Click on title to link to "YouTube's film clip of the trailer for "Last Man Standing".
CD REVIEW
Last Man Standing, Jerry Lee Lewis and other artists, Shangri-la Records, 2006
The last time we heard the name Jerry Lee Lewis in this space (see above) was in connection with a rave review of his star-studded concert in New York City in 2006 also entitled “The Last Man Standing”. I was not aware at the time I wrote that review that there was a CD connected with the DVD. This CD also gets a rave review from these quarters. The last paragraph details some of the highlights of this CD. However, I can tell you right now to save your old eyes- get this thing. It is not the fire-balling of Jerry Lee's youth but virtually from start to finish it is some very nice work. If you need to go back to the Fifties and hear his original work there are plenty of his greatest compilations elsewhere. Here are a couple of words on this one.
Apparently in putting together this album every musical artist who has ever been anything, every wanted to be anything or who will be in the various musical Halls of Fame signed on to play with “The Killer”. Let’s make this clear though- Jerry Lee is in charge here- the other artists are basking off his reflected glory. Ya, he is an old man and he has lost a step, and maybe he has not learned all of life’s lessons but he still rocks &rolls, does rockabilly and country rock’s with the best of them.
Highlights here concerning some of life’s lessons that old Jerry Lee has learned, as reflected in some of the lyrics, are his duo with Willie Nelson on “Couple More Years”, his duo with Keith Richards on “That Kind of Fool” (a take-off on his old classic- “Who Will The Next Fool Be”) and his duo with Eric Clapton on “Trouble In Mind”. To show that he can still rock- listen to the duo with Kid Rock (yes, that Kid Rock of rapper fame) on “Honky Tonk Woman”. If you need to hear rockabilly and boogie-woogie then the classic “Hadacol Boogie” with Buddy Guy will keep you moving. Enough said, except the production values on this CD are very good, as well.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Friday, August 01, 2008
*From The Spartacist Archives- The 1948 Henry Wallace Progressive Party Campaign
Click on the headline to link to link to a "Wikipedia" entry for the 1948 Henry Wallace-led Progressive Party campaign as background for the article below.
Workers Vanguard No. 918
1 August 2008
From the Archives of Spartacist
On Bourgeois “Third Parties” and the 1948 Henry Wallace Campaign
The following article, originally titled “Henry Wallace and Gideon’s Army,” is reprinted from Spartacist No. 7 (September-October 1966). The article is about Wallace’s 1948 Progressive Party presidential campaign. In the current election year, the “third party” capitalist Greens have nominated former Georgia Democratic Party Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney as their presidential candidate. The parallels between Wallace and McKinney are striking: the candidates’ rousing talk of “peace,” “justice” and a better deal for the little people is meant to corral dissatisfaction with the two main bourgeois parties into yet another capitalist electoral vehicle. Our forebears in the then-revolutionary Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in 1948 gave no political support to Wallace. Today, in contrast to reformist groups like Workers World Party, which has endorsed McKinney, we give no political support to the Green/McKinney “Power to the People” campaign. It represents no break with bourgeois politics.
Nor, as Marxists, would we run for executive office—such as mayor, governor or president—ourselves, although Marxists have and can run for parliamentary office as a tactic to propagate our revolutionary program and as part of the struggle to imbue the working class with the understanding that the capitalist order, including its parliamentary facade, must be overthrown through socialist revolution. As Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels taught long ago, the capitalist government is the executive committee that manages the common affairs of the capitalist class as a whole. In the U.S., the president is the chief executive responsible for the most massive military power in history and for the domestic machinery of repression that maintains social oppression and exploitation. To run for executive office means to aspire to be the next Commander-in-Chief who decides who gets tortured, who gets bombed, who gets invaded (see Spartacist [English-language edition] No. 60, Autumn 2007).
As we pointed out in Spartacist No. 7’s front-page article, “1966 Elections,” to which the Wallace piece was a companion, “In sum, independent campaigns must not only break with the Democratic Party, but must break with the system of bourgeois rule, and aim toward arousing the working class from its present passive allegiance to that system.” The 1966 midterm elections, two years after Democrat Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 landslide victory against Barry (“In your guts, you know he’s nuts”) Goldwater, saw growing opposition to the Vietnam War and recognition that the Democratic Party was, as we wrote, “the favored tool of those forces which are committed to maintaining American capitalist hegemony throughout the world.” In sorting out the various forces running “independent” candidacies, we relied on the working-class Marxist analysis developed in part by James P. Cannon, the founding leader of American Trotskyism, and the SWP.
* * *
In late 1947, Henry A. Wallace announced his intention to run for the presidency of the U.S. as an anti-war, pro-labor candidate. Wallace had been secretary of agriculture, vice president and secretary of commerce, all under Franklin D. Roosevelt, capitalism’s phony champion of the working man. But for the 1948 campaign Wallace ran at the head of the new Progressive Party, a third party challenge to the two established capitalist “front groups.”
During 1946 and early 1947, old-line New Dealers and some Democratic politicians; CIO President Philip Murray, left-dominated unions in the CIO and organizations based on the CIO; and the Communist Party [CP] had all shown an interest in such a third party. However by December 1947, the first two groupings, partially under the pressures of a growing red scare, had almost all retreated to the Democratic Party. Only the CP and groupings closely allied to it gave any substantial support after the end of 1947. The nature of that support can be seen by the continuing withdrawals throughout the campaign by Stalinist-led unions confronted by CIO pressure, and by the composition of the Progressive Citizens of America, a largely petty-bourgeois CP front group, a good section of which later formed the Americans for Democratic Action. Wallace, with his announcement, initiated not a wide-based movement but a petty-bourgeois “Gideon’s Army,” captained by Stalinists.
The Messiah Movement
The nature of the third party campaign waged by Wallace is accurately indicated in that term. Wallace himself relished the designation and seemed eager to portray himself as a latter-day Gideon. His appearances were accompanied by gospel singers, trumpets and a revivalist camp atmosphere. He campaigned on the basis of peace among nations, brotherhood among men and justice for all. Rather than use the first campaign of a new nation-wide party as a means for raising the consciousness of the working class, Wallace accepted the role of a messiah, come to save the American people.
Just before the election, Wallace proclaimed that the Progressive Party could count many victories: a third party had been put on the ballot in 45 states; moreover, his campaign had slowed the “cold war,” given pause to the assault on civil rights and eliminated the possibility of a witch hunt.
The rejoinders to Wallace’s claims are today obvious, but they need to be made because the type of victories which Wallace claimed are the same type that many peace and independent candidates seek today. Where is that third party today? What use, other than electoral, was made of the more than a million voters who supported Wallace? If the “cold war” has slowed, it has slowed only to be replaced by a series of U.S. maneuvered hot wars and CIA-run counter revolutions, most aided by the treacherous role of Stalinist parties. As for the last two claims, one need point only to the continuing police assaults on Harlem, Watts, Chicago, Cleveland and East New York and to the McCarthy period, followed by the HUAC period, followed by the Epton “trial.” [Epton, a leftist activist who at that time was in the Progressive Labor Party, was the first person in New York State since the 1919 “red scare” to be convicted of “criminal anarchy” for his courageous efforts to provide leadership and organization to the besieged black masses during the 1964 Harlem police riot. See “In Memory of Bill Epton,” WV No. 781, 17 May 2002.]
Role of the Guardian
The totally capitalist nature of Wallace’s third party can be seen by reading the early issues of the National Guardian and by comparing the specific items of Wallace’s platform to those in any Democratic Party platform.
The National Guardian began publication in October 1948, primarily as the propaganda organ for the Wallace campaign. Its very first issue (18 October 1948) proclaimed:
“This editorial point of view will be a continuation and development of the progressive tradition set in our time by Franklin D. Roosevelt…
“We conceive the progressive tradition to be represented today by Henry A. Wallace…
“We believe, with FDR and Henry Wallace, in expanding freedoms and living standards for all peoples as the essential foundation of a world at peace.
“We believe, with FDR and Henry Wallace, that peace can be secured only by seeking areas of agreement among nations, rather than seeking areas of disagreement.”
The high-blown rhetoric cannot conceal three basic fallacies in those few sentences: that FDR, capitalism’s front man par excellence, was in reality the advocate for the working man; that capitalism, which can do nothing to stem famine in India or prevent an approaching famine in Latin America, is able to improve the living standards of the whole world’s population; and that there is no significant difference between the capitalist U.S. and socialist Russia.
A campaign based on such fallacies can do nothing but dull the consciousness of the working class. Why should the labor movement back a minor party candidate who pleads, “Capitalism would be just fine if slightly reformed, so vote for me”? The Democratic Party asserts the same line and its candidates can be immediately elected. Such a campaign can have no outcome other than the strengthening of the Democratic Party’s hold over the working class.
When just that did happen in the ’48 election, the CP and others backing Wallace took credit for such a strengthening of the party which the bourgeoisie have increasingly realized is their protector. The Guardian exulted in its post-election issue (8 November 1948):
“The people of a whole world can look toward America today with renewed confidence. The American people have reaffirmed their progressive tradition. They have repelled the bold maneuvering of monopoly and reaction to take over America through Thomas E. Dewey and the Republican Party. They have handed Harry S. Truman an unmistakable mandate to return to the principles of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
“The mandate would not have been possible if the Progressive Party had not introduced the Roosevelt program into the 1948 campaign.”
Wallace’s Program
The laughable absurdity of such a statement is apparent as soon as one analyzes the class nature of the Roosevelt program which Wallace introduced. Its demands have already been fulfilled or have been repeated as truisms in the Great Society of another messiah.
Wallace’s program broke down into two general areas, isolated from each other: the achievement of international peace and the progressive reform of U.S. capitalism at home. According to Wallace, the U.S. could achieve worldwide peace by establishing faith in the UN, by negotiating with Soviet Russia, by recognizing new small countries such as Israel and by abolishing military conscription at home.
The domestic reforms required slightly more complex solutions. On the social side, Wallace advocated abolition of Jim Crow laws and the establishment of legal guarantees for civil rights; federal aid to housing, health and education; and governmental promotion of science and culture. On the economic front, he called for a council of economic planning to assure high production, full employment and a rising standard of living; public ownership of key areas of the economy in TVA type developments; repeal of the Taft-Hartley law and a one dollar an hour minimum wage; anti-trust action against monopolies; and rollback of prices covered out of exorbitant profits.
A Bourgeois Program
Capitalism has been able to fulfill most of these demands or hold out the promise of their fulfillment without seriously damaging its own position. Thus the program posed no questions which capitalism itself could not appear to solve. It did not serve to link up the economic pressures at home with the already mounting imperialism of the “cold war.” Thus Wallace’s general evaluations of Progressive Party successes were all proved incorrect because his platform, accepted gladly by Truman, dealt with specific ills in a capitalist society and not with the capitalist mode of production which produces those ills.
There was no ideological content to the Wallace campaign—only the slogans of a messiah-reformer—and the one million votes formed no base for the development of a third party opposed to capitalist control.
Labor Control Needed
James Cannon in a 1948 internal SWP discussion on the Wallace candidacy offered several criteria which can be used as measures today of these new third parties. He stated that Wallace’s policies showed only tactical differences in the camp of the bourgeoisie and that to support Wallace would mean an entrance into “lesser-evil” politics. He differentiated between the pseudo-radical party of a petty-bourgeois reformist like Wallace and the revolutionary labor party, which would proceed from the aim to assist the development of independent political action by workers and turn that action towards its revolutionary culmination. Finally he insisted that the class character of a party is determined not primarily by the class which supports it but by the class it supports, in its program, daily policy and practice.
The SWP Political Committee resolution on the Wallace candidacy developed on the basis of these criteria its minimum requirement for critical support to a third party: that the party be based on a significant section of labor and be subject to its control and pressure.
The incipient third parties could easily use these criteria in order to distinguish the class nature of their own demands, and therefore the possibility of those demands leading to a revolutionary culmination. More importantly, parties claiming to be Marxist need to establish such criteria as the basis for their own support to third party movements. (The SWP might well take note of its own past history.)
Workers Vanguard No. 918
1 August 2008
From the Archives of Spartacist
On Bourgeois “Third Parties” and the 1948 Henry Wallace Campaign
The following article, originally titled “Henry Wallace and Gideon’s Army,” is reprinted from Spartacist No. 7 (September-October 1966). The article is about Wallace’s 1948 Progressive Party presidential campaign. In the current election year, the “third party” capitalist Greens have nominated former Georgia Democratic Party Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney as their presidential candidate. The parallels between Wallace and McKinney are striking: the candidates’ rousing talk of “peace,” “justice” and a better deal for the little people is meant to corral dissatisfaction with the two main bourgeois parties into yet another capitalist electoral vehicle. Our forebears in the then-revolutionary Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in 1948 gave no political support to Wallace. Today, in contrast to reformist groups like Workers World Party, which has endorsed McKinney, we give no political support to the Green/McKinney “Power to the People” campaign. It represents no break with bourgeois politics.
Nor, as Marxists, would we run for executive office—such as mayor, governor or president—ourselves, although Marxists have and can run for parliamentary office as a tactic to propagate our revolutionary program and as part of the struggle to imbue the working class with the understanding that the capitalist order, including its parliamentary facade, must be overthrown through socialist revolution. As Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels taught long ago, the capitalist government is the executive committee that manages the common affairs of the capitalist class as a whole. In the U.S., the president is the chief executive responsible for the most massive military power in history and for the domestic machinery of repression that maintains social oppression and exploitation. To run for executive office means to aspire to be the next Commander-in-Chief who decides who gets tortured, who gets bombed, who gets invaded (see Spartacist [English-language edition] No. 60, Autumn 2007).
As we pointed out in Spartacist No. 7’s front-page article, “1966 Elections,” to which the Wallace piece was a companion, “In sum, independent campaigns must not only break with the Democratic Party, but must break with the system of bourgeois rule, and aim toward arousing the working class from its present passive allegiance to that system.” The 1966 midterm elections, two years after Democrat Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 landslide victory against Barry (“In your guts, you know he’s nuts”) Goldwater, saw growing opposition to the Vietnam War and recognition that the Democratic Party was, as we wrote, “the favored tool of those forces which are committed to maintaining American capitalist hegemony throughout the world.” In sorting out the various forces running “independent” candidacies, we relied on the working-class Marxist analysis developed in part by James P. Cannon, the founding leader of American Trotskyism, and the SWP.
* * *
In late 1947, Henry A. Wallace announced his intention to run for the presidency of the U.S. as an anti-war, pro-labor candidate. Wallace had been secretary of agriculture, vice president and secretary of commerce, all under Franklin D. Roosevelt, capitalism’s phony champion of the working man. But for the 1948 campaign Wallace ran at the head of the new Progressive Party, a third party challenge to the two established capitalist “front groups.”
During 1946 and early 1947, old-line New Dealers and some Democratic politicians; CIO President Philip Murray, left-dominated unions in the CIO and organizations based on the CIO; and the Communist Party [CP] had all shown an interest in such a third party. However by December 1947, the first two groupings, partially under the pressures of a growing red scare, had almost all retreated to the Democratic Party. Only the CP and groupings closely allied to it gave any substantial support after the end of 1947. The nature of that support can be seen by the continuing withdrawals throughout the campaign by Stalinist-led unions confronted by CIO pressure, and by the composition of the Progressive Citizens of America, a largely petty-bourgeois CP front group, a good section of which later formed the Americans for Democratic Action. Wallace, with his announcement, initiated not a wide-based movement but a petty-bourgeois “Gideon’s Army,” captained by Stalinists.
The Messiah Movement
The nature of the third party campaign waged by Wallace is accurately indicated in that term. Wallace himself relished the designation and seemed eager to portray himself as a latter-day Gideon. His appearances were accompanied by gospel singers, trumpets and a revivalist camp atmosphere. He campaigned on the basis of peace among nations, brotherhood among men and justice for all. Rather than use the first campaign of a new nation-wide party as a means for raising the consciousness of the working class, Wallace accepted the role of a messiah, come to save the American people.
Just before the election, Wallace proclaimed that the Progressive Party could count many victories: a third party had been put on the ballot in 45 states; moreover, his campaign had slowed the “cold war,” given pause to the assault on civil rights and eliminated the possibility of a witch hunt.
The rejoinders to Wallace’s claims are today obvious, but they need to be made because the type of victories which Wallace claimed are the same type that many peace and independent candidates seek today. Where is that third party today? What use, other than electoral, was made of the more than a million voters who supported Wallace? If the “cold war” has slowed, it has slowed only to be replaced by a series of U.S. maneuvered hot wars and CIA-run counter revolutions, most aided by the treacherous role of Stalinist parties. As for the last two claims, one need point only to the continuing police assaults on Harlem, Watts, Chicago, Cleveland and East New York and to the McCarthy period, followed by the HUAC period, followed by the Epton “trial.” [Epton, a leftist activist who at that time was in the Progressive Labor Party, was the first person in New York State since the 1919 “red scare” to be convicted of “criminal anarchy” for his courageous efforts to provide leadership and organization to the besieged black masses during the 1964 Harlem police riot. See “In Memory of Bill Epton,” WV No. 781, 17 May 2002.]
Role of the Guardian
The totally capitalist nature of Wallace’s third party can be seen by reading the early issues of the National Guardian and by comparing the specific items of Wallace’s platform to those in any Democratic Party platform.
The National Guardian began publication in October 1948, primarily as the propaganda organ for the Wallace campaign. Its very first issue (18 October 1948) proclaimed:
“This editorial point of view will be a continuation and development of the progressive tradition set in our time by Franklin D. Roosevelt…
“We conceive the progressive tradition to be represented today by Henry A. Wallace…
“We believe, with FDR and Henry Wallace, in expanding freedoms and living standards for all peoples as the essential foundation of a world at peace.
“We believe, with FDR and Henry Wallace, that peace can be secured only by seeking areas of agreement among nations, rather than seeking areas of disagreement.”
