll hear from "Occupy Wall Street". But what really makes Cooder’s latest album work isn't the politics - it's the music.

1.  Wilco – The Whole Love

The best American band of the last 10 years - their latest album is among their very best.

Happy 2012!

____________________________________________