Nancy Lamott singing two Johnny Mercer songs appropriate for the day, "Autumn Leaves" and "When October Goes":
[audio:AutumnLeavesWhenOctoberGoes.mp3]
Sunday, October 31, 2010
About Cat Stevens
Like Bookworm, I loved Cat Stevens when I was young. Real young, like early to mid-teens. I had all his records, listened to him constantly. The first live rock and roll concert I ever attended was Deep Purple. The second was Cat Stevens. I was fifteen.
But I'd just about stopped listening to him by the time I was seventeen. To begin with, his musical descent had begun. After "Teaser and the Firecat" there wasn't much left for him to say, musically. "Catch Bull at Four" was a disappointment, even for my smitten ears. "Foreigner" was worse, "Buddha and the Chocolate Box" a disaster. I stopped buying his records then, and my musical taste began to evolve, to say the least. Listen to him now, the early, good stuff, and the songs sounds like cute jingles, with tender, obscure lyrics only a sensitive teenager could appreciate. He had talent, for sure, but somewhere along the line - around 1972 - he stopped growing as an artist. Years later, with his albums stored somewhere down on the bottom right-hand shelf of my record collection, dormant for years, I heard of his conversion to Islam. I thought it was weird - Islam was even more foreign to me then than it is now - but it didn't matter much to me. Cat Stevens was just a passing phase in my musical growth. He's stopped mattering to me long before that.
The point is, I outgrew Cat Stevens' music. It was, is, music for children, no matter how catchy the tune. I haven't thought about listening to Cat Stevens' in thirty years. So I don't have Bookworms dilemma about listening to his old music. The question for me is, would I listen to him now if he were still making good music? If he'd grown up too, and were making adult music? No, I wouldn't. To begin with, as I said, Islam is foreign to me. It's no more possible for me to listen to Islamic-based music and understand it than to watch a Japanese film without subtitles and understand it. Cat Stevens entire world view is seen through the prism of Islam. If he were making music today it almost certainly would reflect Islamic thought and musical traditions. Me, I'm a child of the west, of western music, western art, western political thought, western religion, and I make no apologies for it. I listen to western music exclusively because it's what I get, what I understand. Give me a Palestrina mass from four centuries ago, a Bach cantata from three centuries ago, and I'll understand it and possibly love it. Give me any recent popular Islamic music (is there such a thing?) and all I'll hear is noise.
The second reason, however, does coincide with Bookworms thoughts. Cat Stevens, in his current persona, is a jihadist (follow Bookworms links for more) whose views should not be given legitimacy. He should be a social outcast in a open society that believes in free speech and freedom of religion. I've said many times on this blog that if I only listened to music produced by people whose political and moral stances I agreed with, then I'd listen to almost no music at all. The same goes for movies, books, etc. You have to learn to separate the art from the artist. But you also have to draw the line somewhere. I draw a line at Cat Stevens and his abhorant views.
By the way, please don't give me any grief about my statement above that Stevens should be shunned in an open society. It's not hypocrisy in any way. I don't advocate any laws against Cat Stevens' free expression, or anyone else's. Social shunning is the perfect way to express our own beliefs that his way is wrong and our way is right. And I'm in no way saying that we all have to believe the same things or live the same way. To each his own. But some opinions are beyond the pale, and should not be legitimized. Giving Cat Stevens an audience at the Lincoln Memorial yesterday only lends the man and his jihadist views social sanction. His hosts, and most in the crowd, didn't seem to realize that.
But I'd just about stopped listening to him by the time I was seventeen. To begin with, his musical descent had begun. After "Teaser and the Firecat" there wasn't much left for him to say, musically. "Catch Bull at Four" was a disappointment, even for my smitten ears. "Foreigner" was worse, "Buddha and the Chocolate Box" a disaster. I stopped buying his records then, and my musical taste began to evolve, to say the least. Listen to him now, the early, good stuff, and the songs sounds like cute jingles, with tender, obscure lyrics only a sensitive teenager could appreciate. He had talent, for sure, but somewhere along the line - around 1972 - he stopped growing as an artist. Years later, with his albums stored somewhere down on the bottom right-hand shelf of my record collection, dormant for years, I heard of his conversion to Islam. I thought it was weird - Islam was even more foreign to me then than it is now - but it didn't matter much to me. Cat Stevens was just a passing phase in my musical growth. He's stopped mattering to me long before that.
