SATISFACTION From The BandHouse Gigs Tribute to the British Invasion.
Everybody cooks on this. Yeah.
Thursday, December 22, 2011
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Note to Pete--Amis's & Avlon's, King's & Kingsley's
Hey Pete, Dreadful Show~
I have to weigh in with a bit of a raised eyebrow that you weren’t aware of author Martin Amis when John Avlon brought him up yesterday. Fair enough, as it’s always refreshing to hear you (and too few others) own and confess to areas of expertise and erudition where you, as well as all of us, sometimes find ourselves lacking or without more formidable knowledge. Curiosity is a golden resource, which you recognize and remind your listeners of regularly. I’m now a reader of over a dozen new writers/journalists with whom you and your listeners have made me familiar.
I was a bit surprised, because you seem to put a high premium on soul-stirring and mind/game changing narratives, and in the wake of Vaclav Havel’s recent passing, which in fact was the context of your and Johns’ conversation, there is acknowledgement of the worth of great artists—writers, thinkers, poets, musicians as well as eloquent activists--in the realization of real societal change--they, the real warriors in the battle for hearts and minds, if you will. Amis is truly one of those.
I was happily surprised to hear that John A and Martin A were buds. I’ve read many, but not all, of Martin's books, fiction and non-fiction, and have just completed The House of Meetings…which is a wonderful novel tale of a love triangle involving brothers who each spent time in Stalin’s camps. I feel that London Fields is his most sure-handed and most realized accomplishment, although all his books are masterfully written, full of wit, irony, tears, and magnificent and masterful wordcraft. Time’s Arrow is, unfortunately, the one book that is read by many whom only have read one of his works. It is a gem, though.
An added irony is that Llewellyn King, who like John, was subbing for you while you were on vacation, was listing authors whose language and philosophies served as salient examples of great language and societal examination. I was compelled to call in when he mentioned Kingsley Amis (Martin’s father), as one of his favorites (the English teacher from Texas, as I recall, was unaware of him) and I was eager to discuss language—linguistics in particular. I waited...and waited until The King connected, apologised, then was his usual gracious and affable self, albeit in the last minute of his show.
In my travels as a performer, I cross paths with many journalists, statesmen and politicos, collaborate with some, and have cultivated lasting friendships with a handful. Two in particular, on different occasions, were slow to recognize Llewellyn King’s name when I brought it up, as I do frequently due to my highest regard for his work, as well as his wonderfully entertaining style of commentary. They came to, of course, when I mentioned his show, White House Chronicle. He is a golden resource in a field of tinfoil, and POTUS is smart to enlist his gifts. Folks will be ever increasingly aware of him, thanks to you all.
Pick up on Martin Amis, you’ll be very glad you did.
And, speaking of narrative and framing, and if you’ve yet to do so, please see about getting linguist George Lakoff onto the show. Hell, why not Martin Amis? He and Avlon together would be profoundly wondrous.
Gratefully Yours~
Jon Carroll Jon in Leesburg, Va www.joncarroll.org
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
In Reply to Comments on ....
Why Occupy Wall Street Will Keep Up The Fight--Kalle Lasn & Micah White
Great piece.
IN RESPONSE TO THIS COMMENT:
COMMENT
A new left-right hybrid party forming based largely upon an anti-business political platform?
The idealism is cute. I have to wonder, though, who from the right would be interested in a scheme for higher taxes that would risk seizing up our capital markets. The vision is a left-right hybrid, but the platform is far-left progressive. At the end of the day, I suspect that the Occupy people will remain in their current position in the American political landscape, as the always-disgruntled (but sometimes more disgruntled than others) far-left flank of the Democratic Party. An Occupy candidate is not likely to win an election, and, since someone has to win, most of the Occupy crowd will continue looking for idealistic messiahs within the Democratic ranks, by whom they will continue to be disappointed.
It is good to see someone involved in Occupy starting to think about real policy proposals that could change the system. Ultimately, though, there isn't much here that is very different from anything I've heard from Democratic and progressive voices for the last several years.
RESPONSE
As any "occupations" have historically had as an aspiration--and this would include the 11th hour Republicans who saw the leverage inherent in the debt-ceiling intransigence, and Nordquist's tax-pledge, etc.-- this movement is, maybe not yet as well, all about forcing the issue.
The OWS needs to hope for, strive for, some sort of leverage to up their octane. The divide of inequality and available resources is much too wide to be bridged or narrowed by rhetoric and moral platitudes.