The high-blown rhetoric cannot conceal three basic fallacies in those few sentences: that FDR, capitalism’s front man par excellence, was in reality the advocate for the working man; that capitalism, which can do nothing to stem famine in India or prevent an approaching famine in Latin America, is able to improve the living standards of the whole world’s population; and that there is no significant difference between the capitalist U.S. and socialist Russia.
A campaign based on such fallacies can do nothing but dull the consciousness of the working class. Why should the labor movement back a minor party candidate who pleads, “Capitalism would be just fine if slightly reformed, so vote for me”? The Democratic Party asserts the same line and its candidates can be immediately elected. Such a campaign can have no outcome other than the strengthening of the Democratic Party’s hold over the working class.
When just that did happen in the ’48 election, the CP and others backing Wallace took credit for such a strengthening of the party which the bourgeoisie have increasingly realized is their protector. The Guardian exulted in its post-election issue (8 November 1948):
“The people of a whole world can look toward America today with renewed confidence. The American people have reaffirmed their progressive tradition. They have repelled the bold maneuvering of monopoly and reaction to take over America through Thomas E. Dewey and the Republican Party. They have handed Harry S. Truman an unmistakable mandate to return to the principles of Franklin D. Roosevelt.
“The mandate would not have been possible if the Progressive Party had not introduced the Roosevelt program into the 1948 campaign.”
Wallace’s Program
The laughable absurdity of such a statement is apparent as soon as one analyzes the class nature of the Roosevelt program which Wallace introduced. Its demands have already been fulfilled or have been repeated as truisms in the Great Society of another messiah.
Wallace’s program broke down into two general areas, isolated from each other: the achievement of international peace and the progressive reform of U.S. capitalism at home. According to Wallace, the U.S. could achieve worldwide peace by establishing faith in the UN, by negotiating with Soviet Russia, by recognizing new small countries such as Israel and by abolishing military conscription at home.
The domestic reforms required slightly more complex solutions. On the social side, Wallace advocated abolition of Jim Crow laws and the establishment of legal guarantees for civil rights; federal aid to housing, health and education; and governmental promotion of science and culture. On the economic front, he called for a council of economic planning to assure high production, full employment and a rising standard of living; public ownership of key areas of the economy in TVA type developments; repeal of the Taft-Hartley law and a one dollar an hour minimum wage; anti-trust action against monopolies; and rollback of prices covered out of exorbitant profits.
A Bourgeois Program
Capitalism has been able to fulfill most of these demands or hold out the promise of their fulfillment without seriously damaging its own position. Thus the program posed no questions which capitalism itself could not appear to solve. It did not serve to link up the economic pressures at home with the already mounting imperialism of the “cold war.” Thus Wallace’s general evaluations of Progressive Party successes were all proved incorrect because his platform, accepted gladly by Truman, dealt with specific ills in a capitalist society and not with the capitalist mode of production which produces those ills.
There was no ideological content to the Wallace campaign—only the slogans of a messiah-reformer—and the one million votes formed no base for the development of a third party opposed to capitalist control.
Labor Control Needed
James Cannon in a 1948 internal SWP discussion on the Wallace candidacy offered several criteria which can be used as measures today of these new third parties. He stated that Wallace’s policies showed only tactical differences in the camp of the bourgeoisie and that to support Wallace would mean an entrance into “lesser-evil” politics. He differentiated between the pseudo-radical party of a petty-bourgeois reformist like Wallace and the revolutionary labor party, which would proceed from the aim to assist the development of independent political action by workers and turn that action towards its revolutionary culmination. Finally he insisted that the class character of a party is determined not primarily by the class which supports it but by the class it supports, in its program, daily policy and practice.
The SWP Political Committee resolution on the Wallace candidacy developed on the basis of these criteria its minimum requirement for critical support to a third party: that the party be based on a significant section of labor and be subject to its control and pressure.
The incipient third parties could easily use these criteria in order to distinguish the class nature of their own demands, and therefore the possibility of those demands leading to a revolutionary culmination. More importantly, parties claiming to be Marxist need to establish such criteria as the basis for their own support to third party movements. (The SWP might well take note of its own past history.)
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Political Thoughts in the Summer Doldrums
Of This and That
Commentary
Just a couple of observations to while away the summer doldrums.
California Gay and Lesbian Marriage Vote
Earlier this year the California Supreme Court held that, as a matter of state law, legislation on the books that discriminated against gays and lesbians on the question of the democratic right to marriage was unconstitutional. As in Massachusetts, there was furious backlash by various right-wing elements, some organized religions notably the Catholic Church, other usual suspects on this issue and the usual quota of married (or, as is usually the case, re-married) heterosexual types who can’t breath right if marriage is not defined in law, society and the eyes of god as the bonding of one male and one female human being.
Needless to say, such groups have some resources and have enough wherewithal to have this issue placed on the ballot this November. As the presidential race in California is likely to be a walkover for Obama this fight may get more than its share of attention. At this point I am not sure how this initiative petition question will appear on the ballot so I do not know how to call the vote (any help here?). In any case, we want to vote against the overriding of the court’s action down with both hands. Defend, extend the democratic right of gays and lesbians to marry (Markin adds -and good luck to them, they will need it. We are already starting to see gay and lesbian divorces in Massachusetts, just like heterosexuals).
**Integration of the American military
Within the past couple of weeks there has been a ceremony in Washington, D.C. honoring the 60th Anniversary of President Harry S. Truman’s signing of an executive order integrating the armed forces of American imperialism. While militant leftists have a very definite position in opposition to American governmental foreign and military policy we nevertheless, until working people take power, have a very definite interest in fighting for equal access and rights for all in almost any bourgeois institution. We do not encourage people to join the military but if they do then the full range of rights and opportunity should be open to them. That premise also underlines our position on the question of gays in the military (the current ‘see no evil’ policy is not an example of equal access but a bandage) and permitting women soldiers to become combat troops.
In one article about this commemoration that I read an interesting point was made that while blacks (who the original order was directed toward integrating) make up a proportionally larger (at least until recently due to the Iraqi quagmire) part of the various branches of the services than in the population as a whole they are underrepresented in the higher echelons of the military (senior NCOs and General Staff officers). Despite, the occasional Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Barack Obama story this remains a deeply race-divided society with blacks STILL disproportionately at the bottom of the pile. Our job is to rectify that when the above-mentioned working people take power. And pronto.
I would also be remiss here in a comment about the American military machine if in the summer of 2008 after more than five years of constant war I did not put a reminder that our task is still- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal From Iraq And Afghanistan of All American/Allied Troops And Their Mercenaries! Make that pronto, as well.
*** The Youth Vote
Although I have, in general, sworn off observations on the American presidential campaigns, such as they are, I have recently come across some statistical information that only verifies what I have been trying to point out about future political possibilities for extra-parliamentary militant leftists. Polls have shown that Barack Obama has significant leads among the young over Republican John McCain in several key states in the upcoming elections. Moreover that trend applies to the national picture, as well.
Ho hum you say. Well, in part, you would be right just on the basis of the age difference between McCain and Obama. To speak nothing of some of their policy differences and personal technological capacities (Obama can work an iPOd. McCain, apparently, is still using a transistor radio). However, I would point out that one Richard M. Nixon in 1972, a time beyond the high water mark of the 1960’s yet still within memory of those days, split the then just passed 26th Amendment –enhanced youth vote with George McGovern. And George McGovern was far, far to the left of anything that Obama has been saying (or, as of late, not saying).
In short, youth as a segment of society is not always left, not always progressive or for that matter not always even political. What the above-mentioned statistics tell me though is that something more like the swirl around John Kennedy in 1960 is forming and not the resignation and acceptance of defeat represented by Nixon’s reelection in 1972 by a significant segment of the young. As I pointed out in a recent small commentary on Obama’s rush to the right in order to gain ‘victory’ we will get our share of the political spoils once the disillusionment with Obama sets in (as a look at his social networking site will already confirm) with all the weighty social problems confronting this society still in need of solution.
Commentary
Just a couple of observations to while away the summer doldrums.
California Gay and Lesbian Marriage Vote
Earlier this year the California Supreme Court held that, as a matter of state law, legislation on the books that discriminated against gays and lesbians on the question of the democratic right to marriage was unconstitutional. As in Massachusetts, there was furious backlash by various right-wing elements, some organized religions notably the Catholic Church, other usual suspects on this issue and the usual quota of married (or, as is usually the case, re-married) heterosexual types who can’t breath right if marriage is not defined in law, society and the eyes of god as the bonding of one male and one female human being.
Needless to say, such groups have some resources and have enough wherewithal to have this issue placed on the ballot this November. As the presidential race in California is likely to be a walkover for Obama this fight may get more than its share of attention. At this point I am not sure how this initiative petition question will appear on the ballot so I do not know how to call the vote (any help here?). In any case, we want to vote against the overriding of the court’s action down with both hands. Defend, extend the democratic right of gays and lesbians to marry (Markin adds -and good luck to them, they will need it. We are already starting to see gay and lesbian divorces in Massachusetts, just like heterosexuals).
**Integration of the American military
Within the past couple of weeks there has been a ceremony in Washington, D.C. honoring the 60th Anniversary of President Harry S. Truman’s signing of an executive order integrating the armed forces of American imperialism. While militant leftists have a very definite position in opposition to American governmental foreign and military policy we nevertheless, until working people take power, have a very definite interest in fighting for equal access and rights for all in almost any bourgeois institution. We do not encourage people to join the military but if they do then the full range of rights and opportunity should be open to them. That premise also underlines our position on the question of gays in the military (the current ‘see no evil’ policy is not an example of equal access but a bandage) and permitting women soldiers to become combat troops.
In one article about this commemoration that I read an interesting point was made that while blacks (who the original order was directed toward integrating) make up a proportionally larger (at least until recently due to the Iraqi quagmire) part of the various branches of the services than in the population as a whole they are underrepresented in the higher echelons of the military (senior NCOs and General Staff officers). Despite, the occasional Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice and Barack Obama story this remains a deeply race-divided society with blacks STILL disproportionately at the bottom of the pile. Our job is to rectify that when the above-mentioned working people take power. And pronto.
I would also be remiss here in a comment about the American military machine if in the summer of 2008 after more than five years of constant war I did not put a reminder that our task is still- Immediate, Unconditional Withdrawal From Iraq And Afghanistan of All American/Allied Troops And Their Mercenaries! Make that pronto, as well.
*** The Youth Vote
Although I have, in general, sworn off observations on the American presidential campaigns, such as they are, I have recently come across some statistical information that only verifies what I have been trying to point out about future political possibilities for extra-parliamentary militant leftists. Polls have shown that Barack Obama has significant leads among the young over Republican John McCain in several key states in the upcoming elections. Moreover that trend applies to the national picture, as well.
Ho hum you say. Well, in part, you would be right just on the basis of the age difference between McCain and Obama. To speak nothing of some of their policy differences and personal technological capacities (Obama can work an iPOd. McCain, apparently, is still using a transistor radio). However, I would point out that one Richard M. Nixon in 1972, a time beyond the high water mark of the 1960’s yet still within memory of those days, split the then just passed 26th Amendment –enhanced youth vote with George McGovern. And George McGovern was far, far to the left of anything that Obama has been saying (or, as of late, not saying).
In short, youth as a segment of society is not always left, not always progressive or for that matter not always even political. What the above-mentioned statistics tell me though is that something more like the swirl around John Kennedy in 1960 is forming and not the resignation and acceptance of defeat represented by Nixon’s reelection in 1972 by a significant segment of the young. As I pointed out in a recent small commentary on Obama’s rush to the right in order to gain ‘victory’ we will get our share of the political spoils once the disillusionment with Obama sets in (as a look at his social networking site will already confirm) with all the weighty social problems confronting this society still in need of solution.
Sunday, July 27, 2008
A Tribute To The Blues Blinds- Johnson, Jefferson, McTell, Blake
CD REVIEWS
The Complete Collection of Blind Willie Johnson, Blind Willie Johnson, Sony 1993
Blind Willie Johnson
A tradition developed early, and I am not sure how, but it was very early in the 1900’s of blind black men with musical ability (and probably some with none) going to the small town Southern street and singing for their dinner, so to speak. I, for one, am glad that they did because an inordinate part of early blues music would be missing without their collective contributions. Here we start our tribute with Blind Willie Johnson; this is Reverend Blind Willie Johnson, by the way. What makes Reverend Johnson a shade bit different from other blues singers of the period, with the partial exception of Skip James, is that the vast bulk of his music is religious in orientation unlike the more traditional moaning and groaning about work, women and whiskey.
For those who saw part of Martin Scorcese’s PBS Blues Project a few years back you might remember that Blind Willie (along with Skip James) was highlighted in Wim Wender’s section. You might also know then that Johnson’s Soul of A Man is traveling the universe as a selection of one of humankind’s musical expressions. Take that and You Have Friend In Jesus with female accompaniment and you are at the height of Blind Willie’s talent. As for the rest you will have to listen for yourself.
Blind Blake-Ragtime Guitar's Foremost Finger Picker, Blind Blake, Yahoo, 1989
Before the blues began to dominate the black Southern country music scene there was a transition period where the previously dominant ragtime commingled with the emerging blues picking sound. That is where Blind Blake comes into view. This CD shows off his masterly picking style but also shows that he gets the new blues country beat. This CD has liner notes that are very informative (as are most Yahoo liner notes) about these evolutionary moves and Blake's innovations. As to the music highlights here are Southern Rag, Hard Pushing Papa, Sweet Papa Low Down and a classic rendition of Rope Stretching Blues (about the thoughts of a black prisoner just before his scheduled hanging- legal this time- with the great line 'in a couple of days I will not be singing this song'. Reason enough, right there to get rid of the death penalty.). Get this if you need a nice clean country blues pick.
CD REVIEW
When The Sun Goes Down, Blind Willie McTell, BMG Music, 2003
Recently I have been doing a run of reviews on old time country blues players that have included the likes of Mississippi John Hurt and Son House. Here we are getting a little slice of what the acoustic blues looked like when it went to the Southern cities in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Hurt and House stayed on the farm, so to speak, but McTell, blind from birth I believe, went to the streets of the cities to sing his songs and make his daily bread. Along the way he worked with women singers and sometimes with the legendary Tommy Dorsey (no, not the bandleader from the forties). But mainly he worked the streets and joints alone.
A close listen immediately tells you that this artist is different from the country blues singers. The guitar work is more polished (check it out on Statesboro Blues, if you want a treat) but the whole presentation is also different. The lyrics are more polished and the presentation is clearly for an audience that can walk out the door if it does not like what it hears. Hell, there are seven other guys or gals down the street to listen to. This is really the first manifestation, in song, of the changeover in the blues from the chant like quality of the pace of the cotton field to the rhythms of urban life. It changes again latter when it goes north and gets electrified but here McTell and a little later Big Bill Broozey (and, as always, Robert Johnson) are pushing the work in new directions.
The Best of Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Yahoo, 1990
Yes, I know it is hard to keep the names of all these male blind blues singers straight. Blind Willie, Blind Lemon, Blind Blake, etc. but there are differences in their styles from Willie Johnson's more gospel -oriented work to McTell's barrel house renditions. It is interesting that so many of these blind black singers, probably otherwise unemployable at the time due to their impairments, gave the blues (and sometimes their root music, gospel, also) a tryout on the streets and seemingly thrived on this market niche. The just mentioned gospel roots of many of these performers shows the tension between the godly church music of their youth and the `devil's' music of their maturity and I believe added to the authenticity of the music. It is the backdrop of Blind Lemon's works, as well.
This compilation, although technically not the best due more to problems with the old time recording material than anything else, highlights Blind Lemon's most enduring songs. The classic Easy Rider and Black Snake Moan are included here. Also included here and a must listen for anybody interested in this music is another Jefferson classic See That My Grave is Kept Clean that has been covered by many, many artists, including Bob Dylan.
The Complete Collection of Blind Willie Johnson, Blind Willie Johnson, Sony 1993
Blind Willie Johnson
A tradition developed early, and I am not sure how, but it was very early in the 1900’s of blind black men with musical ability (and probably some with none) going to the small town Southern street and singing for their dinner, so to speak. I, for one, am glad that they did because an inordinate part of early blues music would be missing without their collective contributions. Here we start our tribute with Blind Willie Johnson; this is Reverend Blind Willie Johnson, by the way. What makes Reverend Johnson a shade bit different from other blues singers of the period, with the partial exception of Skip James, is that the vast bulk of his music is religious in orientation unlike the more traditional moaning and groaning about work, women and whiskey.
For those who saw part of Martin Scorcese’s PBS Blues Project a few years back you might remember that Blind Willie (along with Skip James) was highlighted in Wim Wender’s section. You might also know then that Johnson’s Soul of A Man is traveling the universe as a selection of one of humankind’s musical expressions. Take that and You Have Friend In Jesus with female accompaniment and you are at the height of Blind Willie’s talent. As for the rest you will have to listen for yourself.
Blind Blake-Ragtime Guitar's Foremost Finger Picker, Blind Blake, Yahoo, 1989
Before the blues began to dominate the black Southern country music scene there was a transition period where the previously dominant ragtime commingled with the emerging blues picking sound. That is where Blind Blake comes into view. This CD shows off his masterly picking style but also shows that he gets the new blues country beat. This CD has liner notes that are very informative (as are most Yahoo liner notes) about these evolutionary moves and Blake's innovations. As to the music highlights here are Southern Rag, Hard Pushing Papa, Sweet Papa Low Down and a classic rendition of Rope Stretching Blues (about the thoughts of a black prisoner just before his scheduled hanging- legal this time- with the great line 'in a couple of days I will not be singing this song'. Reason enough, right there to get rid of the death penalty.). Get this if you need a nice clean country blues pick.
