Saturday, January 14, 2012
Thursday, December 22, 2011
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction
SATISFACTION From The BandHouse Gigs Tribute to the British Invasion.
Everybody cooks on this. Yeah.
Everybody cooks on this. Yeah.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)