The vision of a higher-tax induced "seizing up" of our capitol markets is threat-like, and therein the arm-twisting is already in play, front loaded.
Since when has the market NOT been about risk? When things were greasing right along, the markets apparently didn't feel such risk while they ventured and bundled and default swapped and frittered hundred of billions of private $$ away. Who was risking what then? Heretofore, the pattern in place is to privatize gains while socializing losses. Now who's seized up?
Policy change is good, only when new and/or improved policies are implemented. Yes, there need to be legislative leaders to work toward that end. There are such elected officials and respected erudite and reasonable voices (Ron Paul, Bernie Saunders, Robert Reich, Krugman, etc) sitting at their desks and standing in the wings. We need to force them up onto the stages and out onto the floors.
OWS is NOT merely "kids" in the parks, and the movement will increasingly become more difficult to ignore as it morphs and assimilates to find traction and force some results.
And we shouldn't fool ourselves: it won't all be peaceful, and it won't be all be pretty. Or cute. It will be hard and cruel, much as it has become for jobless, the poor and the hopeless in the US and elsewhere.
~JC
Great piece.
IN RESPONSE TO THIS COMMENT:
COMMENT
A new left-right hybrid party forming based largely upon an anti-business political platform?
The idealism is cute. I have to wonder, though, who from the right would be interested in a scheme for higher taxes that would risk seizing up our capital markets. The vision is a left-right hybrid, but the platform is far-left progressive. At the end of the day, I suspect that the Occupy people will remain in their current position in the American political landscape, as the always-disgruntled (but sometimes more disgruntled than others) far-left flank of the Democratic Party. An Occupy candidate is not likely to win an election, and, since someone has to win, most of the Occupy crowd will continue looking for idealistic messiahs within the Democratic ranks, by whom they will continue to be disappointed.
It is good to see someone involved in Occupy starting to think about real policy proposals that could change the system. Ultimately, though, there isn't much here that is very different from anything I've heard from Democratic and progressive voices for the last several years.
RESPONSE
As any "occupations" have historically had as an aspiration--and this would include the 11th hour Republicans who saw the leverage inherent in the debt-ceiling intransigence, and Nordquist's tax-pledge, etc.-- this movement is, maybe not yet as well, all about forcing the issue.
The OWS needs to hope for, strive for, some sort of leverage to up their octane. The divide of inequality and available resources is much too wide to be bridged or narrowed by rhetoric and moral platitudes.
The vision of a higher-tax induced "seizing up" of our capitol markets is threat-like, and therein the arm-twisting is already in play, front loaded.
Since when has the market NOT been about risk? When things were greasing right along, the markets apparently didn't feel such risk while they ventured and bundled and default swapped and frittered hundred of billions of private $$ away. Who was risking what then? Heretofore, the pattern in place is to privatize gains while socializing losses. Now who's seized up?
Policy change is good, only when new and/or improved policies are implemented. Yes, there need to be legislative leaders to work toward that end. There are such elected officials and respected erudite and reasonable voices (Ron Paul, Bernie Saunders, Robert Reich, Krugman, etc) sitting at their desks and standing in the wings. We need to force them up onto the stages and out onto the floors.
OWS is NOT merely "kids" in the parks, and the movement will increasingly become more difficult to ignore as it morphs and assimilates to find traction and force some results.
And we shouldn't fool ourselves: it won't all be peaceful, and it won't be all be pretty. Or cute. It will be hard and cruel, much as it has become for jobless, the poor and the hopeless in the US and elsewhere.
~JC
Saturday, November 19, 2011
Public TVs and Early Challenges ReVisited from Jan 2010
Originally Posted Jan 2010~
Fox may be the most watched by, and therefore, "trusted" source, an ironic and elastic term in this day and age, but this is due largely to the demographic of it's viewing audience, which ranges from the minimally to marginally educated shallow thinkers, to the educated and accomplished status-quo, "I've got mine and got over" capitalist conservatives who endorse and support the effective way with which this shrill rhetoric maintains that status quo in a time when they are threatened by a liberal administration.
The trajectory of the Fox agenda originates from a sensational, disingenuous source and I have a difficult time separating the political agenda from the commercial one, and wonder if even those folks purveying the programming can discern where the motive meets and greets the merchandise.