CD REVIEW
When The Sun Goes Down, Blind Willie McTell, BMG Music, 2003
Recently I have been doing a run of reviews on old time country blues players that have included the likes of Mississippi John Hurt and Son House. Here we are getting a little slice of what the acoustic blues looked like when it went to the Southern cities in the 1920’s and 1930’s. Hurt and House stayed on the farm, so to speak, but McTell, blind from birth I believe, went to the streets of the cities to sing his songs and make his daily bread. Along the way he worked with women singers and sometimes with the legendary Tommy Dorsey (no, not the bandleader from the forties). But mainly he worked the streets and joints alone.
A close listen immediately tells you that this artist is different from the country blues singers. The guitar work is more polished (check it out on Statesboro Blues, if you want a treat) but the whole presentation is also different. The lyrics are more polished and the presentation is clearly for an audience that can walk out the door if it does not like what it hears. Hell, there are seven other guys or gals down the street to listen to. This is really the first manifestation, in song, of the changeover in the blues from the chant like quality of the pace of the cotton field to the rhythms of urban life. It changes again latter when it goes north and gets electrified but here McTell and a little later Big Bill Broozey (and, as always, Robert Johnson) are pushing the work in new directions.
The Best of Blind Lemon Jefferson, Blind Lemon Jefferson, Yahoo, 1990
Yes, I know it is hard to keep the names of all these male blind blues singers straight. Blind Willie, Blind Lemon, Blind Blake, etc. but there are differences in their styles from Willie Johnson's more gospel -oriented work to McTell's barrel house renditions. It is interesting that so many of these blind black singers, probably otherwise unemployable at the time due to their impairments, gave the blues (and sometimes their root music, gospel, also) a tryout on the streets and seemingly thrived on this market niche. The just mentioned gospel roots of many of these performers shows the tension between the godly church music of their youth and the `devil's' music of their maturity and I believe added to the authenticity of the music. It is the backdrop of Blind Lemon's works, as well.
This compilation, although technically not the best due more to problems with the old time recording material than anything else, highlights Blind Lemon's most enduring songs. The classic Easy Rider and Black Snake Moan are included here. Also included here and a must listen for anybody interested in this music is another Jefferson classic See That My Grave is Kept Clean that has been covered by many, many artists, including Bob Dylan.
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
Hands Off Iran!
Commentary
U.S. Out Of Iraq And Afghanistan Now! Hands Off Iran!
Correct me if I am wrong but I smell gunpowder in the air these days and it is not clear who is getting ready to ignite the fuse. No, I am not talking about any old wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hell, those efforts are old hat and, according to the putative Republican presidential candidate John McCain , at least in Iraq, will last about 100 years-so it is way too early to even worry about ending that little beauty. I assume by his lights we are to let our great- grandchildren end it. Moreover, President Bush is playing the eternal optimist on Iraq, a role that he has perfected to a tee in his disastrous presidency, by being authoritatively reported as saying that it would only take forty years to straighten out things there. His scenario would permit our grandchildren to conclude the war. Again, that is music for the future. Nothing to get nervous about now, right? What exercises me today though is that little recent buildup of talk pointing toward some off-the-wall adventure aimed at Iran either by American imperialism itself or, I believe, more probably by air strikes from the American surrogate in the area, Israel.
I have been harping on Iran, off and on, for a couple of years now ever since reading Seymour Hersh’s informative April 2006 article in the New Yorker (and later additions and updates to the core of that argument by Hersh and others). Nothing since that time has led me to believe that the White House, the American military or Israel has given up the dream of smashing Iran’s future capacities to develop nuclear weapons. Capacities, by the way, even some hostile conservative critics have recognized that Iran needs in order to defend itself in an increasingly hostile world, especially as it remains in the cross hairs of American imperialism.
Certainly it was not the little ‘diplomatic’ maneuver over the weekend of July 19th where a high ranking American diplomat actually sat in on the six nation talks, despite previous American disdain for such efforts, on the question of what the international response to Iran’s alleged nuclear buildup should be. And certainly it was not any rhetoric on the part of the cowboys who control the inner sanctum in Washington about trying to find non-lethal ways to curb Iran. The minute they start with that talk in Washington, hold onto your wallets- you are about to be fleeced.
The events of the past several weeks have brought my concerns into some focus. Israel’s air strikes against a target in Syria, the American drumbeat campaign to denigrate any finding that Iran is not within striking distance of being capable of making at least one nuclear bomb and, of course, the defiant, if comical, attempt of Iran to saber rattle with the testing of short-range missiles. Six months, for a Bush Administration that has nothing to lose, is a long time in politics, a long time to prepare and launch surgical attacks and a long time to create an American ‘public opinion’ committed to nipping Iran’s buildup in the bud. Every militant leftist in the world, while holding his or her nose at the political regime in Tehran, better prepare now to defend Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons in this crazy old world. That said, we better dust off those old posters- U.S. Hands Off Iran- And Keep Them Off!
U.S. Out Of Iraq And Afghanistan Now! Hands Off Iran!
Correct me if I am wrong but I smell gunpowder in the air these days and it is not clear who is getting ready to ignite the fuse. No, I am not talking about any old wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hell, those efforts are old hat and, according to the putative Republican presidential candidate John McCain , at least in Iraq, will last about 100 years-so it is way too early to even worry about ending that little beauty. I assume by his lights we are to let our great- grandchildren end it. Moreover, President Bush is playing the eternal optimist on Iraq, a role that he has perfected to a tee in his disastrous presidency, by being authoritatively reported as saying that it would only take forty years to straighten out things there. His scenario would permit our grandchildren to conclude the war. Again, that is music for the future. Nothing to get nervous about now, right? What exercises me today though is that little recent buildup of talk pointing toward some off-the-wall adventure aimed at Iran either by American imperialism itself or, I believe, more probably by air strikes from the American surrogate in the area, Israel.
I have been harping on Iran, off and on, for a couple of years now ever since reading Seymour Hersh’s informative April 2006 article in the New Yorker (and later additions and updates to the core of that argument by Hersh and others). Nothing since that time has led me to believe that the White House, the American military or Israel has given up the dream of smashing Iran’s future capacities to develop nuclear weapons. Capacities, by the way, even some hostile conservative critics have recognized that Iran needs in order to defend itself in an increasingly hostile world, especially as it remains in the cross hairs of American imperialism.
Certainly it was not the little ‘diplomatic’ maneuver over the weekend of July 19th where a high ranking American diplomat actually sat in on the six nation talks, despite previous American disdain for such efforts, on the question of what the international response to Iran’s alleged nuclear buildup should be. And certainly it was not any rhetoric on the part of the cowboys who control the inner sanctum in Washington about trying to find non-lethal ways to curb Iran. The minute they start with that talk in Washington, hold onto your wallets- you are about to be fleeced.
The events of the past several weeks have brought my concerns into some focus. Israel’s air strikes against a target in Syria, the American drumbeat campaign to denigrate any finding that Iran is not within striking distance of being capable of making at least one nuclear bomb and, of course, the defiant, if comical, attempt of Iran to saber rattle with the testing of short-range missiles. Six months, for a Bush Administration that has nothing to lose, is a long time in politics, a long time to prepare and launch surgical attacks and a long time to create an American ‘public opinion’ committed to nipping Iran’s buildup in the bud. Every militant leftist in the world, while holding his or her nose at the political regime in Tehran, better prepare now to defend Iran’s right to have nuclear weapons in this crazy old world. That said, we better dust off those old posters- U.S. Hands Off Iran- And Keep Them Off!
Monday, July 21, 2008
Obama- One Step Forward, Three Steps Back
Commentary
Break With The Republicans, Democrats, Greens and Ralph Nader- Build A Workers Party!
I have purposefully attempted to stay on the sidelines, way on the sidelines, of this misbegotten 2008 presidential campaign season after I realized early this spring that it was just a more technologically sophisticated version of previous garden variety efforts, like the Gore 2000 and Dean 2004 campaigns. Apparently I am not alone in this as a recent poll, taken after the hoopla raised by the media and the hard-core partisans of the party nominating processes was over, indicated that the bulk of the electorate felt the same way, generally. Nevertheless I do have to break my relative silence here to make a small comment on the benighted Obama campaign and what it has turned into.
Having had no illusions that Obama and his Democratic Party have anything to offer in terms of positively addressing the pressing political, social and economic issues of the day I have had nothing to cry about (although I remain appreciative of the wind that Obama himself has generated among the young which can only help radicals in the end). However, Obama's dramatic post-Hillary headlong spin toward the ‘center’ of American politics, has apparently left others feeling betrayed. Given his vote on enhanced governmental wiretapping-eavesdropping, his votes for the war budgets funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his call for stepped-up troop deployment to Afghanistan, his new stance on the timing of ending tax cuts for the rich topped off by his ‘benign neglect’ of part of his core constituency, blacks, that has even Jesse Jackson, Senior up in arms there is little wonder that there is a feeling of ‘betrayal’ in left Demo-land.
However, there has been no betrayal by Obama or the Democratic Party. Despite the chagrin of the young, who can be forgiven a little naiveté, the Democratic Party and bourgeois politics are not about serious change but about winning electoral combinations. I was tipped off that some of the idealistic elements in the Obama campaign were in uproar over his wiretapping vote. I therefore went, based on that tip, to his social networking site to see for myself the gnashing of teeth. Damn, it is all there. The sense of betrayal, the desire to get the money contributed to the campaign back, the disgust with bourgeois political maneuvering. Be still my heart.
What I did not see was any sense (as yet) that it is necessary to break out of the capitalist-inspired politics of the day and fight for a workers party (or for that matter, even an ‘independent’ party a la Ralph Nader). Well, that is our job. Earlier this year I mentioned, when I was in the heat of my bourgeois political observation period, that the swirl that Obama was producing was similar (although, I think, maybe on an even greater scale) to the effect on the young that of John F. Kennedy's campaign had in my youth. I mentioned that the earlier Kennedy swirl itself was not decisive but that in response to the press of events started then it later created the youth/socialist movement of the 1960’s. I posed the question in that commentary, jokingly, After Obama-us. I now think our turn may come sooner than I expected.
Break With The Republicans, Democrats, Greens and Ralph Nader- Build A Workers Party!
I have purposefully attempted to stay on the sidelines, way on the sidelines, of this misbegotten 2008 presidential campaign season after I realized early this spring that it was just a more technologically sophisticated version of previous garden variety efforts, like the Gore 2000 and Dean 2004 campaigns. Apparently I am not alone in this as a recent poll, taken after the hoopla raised by the media and the hard-core partisans of the party nominating processes was over, indicated that the bulk of the electorate felt the same way, generally. Nevertheless I do have to break my relative silence here to make a small comment on the benighted Obama campaign and what it has turned into.
Having had no illusions that Obama and his Democratic Party have anything to offer in terms of positively addressing the pressing political, social and economic issues of the day I have had nothing to cry about (although I remain appreciative of the wind that Obama himself has generated among the young which can only help radicals in the end). However, Obama's dramatic post-Hillary headlong spin toward the ‘center’ of American politics, has apparently left others feeling betrayed. Given his vote on enhanced governmental wiretapping-eavesdropping, his votes for the war budgets funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, his call for stepped-up troop deployment to Afghanistan, his new stance on the timing of ending tax cuts for the rich topped off by his ‘benign neglect’ of part of his core constituency, blacks, that has even Jesse Jackson, Senior up in arms there is little wonder that there is a feeling of ‘betrayal’ in left Demo-land.
However, there has been no betrayal by Obama or the Democratic Party. Despite the chagrin of the young, who can be forgiven a little naiveté, the Democratic Party and bourgeois politics are not about serious change but about winning electoral combinations. I was tipped off that some of the idealistic elements in the Obama campaign were in uproar over his wiretapping vote. I therefore went, based on that tip, to his social networking site to see for myself the gnashing of teeth. Damn, it is all there. The sense of betrayal, the desire to get the money contributed to the campaign back, the disgust with bourgeois political maneuvering. Be still my heart.
What I did not see was any sense (as yet) that it is necessary to break out of the capitalist-inspired politics of the day and fight for a workers party (or for that matter, even an ‘independent’ party a la Ralph Nader). Well, that is our job. Earlier this year I mentioned, when I was in the heat of my bourgeois political observation period, that the swirl that Obama was producing was similar (although, I think, maybe on an even greater scale) to the effect on the young that of John F. Kennedy's campaign had in my youth. I mentioned that the earlier Kennedy swirl itself was not decisive but that in response to the press of events started then it later created the youth/socialist movement of the 1960’s. I posed the question in that commentary, jokingly, After Obama-us. I now think our turn may come sooner than I expected.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
*The Real Robert Kennedy- A Sober Liberal View From PBS's American Experience Series
Click on title to link to the Public Broadcasting System's "American Experience" episode on Robert Kennedy.
DVD REVIEW
Robert Kennedy, American Experience, PBS, 2004
It is somewhat ironic that at just the time that when presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, a recent addition to the Democratic Party pantheon of heroes and heir apparent to the Kennedy legacy, is claiming the nomination of the party that the 40th Anniversary of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy during the presidential campaign of 1968 is being remembered in some quarters. That event holds much meaning in the political evolution of this writer. The Robert Kennedy campaign of 1968 was the last time that this writer had a serious desire to fight solely on the parliamentary road for progressive political change. So today he too has some remembrances, as well. This documentary from the Public Broadcasting System’s "American Experience" series only adds some visual flashes to those remembrances.
In a commentary in another space I have mentioned that through the tumultuous period leading to the early spring of 1968 that I had done some political somersaults as a result of Bobby Kennedy’s early refusal to take on a sitting president, Lyndon Johnson, for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Moreover, I committed myself early (sometime in late 1967) to the reelection of Lyndon Johnson, as much as I hated his Vietnam War policy. Why? One Richard M. Nixon. I did not give Eugene McCarthy’s insurgent campaign even a sniff, although I agreed with his anti-war stance. Why? He could not beat one Richard M. Nixon. When Bobby Kennedy jumped in and Johnson announced that he was not going to run again and I was there the next day. I was a senior in college at the time but I believe I spent hundreds of hours that spring working the campaign either out of Boston, Washington, D.C. or elsewhere. Why? Well, you can guess the obvious by now. He COULD beat one Richard M. Nixon.
It was more than that though, and I will discuss that in the next paragraph. I took, as many did, Bobby's murder hard. It would be rather facile now to say that something of my youth, and that of others who I have talked to recently about this event, got left behind with his murder but there you have it. However, to show you the kind of political year that it was for me about a week after his death I was in the Hubert Humphrey campaign office in Boston. Why? You know why by now. And for those who don’t it had one name- Richard M. Nixon.
But let us get back to that other, more virtuous, political motive for supporting Bobby Kennedy. It was always, in those days, complicated coming from Massachusetts to separate out the whirlwind effect that the Kennedy family had on us, especially on ‘shanty’ Irish families. On the one hand we wished one of our own well, especially against the WASPs, on the other there was always that innate bitterness (jealousy, if you will) that it was not we who were the ones that were getting ahead. If there is any Irish in your family you know what I am talking about.
To be sure, as a fourteen year old I walked the neighborhood for John Kennedy in 1960 but as I have mentioned elsewhere that was a pro forma thing. Part of the ritual of entry into presidential politics. The Bobby thing was from the heart. Why? It is hard to explain but there was something about the deeply felt sense of Irish fatalism that he projected, especially after the death of his brother, that attracted me to him. But also the ruthless side where he was willing to cut Mayor Daly and every politician like him down or pat them on the back and more, if necessary, to get a little rough justice in the world. In those days I held those qualities, especially in tandem, in high esteem. Hell, I still do, if on a narrower basis.
Okay, that is enough for a trip down memory lane back to the old politically naïve days, or rather opportunistic days. Without detailing the events here the end of 1968 was also a watershed year for changing my belief that an individual candidate rather than ideas and political program were decisive for political organizing. That understanding, furthermore, changed my political appreciation for Bobby Kennedy (and the vices and virtues of the Democratic Party). That is the import of this well-produced (as always) portrayal of the short life and career of Robert Kennedy. If in 1968, with my 1968 political understandings, I stood shoulder to shoulder with Robert Kennedy my political evolution and his political past, as detailed here, have changed my perceptions dramatically.
This documentary highlights the close relationship between Robert and his older brother John starting with the Massachusetts United Senate campaign in 1952 (and that would continue in the 1960 campaign and during John Kennedy’s administration right up to the assassination). We are presented here, however, with the ‘bad’ Bobby who was more than willing to join Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “red scare” anti-communist campaign and the anti-labor McClellan Committee campaigns against Jimmy Hoffa in particular. There is no love lost between this writer and labor bureaucrats like Hoffa (or his son) but a bedrock position then and today is the need for labor to clean its own house. What purpose does government intervention into the labor movement do except to weaken it? Bobby was on the other side on this one, as well.
Under the John Kennedy Administration Robert, moreover, played a key role in putting a damper on the early civil rights movement in the South (as well as putting a 'tap' on Martin Luther King at the behest of one J. Edgar Hoover), the Bay of Pigs decision and aftermath , the Cuban Missile Crisis confrontation with the Soviet Union and the early escalation, under the rubric of counter-insurgency, in Vietnam. As readily observable, where I had previously downplayed my opposition to some of Bobby's positions I now put a minus next to them. That is politics.
Finally though, I will frankly admit a lingering ‘softness’ for Bobby. Why? The late political journalist Jack Newfield one of the inevitable 'talking heads' that people PBS productions, a biographer of Robert Kennedy I believe but in any case a close companion in the mid-1960’s and a prior resident of the Bedford-Stuveysant ghetto of New York City, made this comment about a Robert Kennedy response to his question during a tour of that area. Newfield asked Kennedy what he would have become if he had grown up in Bedford-Stuveysant. Bobby responded quickly- I would either be a juvenile delinquent or a revolutionary. I would like to think that he meant those alternatives seriously. Enough said.
