Category: Uncategorized

These two Stones songs, both built around similar, irresistible Keith Richards guitar riffs, are absolute classics. Do they have anything else in common?

“JJF” has lyrics about suffering that are wildly baroque–weird, even. I can’t think of another prominent Stones song that sounds like it. What was the point of it? The only plausible answer is that Jagger and Richards wanted to remind their mostly working-class audience that they, in spite of their wealth and fame, still felt their fans’ pain. It was a gesture of solidarity with the base, as it were.

The last verse of “Satisfaction” serves the same purpose. You can easily imagine the average Stones fan saying “What do you have to complain about, Mr. Jagger? You have all of the fame and the booze and the drugs and the chicks that you want. I can barely make ends meet. What is it exactly that we have in common?” Jagger is ready for that question, and he answers it in a way that makes the song universal. He may be rich and famous, but like you, he’s Adam, or Faust. He can never have everything he wants.

That’s what makes the song so great, along with the riff, of course.

Now that Bibi has (to no one’s surprise) admitted that he would rather occupy Gaza than accept a partial success or make meaningful political concessions to the Palestinians, the following is pertinent:

ISRAEL’S ARMY

Don’t stop that bombing.

I could bomb all night.

My mind goes sleepwalking

While I’m putting the war to right.

Call the Biden Administration.

Tell them to prepare for an occupation.

_______________

Israel’s army is here to stay.

Israel’s army are on their way.

Gazans would rather be anywhere else but here today.

__________

Gaza is up for grabs.

The town is full of Arabs.

We should be in Palestine

Changing facts on the West Bank line.

We’re sending the message we won’t leave this time.

____________

But there’s the danger.

The election’s coming up next year.

But it can be arranged

With just a word in Mr. Biden’s ear.

Times are bad, but things could be much worse.

We could send you to the Ukraine first.

___________

Israel’s army is here to stay.

Israel’s army are on their way.

Gazans would rather be anywhere else but here today.

_____________

Parody of “Oliver’s Army” by Elvis Costello.

Some of the greatest pop music from the late 20th century was the product of a very public breakup between Lindsey Buckingham and Stevie Nicks. I don’t know if they were better off for it, but we certainly were. You can’t help wondering- what was it like for these two to perform “Dreams” and “Go Your Own Way” in front of an audience every night? At what point did it go from a public psychodrama to just making the doughnuts? We’ll probably never know the answer to that one.

But the Buckingham/Nicks strife was only part of the back story behind “Rumours;” the McVie marriage was crumbling, as well. If you listen carefully, the music that resulted from that breakup was quite different; Christine McVie is actually consoling and reassuring her ex, not throwing mud at him. That’s the real meaning of “Don’t Stop;” it isn’t just a Clinton campaign song.

There was a great outpouring of feeling when Christine died. Now I’m pretty sure I know why.

Like you, I saw the article about Biden losing to Trump in swing states, and I had the same sinking feeling in the pit of my stomach. Biden’s poor showing is primarily the result of the electorate, at this early stage of the process, comparing him to the almighty rather than the alternative. It is useful, therefore, to remind the world what a second Trump term would entail before the next similar poll is taken.

I have split the implications of a second Trump presidency into what certainly will, probably will, and could happen. Here is my analysis:

1. CERTAINTIES: Trump will abandon Ukraine to its fate, routinely ignore court orders, replace competent civil servants with obedient hacks, engage in behavior that most normal people would view as corrupt, damage our educational system, institute a regime of unbridled cruelty at the border, and turn his back on efforts to limit the impacts of climate change.
2. LIKELY OUTCOMES: America will probably exit NATO, embrace Putin, permanently alienate our allies, start a low level war with Mexico, attack Iran, cut taxes on the wealthy, enact a national ban on abortion, offer to sell out Taiwan for increased agricultural exports, and increase prices by imposing an across-the-board tariff on friends and foes alike.
3. POSSIBILITIES: Trump completely destroys liberal democracy in America. Using a concocted emergency as a pretext, and employing a newly politicized military as a weapon, he throws his opponents in jail, shuts down dissenting opinions on the internet and in the MSM, and declares martial law in the blue states. The Republicans in Congress make no real effort to prevent any of this, and the Supreme Court is powerless to stop him. America is now officially a white Christian nationalist nation with a dictator at the top.

If you’re tempted to vote for Trump on the basis that you would like to bring back the economy of 2019 (never mind the subsequent pandemic response and the insurrection), please consider two things. First, Trump has no clue as to how to do that under today’s changed circumstances; second, read the list I have provided above. Even if he could turn back time with the economy, would it really be worth it?

