Was searching for some Earl Scruggs on You Tube and found this great 70’s footage of Scruggs, Joan Baezand I think that’s Roger McGuinn on guitar too, singing and picking Dylan’s “Love is Just a Four Letter Word”.
(Update: Reader Jim e-mails: “I think that’s more likely Randy, Earl’s son, on guitar. And a second son on bass.” Thanks!)
Funny anecdote from No Direction Home: Baez relates that she watched Dylan create this song and pretty much stole it from him and years later he heard it and said: “I like that” and she said to him: “You wrote it ya dummy!”
Sorry for the radio silence. Been a bit busy with life stuff and preparing research for a book / documentary project. But, I’m reading a great deal… So, I’ll share:
Naomi Klein has a new book out, it’s titled The Shock Doctrine and it explores a topic near and dear, which is that the overuse of fear tactics by media and gevernment is creating an atmosphere of “collective shock”. It’s brilliant, timely and important stuff. Read an extract.
Friend Douglas Rushkoff has a new article up over at Arthur and it’s a doozy concerning his take on the 9/11 “truth” movement. My two cents: 9/11 was an accident waiting to happen. Watch The Man Who Knew for starters… I’ll blog on this when I have more time, but my feeling is that if anything it’s a matter of incompetence and hubris. Whowouldathunk it?
Vaclav Havel has an op-ed in the New York Times titled Our Moral Footprint, and like all of his words, it goes right to the point and raises the stakes. In this case, his concern is that:
We can’t endlessly fool ourselves that nothing is wrong and that we can go on cheerfully pursuing our wasteful lifestyles, ignoring the climate threats and postponing a solution. Maybe there will be no major catastrophe in the coming years or decades. Who knows? But that doesn’t relieve us of responsibility toward future generations.
Looking through the passageway at the fountain in Bethesda Terrace in Central Park. Was walking home from midtown. One of my favorite places in the city. It reminds me of the Jardin des Tuileries in Paris.
The plan is deceptively simple: Hide the unpopular Bush behind the military uniform. What’s old is new again.
It’s always been a brilliant move, and this time it’s likely Karl Rove’s parting gift to the faltering Bush Administration. For weeks we patiently waited for General David Petraeus’ testimony before Congress as to whether the surge in Iraq was a success or a failure. It mattered not that it was already a forgone conclusion that the General was to state that the surge was indeed a success, even if there was information that said it was mixed at best, major programs need to be scrapped entirely, or worse, and the war proper was an ongoing financial disaster.
But, truth be told, that’s not where the real action was for the public relations obsessed Bush White House and the noise machine. For, it was also a forgone conclusion that many on the left would react against the surge being proclaimed a success. They would do this vocally and in public and were deeply preparing to do so, as John Edwards did when buying ads to counter Bush’s speech, and as Move On did with it’s “betray us” ad in the New York Times. Since the very first days in office the public relations m.o. for the Bush White House has always been to wrap Dubya in the military uniform, and to surround him with members of the military whenever possible. But, never have they used a member of the military in uniform to take their political hits and then used that uniform to deflect those hits by saying: “You’re attacking a man in uniform! How unpatriotic!”
It’s important at this moment to remember that it was the Bush White House that placed General David Petraeus into the political waters in the first place and then had the unmitigated gall to yell “shark!” and point fingers. Of course, the plan was always to meld Petraeus into Bush. As Mark Silva put it:
Tonight, the Petraeus plan becomes the Bush plan.
Alas, the Bush speech was met with mostly disdain for its lack of stating anything new, its predictability and its total obviousness in the face of expectation. Everyone knew exactly what Bush was going to say, and he said it. Disappointing to say the least. Why? Because it was all a ruse. The hopes of the White House marketing mavens were dashed upon the rocks, their expectations of the public rallying around the man in uniform and transferring that warm and fuzzy moment onto the president lost in the smoke of the all too political atmosphere that permeated the situation once the conservative noise machine got wind of the Move On ad.
It took the White House a week to actually respond to it themselves, their minions doing such a good job of diversion, disinformation and distortion. But, in the end, when the president did speak upon it, lowering himself to do so, the true nature of it all became clear. And, as all fascists do, they pushed the fear button, and the cowards stood up to be counted, fearful of criticizing the man in uniform who is speaking for the president.