DVD REVIEW
Robert Kennedy, American Experience, PBS, 2004
It is somewhat ironic that at just the time that when presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, a recent addition to the Democratic Party pantheon of heroes and heir apparent to the Kennedy legacy, is claiming the nomination of the party that the 40th Anniversary of the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy during the presidential campaign of 1968 is being remembered in some quarters. That event holds much meaning in the political evolution of this writer. The Robert Kennedy campaign of 1968 was the last time that this writer had a serious desire to fight solely on the parliamentary road for progressive political change. So today he too has some remembrances, as well. This documentary from the Public Broadcasting System’s "American Experience" series only adds some visual flashes to those remembrances.
In a commentary in another space I have mentioned that through the tumultuous period leading to the early spring of 1968 that I had done some political somersaults as a result of Bobby Kennedy’s early refusal to take on a sitting president, Lyndon Johnson, for the Democratic nomination for the presidency. Moreover, I committed myself early (sometime in late 1967) to the reelection of Lyndon Johnson, as much as I hated his Vietnam War policy. Why? One Richard M. Nixon. I did not give Eugene McCarthy’s insurgent campaign even a sniff, although I agreed with his anti-war stance. Why? He could not beat one Richard M. Nixon. When Bobby Kennedy jumped in and Johnson announced that he was not going to run again and I was there the next day. I was a senior in college at the time but I believe I spent hundreds of hours that spring working the campaign either out of Boston, Washington, D.C. or elsewhere. Why? Well, you can guess the obvious by now. He COULD beat one Richard M. Nixon.
It was more than that though, and I will discuss that in the next paragraph. I took, as many did, Bobby's murder hard. It would be rather facile now to say that something of my youth, and that of others who I have talked to recently about this event, got left behind with his murder but there you have it. However, to show you the kind of political year that it was for me about a week after his death I was in the Hubert Humphrey campaign office in Boston. Why? You know why by now. And for those who don’t it had one name- Richard M. Nixon.
But let us get back to that other, more virtuous, political motive for supporting Bobby Kennedy. It was always, in those days, complicated coming from Massachusetts to separate out the whirlwind effect that the Kennedy family had on us, especially on ‘shanty’ Irish families. On the one hand we wished one of our own well, especially against the WASPs, on the other there was always that innate bitterness (jealousy, if you will) that it was not we who were the ones that were getting ahead. If there is any Irish in your family you know what I am talking about.
To be sure, as a fourteen year old I walked the neighborhood for John Kennedy in 1960 but as I have mentioned elsewhere that was a pro forma thing. Part of the ritual of entry into presidential politics. The Bobby thing was from the heart. Why? It is hard to explain but there was something about the deeply felt sense of Irish fatalism that he projected, especially after the death of his brother, that attracted me to him. But also the ruthless side where he was willing to cut Mayor Daly and every politician like him down or pat them on the back and more, if necessary, to get a little rough justice in the world. In those days I held those qualities, especially in tandem, in high esteem. Hell, I still do, if on a narrower basis.
Okay, that is enough for a trip down memory lane back to the old politically naïve days, or rather opportunistic days. Without detailing the events here the end of 1968 was also a watershed year for changing my belief that an individual candidate rather than ideas and political program were decisive for political organizing. That understanding, furthermore, changed my political appreciation for Bobby Kennedy (and the vices and virtues of the Democratic Party). That is the import of this well-produced (as always) portrayal of the short life and career of Robert Kennedy. If in 1968, with my 1968 political understandings, I stood shoulder to shoulder with Robert Kennedy my political evolution and his political past, as detailed here, have changed my perceptions dramatically.
This documentary highlights the close relationship between Robert and his older brother John starting with the Massachusetts United Senate campaign in 1952 (and that would continue in the 1960 campaign and during John Kennedy’s administration right up to the assassination). We are presented here, however, with the ‘bad’ Bobby who was more than willing to join Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy’s “red scare” anti-communist campaign and the anti-labor McClellan Committee campaigns against Jimmy Hoffa in particular. There is no love lost between this writer and labor bureaucrats like Hoffa (or his son) but a bedrock position then and today is the need for labor to clean its own house. What purpose does government intervention into the labor movement do except to weaken it? Bobby was on the other side on this one, as well.
Under the John Kennedy Administration Robert, moreover, played a key role in putting a damper on the early civil rights movement in the South (as well as putting a 'tap' on Martin Luther King at the behest of one J. Edgar Hoover), the Bay of Pigs decision and aftermath , the Cuban Missile Crisis confrontation with the Soviet Union and the early escalation, under the rubric of counter-insurgency, in Vietnam. As readily observable, where I had previously downplayed my opposition to some of Bobby's positions I now put a minus next to them. That is politics.
Finally though, I will frankly admit a lingering ‘softness’ for Bobby. Why? The late political journalist Jack Newfield one of the inevitable 'talking heads' that people PBS productions, a biographer of Robert Kennedy I believe but in any case a close companion in the mid-1960’s and a prior resident of the Bedford-Stuveysant ghetto of New York City, made this comment about a Robert Kennedy response to his question during a tour of that area. Newfield asked Kennedy what he would have become if he had grown up in Bedford-Stuveysant. Bobby responded quickly- I would either be a juvenile delinquent or a revolutionary. I would like to think that he meant those alternatives seriously. Enough said.
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
*The Circle Game- The Songs of Tom Rush
Click on the headline to link to a YouTube film clip of Tom Rush performing Joni Mitchell's The Circle Game.
CD REVIEW
The Circle Game, Tom Rush, 1968
If I were to ask someone, in the year 2008, to name a male folk singer from the 1960’s I would assume that if I were to get an answer to that question that the name would be Bob Dylan. And that would be a good and appropriate choice. One can endlessly dispute whether or not Dylan was (or wanted to be) the voice of the Generation of ’68 but in terms of longevity and productivity he fits the bill as a known quality. However, there were a slew of other male folk singers who tried to find their niche in the folk milieu and who, like Dylan, today continue to produce work and to perform. The artist under review Tom Rush is one such singer/songwriter.
The following is a question that I have been posing in reviewing the work of a number of male folk singers from the 1960’s and it is certainly an appropriate question to ask of Tom Rush as well. I do not know if Tom Rush, like his contemporary Bob Dylan, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. A decent acoustic guitar but a very interesting (and strong baritone) voice to fit the lyrics of love, hope, and longing that he was singing about at the time. This was period when he was covering other artists, particularly Joni Mitchell, so it is not clear to me that he had that same Dylan drive by then (1968).
As for the songs themselves I mentioned that he covered Joni Mitchell in this period. That is represented here by a very nice version of Urge For Going that captures the wintry imaginary that Joni was trying to evoke about things back in her Canadian home. And the timelessness of Circle Game, as the Generation of ’68 sees another generational cycle starting, is apparent now if it was not then. The Rockport Sunday (instrumental) combined with the sadly haunting No Regrets used to get much play by this writer after some ‘relationship’ problems didn’t get thrashed out satisfactorily in the old days. This is classic Tom Rush. Get It.
Joni Mitchell Circle Game Lyrics
Yesterday a child came out to wonder
Caught a dragonfly inside a jar
Fearful when the sky was full of thunder
And tearful at the falling of a star
Then the child moved ten times round the seasons
Skated over ten clear frozen streams
Words like, when you’re older, must appease him
And promises of someday make his dreams
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and dawn
We’re captive on the carousel of time
We can’t return we con only look behind
From where we cameAnd go round and round and round
In the circle game.
Sixteen springs and sixteen summers gone now
Cartwheels turn to car wheels thru the town
And they tell him,
Take your time, it won’t be long now
Till you drag your feet to slow the circles down
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and dawn
We’re captive on the carousel of time
We can’t return we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and roundIn the circle game
So the years spin by and now the boy is twenty
Though his dreams have lost some grandeurComing true
There’ll be new dreams, maybe better dreams and plenty
Before the last revolving year is through.
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We’re captive on the carousel of time
We can’t return, we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game
CD REVIEW
The Circle Game, Tom Rush, 1968
If I were to ask someone, in the year 2008, to name a male folk singer from the 1960’s I would assume that if I were to get an answer to that question that the name would be Bob Dylan. And that would be a good and appropriate choice. One can endlessly dispute whether or not Dylan was (or wanted to be) the voice of the Generation of ’68 but in terms of longevity and productivity he fits the bill as a known quality. However, there were a slew of other male folk singers who tried to find their niche in the folk milieu and who, like Dylan, today continue to produce work and to perform. The artist under review Tom Rush is one such singer/songwriter.
The following is a question that I have been posing in reviewing the work of a number of male folk singers from the 1960’s and it is certainly an appropriate question to ask of Tom Rush as well. I do not know if Tom Rush, like his contemporary Bob Dylan, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. A decent acoustic guitar but a very interesting (and strong baritone) voice to fit the lyrics of love, hope, and longing that he was singing about at the time. This was period when he was covering other artists, particularly Joni Mitchell, so it is not clear to me that he had that same Dylan drive by then (1968).
As for the songs themselves I mentioned that he covered Joni Mitchell in this period. That is represented here by a very nice version of Urge For Going that captures the wintry imaginary that Joni was trying to evoke about things back in her Canadian home. And the timelessness of Circle Game, as the Generation of ’68 sees another generational cycle starting, is apparent now if it was not then. The Rockport Sunday (instrumental) combined with the sadly haunting No Regrets used to get much play by this writer after some ‘relationship’ problems didn’t get thrashed out satisfactorily in the old days. This is classic Tom Rush. Get It.
Joni Mitchell Circle Game Lyrics
Yesterday a child came out to wonder
Caught a dragonfly inside a jar
Fearful when the sky was full of thunder
And tearful at the falling of a star
Then the child moved ten times round the seasons
Skated over ten clear frozen streams
Words like, when you’re older, must appease him
And promises of someday make his dreams
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and dawn
We’re captive on the carousel of time
We can’t return we con only look behind
From where we cameAnd go round and round and round
In the circle game.
Sixteen springs and sixteen summers gone now
Cartwheels turn to car wheels thru the town
And they tell him,
Take your time, it won’t be long now
Till you drag your feet to slow the circles down
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and dawn
We’re captive on the carousel of time
We can’t return we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and roundIn the circle game
So the years spin by and now the boy is twenty
Though his dreams have lost some grandeurComing true
There’ll be new dreams, maybe better dreams and plenty
Before the last revolving year is through.
And the seasons they go round and round
And the painted ponies go up and down
We’re captive on the carousel of time
We can’t return, we can only look behind
From where we came
And go round and round and round
In the circle game
Saturday, July 12, 2008
The Last Thing On My Mind- The Songs of Tom Paxton
CD REVIEW
The Greatest Hits of Tom Paxton, Tom Paxton, 1991
If I were to ask someone, in the year 2008, to name a male folk singer from the 1960’s I would assume that if I were to get an answer to that question that the name would be Bob Dylan. And that would be a good and appropriate choice. One can endlessly dispute whether or not Dylan was (or wanted to be) the voice of the Generation of ’68 but in terms of longevity and productivity he fits the bill as a known quality. However, there were a slew of other male folk singers who tried to find their niche in the folk milieu and who, like Dylan, today continue to produce work and to perform. The artist under review Tom Paxton is one such singer/songwriter.
The following is a question that I have been posing in reviewing the work of a number of male folk singers from the 1960’s and it is certainly an appropriate question to ask of Tom Paxton as well. I do not know if Tom Paxton, like his contemporary Bob Dylan, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. A decent acoustic guitar but a very interesting (and strong) voice to fit the lyrics of love, hope, longing and sometimes just sheer whimsy, as in the children’s songs, that he was singing about at the time. I would venture however, given what I know of his politics and the probably influence that his good friend the late folksinger and historian Dave Van Ronk had on him, that the answer above is probably no.
As for the songs themselves in this greatest hits compilation, a format that never really give an artist’s full range of hits and that is the case here, we get a fair range of what the good Mr. Paxton produced in the old days. Ramblin’ Boy and Bottle of Wine are evocative of hobo days here. Some peace songs (Peace Will Come, Jimmy with an extremely powerful anti-war message), some songs of love (Katy) and the above-mentioned children’s songs (Going to the Zoo). And, of course, his 'theme song' and the one that he has stated that he never gets tired of playing, The Last Thing On My Mine. And I never get tired of listening to.
The Greatest Hits of Tom Paxton, Tom Paxton, 1991
If I were to ask someone, in the year 2008, to name a male folk singer from the 1960’s I would assume that if I were to get an answer to that question that the name would be Bob Dylan. And that would be a good and appropriate choice. One can endlessly dispute whether or not Dylan was (or wanted to be) the voice of the Generation of ’68 but in terms of longevity and productivity he fits the bill as a known quality. However, there were a slew of other male folk singers who tried to find their niche in the folk milieu and who, like Dylan, today continue to produce work and to perform. The artist under review Tom Paxton is one such singer/songwriter.
The following is a question that I have been posing in reviewing the work of a number of male folk singers from the 1960’s and it is certainly an appropriate question to ask of Tom Paxton as well. I do not know if Tom Paxton, like his contemporary Bob Dylan, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. A decent acoustic guitar but a very interesting (and strong) voice to fit the lyrics of love, hope, longing and sometimes just sheer whimsy, as in the children’s songs, that he was singing about at the time. I would venture however, given what I know of his politics and the probably influence that his good friend the late folksinger and historian Dave Van Ronk had on him, that the answer above is probably no.
As for the songs themselves in this greatest hits compilation, a format that never really give an artist’s full range of hits and that is the case here, we get a fair range of what the good Mr. Paxton produced in the old days. Ramblin’ Boy and Bottle of Wine are evocative of hobo days here. Some peace songs (Peace Will Come, Jimmy with an extremely powerful anti-war message), some songs of love (Katy) and the above-mentioned children’s songs (Going to the Zoo). And, of course, his 'theme song' and the one that he has stated that he never gets tired of playing, The Last Thing On My Mine. And I never get tired of listening to.
Friday, July 11, 2008
***Have You Ever Seen A .. The Songs of Jesse Winchester
CD REVIEW
Live From Mountain Stage, Jesse Winchester, 2001
If I were to ask someone, in the year 2008, to name a male folk singer from the 1960’s I would assume that if I were to get an answer to that question that the name would be Bob Dylan. And that would be a good and appropriate choice. One can endlessly dispute whether or not Dylan was (or wanted to be) the voice of the Generation of ’68 but in terms of longevity and productivity he fits the bill as a known quality. However, there were a slew of other male folk singers who tried to find their niche in the folk milieu and who, like Dylan, today continue to produce work and to perform. The artist under review Jesse Winchester is one such singer/songwriter.
The following is a question that I have been posing in reviewing the work of a number of male folk singers from the 1960’s and it is certainly an appropriate question to ask of Jesse as well. I do not know if Jesse Winchester, like his contemporary Bob Dylan, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. A decent acoustic guitar but a very interesting voice to fit the lyrics of love, hope and longing that he was singing about at the time. Of course, the need to go to Canada as a draft exile from the Vietnam War perhaps cut across cut across some of those youthful dreams.
As for the songs themselves, many that evokes the Southern roots from which Winchester came. Eualie is evocative of that. Other nice touches are That’s What Makes You Strong and his patented Brand New Tennessee Waltz. But the one I have always liked personally, and here my roots show, is Yankee Lady. Hell, I once had a relationship with a woman like the one he describes in that little song. Didn’t we all (male or female), back then.
Live From Mountain Stage, Jesse Winchester, 2001
If I were to ask someone, in the year 2008, to name a male folk singer from the 1960’s I would assume that if I were to get an answer to that question that the name would be Bob Dylan. And that would be a good and appropriate choice. One can endlessly dispute whether or not Dylan was (or wanted to be) the voice of the Generation of ’68 but in terms of longevity and productivity he fits the bill as a known quality. However, there were a slew of other male folk singers who tried to find their niche in the folk milieu and who, like Dylan, today continue to produce work and to perform. The artist under review Jesse Winchester is one such singer/songwriter.
The following is a question that I have been posing in reviewing the work of a number of male folk singers from the 1960’s and it is certainly an appropriate question to ask of Jesse as well. I do not know if Jesse Winchester, like his contemporary Bob Dylan, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. A decent acoustic guitar but a very interesting voice to fit the lyrics of love, hope and longing that he was singing about at the time. Of course, the need to go to Canada as a draft exile from the Vietnam War perhaps cut across cut across some of those youthful dreams.
As for the songs themselves, many that evokes the Southern roots from which Winchester came. Eualie is evocative of that. Other nice touches are That’s What Makes You Strong and his patented Brand New Tennessee Waltz. But the one I have always liked personally, and here my roots show, is Yankee Lady. Hell, I once had a relationship with a woman like the one he describes in that little song. Didn’t we all (male or female), back then.
Thursday, July 10, 2008
*A Folksinger (Oops) Jazz Vocalist Struts His Stuff- A Dave Van Ronk Encore
Click on title to link to YouTube's film clip of Dave Van Ronk performing "Hesitation Blues"
CD REVIEW
Somebody Else, Not Me, Dave Van Ronk, 1970
If I were to ask someone, in the year 2008, to name a male folk singer from the 1960’s I would assume that if I were to get an answer to that question that the name would be Bob Dylan. And that would be a good and appropriate choice. One can endlessly dispute whether or not Dylan was (or wanted to be) the voice of the Generation of ’68 but in terms of longevity and productivity he fits the bill as a known quality. However, there were a slew of other male folk singers who tried to find their niche in the folk milieu and who, like Dylan, today continue to produce work and to perform. The artist under review Dave Van Ronk is one such singer/songwriter.
The following is a question that I have been posing in reviewing the work of a number of male folk singers from the 1960’s and it is certainly an appropriate question to ask of Dave Van Ronk as well. I do not know if Dave Van Ronk, like his near contemporary Bob Dylan, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. A decent acoustic guitar but a very interesting (and strong baritone) voice to fit the lyrics of love, hope, longing and sheer whimsy as he barreled through the traditional folk catalogue he was singing about at the time. I would venture however, given what I know of his politics and the probably influence that his deep sense of folk history had on him (as well as other musical influences), that the answer above is probably no.