They most certainly win the "who's most vocal" contest within the broadcast media, and therefore, the most heard, but the caveat there should be "by whom". As kids, when we would hear something outrageous, offensive or incredible, my father would mollify us with the instruction to "consider the source". We should be able to do that on our own, as sentient, thinking adults, without someone prompting us to while then providing us with thoughts for our heads and words for our mouths.
In this day and age, so much information is available to us, yet we've allowed the bullies to rule the schoolyard. It's unfortunate, for the common folks--and by that I mean most of us--that, so far during this administration, we've failed to maintain that same bombastic and resolute tone while helping to push through reasonable, thoughtful reform.
It's given me a wimpy feeling.
I have high hopes that President Obama will redirect a purposeful agenda with his address tonight.
Our leaders on the left are guilty of corporate cowtowing in the name of concensus, while we the people put up with the Fox-generated haranguing of the right who have successfully sold the scenario of "behind-closed-doors" opaque wheeling and dealing to an angry and hurting populace many of whom are unrealistically looking for overnight redemption. Fox has successfully manufactured a "failed President", who has been in office one mere year.
It's time for a lazy electorate to wake up and not stand for this hijack job. We must maintain the message and push through reason with informed clarity.
The bailout needs to be sold again, and that may be most difficult. Jobs need to be created NOW. Reform must continue. With that, perhaps we would not be so eager to have our heads turned by the Fox bullies of the world.
In the meantime, folks need to READ MORE and LISTEN LESS.
I firmly request that TVs which are tuned to FoxNews in public places be switched to something else, or demand a good reason why they are tuned to Fox. If they refuse, I follow through on my threat to not patronize their business.
This was more difficult recently when my wife and I had a medical emergency. Our Fairfax Hospital had Glen Beck on Fox playing on BOTH its TVs in the ER waiting room. I looked around and no one in the burgeoning room appeared to be watching or even interested. I requested that they change the channel to something more "neutral".
The Discovery, Weather or ESPN channels seem to be palatable alternatives.
Fox may be the most watched by, and therefore, "trusted" source, an ironic and elastic term in this day and age, but this is due largely to the demographic of it's viewing audience, which ranges from the minimally to marginally educated shallow thinkers, to the educated and accomplished status-quo, "I've got mine and got over" capitalist conservatives who endorse and support the effective way with which this shrill rhetoric maintains that status quo in a time when they are threatened by a liberal administration.
The trajectory of the Fox agenda originates from a sensational, disingenuous source and I have a difficult time separating the political agenda from the commercial one, and wonder if even those folks purveying the programming can discern where the motive meets and greets the merchandise.
They most certainly win the "who's most vocal" contest within the broadcast media, and therefore, the most heard, but the caveat there should be "by whom". As kids, when we would hear something outrageous, offensive or incredible, my father would mollify us with the instruction to "consider the source". We should be able to do that on our own, as sentient, thinking adults, without someone prompting us to while then providing us with thoughts for our heads and words for our mouths.
In this day and age, so much information is available to us, yet we've allowed the bullies to rule the schoolyard. It's unfortunate, for the common folks--and by that I mean most of us--that, so far during this administration, we've failed to maintain that same bombastic and resolute tone while helping to push through reasonable, thoughtful reform.
It's given me a wimpy feeling.
I have high hopes that President Obama will redirect a purposeful agenda with his address tonight.
Our leaders on the left are guilty of corporate cowtowing in the name of concensus, while we the people put up with the Fox-generated haranguing of the right who have successfully sold the scenario of "behind-closed-doors" opaque wheeling and dealing to an angry and hurting populace many of whom are unrealistically looking for overnight redemption. Fox has successfully manufactured a "failed President", who has been in office one mere year.
It's time for a lazy electorate to wake up and not stand for this hijack job. We must maintain the message and push through reason with informed clarity.
The bailout needs to be sold again, and that may be most difficult. Jobs need to be created NOW. Reform must continue. With that, perhaps we would not be so eager to have our heads turned by the Fox bullies of the world.
In the meantime, folks need to READ MORE and LISTEN LESS.
I firmly request that TVs which are tuned to FoxNews in public places be switched to something else, or demand a good reason why they are tuned to Fox. If they refuse, I follow through on my threat to not patronize their business.
This was more difficult recently when my wife and I had a medical emergency. Our Fairfax Hospital had Glen Beck on Fox playing on BOTH its TVs in the ER waiting room. I looked around and no one in the burgeoning room appeared to be watching or even interested. I requested that they change the channel to something more "neutral".