It was brilliant in that regard. A beautiful ruse. Because in the end, we’re not talking about how the Republicans in the US Congress blocked legislation that would give overworked and outstretched US soldiers a bit more leave, or how democratically elected Parliament of Iraq has asked the US to set a timetable to leave Iraq, to not occupy Iraq indefinitely, but the US has refused, or how the Prime Minister of Iraq has asked the US to remove Blackwater operatives from his country, the White House plays deaf and dumb, because the law doesn’t apply to everyone and the dispute rages on and on. We’re not talking about those issues are we?
Democracy struggles at home and abroad because democracy is not the plan. It’s a ruse.
The indie film Darkon, which I saw about a year ago at a screening prior to the Tornoto Film Festival, is now being released here in NYC. A doc that examines the lives of fantasy game players, it’s a fascinating study of how peoples role playing – both imaginary and reality – can overlap and become confused when one becomes so involved in the minutiae rather than the larger picture. Go see it, and bring someone to talk about it later.
… From Propaganda to Paranoia is the new online seminar being taught by friend Douglas Rushkoff. It’s a version of his much respected and sought after New York University syllabus. if you have the time and money, get thee over there. It’s a powerful introduction into why we think as we do, the market and media forces that shape our thinking and how we can combat those forces. Notes Douglas in his summary of the seminar:
We will first study the fundamentals of persuasion, influence, psychology and coercion, and then look at how they have been adapted for use in interactive contexts. I’m particularly interested in looking at the relative media capabilities of people and their would-be “controllers,” and to determine whether the “masses” ever seize the true potential of the technologies being offered them.
We will study a broad range of applications, from simple marketing to political campaigns, activism, and satire – and we will discuss the ethics of using these techniques for different purposes. We will look at the propagandistic use of technology and futurism by both governments and corporations in their effort to “create” future scenarios favorable to their interests.
Readings will include Coercion and Media Virus by Rushkoff, as well as writings by Adorno, Richard Barbrook, Edward Bernays, Norbert Weiner, Walter Benjamin, MoveOn, RtMark, and etoy, We will also watch Rushkoff’s documentaries, Merchants of Cool and The Persuaders, as well as Adam Curtis film Century of the Self. Although students with all ranges of interests are welcome to take the course, be forewarned: the seminar will be structured to allow for a highly critical analysis of the role that marketing and influence techniques have played in both online and offline society. (You may not be able to go back to your job at the advertising agency after this.)
Personally, I can think of no greater place to learn about these issues that not only define our times, but how we come to our opinions about our times.
Was watching No Direction Home the other night (again) and it includes a clip of Billie singing Strange Fruit. Grabs ya by the throat and doesn’t let go.
Expectations are high when you’re the writer and director behind two classic crime films of the 80’s – Angel and Mona Lisa – so, it’s not surprising that Neil Jordan’s latest, The Brave One, starring Jodie Foster and Terence Howard, makes every effort to evoke the glory of the past but doesn’t quite seem to ever really find the moral and plot focus that made those early films so great. His latest is hamstrung by a series of unbelievable coincidences and a moral perspective that is naive at best and offensive at worst.
Jodie Foster plays Erica Bain, a radio host with an amazingly idyllic life. She’s engaged to David (Naveen Andrews), and they love each other so deeply that walking the dog in Central Park at night doesn’t seem to strike either of them as dangerous, nor does allowing their German Shepherd to roam around off leash seem to be anything but normal. This sense of heightened idealistic and romantic living is required in order to insure that when it is stripped away, the pain and shock will be greater.
Unsurprisingly, they are confronted by a group of tattooed, drunk thugs who beat Erica close to death, kill her fiancé and take her dog. Erica awakens from her injuries weeks later to find that the person she once was is gone, replaced by a different person. One who is paranoid, and wants revenge, but conveniently, isn’t consciously seeking it. It just sort of happens. She decides to buy a gun on a whim, but those nasty gun laws are in the way, so she pays a cool grand for a black market pistola, which is conveniently provided by a man who happens to overhear her being turned away from the gun shop for not having a permit.
The next thing we know, Erica is in a sleazy bodega at the exact moment a pissed off husband decides to pop four bullets into his ex-wife who’s the clerk at the bodega. The guy goes after Erica who is hiding in the back, but she blows him away with her brand new 9mm. Killing people gets good to her, so when she finds herself on a deserted train and two thugs decide to come at her with a knife, she blows them away too. It’s a lot of coincidental crime to happen to one individual in so short a time frame. And, it’s just the beginning. Erica pops off two more murders before finally going after the bad guys who killed her beloved fiancé.