As for the songs themselves. "Oh, Hannah" (which I believe he wrote) stands out as a tribute to traditional shout and response music. His friend Tom Paxton’s "Did You Hear John Hurt?" about that legendary country blues singer is another stand out. His voice carries the "Casey Jones" tune with gusto. "Sportin’ Life" is his little tip of the hat to his jazz roots. And "Pastures of Plenty" a tip to Woody Guthrie (as well as Bob Dylan's "Song to Woody"). Just a nice selection that will have you screaming for more. Do it.
"Cocaine Blues"
Every time my baby and me we go uptown
Police come and they knock me down
Cocaine, all around my brain
Hey baby, you better come here quick
This old cocaine's about to make
Cocaine, all around my brain
Yonder come my baby she's dressed in red
She's got a shotgun, says she's gonna kill me dead
Cocaine, all around my brain
Hey baby, you better come here quick
This old cocaine's about to make me sick
Cocaine, all around my brain
You take Sally and I'll take Sue
Ain't no difference between the two
Cocaine, all around my brain
Hey baby, you better come here quick
This old cocaine's about to make me sick
Cocaine, all around my brain
Cocaine's for horses and it's not for men
Doctor says it kill you but it doesn't say when
Cocaine, all around my brain
Hey baby, you better come here quick
This old cocaine's about to make me sick
Cocaine, all around my brain
Hey baby, you better come here quick
This old cocaine's about to make me sick
Cocaine, all around my brain
COME ALL YE FAIR AND TENDER LADIES
(A.P. Carter)
The Carter Family - 1932
The Kingston Trio - 1961
Osborne Brothers - 1962
Anita Carter - 1963
Glen Campbell - 1963
The Browns - 1964
George Hamilton IV - 1964
Makem & Clancy - 1964
Clive Palmer - 1967
The Manhattan Transfer - 1969
Dave Van Ronk - 1969
The Hillmen - 1970
Herb Pedersen - 1977
Charlie McCoy - 1978
Mary McCaslin - 1981
Gene Clark & Carla Olson - 1987
The Rankin Family - 1992
The Whites - 2000
Also recorded by: June Carter; Rosanne Cash; Merle Travis;
Bread & Bones; Cherish The Ladies; Golden Delicious; Danú;
Murray Head; Country Gentlemen; Pete Seeger; Ian & Sylvia;
George Elliott; Black Twigs; Craig Herbertson; Tim O'Brien;
The Peasall Sisters:........and others.
Come all ye fair and tender ladies
Take warning how you court young men
They're like a bright star on a cloudy morning
They will first appear and then they're gone
They'll tell to you some loving story
To make you think that they love you true
Straightway they'll go and court some other
Oh that's the love that they have for you
Do you remember our days of courting
When your head lay upon my breast
You could make me believe with the falling of your arm
That the sun rose in the West
I wish I were some little sparrow
And I had wings and I could fly
I would fly away to my false true lover
And while he'll talk I would sit and cry
But I am not some little sparrow
I have no wings nor can I fly
So I'll sit down here in grief and sorrow
And try to pass my troubles by
I wish I had known before I courted
That love had been so hard to gain
I'd of locked my heart in a box of golden
And fastened it down with a silver chain
Young men never cast your eye on beauty
For beauty is a thing that will decay
For the prettiest flowers that grow in the garden
How soon they'll wither, will wither and fade away
******
ALTERNATE VERSION:
Come all ye fair and tender ladies
Take warning how you court young men
They're like a star on summer morning
They first appear and then they're gone
They'll tell to you some loving story
And make you think they love you so well
Then away they'll go and court some other
And leave you there in grief to dwell
I wish I was on some tall mountain
Where the ivy rocks are black as ink
I'd write a letter to my lost true lover
Whose cheeks are like the morning pink
For love is handsome, love is charming
And love is pretty while it's new
But love grows cold as love grows old
And fades away like the mornin' dew
And fades away like the mornin' dew
CD REVIEW
Somebody Else, Not Me, Dave Van Ronk, 1970
If I were to ask someone, in the year 2008, to name a male folk singer from the 1960’s I would assume that if I were to get an answer to that question that the name would be Bob Dylan. And that would be a good and appropriate choice. One can endlessly dispute whether or not Dylan was (or wanted to be) the voice of the Generation of ’68 but in terms of longevity and productivity he fits the bill as a known quality. However, there were a slew of other male folk singers who tried to find their niche in the folk milieu and who, like Dylan, today continue to produce work and to perform. The artist under review Dave Van Ronk is one such singer/songwriter.
The following is a question that I have been posing in reviewing the work of a number of male folk singers from the 1960’s and it is certainly an appropriate question to ask of Dave Van Ronk as well. I do not know if Dave Van Ronk, like his near contemporary Bob Dylan, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. A decent acoustic guitar but a very interesting (and strong baritone) voice to fit the lyrics of love, hope, longing and sheer whimsy as he barreled through the traditional folk catalogue he was singing about at the time. I would venture however, given what I know of his politics and the probably influence that his deep sense of folk history had on him (as well as other musical influences), that the answer above is probably no.
As for the songs themselves. "Oh, Hannah" (which I believe he wrote) stands out as a tribute to traditional shout and response music. His friend Tom Paxton’s "Did You Hear John Hurt?" about that legendary country blues singer is another stand out. His voice carries the "Casey Jones" tune with gusto. "Sportin’ Life" is his little tip of the hat to his jazz roots. And "Pastures of Plenty" a tip to Woody Guthrie (as well as Bob Dylan's "Song to Woody"). Just a nice selection that will have you screaming for more. Do it.
"Cocaine Blues"
Every time my baby and me we go uptown
Police come and they knock me down
Cocaine, all around my brain
Hey baby, you better come here quick
This old cocaine's about to make
Cocaine, all around my brain
Yonder come my baby she's dressed in red
She's got a shotgun, says she's gonna kill me dead
Cocaine, all around my brain
Hey baby, you better come here quick
This old cocaine's about to make me sick
Cocaine, all around my brain
You take Sally and I'll take Sue
Ain't no difference between the two
Cocaine, all around my brain
Hey baby, you better come here quick
This old cocaine's about to make me sick
Cocaine, all around my brain
Cocaine's for horses and it's not for men
Doctor says it kill you but it doesn't say when
Cocaine, all around my brain
Hey baby, you better come here quick
This old cocaine's about to make me sick
Cocaine, all around my brain
Hey baby, you better come here quick
This old cocaine's about to make me sick
Cocaine, all around my brain
COME ALL YE FAIR AND TENDER LADIES
(A.P. Carter)
The Carter Family - 1932
The Kingston Trio - 1961
Osborne Brothers - 1962
Anita Carter - 1963
Glen Campbell - 1963
The Browns - 1964
George Hamilton IV - 1964
Makem & Clancy - 1964
Clive Palmer - 1967
The Manhattan Transfer - 1969
Dave Van Ronk - 1969
The Hillmen - 1970
Herb Pedersen - 1977
Charlie McCoy - 1978
Mary McCaslin - 1981
Gene Clark & Carla Olson - 1987
The Rankin Family - 1992
The Whites - 2000
Also recorded by: June Carter; Rosanne Cash; Merle Travis;
Bread & Bones; Cherish The Ladies; Golden Delicious; Danú;
Murray Head; Country Gentlemen; Pete Seeger; Ian & Sylvia;
George Elliott; Black Twigs; Craig Herbertson; Tim O'Brien;
The Peasall Sisters:........and others.
Come all ye fair and tender ladies
Take warning how you court young men
They're like a bright star on a cloudy morning
They will first appear and then they're gone
They'll tell to you some loving story
To make you think that they love you true
Straightway they'll go and court some other
Oh that's the love that they have for you
Do you remember our days of courting
When your head lay upon my breast
You could make me believe with the falling of your arm
That the sun rose in the West
I wish I were some little sparrow
And I had wings and I could fly
I would fly away to my false true lover
And while he'll talk I would sit and cry
But I am not some little sparrow
I have no wings nor can I fly
So I'll sit down here in grief and sorrow
And try to pass my troubles by
I wish I had known before I courted
That love had been so hard to gain
I'd of locked my heart in a box of golden
And fastened it down with a silver chain
Young men never cast your eye on beauty
For beauty is a thing that will decay
For the prettiest flowers that grow in the garden
How soon they'll wither, will wither and fade away
******
ALTERNATE VERSION:
Come all ye fair and tender ladies
Take warning how you court young men
They're like a star on summer morning
They first appear and then they're gone
They'll tell to you some loving story
And make you think they love you so well
Then away they'll go and court some other
And leave you there in grief to dwell
I wish I was on some tall mountain
Where the ivy rocks are black as ink
I'd write a letter to my lost true lover
Whose cheeks are like the morning pink
For love is handsome, love is charming
And love is pretty while it's new
But love grows cold as love grows old
And fades away like the mornin' dew
And fades away like the mornin' dew
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Soul of A City Boy- Jesse Colin Young
CD REVIEW
Soul of A City Boy, Jesse Colin Young, 1964
If I were to ask someone, in the year 2008, to name a male folk singer from the 1960’s I would assume that if I were to get an answer to that question that the name would be Bob Dylan. And that would be a good and appropriate choice. One can endlessly dispute whether or not Dylan was (or wanted to be) the voice of the Generation of ’68 but in terms of longevity and productivity he fits the bill as a known quality. However, there were a slew of other male folk singers who tried to find their niche in the folk milieu and who, like Dylan, today continue to produce work and to perform. The artist under review Jesse Colin Young is one such singer/songwriter.
The following is a question that I have been posing in reviewing the work of a number of male folk singers from the 1960’s and it is certainly an appropriate question to ask of Jesse as well. I do not know if Jesse Colin Young, like his contemporary Bob Dylan whom he followed in moving from acoustic folk to folk rock, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. A fair to middling acoustic guitar but a very interesting and mournful voice in the early acoustic days.
Moreover, Jesse set himself, more than others of the time, to speak to urban concerns and longings. I can remember being mesmerized by the effect of Four In The Morning (usually listening to it at that time, as well). Or the longing behind Suzanne and Black Eyed Susan. Or the late night whiff of whiskey in the air (Yes, I know we were underage at the time but let us let that pass) with the forgetfulness of Rye Whiskey. Yes, there were some tools and talent there. People may be more familiar with the latter electric rock material of the Youngbloods days but give a listen to Jesse, back in the day.
The Greatest Hits of Jesse Colin Young, Jesse Colin Young, 1991
The following is a question that I have been posing in reviewing the work of a number of male folk singers from the 1960’s and it is certainly an appropriate question to ask of Jesse as well. I do not know if Jesse Colin Young, like his contemporary Bob Dylan whom he followed in moving from acoustic folk to electric folk rock, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. A fair to middling acoustic guitar but a very interesting and mournful voice in the early acoustic days. Then the switch to electric folk rock and beyond, and the joining up with the Youngbloods that forms the core of this greatest hits compilations.
Jesse Colin Young and the Youngbloods were one of the signature groups of the 1960’s not so much for their sound which was pretty much a familiar one from the period but the lyrics and the politics. Songs like Get Together, Sunlight, Darkness, Song for Juli and some others created a mood of hope (sometimes with dope) that got a number of people through the hard times of growing up in that time. Personally, though as much as I liked some of what the Youngbloods did I still go back to that old Jesse classic from the acoustic days Four In The Morning- that’s the ticket. If you need to hear it all though, this is a good bet.
Soul of A City Boy, Jesse Colin Young, 1964
If I were to ask someone, in the year 2008, to name a male folk singer from the 1960’s I would assume that if I were to get an answer to that question that the name would be Bob Dylan. And that would be a good and appropriate choice. One can endlessly dispute whether or not Dylan was (or wanted to be) the voice of the Generation of ’68 but in terms of longevity and productivity he fits the bill as a known quality. However, there were a slew of other male folk singers who tried to find their niche in the folk milieu and who, like Dylan, today continue to produce work and to perform. The artist under review Jesse Colin Young is one such singer/songwriter.
The following is a question that I have been posing in reviewing the work of a number of male folk singers from the 1960’s and it is certainly an appropriate question to ask of Jesse as well. I do not know if Jesse Colin Young, like his contemporary Bob Dylan whom he followed in moving from acoustic folk to folk rock, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. A fair to middling acoustic guitar but a very interesting and mournful voice in the early acoustic days.
Moreover, Jesse set himself, more than others of the time, to speak to urban concerns and longings. I can remember being mesmerized by the effect of Four In The Morning (usually listening to it at that time, as well). Or the longing behind Suzanne and Black Eyed Susan. Or the late night whiff of whiskey in the air (Yes, I know we were underage at the time but let us let that pass) with the forgetfulness of Rye Whiskey. Yes, there were some tools and talent there. People may be more familiar with the latter electric rock material of the Youngbloods days but give a listen to Jesse, back in the day.
The Greatest Hits of Jesse Colin Young, Jesse Colin Young, 1991
The following is a question that I have been posing in reviewing the work of a number of male folk singers from the 1960’s and it is certainly an appropriate question to ask of Jesse as well. I do not know if Jesse Colin Young, like his contemporary Bob Dylan whom he followed in moving from acoustic folk to electric folk rock, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. A fair to middling acoustic guitar but a very interesting and mournful voice in the early acoustic days. Then the switch to electric folk rock and beyond, and the joining up with the Youngbloods that forms the core of this greatest hits compilations.
Jesse Colin Young and the Youngbloods were one of the signature groups of the 1960’s not so much for their sound which was pretty much a familiar one from the period but the lyrics and the politics. Songs like Get Together, Sunlight, Darkness, Song for Juli and some others created a mood of hope (sometimes with dope) that got a number of people through the hard times of growing up in that time. Personally, though as much as I liked some of what the Youngbloods did I still go back to that old Jesse classic from the acoustic days Four In The Morning- that’s the ticket. If you need to hear it all though, this is a good bet.
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
*Killin' The Blues- The Blue Folk World Of Chris Smither
CD Review
Train Home, Chris Smither, 2004
If I were to ask someone, in the year 2008, to name a male folk singer from the 1960's I would assume that if I were to get an answer to that question that the name would be Bob Dylan. And that would be a good and appropriate choice. One can endlessly dispute whether or not Dylan was (or wanted to be) the voice of the Generation of '68 but in terms of longevity and productivity he fits the bill as a known quality. However, there were a slew of other male folk singers who tried to find their niche in the folk milieu and who, like Dylan, today continue to produce work and to perform. The artist under review Chris Smither is one such singer/songwriter.
I do not know if Chris Smither, like his contemporary Bob Dylan, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. He plays that signature blue guitar for all it is worth on such covers as "Crocodile Man" yet can turn it down several notches for a song like "Never Needed You" and then goes softer on reflective songs like "Kind Woman". Moreover he is as capable as a songwriter as any of writing of longing, lost love, thoughts of mortality and...being stupid in the world. Witness "Let It Go" on that last point. Then turn it up a notch with a bittersweet song like "Lola" (males-haven't we all had our Rock and Roll Lolas-or wanted to). As then, as if to pay homage to the icon of the generation, a nod to Bob with a shortened version of the Dylan classic "Desolation Row". Yes, Chris had the tools to go out and slay the dragons of the folk world. This is his five star work. That work may not be well known outside the precincts of the graying folk world, but it should be.
It Ain't Easy, Chris Smither, 1993
I do not know if Chris Smither, like his contemporary Bob Dylan, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. He plays that signature blue guitar for all it is worth on Rock and Roll Doctor yet can turn it down several notches for a song like "Killin’ The Blues" (a song that he wished that he had written and I agree) and then goes softer on reflective songs like "Take It All". Moreover he is as capable as a songwriter as any of writing of longing, lost love, thoughts of mortality and…being stupid in the world. Witness "Memphis, In The Meantime" on that last point. Then turn it up a notch with a bittersweet song like "Happier Blue". Yes, Chris had the tools to go out and slay the dragons of the folk world. That work may not be well known outside the precincts of the graying folk world, but it should be.
Lyrics to Happier Blue :
I was sad, and then I loved you,
It took my breath
Now I think you love me, and
It scares me to death,
‘Cause now I lie awake and wonder, I worry,
I think about losin' you
I don't care what you say
Maybe I was happier blue
I don't care what you say
Maybe I was happier blue
Justice is a lady,
Blind, with a scale,
And a big letter-opener.
She's been readin' my mail
I don't know why this should shame me,
But it does, somehow
I don't care what you say,
She don't look like a lady now.
I don't care what you say,
She don't look like a lady now
I believe in heavy thinking,
I believe in heavy sound,
I believe in heavy images
To hold it all down.
Light as a feather in spite of me
I don't care what you say
Faith is not a guarantee
I don't care what you say
Faith is not a guarantee
Did you think I didn't know that?
You might be right.
I swear I will forget it if it
Takes all night.
I never needed nothin' like I ever needed
Knowin' I needed you
I don't care what you say
None of this is nothin' new
I don't care what you say
None of this is nothin' new
Lyrics to Killing The Blues :
Oh, leaves were falling
They're just like embers
In colors red and gold they set us on fire
Burning just like moonbeams in our eyes
Someone said they saw me
They said I was swinging the world by the tail
Bouncing over the white clouds
That I was killing the blues
Just killing the blues
Well, I am guilty of something
That I hope you never do
'Cause nothing is sadder
Than losing yourself in love
Someone said they saw me
They said I was swinging the world by the tail
Bouncing over the white clouds
Just killing the blues
Just killing the blues
Oh, when you asked me
Just to leave you
And set out on my own to find what I needed
You asked me to find what I already had
Someone said they saw me
They said I was swinging the world by the tail
Bouncing over the white clouds
I was killing the blues
Just killing the blues
Someone said they saw me
They said I swinging the world by the tail
Bouncing over the white clouds
I was killing the blues
Been killing the blues
Just killing the blues
"Train Home"
Take a look inside,
I got nothin' left to hide,
take me as I am,
not what I wanna be.