The Discovery, Weather or ESPN channels seem to be palatable alternatives.
Friday, November 18, 2011
A Missed Framing Opportunity?
Framing the Argument
For Infrastructure Jobs (And Homeland Safety) Program
I’m a proponent of infrastructure and education becoming the cornerstones of a job-creating, future-investing job generating program.
And I’m surprised to not hear the President invoke more than merely “crumbling bridges and highways” as a means to cite the consequences of neglecting our infrastructure. He seems to choose to frame this argument as a jobs program, and necessity for a nominal modern day lifestyle and a smoothly functioning society.
It was only little over a year ago, however, that the San Bruno gas explosion occurred, which resulted in at least eight fatalities and hundreds of injuries. The explosion was tantamount to a bomb blast destroying an entire neighborhood. 53 homes were destroyed. Aging gas lines were blamed, ones that were designed and built for a handful of then rural structures, structures that multiplied with suburban expansion, overtaxing the network of lines until this catastrophe occurred.
Later the NTSB further excoriated Pacific Gas & Electric’s lack of oversite and the paucity of suitable regulatory measures in place when the network was laid in 1956.
Numerous experts at the time decried this insidious neglect as an ever increasing danger, as infrastructure ages and populations increase. Infrastructure failure continues to emerge as a public safety and public health issue.
I wonder why the President doesn’t seize this argument as an opportunity to frame a public works initiative as necessity for safe communities, much as the neo-cons successfully mobilized public sentiment into two or more colossal global adventures and compromised civil rights using well-framed fear mongering and tales of (further) impending and/or imminent destruction lest a great malignant menace be discounted, neglected or ignored.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/mishaps-bring-aging-infrastructure-light
Perhaps trite sounding, but this ever aging infrastructure might be framed as an “enemy within”. The Right relentlessly implements this tactic using everything from “Godlessness” to tax-hikes to promote its agendas. Yes, they’ve even successfully managed to vilify our teachers.
If Obama personalized this particular (infrastructure) threat--anthropomorphized it, if you will, he may counter the rhetoric and shame some of these absurdist legislative opponents into some results. And, lo and behold, create some jobs in the process.
We continue to see the Left fail to frame arguments effectively, something the Right has consistently done.
I’m wondering what linguist George Lakoff would have to er, ah, say about it.
And I’m surprised to not hear the President invoke more than merely “crumbling bridges and highways” as a means to cite the consequences of neglecting our infrastructure. He seems to choose to frame this argument as a jobs program, and necessity for a nominal modern day lifestyle and a smoothly functioning society.
It was only little over a year ago, however, that the San Bruno gas explosion occurred, which resulted in at least eight fatalities and hundreds of injuries. The explosion was tantamount to a bomb blast destroying an entire neighborhood. 53 homes were destroyed. Aging gas lines were blamed, ones that were designed and built for a handful of then rural structures, structures that multiplied with suburban expansion, overtaxing the network of lines until this catastrophe occurred.
Later the NTSB further excoriated Pacific Gas & Electric’s lack of oversite and the paucity of suitable regulatory measures in place when the network was laid in 1956.
Numerous experts at the time decried this insidious neglect as an ever increasing danger, as infrastructure ages and populations increase. Infrastructure failure continues to emerge as a public safety and public health issue.
I wonder why the President doesn’t seize this argument as an opportunity to frame a public works initiative as necessity for safe communities, much as the neo-cons successfully mobilized public sentiment into two or more colossal global adventures and compromised civil rights using well-framed fear mongering and tales of (further) impending and/or imminent destruction lest a great malignant menace be discounted, neglected or ignored.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/local/mishaps-bring-aging-infrastructure-light
Perhaps trite sounding, but this ever aging infrastructure might be framed as an “enemy within”. The Right relentlessly implements this tactic using everything from “Godlessness” to tax-hikes to promote its agendas. Yes, they’ve even successfully managed to vilify our teachers.
If Obama personalized this particular (infrastructure) threat--anthropomorphized it, if you will, he may counter the rhetoric and shame some of these absurdist legislative opponents into some results. And, lo and behold, create some jobs in the process.
We continue to see the Left fail to frame arguments effectively, something the Right has consistently done.
I’m wondering what linguist George Lakoff would have to er, ah, say about it.
