In many ways, Hendrix’s version of Bob Dylan’s “Like a Rolling Stone” exemplifies Jimi’s mastery of performance and rock and roll and his place within history.
At the time, Hendrix was known to most musicians for his London club shows, but not too well known to the general public. In the summer of 1967 the Monterey Pop Festival changed all of that. While Hendrix’s entire set was amazing, doing a Dylan song was considered pretty ballsy. Yet, Hendrix pulls it off, even though he skips an entire section of the song (and says so midway through) it doesn’t matter. The performance is so out there, so edgy and of the moment, it transcends everything. But, there was something else going on as well.
At the time, Dylan’s star was a bit tarnished. He had gone electric which had been a great controversy to many die hard folkies, and had suffered a certain amount of grief and loss of popularity for it. Dylan had also been out of the picture for awhile after his motorcycle accident in 1966. (He actually didn’t perform on stage again until January 21, 1968 at a tribute to Woodie Guthrie at Carnegie Hall.) So, this was Hendrix’s way of keeping Dylan relevant and keeping his music in front of an audience. Hendrix was a fan.
When asked what he thought of Hendrix recording his tunes, Dylan said:
“It’s not a wonder to me that Jimi recorded my songs, but rather that he recorded so few of them, because they were all his”.
Back in school, a friend had the old double sided LP, one side was Otis Redding at Monterrey, the other side was Jimi Hendrix at Monterrey… Here’s some Otis.
It was only a matter of time before Glenn Reynolds self combusted. Not that it will slow him down one bit, or give him reason for pause and reflection. Much be nice always being right and having all the answers all of the time. As an “ex-Liberal” he must have sworn off the intellectually elite pursuit of knowing when one is wrong, admitting it and discreetly changing the subject.
The First Freedom Project includes a number of facets to ensure that this precious right, guaranteed by our laws and Constitution, is recognized and protected:
– A commitment to continued expansion of enforcement of civil rights statutes protecting religious liberty. – Creation of a Department-wide Task Force on Religious Liberty, chaired by the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division, to review DOJ policies impacting religious liberty, coordinate religious liberty cases, and improve outreach to stakeholder communities.
- Initiation of a series of regional seminars to be held around the country to educate religious, civil rights, and community leaders, attorneys, government officials, and other interested citizens about the laws protecting religious freedom enforced by the Department of Justice and how to file complaints.
– Increased outreach to religious organizations, civil rights organizations, and other groups and individuals concerned with religious liberty issues through meetings, speaking engagements, and distribution of informational literature
So much for the separation of church and state. Maha asks: “Is there some outbreak of religious oppression I haven’t heard about?”. It must be the next wave of Liberal terrorists launching Phase Q Plan 20214-B of the War on Christmas. (Shhhh. It’s a secret.)
College Republicans at NYU go on a duckimmigrant hunt. No. Really. Jesus Genreal has a suggestion:
Perhaps you should consider adding a new twist to liven it up a bit. After you’ve tazered and beaten your immigrant, you should drag him down to the local military recruiting office and force him to sign up to defend your way of life. That’d add an element of realism we haven’t seen in previous immigrant hunts.
Hey, it worked for the Union in the Civil War.
Michael Medved wants to know if it’s irrational to fear that a homoexual man might want to have sex with you if you share a locker room with that homosexual? And, of course, it’s not irrational if you think A) Gay men are going to jump your bones right then and there, or B) Having “gay eyes” look at you that way makes you uncomfortable. After all, no one likes to be treated like a hunk of meat, or be tempted by the Devil himself. God forbid, you might falter and actually have a homosexual thought yourself! Sadly No! says: Shorter Michael Medved: “It’s not bigotry. It’s common sense!”
My sister sent me some photos of the aftermath of an ice storm in Versoix, Switzerland which are pretty extraordinary. Thought worth sharing some of them.
One of the reasons I miss living down in the Village is having access to shows such as this. Manhattan is a tiny island in many ways, but also a very large island in others.
Arcade Fire played at Judson Church and the entire concert is available at NPR.Give it a listen.
Personally, I have to wonder whether Curt at Flopping Aces (and all those who think like him) are intentionally getting it wrong, simply refuse to engage the facts of the science, or just don’t get it. Because they continually get it wrong. Something is surely amiss. It’s become so ideological they are blinded.
Curt’s latest is more of the same: avoid the real science, toss in partisan “science” with a few examples of scientists who depart from the pack. (As if dissenting opinions in science are difficult to come by in the first place.)