The why we'll never know, we passed that long ago.
Is and was is all we're ever gonna be.
He's almost shade, down by the river,
feels a breath that makes him shiver,
takes a breath and makes a dive alone.
But the dead don't get no vacation,
down in that subway station,
the only break they take is to the bone.
They waitin' on a train to take 'em home.
I don't think I see much of anything for me
in visions of the past or the ever-after.
Now is what can be,
all the rest is wait and see,
those prophets never hear that cosmic laughter.
And gypsies in their wagons rollin'
never hear those death bells tollin',
never take no notice of the tone.
But I do, and my pulse beats quicker,
scornful laughs and knowing snickers,
stop my heart and sink it like a stone.
And I'm waitin' on a train to take me home.
This ain't what it seems, it's not the stuff of dreams,
nothing is as clear as this confusion.
The somewhat welcome news
is there is no way to lose,
because what isn't real is genuine illusion.
And it's all about that graveyard dancin',
some sit still, some still prancin',
some get caught between them
in a zone where there's nothin' left to give 'em cover,
they can't even see each other,
they just step and stumble on their own.
They waitin' on a train to take 'em home.
They waitin' on a train,
I'm waitin' on a train,
we all waitin' on a train to take us home
"Lola"
Lookin' for my Lola, she's drinkin' rum and Coca Cola,
Smokes big cigars,
she drives big cars around.
Folks say she's gonna reach the top,
but she says that's just her first stop.
I know she ain't a good 'un,
whatcha bet she wouln' lose much sleep
if I should die today.
She says the love ain't cheap, but the pain is free
and I say, 'But that sounds good to me!'
She's got hooks to make a fish think twice,
but I ain't no fish.
I'll pay any price.
If I think at all, I think, 'This feels nice!'
Lookin' for my Lola, what if I'd 'a told ya
she don't even know she hurts me so.
She says 'I don't hate you, it ain't that big a deal,
you don't even figure in the way I feel.' but
don't think she feels too much at all.
I said 'Have a heart', she told me to my face,
'What little heart I got is in the wrong place.'
Lookin' for my Lola, she's a little rock 'n roller,
party down, paint the town again.
She drinks too much, she keeps it hid,
everybody says she's a hell of a kid,
but she ain't no kid when she's cuttin' me apart.
That's OK, I told her from the start,
'Don't stop 'fore you get my heart.'
Lookin' for my Lola, I barely got to know ya.
For all I know, there ain't a lot to know.
Either I gave up or she let me go,
how I got away I'll never know.
My life should be better, and it's not.
I know you think that she was pretty bad,
I wouldn't know, she was all I had
"Never Needed It More"
If love is the meal for the hunger you feel,
call for the witer.
We're all gonna feed on whatever
we need sooner or later.
I just stay out of my way.
I call for the check when I'm ready to pay.
The bill's for the faith or the will,
whichever is greater.
CHORUS Tell me how does it happen?
I can't tell you for sure,
but I don't think I ever needed it more
Cuz now it's two for the show and
they all wanna how
did you meet her?
I think it was luck,
she fell off a truck,
from there it was follow the leader.
I saw her walkin' alone,
I treated her nice and she followed me home.
There was nobody there to tell me
that I couldn't keep her.
CHORUS (variant) Tell me how does it happen?
I can't tell you for sure,
but I don't shut my tail in the door any more.
CHORUS
You know it's only a scene,
the play is the dream,
the bigger the better.
What can I say,
she's writin' the play and I'm gonna let her.
I just believe in the role.
I open wide and it swallows me whole.
The take is the give,
the give is the way that I get her.
Train Home, Chris Smither, 2004
If I were to ask someone, in the year 2008, to name a male folk singer from the 1960's I would assume that if I were to get an answer to that question that the name would be Bob Dylan. And that would be a good and appropriate choice. One can endlessly dispute whether or not Dylan was (or wanted to be) the voice of the Generation of '68 but in terms of longevity and productivity he fits the bill as a known quality. However, there were a slew of other male folk singers who tried to find their niche in the folk milieu and who, like Dylan, today continue to produce work and to perform. The artist under review Chris Smither is one such singer/songwriter.
I do not know if Chris Smither, like his contemporary Bob Dylan, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. He plays that signature blue guitar for all it is worth on such covers as "Crocodile Man" yet can turn it down several notches for a song like "Never Needed You" and then goes softer on reflective songs like "Kind Woman". Moreover he is as capable as a songwriter as any of writing of longing, lost love, thoughts of mortality and...being stupid in the world. Witness "Let It Go" on that last point. Then turn it up a notch with a bittersweet song like "Lola" (males-haven't we all had our Rock and Roll Lolas-or wanted to). As then, as if to pay homage to the icon of the generation, a nod to Bob with a shortened version of the Dylan classic "Desolation Row". Yes, Chris had the tools to go out and slay the dragons of the folk world. This is his five star work. That work may not be well known outside the precincts of the graying folk world, but it should be.
It Ain't Easy, Chris Smither, 1993
I do not know if Chris Smither, like his contemporary Bob Dylan, started out wanting to be the king of the hill among male folk singers but he certainly had some things going for him. He plays that signature blue guitar for all it is worth on Rock and Roll Doctor yet can turn it down several notches for a song like "Killin’ The Blues" (a song that he wished that he had written and I agree) and then goes softer on reflective songs like "Take It All". Moreover he is as capable as a songwriter as any of writing of longing, lost love, thoughts of mortality and…being stupid in the world. Witness "Memphis, In The Meantime" on that last point. Then turn it up a notch with a bittersweet song like "Happier Blue". Yes, Chris had the tools to go out and slay the dragons of the folk world. That work may not be well known outside the precincts of the graying folk world, but it should be.
Lyrics to Happier Blue :
I was sad, and then I loved you,
It took my breath
Now I think you love me, and
It scares me to death,
‘Cause now I lie awake and wonder, I worry,
I think about losin' you
I don't care what you say
Maybe I was happier blue
I don't care what you say
Maybe I was happier blue
Justice is a lady,
Blind, with a scale,
And a big letter-opener.
She's been readin' my mail
I don't know why this should shame me,
But it does, somehow
I don't care what you say,
She don't look like a lady now.
I don't care what you say,
She don't look like a lady now
I believe in heavy thinking,
I believe in heavy sound,
I believe in heavy images
To hold it all down.
Light as a feather in spite of me
I don't care what you say
Faith is not a guarantee
I don't care what you say
Faith is not a guarantee
Did you think I didn't know that?
You might be right.
I swear I will forget it if it
Takes all night.
I never needed nothin' like I ever needed
Knowin' I needed you
I don't care what you say
None of this is nothin' new
I don't care what you say
None of this is nothin' new
Lyrics to Killing The Blues :
Oh, leaves were falling
They're just like embers
In colors red and gold they set us on fire
Burning just like moonbeams in our eyes
Someone said they saw me
They said I was swinging the world by the tail
Bouncing over the white clouds
That I was killing the blues
Just killing the blues
Well, I am guilty of something
That I hope you never do
'Cause nothing is sadder
Than losing yourself in love
Someone said they saw me
They said I was swinging the world by the tail
Bouncing over the white clouds
Just killing the blues
Just killing the blues
Oh, when you asked me
Just to leave you
And set out on my own to find what I needed
You asked me to find what I already had
Someone said they saw me
They said I was swinging the world by the tail
Bouncing over the white clouds
I was killing the blues
Just killing the blues
Someone said they saw me
They said I swinging the world by the tail
Bouncing over the white clouds
I was killing the blues
Been killing the blues
Just killing the blues
"Train Home"
Take a look inside,
I got nothin' left to hide,
take me as I am,
not what I wanna be.
The why we'll never know, we passed that long ago.
Is and was is all we're ever gonna be.
He's almost shade, down by the river,
feels a breath that makes him shiver,
takes a breath and makes a dive alone.
But the dead don't get no vacation,
down in that subway station,
the only break they take is to the bone.
They waitin' on a train to take 'em home.
I don't think I see much of anything for me
in visions of the past or the ever-after.
Now is what can be,
all the rest is wait and see,
those prophets never hear that cosmic laughter.
And gypsies in their wagons rollin'
never hear those death bells tollin',
never take no notice of the tone.
But I do, and my pulse beats quicker,
scornful laughs and knowing snickers,
stop my heart and sink it like a stone.
And I'm waitin' on a train to take me home.
This ain't what it seems, it's not the stuff of dreams,
nothing is as clear as this confusion.
The somewhat welcome news
is there is no way to lose,
because what isn't real is genuine illusion.
And it's all about that graveyard dancin',
some sit still, some still prancin',
some get caught between them
in a zone where there's nothin' left to give 'em cover,
they can't even see each other,
they just step and stumble on their own.
They waitin' on a train to take 'em home.
They waitin' on a train,
I'm waitin' on a train,
we all waitin' on a train to take us home
"Lola"
Lookin' for my Lola, she's drinkin' rum and Coca Cola,
Smokes big cigars,
she drives big cars around.
Folks say she's gonna reach the top,
but she says that's just her first stop.
I know she ain't a good 'un,
whatcha bet she wouln' lose much sleep
if I should die today.
She says the love ain't cheap, but the pain is free
and I say, 'But that sounds good to me!'
She's got hooks to make a fish think twice,
but I ain't no fish.
I'll pay any price.
If I think at all, I think, 'This feels nice!'
Lookin' for my Lola, what if I'd 'a told ya
she don't even know she hurts me so.
She says 'I don't hate you, it ain't that big a deal,
you don't even figure in the way I feel.' but
don't think she feels too much at all.
I said 'Have a heart', she told me to my face,
'What little heart I got is in the wrong place.'
Lookin' for my Lola, she's a little rock 'n roller,
party down, paint the town again.
She drinks too much, she keeps it hid,
everybody says she's a hell of a kid,
but she ain't no kid when she's cuttin' me apart.
That's OK, I told her from the start,
'Don't stop 'fore you get my heart.'
Lookin' for my Lola, I barely got to know ya.
For all I know, there ain't a lot to know.
Either I gave up or she let me go,
how I got away I'll never know.
My life should be better, and it's not.
I know you think that she was pretty bad,
I wouldn't know, she was all I had
"Never Needed It More"
If love is the meal for the hunger you feel,
call for the witer.
We're all gonna feed on whatever
we need sooner or later.
I just stay out of my way.
I call for the check when I'm ready to pay.
The bill's for the faith or the will,
whichever is greater.
CHORUS Tell me how does it happen?
I can't tell you for sure,
but I don't think I ever needed it more
Cuz now it's two for the show and
they all wanna how
did you meet her?
I think it was luck,
she fell off a truck,
from there it was follow the leader.
I saw her walkin' alone,
I treated her nice and she followed me home.
There was nobody there to tell me
that I couldn't keep her.
CHORUS (variant) Tell me how does it happen?
I can't tell you for sure,
but I don't shut my tail in the door any more.
CHORUS
You know it's only a scene,
the play is the dream,
the bigger the better.
What can I say,
she's writin' the play and I'm gonna let her.
I just believe in the role.
I open wide and it swallows me whole.
The take is the give,
the give is the way that I get her.
Monday, July 07, 2008
*"The Long Goodbye"- Raymond Chandler's Phillip Marlowe-Style
Click On Title To Link To Raymond Chandler Web page.
BOOK/DVD REVIEW
The Long Goodbye, novel written by Raymond Chandler, movie directed by Robert Altman, starring Elliot Gould, 1972
Phillip Marlowe, Raymond Chandler's classic noir hard-boiled private detective forever literarily associated with Los Angeles and its means streets is right at home here in his search, at the request of a friend, a ne'e-do-wll friend as it turns out, for the inevitable `missing woman' ("dame", "frill", "frail", for the non-politically correct types) who 'conveniently' turns up dead. There is plenty of sparse but functional dialogue, physical action and a couple of plot twists, particularly around the identity of the above-mentioned `dame' and the motives behind the involvement of various wealthy Californians who have much to gain by a cover-up.
Have no fear however the intrepid Marlowe will figure it out in the end and some kind of 'rough' justice will prevail. At this point in the Chandler Marlowe series our shamus has been around the block more than a few times but he still is punching away at the 'bad guys' and the absurdity of the modern world. How does this one compare with the other Marlowe volumes? Give me those background oil derricks churning out the wealth while looking for General Sternwood's Rusty Regan in The Big Sleep or the run down stucco flats in some shady places in pursuit of Moose's Velma in Farewell, My Lovely any day. Nevertheless, as always with Chandler, you get high literature in a plebeian package.
There have been many cinematic Phillip Marlowes from Bogart and Powell to Elliot Gould in this Altman production. They reflect their director's take on the times and on the character of Marlowe himself. The world-weary but virtuous Marlowe of the 1940's has been replaced in this film by a decidedly out-of-tune Marlowe who could realistically be arrested for vagrancy any minute in the up-scale and upward striving Los Angeles of 'new' California. Fortunately Robert Altman can make it work without being too syrupy. In other less capable hands, and with an actor other than Elliot Gould who sets the standard for all post-Bogart modern Marlowes (except probably the incessant chain-smoking) giving his all to the role, that is an iffy proposition. In any case the days of Chandler's, Cain's and Hammett's intrepid California characters are long gone. But, thankfully, at least not on film. This one will join that crowd.
BOOK/DVD REVIEW
The Long Goodbye, novel written by Raymond Chandler, movie directed by Robert Altman, starring Elliot Gould, 1972
Phillip Marlowe, Raymond Chandler's classic noir hard-boiled private detective forever literarily associated with Los Angeles and its means streets is right at home here in his search, at the request of a friend, a ne'e-do-wll friend as it turns out, for the inevitable `missing woman' ("dame", "frill", "frail", for the non-politically correct types) who 'conveniently' turns up dead. There is plenty of sparse but functional dialogue, physical action and a couple of plot twists, particularly around the identity of the above-mentioned `dame' and the motives behind the involvement of various wealthy Californians who have much to gain by a cover-up.
Have no fear however the intrepid Marlowe will figure it out in the end and some kind of 'rough' justice will prevail. At this point in the Chandler Marlowe series our shamus has been around the block more than a few times but he still is punching away at the 'bad guys' and the absurdity of the modern world. How does this one compare with the other Marlowe volumes? Give me those background oil derricks churning out the wealth while looking for General Sternwood's Rusty Regan in The Big Sleep or the run down stucco flats in some shady places in pursuit of Moose's Velma in Farewell, My Lovely any day. Nevertheless, as always with Chandler, you get high literature in a plebeian package.
There have been many cinematic Phillip Marlowes from Bogart and Powell to Elliot Gould in this Altman production. They reflect their director's take on the times and on the character of Marlowe himself. The world-weary but virtuous Marlowe of the 1940's has been replaced in this film by a decidedly out-of-tune Marlowe who could realistically be arrested for vagrancy any minute in the up-scale and upward striving Los Angeles of 'new' California. Fortunately Robert Altman can make it work without being too syrupy. In other less capable hands, and with an actor other than Elliot Gould who sets the standard for all post-Bogart modern Marlowes (except probably the incessant chain-smoking) giving his all to the role, that is an iffy proposition. In any case the days of Chandler's, Cain's and Hammett's intrepid California characters are long gone. But, thankfully, at least not on film. This one will join that crowd.
Sunday, July 06, 2008
The Grapes of Wrath-John Steinbeck Unchained
BOOK REVIEW
The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck, Random House, New York, 1998
Oddly, I first read John Steinbeck's classic tale of the 1930's depression, Grapes of Wrath, as a result of listening to Woody Guthrie's also classic Dustbowl Ballads. In that album Woody sings/narrates the trials and tribulations of the Joad family as they got the hell out of drought-stricken Oklahoma and headed for the land of milk and honey in California. After listening to that rendition I wanted to get the full story and Steinbeck did not fail me. His tightly-woven story stands as a very strong exposition of the plight of rural Americans as they tried to make sense of a vengeful God, unrelenting Nature and the down-side of the American dream. For those who have seem Walker Evans's and other photographers pictures of the Okies, Arkies, etc. of the period this is the story behind those forlorn, if stoic, faces.
The story line is actually very simple. The land in Oklahoma was played out, the banks nevertheless were pressing for payment or threatening foreclosure and for the Joads, as for others, time had run out. In the classic American tradition they pulled up stakes and headed west to get a new start. With great hopes and no few illusions they set out as a family for the sunny and plentiful California of their dreams. Their struggle along the way is a modern day version of the struggles of the old Westward heading wagon trains-including the causalities. But, that is not the least of it.
Apparently they had not read Frederick Jackson Turner's thesis that the frontier was gone- the land was taken. The bulk of the story centers of what happened when they get to the golden land-and it is not pretty. Day labor, work camps, strike action, murder, and mayhem-you know, California, the real California of the day. Not the Chamber of Commerce version. In short, as Woody sang, no hope if you ain't got the do re mi.
Grapes of Wrath was made into a starkly beautiful film starring a young Henry Fonda as Tom Joad. On a day when you are not depressed it is a film you want to see, if only for its photographic quality. So here is the list. Listen to Woody sing the tale. Watch Henry Fonda as he acts it out. And by all means read Steinbeck. He had an ear for the 1930's struggle of the Okies and their ilk as they hit California. What happened to those people later and their influence on California culture and what happened to those who didn't make it are chronicled by others like Howard Fast, Hunter Thompson and Nelson Algren. But for this period your man is Steinbeck.
The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck, Random House, New York, 1998
Oddly, I first read John Steinbeck's classic tale of the 1930's depression, Grapes of Wrath, as a result of listening to Woody Guthrie's also classic Dustbowl Ballads. In that album Woody sings/narrates the trials and tribulations of the Joad family as they got the hell out of drought-stricken Oklahoma and headed for the land of milk and honey in California. After listening to that rendition I wanted to get the full story and Steinbeck did not fail me. His tightly-woven story stands as a very strong exposition of the plight of rural Americans as they tried to make sense of a vengeful God, unrelenting Nature and the down-side of the American dream. For those who have seem Walker Evans's and other photographers pictures of the Okies, Arkies, etc. of the period this is the story behind those forlorn, if stoic, faces.