The script needs this great leap of coincidence and her admission that her old self is gone, replaced by a new persona, to shield Erica from the brutal reality that she is essentially a serial killer stalking the streets of NYC. Conveniently, all the people she happens to kill are guilty, and no stray bullets kill any innocent bystanders, so what’s the big deal?
Although a drug addicted abducted street walker Erica tries to rescue is nearly killed by her actions, there is nothing in the movie that even hints at any real world ramifications for murdering a total of eight people before the movie is over. Even Son of Sam killed only six people, and the city experienced a media frenzy and police dragnet of the highest magnitude. The world of The Brave One though is devoid of any such problematic realities, Terence Howard being the sole detective on the case apparently. The final moral premise that is driven home is that the justice system is broken, so killing people is a morally correct action to take. As long as the people you kill are really guilty, and they really deserve it, and you can get away with it. More fantasy than reality.
The lensing by Philippe Rousselot is top notch, and there are moments of cinematic brilliance within the uneven and unremarkable whole that will engage those seeking a little thrill. If you like fantasy movies where the law of the land is flouted, the bad guy gets blown away, (the audience claps blood lustily at this point) the hero gets away with with it, and gets the dog back, then you’ll dig The Brave One.
Frameshop does a great job of dissecting the conservative noise machines altering of fact in an article titled: “How Right-Wing Lie About MoveOn Ad Became The Story”. Also of note, Petreus’ response when asked about his reaction to “betray us”.
Led Zep is poised to reunite (with the son of the late John Bonham behind the drum kit) for what is being reported as a full set of songs for a tribute concert in honor of the late Atlantic records founder Ahmet Ertegun.
My introduction to Zeppelin was via the movie The Song Remains the Same, and while I don’t expect the upcoming reunion show to reach that pinnacle (the loss of Bonham is just too great the years too many), it will be nice to see the old bones together again. Something from that movie to whet the palate:
Rudy Giuliani will likely be the GOP nominee for president. He’s arrogant, “tough” talking (with little real sacrifice), he says what conservatives want to hear (even if his past record contradicts), he lets forth with righteous indignation upon all things not conservative, and he is the symbol, in the eyes of many of those not from NYC, of American resoluteness. In other words, he’s the perfect conservative stooge to replace the current stooge. The transition would be almost unnoticeable. Fortunately, the truth is a bit more specific.
As a New Yorker who lived through 9/11, it was nice to see someone (anyone) talking to us those first few horrific hours about what was going on. While Bush was running to the rabbit hole of a secure bunker in Omaha, Giuliani was down on Vesey Street trying looking shocked, dusty but he was there. But, Rudy lost my support shorter thereafter when he decided that 9/11 was his personal badge of honor to wear in the political ring. He really stole Bush’s thunder if you think about it. Not an easy task considering the Bush stood on a mound of crushed metal, plastic and human remains and claimed that those who did this will soon pay. A promise, like all campaign promises, that was not met. Rudy has also made millions from the tragedy of that day. Food for thought.
America’s Public Enemy #1, the Al Qaeda terrorist leader Osama Bin Laden, released a propaganda tape today which put forth a number of points, all obviously meant to push one agenda or another, much of it also obviously specifically created to divide the American people. It’s not a new trick to be sure. Nor is it new that the right wing extremists fall for it. lock stock and barrel yet again!
Odd, wouldn’t you say, that the right wing finds it perfectly acceptable to use the propaganda of America’s Number One Enemy to further their own domestic political propaganda?
Permanent propaganda victim Gateway Pundit sums up the wingnut love for Osama bin Laden best:
US Is Holding Copy of Bin Laden Tape— HE SLAMS DEMS!!
You can just taste the glee. I’d say that the G Pundit owes Bin Laden a box of chocolates this holiday.
To my mind, it’s not surprising in the least. The extreme right is a hornet’s next of traitors and arrogant mental pre-pubescents who led the vocal charge for this war (and Bin Laden’s head on a plate) in the process blindly supporting an ill advised and ill planned policy and war plans that many of us understood from the beginning were badly conceived. The results are plain as day for all to see.
Saying so as we did at the time resulted in being called unAmerican traitors by right extremists, yet now, they actually help to propel Bin Laden’s propaganda message of hate, to assist its purpose to divide the American people. They are aiding Bin Laden’s message and his fight to divide America.