~JC
JC's Hyperheard Trivia 1--Sunny by Bobby Hebb
This stereo recording smacks of a “head-on” take--a group performance captured live--and the lead vocal is right up the middle with most of the other elements hard-panned to the left or right channels. Leakage from the left side drums can be heard on the right side horns. Love it.
Nevertheless, it’s not a crude or unrefined mix. This is a great sounding recording of a great performance of a great song. What more might one want?
I find this to be exemplary of what I like to call “sophisticated soul”, boasting much harmonic eloquence and instrumental aptitude. It’s a musical chart that I’m sure kept all the players excitedly on their toes while laying it down!
After the first 2 verse/choruses, the arrangement modulates keys upward in half-steps, famously and repeatedly--three times. I recently noticed that--after the third and last modulation--that the bass, in the second measure, doesn’t quite make it up to the three chord , playing an “uh-oh” quick second.
So quick, it didn’t matter.
Bob Dawson (Bias Recording) and I like to say “Soupy won’t mind!” It won’t affect …uh…sales. Indeed, the record became a million seller and is known the world over.
I’d be interested to know the total time taken for this production—tracking, overdubs (if any), and mixing. I’d venture that it took 1/20 the amount of time needed to produce the typical pop record of today. My friend Don Dixon suggested that it probably took about an hour, considering the fact that in those days, most of the session players’ time was spent patiently while the singer learned a theretofore unheard song. But Bobby was the writer, and showed up ready to sing.
Listen one of these ol’ days, and it will grab you all over again. It’s one of my all-time favorites.
"Sunny" was recorded at Bell Sound Studios in New York City and released as a single in 1966.
Read more about the artist and the song HERE.
~JC
Thursday, July 28, 2011
LETTER TO MY CONGRESSMAN
LETTER TO MY CONGRESSMEN--VA. REP. FRANK WOLF, 10th District
"It is precisely because the stakes are so I high that I believe the debt limit vote can serve as a trigger to force congressional action" –
THESE ARE YOUR WORDS STATING THAT:
You are falling in with the denial bent political propagandists who are brazenly, obdurately keeping their finger on (yes, you said)"trigger" of the gun which rests against our very future, and that of the global economy as a whole.
The facts are undeniable, the historical lessons salient, the polling of ALL Americans convincing, but you and yours (and the "pledge" makers in your ranks) insist on playing this circus game which is ridiculously politically oriented, or insidiously geared to orchestrate the demise of our known way of life. It is quite possibly both.
If so, shame on you all.
Our President pointed out that the new "dirty word" stigma attached to compromise in your ranks offends the American people. Count me as among them. I am deeply offended by this smoke-and-mirror double-talk "spending-spree" CRAP we repeatedly hear.
YOU KNOW THE TRUTH. HAVE THE GUTS TO PUT THE CITIZENS WHOM YOU REPRESENT FIRST AND DO WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
This episode is unbecoming, deplorable, and the rhetoric is abhorrent. Grow up and put away childish things. Not only we, but the whole world is watching.
Do humanity justice and accept the fact that our fiscal health will require cuts, caps and NEW REVENUE fairly culled from ALL able to afford the measure.
Mere cuts will not accomplish this, and you know it.
Really Steamed~
~Jonathan Carroll
Leesburg, Va
What Are We Really Talking About?
What Are We Really Talking About?
Yes, the average American has sufficient cause to be daunted. Many of those with moderate to formidable educations and, by most global standards, considerable tools, skills, energy and ambition to pursue a gainful and rewarding life, have hit a wall.
There were roughly 8.8%, or 13.5 million unemployed in this country as of the end of March. These figures vary and flux within and across demographic groups, and the numbers can only reflect what is reported, which fuels speculation that the figure may be higher, as a number of unemployed no longer regularly search or apply for work.
(Nearly 14 million Americans — 9.1 percent of the working population — are unemployed. That’s just a couple of a million shy of the populations of Greece and Ireland, Europe’s two problem children, combined. Another 8.5 million would like to work full time, but can only find part-time jobs. A further 2.2 million have been so discouraged by the grim labor market that they have given up looking for jobs altogether....http://blogs.reuters.com/chrystia-freeland/)
If we seek statistics, we will find them. They can be more telling than what flies with flurries of bombast, misinformation, shrill rhetoric and non-news we have in our eyes, noses and ears if we’re within ear shot of a speaker or eye shot of a screen. And that would be most of every day, thanks very much. We can shop and compare stats until we’ve a feel for what may be something close to the truth, but most average Americans don’t do that. They haven’t the time, the energy, or even the inclination to wade into the waters of esoterica and factoids which require trained insight and arcane analytical skills.