The story line is actually very simple. The land in Oklahoma was played out, the banks nevertheless were pressing for payment or threatening foreclosure and for the Joads, as for others, time had run out. In the classic American tradition they pulled up stakes and headed west to get a new start. With great hopes and no few illusions they set out as a family for the sunny and plentiful California of their dreams. Their struggle along the way is a modern day version of the struggles of the old Westward heading wagon trains-including the causalities. But, that is not the least of it.
Apparently they had not read Frederick Jackson Turner's thesis that the frontier was gone- the land was taken. The bulk of the story centers of what happened when they get to the golden land-and it is not pretty. Day labor, work camps, strike action, murder, and mayhem-you know, California, the real California of the day. Not the Chamber of Commerce version. In short, as Woody sang, no hope if you ain't got the do re mi.
Grapes of Wrath was made into a starkly beautiful film starring a young Henry Fonda as Tom Joad. On a day when you are not depressed it is a film you want to see, if only for its photographic quality. So here is the list. Listen to Woody sing the tale. Watch Henry Fonda as he acts it out. And by all means read Steinbeck. He had an ear for the 1930's struggle of the Okies and their ilk as they hit California. What happened to those people later and their influence on California culture and what happened to those who didn't make it are chronicled by others like Howard Fast, Hunter Thompson and Nelson Algren. But for this period your man is Steinbeck.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Another Time To Try Men's Souls- The Detroit Winter Soldier Investigations-1971
As The Burns-Novick Vietnam War Documentary Airs- Another Time To Try Men's Souls- The Detroit Winter Soldier Investigations-1971
DVD Review
Winter Soldier, various soldier witnesses, Winterfest Productions, 1972
I am rather fond of invoking, especially in writing of the American Revolution that we have just again celebrated, Tom Paine’s little propaganda piece in defense of that revolution which hails the winter soldiers of 1776 for staying at their posts when others either ran away or became faint-hearted at the prospects of defeating the bloody English. It is those efforts by those long ago winter soldiers that other leftists and I have honored in the past and continue to honor today. We will leave the hollow holiday rhetoric and mindless flag waving to the sunshine patriots. Needless to say, given the title of the film under review, I am not the only one who appreciates that description and the producers here, I believe, have caught the essence of the spirit of those long ago winter soldiers in this documentary about the rank and file soldier-driven investigation in 1971 into the atrocities and horrors produced by the American military in the Vietnam War.
It is an old hoary truism, if not now something of a cliché, that war does not bring out humankind’s nobler instincts. For a very recent example one need look no further back than at the newspaper headlines of the past few years concerning various atrocities and acts of torture committed by the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, Iraq and Afghanistan are hardly the first time that the American military has been exposed acting in less than its self-proclaimed ‘agent of liberation’ role in its various imperial adventures. If one rolls the film of history back to the last generation, for those who have forgotten or were not around, Vietnam presents that same story. As against prior wars two things made awareness that something had gone horribly wrong possible in Vietnam. First, Vietnam was the first televised war and at some point it became impossible for the military to hide everything that it was doing. Secondly, a small critical mass of American military personnel, mainly those rank and file personnel who actually carried out military policy, wanted to clear the air of their complicity in that policy.
Needless to say, an investigation into atrocities and torture is not something that the American military establishment wished to have aired in public (and as the fate of this film indicates raised hell to successfully keep it out of the major media markets of the time). That establishment was much more comfortable with internal governmental investigations or whitewashes of their actions as occurred, ultimately, in the case of My Lai. However the traumatic reaction of a significant element of the rank and file soldiery in Vietnam caused this 'unofficial' investigation to take place. For those who grew up, like this reviewer, believing something of Lincoln’s expression that the American democratic experience was the ‘last, best hope for mankind’ this was not pretty viewing. For one, also like the reviewer, who was a soldier during the Vietnam War period and who had friends and ‘buddies’ just like those that populate this documentary AND DID SOME OF THE SAME THINGS it was doubly hard. But, dear reader, for the most part what the citizen-soldiers- our brothers, sons and other relatives- have to say here needed to be said.
Naturally in a documentary that films an investigation into atrocities, torture and military standard operating procedure (SOP) during the Vietnam War the interviewees are going to be a little more articulate, a little more remorseful and a lot more angry than the average soldier who went through Vietnam came home and tried to forget the experience. These soldiers had an agenda- and that agenda was to get their buddies- the troops still in Vietnam- home. Nevertheless one must be impressed by the way they expressed themselves –sometimes haltingly, sometimes inarticulately, sometimes from some depth that we have no understanding of. Moreover, their testimony has the ring of truth. Not the SOP military truth but this truth- humankind has a long way to go before it can, without embarrassment, use the word civilized to describe itself. No, my friends, these were not our soldiers but, they were our people-these were the winter soldiers of the Vietnam War.
DVD Review
Winter Soldier, various soldier witnesses, Winterfest Productions, 1972
I am rather fond of invoking, especially in writing of the American Revolution that we have just again celebrated, Tom Paine’s little propaganda piece in defense of that revolution which hails the winter soldiers of 1776 for staying at their posts when others either ran away or became faint-hearted at the prospects of defeating the bloody English. It is those efforts by those long ago winter soldiers that other leftists and I have honored in the past and continue to honor today. We will leave the hollow holiday rhetoric and mindless flag waving to the sunshine patriots. Needless to say, given the title of the film under review, I am not the only one who appreciates that description and the producers here, I believe, have caught the essence of the spirit of those long ago winter soldiers in this documentary about the rank and file soldier-driven investigation in 1971 into the atrocities and horrors produced by the American military in the Vietnam War.
It is an old hoary truism, if not now something of a cliché, that war does not bring out humankind’s nobler instincts. For a very recent example one need look no further back than at the newspaper headlines of the past few years concerning various atrocities and acts of torture committed by the American military in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, Iraq and Afghanistan are hardly the first time that the American military has been exposed acting in less than its self-proclaimed ‘agent of liberation’ role in its various imperial adventures. If one rolls the film of history back to the last generation, for those who have forgotten or were not around, Vietnam presents that same story. As against prior wars two things made awareness that something had gone horribly wrong possible in Vietnam. First, Vietnam was the first televised war and at some point it became impossible for the military to hide everything that it was doing. Secondly, a small critical mass of American military personnel, mainly those rank and file personnel who actually carried out military policy, wanted to clear the air of their complicity in that policy.
Needless to say, an investigation into atrocities and torture is not something that the American military establishment wished to have aired in public (and as the fate of this film indicates raised hell to successfully keep it out of the major media markets of the time). That establishment was much more comfortable with internal governmental investigations or whitewashes of their actions as occurred, ultimately, in the case of My Lai. However the traumatic reaction of a significant element of the rank and file soldiery in Vietnam caused this 'unofficial' investigation to take place. For those who grew up, like this reviewer, believing something of Lincoln’s expression that the American democratic experience was the ‘last, best hope for mankind’ this was not pretty viewing. For one, also like the reviewer, who was a soldier during the Vietnam War period and who had friends and ‘buddies’ just like those that populate this documentary AND DID SOME OF THE SAME THINGS it was doubly hard. But, dear reader, for the most part what the citizen-soldiers- our brothers, sons and other relatives- have to say here needed to be said.
Naturally in a documentary that films an investigation into atrocities, torture and military standard operating procedure (SOP) during the Vietnam War the interviewees are going to be a little more articulate, a little more remorseful and a lot more angry than the average soldier who went through Vietnam came home and tried to forget the experience. These soldiers had an agenda- and that agenda was to get their buddies- the troops still in Vietnam- home. Nevertheless one must be impressed by the way they expressed themselves –sometimes haltingly, sometimes inarticulately, sometimes from some depth that we have no understanding of. Moreover, their testimony has the ring of truth. Not the SOP military truth but this truth- humankind has a long way to go before it can, without embarrassment, use the word civilized to describe itself. No, my friends, these were not our soldiers but, they were our people-these were the winter soldiers of the Vietnam War.
Friday, July 04, 2008
A Fresh Look At 1776- The Great American Revolution
This year marks the 232th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. A lot has gone wrong with the promise presented by that document and the revolution that went with it but we nevertheless justly still commemorate that event today. The point is to take that history out of the hands of the sunshine patriots who have appropriated it- and by the look of things - we better make it pronto.
BOOK REVIEW
1776, David McCullough, Simon&Schuster, New York, 2005
Regular readers of this space will recognize that I spend a fair amount of time discussing the lessons of, or looking at specific aspects of, the three great European revolutions- the English, French and the Russian. I have also given a fair amount of space to the grandeur of the American Civil War. I have, in contrast, tended to give short shrift to the virtues of the American Revolution. This is flat out wrong. Thus, over the past couple of years I have tried to rectify that slight by increasing the amount of space given over to various aspects of the American Revolution, mainly biographic sketches. Today I continue that shift with a review of the well-known historian and documentary narrator David McCullough’s 1776.
Part of the reason for selecting Mr. McCullough’s work is the personal need to go over again the specifics of the revolutionary period. You know, the battle of this or that, or some military operation led by whomever. However, the more pressing reason is that Mr. McCullough has written an important book centered on detailing the creation of the American revolutionary national liberation army, its trials, tribulations and faults. Moreover, McCullough has written his narrative of events in an easy to follow way, including some very insightful commentary about various turning points in the revolutionary experience, like the effect of the issuance of the Declaration of Independence on the morale of the troops in the field.
The key to understanding the eventual success of the American colonial struggle against bloody England was the coalescing of a ragtag, localized basically over-sized weekend militia into first a New England- wide then a continent-wide army worthy of the name. Along the way cadres were formed that saw the struggle through to the end. No revolutionary movement can be successful without that accrual. The case of Henry Knox, local Boston bookseller turned military magician, bringing captured cannon from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston in order to help ‘push’ the British out of Boston is just the most dramatic case of such cadre development
Equally as important, the names Washington, Gates and Knox and lesser cadre keep coming up repeatedly during this narrative, and rightly so. That points to the decisive question that the narration of events here turns on- leadership at crunch time. A whole school of historians, at one time at least, tended to diminish the role that Washington played in keeping these ragtag forces together. McCullough, rightly I think, challenges that assumption and places the Washington leadership as a key component to success.
McCullough, moreover, intentionally or not, through his narrative not only traces the development of Washington as a leader in the abstract but how he fares during the various campaigns. Thus we are treated to the high of his maneuvers in the key fight that led to the evacuation of Boston by the British in March of 1776, and then the low of the shifting of the struggle to the south with the devastating initial colonial defeats in the greater New York area when the militarsy forces of British imperialism got into high gear and applied its muscle.
Thereafter McCullough details the various retreats down through New Jersey and ends the year with the famous Battle of Trenton that was key to the survival of the revolutionary army in its first year. The narrative breaks off there. Although the opponents slugged it out for several more years the maintenance of a functioning revolutionary army in the field pointed positively toward the conclusion that victory was possible. Read this book and learn more about some of our common revolutionary history.
BOOK REVIEW
1776, David McCullough, Simon&Schuster, New York, 2005
Regular readers of this space will recognize that I spend a fair amount of time discussing the lessons of, or looking at specific aspects of, the three great European revolutions- the English, French and the Russian. I have also given a fair amount of space to the grandeur of the American Civil War. I have, in contrast, tended to give short shrift to the virtues of the American Revolution. This is flat out wrong. Thus, over the past couple of years I have tried to rectify that slight by increasing the amount of space given over to various aspects of the American Revolution, mainly biographic sketches. Today I continue that shift with a review of the well-known historian and documentary narrator David McCullough’s 1776.
Part of the reason for selecting Mr. McCullough’s work is the personal need to go over again the specifics of the revolutionary period. You know, the battle of this or that, or some military operation led by whomever. However, the more pressing reason is that Mr. McCullough has written an important book centered on detailing the creation of the American revolutionary national liberation army, its trials, tribulations and faults. Moreover, McCullough has written his narrative of events in an easy to follow way, including some very insightful commentary about various turning points in the revolutionary experience, like the effect of the issuance of the Declaration of Independence on the morale of the troops in the field.
The key to understanding the eventual success of the American colonial struggle against bloody England was the coalescing of a ragtag, localized basically over-sized weekend militia into first a New England- wide then a continent-wide army worthy of the name. Along the way cadres were formed that saw the struggle through to the end. No revolutionary movement can be successful without that accrual. The case of Henry Knox, local Boston bookseller turned military magician, bringing captured cannon from Fort Ticonderoga to Boston in order to help ‘push’ the British out of Boston is just the most dramatic case of such cadre development
Equally as important, the names Washington, Gates and Knox and lesser cadre keep coming up repeatedly during this narrative, and rightly so. That points to the decisive question that the narration of events here turns on- leadership at crunch time. A whole school of historians, at one time at least, tended to diminish the role that Washington played in keeping these ragtag forces together. McCullough, rightly I think, challenges that assumption and places the Washington leadership as a key component to success.
McCullough, moreover, intentionally or not, through his narrative not only traces the development of Washington as a leader in the abstract but how he fares during the various campaigns. Thus we are treated to the high of his maneuvers in the key fight that led to the evacuation of Boston by the British in March of 1776, and then the low of the shifting of the struggle to the south with the devastating initial colonial defeats in the greater New York area when the militarsy forces of British imperialism got into high gear and applied its muscle.
Thereafter McCullough details the various retreats down through New Jersey and ends the year with the famous Battle of Trenton that was key to the survival of the revolutionary army in its first year. The narrative breaks off there. Although the opponents slugged it out for several more years the maintenance of a functioning revolutionary army in the field pointed positively toward the conclusion that victory was possible. Read this book and learn more about some of our common revolutionary history.
Thursday, July 03, 2008
*Dual Power in the American Revolution-Professor Maier's View
Click on title to link to The History Place's Timetable for the pre-revolutionary events that are discussed in the book reviewed below.
This year marks the 232th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. A lot has gone wrong with the promise presented by that document and the revolution that went with it but we nevertheless justly still commemorate that event today. The point is to take that history out of the hands of the sunshine patriots who have appropriated it- and by the look of things - we better make it pronto.
BOOK REVIEW
From Resistance to Revolution: 1765-1776, Paula Maier, 1974
In my youth I was greatly enamored of Crane Brinton’s classic sociological study of the stages of revolution, Anatomy of a Revolution. In that work Brinton put forth a number of propositions that he believed were common to the English revolution of the 17th century, the American and French revolutions of the 18th century and the Russian of the 20th century as he tried to draw some conclusions about the similarities of great modern revolutions up to his time. Although his work has been superseded, in part, by advances in scholarship over the past half century of so every thoughtful observer of revolutions can still benefit by a reading of his work.
A central theme of that work was that in the pre-revolutionary period a fair slice of society (generally a literate, activist segment) shifted its allegiance in self-defense away from the established order and either adhered to new parallel political organizations or remained neutral toward the possibilities of an impeding uprising. Professor Maier has taken that proposition, although she seemingly has made no formal recognition of her debt to Brinton, and applied it to a study of the American Revolution and has made a very nice case for Professor Brinton’s proposition. Using his schema has nevertheless strenghtened her argument.
Leon Trotsky in his seminal three-volume work The History of the Russian Revolution has a chapter in Volume Two headed Dual Power. The gist of the argument that Trotsky presented there is that in revolutionary periods the organized structures of the old regime are confronted with parallel structures organized by the revolutionary forces. In the case of the Russian revolution that, once the question of the monarchy was out of the way- a question basically settled by the February revolution, shaped up to be a battle between the forces around Kerensky’s bourgeois Provisional government and the revolutionary forces around the Workers, Soldiers and Peasants Soviets. In the long haul one of those two forces had to prevail and in the Russian case it was the soviets.
Trotsky, here was, of course, discussing the question of the direct struggle for state power but I would argue that that same notion can be used for the pre-revolutionary period, at least for the American Revolution. Professor Maier’s work bears out that contention. Certainly the way that she structured her time frames captures the various turns in the political struggle toward revolution fairly accurately (first peaceful petition and non-cooperation, then spirited public demonstrations, boycotts, acts of violence against British property and eventually creation of an organ of self-government- the Continental Congress).
In that ten year period from 1765, the period of the agitation centered on the activities of the Sons of Liberty against Stamp Act, through the various other oppositional movements to unjust parliamentary actions through the key establishment of a Continental Congress (the American equivalent of the National Assembly in the French and Soviets in the Russian experiences) culminating in a declaration of independence there is a sea change in the shift of the political allegiance by the bulk of American colonists toward England and the monarchy.
The radicals in America, like John and Samuel Adams (cousins), Joseph Warren, James Otis and John Hancock, started out assuming that the English monarchy, its governmental ministries and an elected Parliament were rational organizations. And they were for the English if not for the unrepresented colonialists. Thus each act, like the Stamp Act, Townsend Acts, etc. contrary to the interests of the colonialists met with an organized opposition. However, this opposition started out with the colonialists acting merely as aggrieved by an uninformed, or in the worst case manipulated, sovereign as time and the number of egregious incidents goes on the radicals move further left, pick up other layers of society and begin to see that self-interest required independence. Along the way some elements react against the leftward movement and either goes to the sidelines of the political struggle or adhere to the monarchy. Valuable political lessons were accumulated along the way.
Are there any lessons to be drawn today from those struggles of our forebears, though? In short, are we in that ten-year period prior to a revolutionary turn? Certainly the objective situation in the economy, the world political situation and the crush of social institutions are not qualitatively different from 1765. But no, I see no parallels today of people creating alternate institutions to take on the government, although they should. Nevertheless scholars, history buffs, radicals and revolutionaries should read this book to learn about revolutionary timing, if nothing else.
This year marks the 232th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. A lot has gone wrong with the promise presented by that document and the revolution that went with it but we nevertheless justly still commemorate that event today. The point is to take that history out of the hands of the sunshine patriots who have appropriated it- and by the look of things - we better make it pronto.