We know from public reports that Trump was trying to push the Joint Chiefs to start a war with Iran during his last few months in office. If he wins the election, will he drive us to that abyss? It is a very serious and legitimate question.

Things have changed significantly in the Middle East since Trump left the White House. Thanks to his foolish decision to withdraw from the nuclear agreement, the Iranians are closer to getting the bomb than they were before. Israel is now engaged in a war of extermination with Iran’s proxy in Gaza. Most importantly, Putin and the Iranians are now much closer than they were during the Trump years. That means an attack on Iran might well be viewed as an attack on Trump’s good buddy, as well.

You can easily imagine a scenario in which Trump offers Putin Ukraine in exchange for neutrality in conflicts with Iran and China. Would Putin make a deal like that? My guess is that he would accept the benefits and ignore the obligations.

“Sgt. Pepper” was unquestionably the most innovative pop record of the last century. It was brash, irreverent, and optimistic; it combined new and old art forms in a way that had never been seen before. With the exception of the remarkable “A Day in the Life” and “When I’m Sixty-Four,” however, the individual songs have not worn that well. When was the last time you heard “Lovely Rita?” What about “Fixing a Hole?”

“Magical Mystery Tour” was the complete opposite. The individual songs are among the best that Lennon and McCartney ever wrote, but the album as a whole is gloomy, largely because of the preference for cellos over guitars. There are a few duds, too. The public never completely embraced it, in spite of its brilliance.

And then there is “White Album,” which once again took the band in a completely different direction. This time, the concept, for the most part, is parodies of a wide range of musical forms. The cellos are gone; guitars are back. And the record, unlike its predecessors, is mostly outward looking, sarcastic, and angry. That was undoubtedly due to two things. First, as we know, the band members weren’t getting along; second, it was 1968. There was a lot out there to piss you off.

To me, “White Album” is George Harrison’s finest moment, not as a writer–that was “Abbey Road,” to which he contributed two truly great songs–but as a performer. His guitar is the driving force behind the record. He deserves more credit for the album’s success than he generally receives.

I was a Steely Dan fan when I was growing up, but an ambivalent one, for two reasons. First, the icy perfectionism of the music was enjoyable, but hardly uplifting; second, the lyrics didn’t contain a scintilla of idealism. It appeared to me that Becker and Fagen were celebrating the self-destructive lifestyles of bohemian characters for no obviously good reason. I mostly set the records aside.

On further reflection, I was mostly right about the music, but wrong about the lyrics. It is obvious to me now that Becker and Fagen were acting as journalists, not evangelists for the demi-monde. They pointed out, not just the hypocrisy of establishment figures, but the hollowness of the lives of self-indulgent losers and criminals, as well. There is, in the end, nothing romantic about the criminal lifestyle that is worth emulating.

Take “Deacon Blues,” for example. The lines in the song are clear and elegant. The protagonist is a wannabe bohemian who has come to believe (at least he says he does–whether he actually ever gets the nerve to act on it is another matter) in the supposed romance of life on the fringes. The song in no way glamorizes his decision. Are Becker and Fagen simply describing him and leaving judgment to the listener, or are they openly contemptuous of him? You can make the case either way.

For millions of years, people lived to the rhythms of the seasons; they rose with the sun and went to bed when it went down. Then man conquered distance with the railroad, and darkness with artificial light, and the old way of living didn’t work anymore. Time was reorganized, and clocks, not the sun, came to rule our lives.

Today, instead of adjusting our habits and our schedules to accommodate the changing length of the day, we adjust the clocks twice a year. An artificial construct designed to solve a problem is actually our boss. That’s deeply weird, when you think about it.

As a retiree, I’m happy to live a hybrid life. I can’t avoid the clock altogether, but I wake up with the sun regardless of the season. I’m happy to do so.

The deadline for a deal on a CR is only two weeks away. Will Speaker Mike crash the car to prove to the far right that he can, or will he trade on his credibility with the extremists to keep the lights on?

It’s obviously disheartening to know that a white Christian nationalist is in a position of power in the House, but his ideology matters less in this instance than his personality and his leadership skills.

I think he will draw back from the brink. From what I’ve seen, he understands perfectly that he has to satisfy the moderates as well as his right-wing friends if he wants to accomplish anything and keep his job. That should deter him from following his instincts and creating chaos.

For now, anyway.

Some left-leaning commentators are celebrating the UAW’s apparent victory over GM, Ford, and Stellantis. This could be the beginning of a shift in power away from large corporations and towards working people, and the beginning of the end for the dollar store economy, right?