For starters Curt focuses on an appearance by Christopher Horner on Fox News by laying out Horner’s credentials, such as they are:
Who is Christopher Horner? He wrote the book “The Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming and Environmentalism” and is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
I suppose to Kurt such impeccably conservative creds must be the ticket, but call me cynical. Yes, Horner is indeed a Senior Fellow at CEI. He’s paid around 100k to further the agenda of the CEI funders who are decidedly pro-oil, pro-business and anti-environmental and anti-global warming. Who pays Horner’s salary speaks volumes:
* Aequus Institute * Amoco Foundation, Inc. * E.L. Craig Foundation * CSX Corporation * Fieldstead and Co. * FMC Foundation * Ford Motor Company Fund * Precision Valve Corporation * Prince Foundation * Sheldon Rose * Texaco, Inc. * Texaco Foundation * Alex C. Walker Foundation
Oil and oil dependent interests and a nice dash of theocrats for good measure. Not a non-partisan group to be sure. What do they have to gain by attacking global warming science? Money. Lots of it. So, Curt’s citing of a CEI Fellow as a source is dubious by definition.
Given the list above, how could anyone ever think that such an organisation would actually support the global warming science one iota, given that they so ardently believe it threatens their profits? Would you? Doubtful. But, Curt apparently sees no problem with this at all. And, the icing on the cake: CEI has been accused in the past of deliberately misrepresenting scientific information. Classic. It gets even better.
Curt then quotes from Horner’s appearance on Fox, where Horner states, referring to global warming proponents apparently:
Obviously, they’re the ones overreacting because it’s very simple. We admit climate change, and that’s what they deny. Climate changes – it always has, it always will. The Vikings used to farm Greenland, and if we get two degrees Celsius warmer they may again
The truth is it’s an essential premise of the global warming science that the climate changes through time. It’s actually stated outright in An Inconvenient Truth a number of times (as anyone who’s seen it knows), and as this interview with two scientists from the National Ice and Snow Data Center shows.
Horner’s statement is a misrepresentation. The issue isn’t whether the climate is changing, it’s how much it’s changing, how fast the climate is changing in the recent short term compared to the long term geologically, and finally why it’s changing and the effect it is having upon the Earth. (And, perhaps someone should tell Horner that there are no more Vikings to farm Greenland if it does turn green again… Just sayin’.)
Then, it gets really good. Curt continues with quoting from Horner’s appearance on Fox:
Brian: The glaciers are melting. You saw Al Gore just talk about that.
Horner: Yes, glaciers are melting all over the world. Glaciers are growing all over the world. The problem is…and also glaciers are receding by growing which is in Al Gore’s movie. When they grow too far – grow is the key word — they break off. That’s not melting he shows, that’s called calving. But what happens is they say melting glaciers is proof of global warming. By that logic, for lack of a better word, receding glaciers is proof of global cooling. They can’t both be true and in fact neither are.
There are a number of falsehoods in this statement, none of which Curt picks up on at all. But the most important is the first one:
Glaciers are growing all over the world. The reality is that recent satellite and geological surveys show a massive retreat of glaciers worldwide, and a much smaller amount of growing glaciers. (in blue)
Who puts forth this “theory” that a larger number of glaciers are retreating? The Environazis at the US Geological Survey and NASA’s Global Land Ice Measurements from Space (GLIMS) project. Stated Jeffrey Kargel who is the Project Leader at the USGS located in Flagstaff, Arizona:
“Glaciers in most areas of the world are known to be receding [...] But glaciers in the Himalaya are wasting at alarming and accelerating rates, as indicated by comparisons of satellite and historic data, and as shown by the widespread, rapid growth of lakes on the glacier surfaces.
And, if one is to go over and check out the Glacier Studies Project at the USGS, low and behold, it states pretty clearly in the very first sentence of the Satellite Image Atlas of Glaciers of the World(PDF):
Most mountain glaciers worldwide have been retreating since the late1800s, and global sea level has risen about 15 centimeters since then.
Okay, so that’s just one group of scientists. Granted, the USGS is pretty much the gold standard in these type of matters, but so what, right? There’s always someone who will disagree.
Because they can.
Andrew Olmsted has an interesting angle on all of this which merits a read.
“A single death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.” – Josef Stalin
A recent study suggests what many of us have always known to be true: the human race has difficulty dealing with large numbers of deaths.
Paul Slovic, a psychologist at the University of Oregon, said his research found that mankind is less likely to intervene in cases of mass slaughter than in cases where only one victim was involved. [...]
In the research carried out in Sweden, participants were shown a photo of a starving African girl and were given details of her individual story and the conditions of the nation in which she lives. Another photo contained the same information but for a starving boy. A third photo showed both children.
The feelings of sympathy for each individual child were almost equal but dropped when they were considered together.
Donations followed the same pattern, Slovic revealed, being lower for two needy children than for either individually.
“The studies just described suggest a disturbing psychological tendency,” Slovic said. “Our capacity to feel is limited.”