The wellspring of all data is seemingly and endlessly rife with the trivial to the meaningful and grave, and it’s ironic that this modern day volume of immediate availability is lost on most. Many youngsters, in spirit or age, prefer to skim at light speed across the billion mile deep and wide ethers while immersed a mere inch at most, with eyes barely a squint at best.
The general lot of us who live, love and work daily, maintaining enough spiritual health to find some enrichment in our lives, can only follow our chosen paths and instincts, while keeping our eyes and ears discerningly open.
Keeping our minds and our hearts as open is quite another matter and sometimes the greater challenge.
Somewhere along the line, in the context of an empowering zeitgeist in which opinions--presumably informed opinions--exist on the air, on the web, in the ear, in the palm and feverishly ticking along on the edges of even the most mundane tableaus, we arrived to a point where, each voice can be constantly broadcast and chronically present in a public forum, we feel helpless in attempting to effect any real change with our thoughts and words.
The best we can do is share an article, an opinion—hopefully written by someone educated, dedicated, qualified, and whose job it is to impart insight in an accessible language that gets a salient point across readily, that is, effectively conveying a point that can be understood by more than a relative few.
What’s saddening to me is the banal polarity of this conversation. These days, we find even the most traditional and respectable voices turning shrill. Language on the right actually accuses the left of “attacking” big business and “the rich” for suggesting that it may seem somewhat unfair that they enjoy a greased path to exponential increases in their wealth while a small business owner is still struggling to procure a start-up loan from a “too big to fail” financial institution.
That same person may reflect on this while filling his gas tank only halfway due to you know what. That person, when in line at the checkout, sees the headline that the oil company enjoyed a double digit percentage increase in profits from last year.
He reads a book that states the staggering statistics of Wall Street salaries, while the Supreme Court rules that corporations now may enjoy unfettered contributions to political campaigns, with the same free speech protection of individual persons. Defense of this mostly deplored (by the middle and left) development was prompt and harsh: that this would also apply to labor unions, as though there is some sort of parity in spoils there, especially in light of the radical efforts to bust those same unions, while somehow managing to stigmatize school teachers and public employees in general as villains who are unreasonable in attempting to retain collective bargaining rights after having already made considerable concessions for the common good.
In this land, the rich have gotten richer--exponentially more than ever before. There are statistics that bear out that during the expansive period from 2002 to 2007 we went from a time in which most of the nation’s income gains went to the bottom 90 percent of households (the pattern of the economic expansion of the 1960s) to one in which more than half go to the richest 1 percent.
That’s a lot of wealth going to not a lot of people. I don’t blame those people. I not attacking them. I merely see a playing field before us that’s extremely tilted. If those people are actually paying a lion’s share of utility sustaining taxes, then good. Percentages of a lot amount to more than percentages of a little, and folks that are strapped and making those monthly choices to fill the gas tank or their kid’s stomachs, pay for the blood pressure medicine or the day care, pay the electric bill or the phone bill, don’t have a whole lot to spare. I’m not sure what folks mean when they say the rich will be “taxed into submission”. They proclaim tax hikes as a “redistribution of wealth”. From where I sit, reflecting over hopefully none-too-skewed facts and figures from the last 20-25 years, there already has been a massive re-distribution of wealth. The trickle down economic theories work very well, for folks with money. Do they deserve more because they have more? I do feel there is a moral center to many of these arguments.
That’s the reality, no matter which and whose President passed NAFTA or signed DOMA. If the folks who are hurting, especially those among that 8-10%, are interested in any pointing fingers, it’s the one’s toward cheap groceries and bargain priced coats. I do feel strongly that they deserve more.
To the man and woman who were once content while simply working hard, supporting their family while working their shift at the auto plant, or the sneaker factory, or running a small hardware or sporting goods store, these facts serve as a harsh reminder that the days of dreaming of a better future for their kids are over. Yes, it was reasonable that those companies moved their manufacturing overseas to China and the like. It was good for business. The big box stores came, and who could stop them? But one certainly can’t expect those jobless folks to pledge allegiance to the flag quite the same way again, even though there’s probably someone on the air, in a pulpit, or behind a podium somewhere who’s convinced them they should if they ever want to see the light of a gainful day again.