The pandemic should warn us that there are other possibilities, including the following:

1. The companies protect their profits by jacking up prices, and consumers pay them. Increased inflation is the result.
2. The companies jack up prices, but consumers refuse to pay them, and buy cars built with non-union labor. Profits fall, layoffs ensue, and the companies don’t have the funds to facilitate the change to electric vehicles. Tesla and the Japanese car companies are the big winners here.
3. The companies don’t jack up prices, profits fall, and there is no money left for the conversion to electric vehicles. The pace of the conversion slows as the companies beg for relief from government timetables.

None of these is a victory for working people or the nation as a whole. History tells us that only government action, typically in a massive crisis, causes major redistributions of wealth. A few union victories aren’t going to do the trick.

To borrow a phrase from Xi and Putin, Trump and Bibi used to be as close as lips and teeth. Today, Trump is much more critical of Bibi than he used to be. Why?

Because Bibi has to live in the real world, and it is Biden, not Trump, who commands the aircraft carriers off of the Israeli coast. Bibi has embraced Biden because he has no choice. Trump, being who he is, will never forgive him for that act of disloyalty.

Oh, well. He still has Putin’s unconditional support, and that’s what really matters.

Biden goes to Israel, hugs Bibi, and does his consoler-in-chief thing. He sends aircraft carriers to deter Hezbollah. Thereafter, he spends most of his time warning the Israeli government about the dangers of throwing temper tantrums and killing innocent civilians. Having established an enormous amount of credibility with the Israeli public, his concerns are difficult to ignore. His initial gesture was genuine, but was it also a tactic?

Yes, and it is working. Will he get any credit for it from the public, either in America or throughout the world? I doubt it.

One hears two responses to the exit strategy question from the Israeli government. The first is that power in Gaza will be given to an outside group of technocrats, or the PA, or the UN, or some group to be named later. The second is that Hamas is a group of Nazis, and the story will end the way World War II did, after the unfortunate but justifiable deaths of thousands of civilians. Is this a workable strategy?

Option 1 is an exercise of wishful thinking; no outsider is going to come in and save the Israelis from the costs of an occupation. If you accept the World War II analogy, you are implicitly tolerating the need for a lengthy and expensive occupation. The Israelis would prefer to avoid that.

Barring a switch to the “cut the grass” strategy discussed in my last post, the fact is that Israel will be faced with two options at the end of the war. The first is an occupation of indefinite length; the second is a political initiative that would actually seek a reasonable solution to the Palestinian problem. The second choice is obviously the better one from an American perspective. Is it plausible? It would actually make the war worth fighting, but if push comes to shove, Bibi will undoubtedly pick occupation over the two-state solution.

Zack Beauchamp thinks the current Israeli campaign is unfocused and ultimately impossible. He suggests that the government should give up the massive air bombardment and rely on probing commando raids to capture or kill the Hamas leadership and free the hostages. The alternative of wiping out Hamas altogether begs the question of what happens next; on that point, the government lacks any kind of viable plan. Is he right?

It is true that limiting the scope of the campaign avoids the question of who runs Gaza when the war is over. It is also true that doing so will result in a Hamas recovery within, at most, a few years. It is a slightly more intense version of the usual Netanyahu approach to “cutting the grass.”

I doubt the Israeli public will tolerate the yard guy tactic this time. But how does the story end if the war isn’t limited? I will address that in my next post.

There is a furious debate going on within the right about the virtues of neo-liberalism. Reactionaries insist it has been a total failure; the PBPs, its principal beneficiaries, disagree. Who is correct here?

The principal components of neo-liberalism are as follows:

1. Cut taxes and regulations on business. This will result in additional investment, higher productivity, and increased profits, which will ultimately cause wages to increase. Everyone wins.
2. Embrace globalization and technological change. Free trade creates efficiencies and thus higher profits with lower prices on consumer goods.
3. Resist expansions of the welfare state for the benefit of the losers from globalization and technological change. They only encourage workers to lounge in the hammock of dependency.

It is fair to say that the ultimate, and predictable, outcome of neo-liberalism is the dollar store economy, which had the following symptoms:

1. Global inequality decreased significantly. If you’re a Chinese worker, that’s a great thing. If you’re an American worker, not so much.
2. Inequality in America has skyrocketed as the result of vastly increased share and asset prices. American bosses make far more money relative to workers than they did fifty years ago.
3. The price of consumer goods remained steady or even decreased. This was a substantial blessing for everyone, including the poor, that was incorrectly taken for granted until recently.
4. With the exception of Obamacare and the expiring pandemic programs, the right succeeded in preventing any redistribution of the benefits of globalization and technological change to workers and the poor. The result of this victory is right-wing populism.

The bottom line is that neo-liberalism did, in fact, create efficiencies, and could have worked for everyone if the business community had been willing to share its benefits. It didn’t; large areas of America suffered; and our current political situation is the result.