Accordingly, people were less likely to react when genocidal atrocities erupted. If humans saw a collapse of feeling at just two individuals, “it is no wonder that at 200,000 deaths the feeling is gone,” Slovic said.
Failure to react was an evolutionary hangover, he said.
It’s intersting, but not something that many of us didn’t already know. Eddie Izzard actually has an entire monologue about it in his comedy act:
Pol Pot killed 1.7 million people. We can’t even deal with that! You know, we think if somebody kills someone, that’s murder, you go to prison. You kill 10 people, you go to Texas, they hit you with a brick, that’s what they do. 20 people, you go to a hospital, they look through a small window at you forever. And over that, we can’t deal with it, you know? Someone’s killed 100,000 people. We’re almost going, “Well done! You killed 100,000 people? You must get up very early in the morning. I can’t even get down the gym! Your diary must look odd: “Get up in the morning, death, death, death, death, death, death, death – lunch- death, death, death – afternoon tea – death, death, death – quick shower…”
Of course, this is the main point of the bookThe Lucifer Principle by Howard Bloom, which proffers that this tendency is the result of our genetic makeup, a throwback to simian clan warfare – rooted in sexuality and social politics – since apes and chimps manifest the same behavior and also exhibit a strong lack of emotional reaction or connection to large numbers of simian deaths.
As humans, we like to think that our reason and rationality separate us from and elevate us above the monkeys and apes, but in truth, not so much.
Perhaps this is one reason Fundamentalists cling so very powerfully to religious mythology. Blaming an evil power such as Lucifer for our inhumanity towards our own humanity and ignoring the science behind evolution allows the blame for such atrocities to be hoisted upon an evil unseen power, rather than actually accepting our responsibility for our actions.
It’s something we continue to struggle with in the 21st century. It’s a shame since the science is pretty obvious, as is the basic assumption.
It’s a monkey thing, and as such, something we need to deal with in order to move into an area of truly civilized behavior.
Joel Surnow, the creator of “24″ as well as the new and extraordinarily bad “1/2 Hour News Hour” (deep satire that) says the following in an interview in TV Guide:
…I think the one thing we target more than anything else is hysteria. The hysteria over global warming. The hysteria over Barack Obama. College kids’ hysteria over Che Guevera T-shirts. This is funny. This is irrational behavior that has lodged itself in our culture, and no one stops to go, “Wait a minute this is kind of absurd.”(emahasis added)
Of course, the absurdities the above satirists skewer on a regular basis are obvious and really absurd and above all obviously so to the audience. That’s what makes it funny. The Onion plays the same comedy territory.
Surnow is violating a central tenet of comedy and of drama: he has an agenda. And, an audience can smell an agenda a mile away. Surnow is producing propaganda comedy. Problem is, it’s bad comedy. Because it’s not ironic. It’s not satire. The satirists I list above are funny and have something in common: they point out the ironic and make fun of it. That’s satire. That’s what makes people laugh. Surnow’s show is unfunny because it isn’t pointing out absurd ironic moments that are universal. It’s making fun of deeply partisan ideas. It’s simply bashing and trying to make fun. It’s the very definition of sophomoric humor.
Just because you perceive that there is “hysteria” over things you don’t like, doesn’t mean that such a reaction doesn’t have deep roots in real and honest concern and truth as many people see it. What Surnow is really saying is that when people spend so much time focusing upon things he and other Conservatives don’t want them to spend time upon, then it’s hysteria.
Glenn Reynolds watches way too much “24″. Now he’s advocating fighting terrorism with… terrorism. The Carpetbagger puts him straight.
The hypocrisy is really but one symptom of the total mess that the GWOT has always been from a rational perspective. The wingnut propensity for calling anyone who disagrees with their idea of going after terrorists with terrorism a “terrorist sympathizer” is the bookend to the wingnut mindset. The cherry on top is their overt willingness to eliminate those they see as the “enemy”, that includes anyone who disagrees with them, is something we should all be vigilant about. When pundits begin using fabricated quotes in major news outlets whilst calling for the hanging of an US Senator for being against their policies, it’s gotten rather serious.
If you haven’t read David Neiwert’s series on this wingnut movement, you should. It’s a long and informative read, and definitive. Well worth the time.
We are living in dangerous times to be sure. And, not all of the danger comes from those abroad who wish us ill will. There is danger to us from those next to us who would have us killed to further their power and ideas. It goes without saying that such fascist practices are not American in any way shape or form. That said, you won’t hear calls for their deaths here.
I am convinced that the reason so many wingnuts bleat endlessly about their fellow Liberals being traitors is precisely because many of them realize either subconsciously or intellectually that they are the traitors.