BOOK REVIEW
From Resistance to Revolution: 1765-1776, Paula Maier, 1974
In my youth I was greatly enamored of Crane Brinton’s classic sociological study of the stages of revolution, Anatomy of a Revolution. In that work Brinton put forth a number of propositions that he believed were common to the English revolution of the 17th century, the American and French revolutions of the 18th century and the Russian of the 20th century as he tried to draw some conclusions about the similarities of great modern revolutions up to his time. Although his work has been superseded, in part, by advances in scholarship over the past half century of so every thoughtful observer of revolutions can still benefit by a reading of his work.
A central theme of that work was that in the pre-revolutionary period a fair slice of society (generally a literate, activist segment) shifted its allegiance in self-defense away from the established order and either adhered to new parallel political organizations or remained neutral toward the possibilities of an impeding uprising. Professor Maier has taken that proposition, although she seemingly has made no formal recognition of her debt to Brinton, and applied it to a study of the American Revolution and has made a very nice case for Professor Brinton’s proposition. Using his schema has nevertheless strenghtened her argument.
Leon Trotsky in his seminal three-volume work The History of the Russian Revolution has a chapter in Volume Two headed Dual Power. The gist of the argument that Trotsky presented there is that in revolutionary periods the organized structures of the old regime are confronted with parallel structures organized by the revolutionary forces. In the case of the Russian revolution that, once the question of the monarchy was out of the way- a question basically settled by the February revolution, shaped up to be a battle between the forces around Kerensky’s bourgeois Provisional government and the revolutionary forces around the Workers, Soldiers and Peasants Soviets. In the long haul one of those two forces had to prevail and in the Russian case it was the soviets.
Trotsky, here was, of course, discussing the question of the direct struggle for state power but I would argue that that same notion can be used for the pre-revolutionary period, at least for the American Revolution. Professor Maier’s work bears out that contention. Certainly the way that she structured her time frames captures the various turns in the political struggle toward revolution fairly accurately (first peaceful petition and non-cooperation, then spirited public demonstrations, boycotts, acts of violence against British property and eventually creation of an organ of self-government- the Continental Congress).
In that ten year period from 1765, the period of the agitation centered on the activities of the Sons of Liberty against Stamp Act, through the various other oppositional movements to unjust parliamentary actions through the key establishment of a Continental Congress (the American equivalent of the National Assembly in the French and Soviets in the Russian experiences) culminating in a declaration of independence there is a sea change in the shift of the political allegiance by the bulk of American colonists toward England and the monarchy.
The radicals in America, like John and Samuel Adams (cousins), Joseph Warren, James Otis and John Hancock, started out assuming that the English monarchy, its governmental ministries and an elected Parliament were rational organizations. And they were for the English if not for the unrepresented colonialists. Thus each act, like the Stamp Act, Townsend Acts, etc. contrary to the interests of the colonialists met with an organized opposition. However, this opposition started out with the colonialists acting merely as aggrieved by an uninformed, or in the worst case manipulated, sovereign as time and the number of egregious incidents goes on the radicals move further left, pick up other layers of society and begin to see that self-interest required independence. Along the way some elements react against the leftward movement and either goes to the sidelines of the political struggle or adhere to the monarchy. Valuable political lessons were accumulated along the way.
Are there any lessons to be drawn today from those struggles of our forebears, though? In short, are we in that ten-year period prior to a revolutionary turn? Certainly the objective situation in the economy, the world political situation and the crush of social institutions are not qualitatively different from 1765. But no, I see no parallels today of people creating alternate institutions to take on the government, although they should. Nevertheless scholars, history buffs, radicals and revolutionaries should read this book to learn about revolutionary timing, if nothing else.
Wednesday, July 02, 2008
*To The Armed Struggle League- Propaganda or Agitation?
Click on the title to link to an "Under The Hood" (Fort Hood G.I. Coffeehouse)Web site online article about the "Oleo Strut" Coffeehouse, an important development in the anti-Vietnam War struggle. Hats off to those bygone anti-war fighters.
Commentary
On Slogans- Propaganda or Agitation?
Every once in a while I get a political communication that baffles me. Today is one of those days. I am looking for help and comments from readers as much as I want to comment on this one myself. I monitor a number of amorphous left wing political sites to get a sense of what is happening in our little corner of the political universe and to get a better slant on events than one generally gets from the bourgeois media (although one should not dismiss that source out of hand, if for no other reason than to know what the buggers are up to). I have commented on other occasions that some of these left wing sites have gone off on more than one conspiracy theory tangent to explain away the impotent of the left but the subject of today’s entry is of different magnitude.
Here is what I am up against upon receipt of a communiqué (in English, although today that means less than it used to) from a group called the Armed Struggle League. Personally, I have never heard of this group, at least not under that name although I do not necessarily keep up with the doings of every grouplet as I have enough to do creating my own propaganda along with my own little grouplet. The substance of the Armed Struggle League’s message is that NOW is the time, due to a myriad of political, social and economic circumstances (the usual laundry list- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the housing crisis, the commodities crisis, the poor American education and health systems) to form workers councils, use those organizations to struggle for power and defend them by arming the workers. That is where we part company-for the moment.
After giving the communiqué some thought my initial satirical reaction was that here was a group that had been underground for a long time and had only surfaced now that United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his majority had given its imprimatur for the individual right to bear arms. But that was too facile an analysis even for this writer. My next reaction was that the group had been underground for a long time and had only recently gotten the word that the 1917 February Revolution had occurred in Russia and that they were playing catch-up somewhere in the summer of that year. Again, that is too easy an answer. I am going to assume for my own political purposes that this is a rational group and that they are just frustrated (like the rest of us on the extra-parliamentary left) that the masses have not yet risen to slay the monster who is certainly taking a big chunk out of their lives.
Elsewhere I have tried to explain the difference between our general propaganda tasks in defense of socialism in this period and our occasional ability to take the offensive and agitate for certain demands either because the objective situation cries to high heaven for that solution or because the demand has some capacity to get a hearing from some segment of today’s political audience. The clearest example that I can give of this in recent times, and that concerned me personally, was the question of creating soldiers and sailors solidarity committees to link up with the soldiers in Iraq to end the war a couple of years ago when there were openly civil war conditions in Iraq and American military forces, especially the rank and file, were in turmoil. Without going into all the details of how my group decided to agitate around that issue it certainly met, for a time, the two criteria I mentioned above- objective necessity and possibilities of a hearing from political elements. Sometime in mid-2007 that slogan lost its agitational edge as things calmed down in Iraq with the ‘victory’ of the Bush/Petraeus ‘troop surge’ strategy. We still use the slogan as propaganda on selected occasions but we do not highlight it much less agitate around the slogan today.
And that, my friends, is exactly what is wrong with the political prospectus of the Armed Struggle League today. Workers Councils- great idea. Center a workers government around this organizational form- even better. Defend those organizations by arming the workers against internal counter-revolution and external imperialist intervention- ABC’s. But what does all that have to do with today’s “simple” little tasks like getting working people in America to break from their political allegiance to the Democratic Party (and, apparently, in the cases of at least some white workers the Republican Party) and struggling to create a workers party that can fight for a workers government. Not as sexy as invoking the glory days of the Russian Revolution but those are our general propaganda tasks today.
Note: The thought had passed my mind that this message was an act of provocation by some nefarious forces, governmental or otherwise. For what purposes, however, I do not know. The e-mail address I tried to reply to was one of those no reply things. However, since the thrush of the communiqué had some sense of historical knowledge I think this is really the work of some antsy “ultra left” kids. In that case I urge them to think things through- our day will come, it is just not today. If any reader knows anything about this group, has received this communiqué or is a member of the group I definitely want to hear from you.
Commentary
On Slogans- Propaganda or Agitation?
Every once in a while I get a political communication that baffles me. Today is one of those days. I am looking for help and comments from readers as much as I want to comment on this one myself. I monitor a number of amorphous left wing political sites to get a sense of what is happening in our little corner of the political universe and to get a better slant on events than one generally gets from the bourgeois media (although one should not dismiss that source out of hand, if for no other reason than to know what the buggers are up to). I have commented on other occasions that some of these left wing sites have gone off on more than one conspiracy theory tangent to explain away the impotent of the left but the subject of today’s entry is of different magnitude.
Here is what I am up against upon receipt of a communiqué (in English, although today that means less than it used to) from a group called the Armed Struggle League. Personally, I have never heard of this group, at least not under that name although I do not necessarily keep up with the doings of every grouplet as I have enough to do creating my own propaganda along with my own little grouplet. The substance of the Armed Struggle League’s message is that NOW is the time, due to a myriad of political, social and economic circumstances (the usual laundry list- the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the housing crisis, the commodities crisis, the poor American education and health systems) to form workers councils, use those organizations to struggle for power and defend them by arming the workers. That is where we part company-for the moment.
After giving the communiqué some thought my initial satirical reaction was that here was a group that had been underground for a long time and had only surfaced now that United States Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia and his majority had given its imprimatur for the individual right to bear arms. But that was too facile an analysis even for this writer. My next reaction was that the group had been underground for a long time and had only recently gotten the word that the 1917 February Revolution had occurred in Russia and that they were playing catch-up somewhere in the summer of that year. Again, that is too easy an answer. I am going to assume for my own political purposes that this is a rational group and that they are just frustrated (like the rest of us on the extra-parliamentary left) that the masses have not yet risen to slay the monster who is certainly taking a big chunk out of their lives.
Elsewhere I have tried to explain the difference between our general propaganda tasks in defense of socialism in this period and our occasional ability to take the offensive and agitate for certain demands either because the objective situation cries to high heaven for that solution or because the demand has some capacity to get a hearing from some segment of today’s political audience. The clearest example that I can give of this in recent times, and that concerned me personally, was the question of creating soldiers and sailors solidarity committees to link up with the soldiers in Iraq to end the war a couple of years ago when there were openly civil war conditions in Iraq and American military forces, especially the rank and file, were in turmoil. Without going into all the details of how my group decided to agitate around that issue it certainly met, for a time, the two criteria I mentioned above- objective necessity and possibilities of a hearing from political elements. Sometime in mid-2007 that slogan lost its agitational edge as things calmed down in Iraq with the ‘victory’ of the Bush/Petraeus ‘troop surge’ strategy. We still use the slogan as propaganda on selected occasions but we do not highlight it much less agitate around the slogan today.
And that, my friends, is exactly what is wrong with the political prospectus of the Armed Struggle League today. Workers Councils- great idea. Center a workers government around this organizational form- even better. Defend those organizations by arming the workers against internal counter-revolution and external imperialist intervention- ABC’s. But what does all that have to do with today’s “simple” little tasks like getting working people in America to break from their political allegiance to the Democratic Party (and, apparently, in the cases of at least some white workers the Republican Party) and struggling to create a workers party that can fight for a workers government. Not as sexy as invoking the glory days of the Russian Revolution but those are our general propaganda tasks today.
Note: The thought had passed my mind that this message was an act of provocation by some nefarious forces, governmental or otherwise. For what purposes, however, I do not know. The e-mail address I tried to reply to was one of those no reply things. However, since the thrush of the communiqué had some sense of historical knowledge I think this is really the work of some antsy “ultra left” kids. In that case I urge them to think things through- our day will come, it is just not today. If any reader knows anything about this group, has received this communiqué or is a member of the group I definitely want to hear from you.
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
*Again, An Anniversary of Sorts- On Keeping (Or Trying To Keep) A Revolutionary Perspective In Hard Political Times
Click on title to link to the Leon Trotsky Internet Archive's copy of pages from Leon Trotsky's Journal for 1936 and 1937, a tough period for him politically and personally before the Mexican exile came through.
Commentary
Parts of this entry were used last summer (An Anniversary of Sorts, July 2007 archives) to mark my 35th year as a follower of Karl Marx. Most of these remarks are also pertinent here as I celebrate my 35th year as a follower of Leon Trotsky.
This summer (2007) marks the 35th year of my commitment to Marxism. Those who have been reading my commentaries for a while know that I try to commemorate, and comment on, important anniversaries in our common working class and leftist history like the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti or the start of the Paris Commune. Those same readers also know that I have been rather short with bourgeois politicians like John Kerry who have a habit of commemorating every little political move they have taken. The winner for me was Kerry’s very public celebration at historic Fanueil Hall in Boston in 2006 of the 35th anniversary of his anti-war testimony before Congress in 1971. Christ, I still chuckle over the absurdity of that one. But hear me out on this. I want no pat on the back but to just make a comment about why, despite the current historic trend away from socialist solutions to the world’s problems, I still proudly carry the title communist.
I once remarked in a review of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto that the third section of that document where he polemicizes against the various liberal and so-called socialist groups of his day that in my search for political solutions in my early days I had probably held virtually every position that he argued against. And believe me, dear reader, that is no exaggeration-except maybe I did not advocate for feudal socialism. But the rest, liberalism, both tactical and principled versions of pacifism, anarchism, guerrilla warfare, and ...well you get the drift I was right in the thick of. This is probably why when I headed, reluctantly I might add, to Marxism it stuck. And that is the main idea I am trying to get at in this piece. That is the power of Marxism as a tool for looking at and changing the world. The only other point I would add is that over the past thirty-five years nothing in politics, our few victories and our many, too many defeats at the hands of the capitalists, has made me regret that I took the road back to my working class roots. I have made many a political mistake in my life, that is for sure. But this is not one of them. LONG LIVE THE WORLD SOCIALIST REVOLUTION!!!
2008
Recently in an entry (A Slight Irving Howe Confession, May 2008 archives) I mentioned Professor Howe’s role in my introduction (at least conscious introduction) to the work of Leon Trotsky. As mentioned below it was not enough back in 1972 to come to a Marxist understanding of the world it was also necessary to trace the threads through to the thoughts of more modern Marxist thinkers. I repost the section on how I was introduced to Trotsky’s thought here as a little reminder that fate takes some funny turns in this wicked old world.
Confession#2- Irving Howe actually acted, unintentionally, as my recruiting sergeant to the works of Leon Trotsky that eventually led to my embrace of a Trotskyist worldview. As I noted last year I have been a Marxist since 1972. But after some 150 years of Marxism claiming to be a Marxist is only the beginning of wisdom. One has to find the modern thread that continues in the spirit of the founders. This year marks my 35th year as a follower of Leon Trotsky. Back in 1972, as part of trying to find a political path to modern Marxism I picked up a collection of socialist works edited by Professor Howe. In that compilation was an excerpt from Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution, a section called On Dual Power. I read it, and then re-read it. Next day I went out to scrounge up a copy of the whole work. And the rest is history. So, thanks, Professor Howe- now back to the polemical wars- the truce is over.
Once Again in 2008- Long Live The World Socialist Revolution!
Commentary
Parts of this entry were used last summer (An Anniversary of Sorts, July 2007 archives) to mark my 35th year as a follower of Karl Marx. Most of these remarks are also pertinent here as I celebrate my 35th year as a follower of Leon Trotsky.
This summer (2007) marks the 35th year of my commitment to Marxism. Those who have been reading my commentaries for a while know that I try to commemorate, and comment on, important anniversaries in our common working class and leftist history like the execution of Sacco and Vanzetti or the start of the Paris Commune. Those same readers also know that I have been rather short with bourgeois politicians like John Kerry who have a habit of commemorating every little political move they have taken. The winner for me was Kerry’s very public celebration at historic Fanueil Hall in Boston in 2006 of the 35th anniversary of his anti-war testimony before Congress in 1971. Christ, I still chuckle over the absurdity of that one. But hear me out on this. I want no pat on the back but to just make a comment about why, despite the current historic trend away from socialist solutions to the world’s problems, I still proudly carry the title communist.
I once remarked in a review of Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto that the third section of that document where he polemicizes against the various liberal and so-called socialist groups of his day that in my search for political solutions in my early days I had probably held virtually every position that he argued against. And believe me, dear reader, that is no exaggeration-except maybe I did not advocate for feudal socialism. But the rest, liberalism, both tactical and principled versions of pacifism, anarchism, guerrilla warfare, and ...well you get the drift I was right in the thick of. This is probably why when I headed, reluctantly I might add, to Marxism it stuck. And that is the main idea I am trying to get at in this piece. That is the power of Marxism as a tool for looking at and changing the world. The only other point I would add is that over the past thirty-five years nothing in politics, our few victories and our many, too many defeats at the hands of the capitalists, has made me regret that I took the road back to my working class roots. I have made many a political mistake in my life, that is for sure. But this is not one of them. LONG LIVE THE WORLD SOCIALIST REVOLUTION!!!
2008
Recently in an entry (A Slight Irving Howe Confession, May 2008 archives) I mentioned Professor Howe’s role in my introduction (at least conscious introduction) to the work of Leon Trotsky. As mentioned below it was not enough back in 1972 to come to a Marxist understanding of the world it was also necessary to trace the threads through to the thoughts of more modern Marxist thinkers. I repost the section on how I was introduced to Trotsky’s thought here as a little reminder that fate takes some funny turns in this wicked old world.
Confession#2- Irving Howe actually acted, unintentionally, as my recruiting sergeant to the works of Leon Trotsky that eventually led to my embrace of a Trotskyist worldview. As I noted last year I have been a Marxist since 1972. But after some 150 years of Marxism claiming to be a Marxist is only the beginning of wisdom. One has to find the modern thread that continues in the spirit of the founders. This year marks my 35th year as a follower of Leon Trotsky. Back in 1972, as part of trying to find a political path to modern Marxism I picked up a collection of socialist works edited by Professor Howe. In that compilation was an excerpt from Trotsky’s History of the Russian Revolution, a section called On Dual Power. I read it, and then re-read it. Next day I went out to scrounge up a copy of the whole work. And the rest is history. So, thanks, Professor Howe- now back to the polemical wars- the truce is over.
Once Again in 2008- Long Live The World Socialist Revolution!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)