But all the while, America is still an imperial power. We own or operate military bases in over 130 countries. If asked, I’d be hard pressed to name that many countries.
I hope my Grandkids have an education that allows them to know how health care works in other countries, and be able to name all the states in this one. I hope they grow to care about people regardless of their religion, fiscal worth, or political leaning. I hope they read much and often, and are able to express their own mind without the help of ubiquitous and anonymous voices to indict and rant and make them feel like victims.
This is a harsh and dismal time for many good hearted and hard working folks. I feel for them as I feel anxious for me and mine. If posting a link to a piece that states a case that furthers what I feel should be a growing proactive dissatisfaction with the status quo offers a little juice for a conversation going on somewhere around a dinner table, then good. But the center of any argument I make is that of compassion for the suffering, and a hope that hard work and caring for our fellow humans wills out.
All the tit-for-tat jockeying we hear, as if for a debate team win using informed angles and extrapolations, at this point, seems trite and a little sad to me, while there are folks merely in need of real help, real hope.
I’ve decided to not post any more vent-oriented provocative articles that, at this point, merely restate the obvious: that our land is in trouble. Wherever I find data or unbent info, or a piece that may inspire, elucidate or facilitate, or is good for a laugh, I’ll throw it up for whomever may be interested.
But it’s our real blood on the line. And that’s shouldn’t be sport.
~JC
http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm
Wednesday, February 23, 2011
The New Republican Austerity
The New Republican Austerity Campaign
The ever more vivid systematic and no longer merely nascent, continuously and progressively codified evisceration of the lower and middle working class in this country has rendered me bitter, daunted and on the brink of despondency.
Friday, January 28, 2011
Should we give music away for free? | LinkedIn
Should we give music away for free? | LinkedIn
No music, art, nor any form of creativity at all is necessarily connected to a money-meter. You've stated as much yourself. As any endeavor may teach, there are many potentially prohibitive aspects to attaining your "goal", whatever that may be.
Many creative people, who do artistic work as a profession (I'm one) will constantly juggle the money-making projects with the less lucrative, but sometimes ironically more meaningful projects. Whether your own or others', I believe that the music should be approached without cynicism and with full respect and integrity. If you are able to make music, distribute it, etc., and have the (potentially) remunerative aspects be an afterthought, that you're obviously eating and paying your bills. So be it. However, if you wish to do it full-time, and have yourself and/or a family to support, than you'll find yourself necessarily becoming very creative, indeed--at your art as well as at devising a variety of ways to make money from it.
The artist in all of us knows without asking: Music and art existed before money.
If your economical complexion is healthy apart from your artistic endeavors, then enjoy yourself, and hopefully employ some others as collaborators who do rely on music for a living. Most of those folks are pretty good, having learned to do what is called for and do it aptly and economically.
In short: if your calling is in the creative arts, and that is what you want to do ALL THE TIME, and you're not subsisting independently, then you should figure out a way to be paid for your work. Giving it away should be measured and promotional.
Good luck to you in all your projects.
~JC
No music, art, nor any form of creativity at all is necessarily connected to a money-meter. You've stated as much yourself. As any endeavor may teach, there are many potentially prohibitive aspects to attaining your "goal", whatever that may be.
Many creative people, who do artistic work as a profession (I'm one) will constantly juggle the money-making projects with the less lucrative, but sometimes ironically more meaningful projects. Whether your own or others', I believe that the music should be approached without cynicism and with full respect and integrity. If you are able to make music, distribute it, etc., and have the (potentially) remunerative aspects be an afterthought, that you're obviously eating and paying your bills. So be it. However, if you wish to do it full-time, and have yourself and/or a family to support, than you'll find yourself necessarily becoming very creative, indeed--at your art as well as at devising a variety of ways to make money from it.
The artist in all of us knows without asking: Music and art existed before money.
If your economical complexion is healthy apart from your artistic endeavors, then enjoy yourself, and hopefully employ some others as collaborators who do rely on music for a living. Most of those folks are pretty good, having learned to do what is called for and do it aptly and economically.
In short: if your calling is in the creative arts, and that is what you want to do ALL THE TIME, and you're not subsisting independently, then you should figure out a way to be paid for your work. Giving it away should be measured and promotional.
Good luck to you in all your projects.
~JC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)