Who sold arms to Iran? Who sold chemical weapons to Iraq? Who has supported a war policy that has comprimised Homeland security and the strength of our military?
It is a basic tactic of the fascist to divert attention from their own foibles and crimes by accussing their enemies of crimes and foibles.
I’ve no doubt that Liberals bare a certain amount of the blame for the situation that we as a nation now find ourselves in. But, it’s entirely telling that you don’t see Liberals running around calling wingnuts traitors and calling for them to be hung. And, an argument could be made that those currently in power and their supporters are indeed traitors. One example, and there are many.
We did not lead the charge to war and oversee and support it when it was so obvious that it was going to be an utter failure.
Lke most wingnuts who supported a doomed policy, David Brooks is looking for some type of apology from the Left. It’s just another way of blaming the left for seeing the truth that the right refused to see. It’s just another way of attempting to hoist blame for the loss of the Iraq War upon the Left.
Some thoughts on the recent “blogroll amnesty” where some “A List” bloggers thinned and or added to their blogrolls over at If I Ran the Zoo. (c/o Skippy)
What’s at stake here is the egalitarian and democratic nature of the blogosphere. If traffic and linkage are concentrated among a relatively few extremely popular blogs, then the vast majority are effectively shut out of the conversation. It is a basic liberal belief that great success carries with it the duty to extend opportunity to others; that’s the duty that, as some see it, Atrios and others fail to live up to. As Jon Swift observes, the right blogosphere is actually much more liberal about linking to smaller blogs than the liberal side.
This is a problem I’ve experienced at Jakeneck and the SNAFU Principle. A few top tier bloggers have linked to individual posts here (Avedon Carol of The Sideshow being the most generous and consistent for which I am thankful) and I’ve gotten some nice nods from Jon Swift, My Left Wing, Skippy the Bush Kangaroo, and Jewschool, mostly for my longer more “intellectual” posts. (If I’ve left anyone out, sorryboutdat.)
What I’ve observed is that the lack of liberal linkage creates our own echo chamber that concentrates only upon the dominant bloggers. While it is a great resource, it can be pretty repetitive and redundant. And, some great information and great humor, comes from the rest of the blogsphere. Yes, it’s about being more democratic, but it’s really about the flow of information and its ability to convey the truth. We live in an era of disinformation. And, our ability to fight that disinformation is severely hindered by excluding large numbers of smart people who can assist in the task of truth seeking and news gathering.
As brother Douglas has pointed out, the mediaspace is threatened by the lack of human intervention, meaning that the role of humans becomes less important as the technology and the mediaspace itself becomes the point. Blogging is a function that offsets the corporatation of the mediaspace. But, it doesn’t do the job nearly as well as it could and should if only a small fraction of voices dominate the discussion.
While it’s not overt censorship, it’s a form of it. A result of the natural order of human social groups. It reminds me of high school in many ways. Cliques grouping together and excluding others not because they don’t share anything in common, but simply because they can.
It would serve our cause better to spread the wealth as it were, to increase our ability to find, amplify and share the truth.
Poll says Arabs don’t like Bush. What’s to like? From their perspective he’s overseen the invasion of two sovereign nations and is actively pursuing a third. Everyone likes to strive for self rule and independence, devoid of “outside influences”. Forcing “freedom” on on nations is about as successful a policy as trying to get American’s to curb their addiction to oil. Not that the two are connected or anything. Just sayin’.
Boy, that Dick Cheney sure is special: “Every executive agency in the government, including the president’s office, is required to issue an annual report disclosing statistics on document classification and declassification activity. Every executive agency, that is, except for one: the vice president’s office.” Or so they believe. Impeach, already!
It makes sense to impeach Big Dick first. He’s the power center. Bush is merely the impetuous figure head with the blind spot.
Of course, any real movement towards impeachment will ignite a power grab by the Cheney Administration the likes of which this country has never seen. Would the democracy survive? I like to think so. My fears are two-fold: A terrorist attack that is used as political fodder to solidify the Cheney Administration and the lack of any real information about what occurs if the US is attacked again. The question of what exactly happens when we do go to Red Alert has never really been answered, but the words “Marshall Law” have been mentioned in close proximity. There’s not really any wiggle room beyond where we are at Orange Alert. And, historically, Marshall Law allows for great advances in the securing of power by regimes that wish to maintain their grasp upon power.
I’m not interested in conspiracy theories. But, I can see how it might unfold that way. Also worth noting, how the bombings in London were not particularly used as a prop as 9/11 was used to prop up a failing administration. Unless I’m missing something.
Digby writes:
Benen says: “At the risk of sounding intemperate, this is insane.”
At the risk of sounding even more intemperate, Dick Cheney may need to be removed from office. This makes Dick Nixon’s theories of presidential power look like childsplay.