The point is, I outgrew Cat Stevens' music. It was, is, music for children, no matter how catchy the tune. I haven't thought about listening to Cat Stevens' in thirty years. So I don't have Bookworms dilemma about listening to his old music. The question for me is, would I listen to him now if he were still making good music? If he'd grown up too, and were making adult music? No, I wouldn't. To begin with, as I said, Islam is foreign to me. It's no more possible for me to listen to Islamic-based music and understand it than to watch a Japanese film without subtitles and understand it. Cat Stevens entire world view is seen through the prism of Islam. If he were making music today it almost certainly would reflect Islamic thought and musical traditions. Me, I'm a child of the west, of western music, western art, western political thought, western religion, and I make no apologies for it. I listen to western music exclusively because it's what I get, what I understand. Give me a Palestrina mass from four centuries ago, a Bach cantata from three centuries ago, and I'll understand it and possibly love it. Give me any recent popular Islamic music (is there such a thing?) and all I'll hear is noise.
The second reason, however, does coincide with Bookworms thoughts. Cat Stevens, in his current persona, is a jihadist (follow Bookworms links for more) whose views should not be given legitimacy. He should be a social outcast in a open society that believes in free speech and freedom of religion. I've said many times on this blog that if I only listened to music produced by people whose political and moral stances I agreed with, then I'd listen to almost no music at all. The same goes for movies, books, etc. You have to learn to separate the art from the artist. But you also have to draw the line somewhere. I draw a line at Cat Stevens and his abhorant views.
By the way, please don't give me any grief about my statement above that Stevens should be shunned in an open society. It's not hypocrisy in any way. I don't advocate any laws against Cat Stevens' free expression, or anyone else's. Social shunning is the perfect way to express our own beliefs that his way is wrong and our way is right. And I'm in no way saying that we all have to believe the same things or live the same way. To each his own. But some opinions are beyond the pale, and should not be legitimized. Giving Cat Stevens an audience at the Lincoln Memorial yesterday only lends the man and his jihadist views social sanction. His hosts, and most in the crowd, didn't seem to realize that.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Prediction Time
Okay, so I've been scarce around here lately. That happens, as anyone who follows this blog should know by now. I go underground for awhile. Back, for the moment at least.
Not that I've not been paying attention. One of the reasons I haven't blogged is because I'm reading other blogs, finding out all I can about the upcoming election. My one recent post had to do with my feeling that the polls, as good as they look for Republicans, may not really being showing the extent of the wave that is sweeping the country. As Jay Cost said the other day, it's either a tsunami or the tsunami to end all tsunamis. More and more I think it could be the latter.
So it's prediction time, time to put up or shut up. How many House seats will the GOP win? How many Senate seats? And how many governorships will they end up holding? Based on pure gut instinct, I say:
House: 73 seats
Senate: 10 seats
Governors: 32 seats
Lots of people are upping their House predictions over the past few days. For awhile the pros were all hedging their bets, most of them granting that the GOP would win the 39 necessary seats to take control of the House plus a few more. Now, most are predicting mid-50+, others are saying at least 60. I'm sticking with my feeling that the wave has been underestimated by the pollsters. So put me down for 73, with the hope that it could be more.
As for the Senate, it's gone a bit the opposite way. A few weeks ago, according to most pollsters, it appeared quite likely the GOP could pick up the 10 seats necessary to take control of the Senate. But over the past few weeks both West Virginia and Alaska have switched. Joe Manchin, the very popular Democratic governor, now has taken the lead over John Raese, who'd previously been ahead and who seemed to be pulling away. No more. And in Alaska, the detestable Lizza Macrooski (like Ace, I refuse to spell her name correctly since she's running as a write-in and we don't want to help) seems to be ahead of Joe Miller, who'd defeated Makhoosky in the Republican primary. So both those races are up in the air now. Still, I'm sticking with my prediction of 10. It's quite difficult to win a close race as a write-in, especially when your name is as hard to spell as McCronskey's, and I think Sarah Palin's push for Miller this weekend will help swing things back in his direction. West Virginia may be lost but I still think the GOP wins in Arkansas, Indiana, Florida (go away, Charlie Crist), Wisconsin, Colorado, Kentucky, Illinois, Nevada (bye-bye Harry), and Pennsylvania. The GOP wins West Virginia, or possibly Washington, or (less likely) California, and there is your 10. Even if Alaska goes, Mcluskey will end up caucusing with Republicans, so a loss there would not be so bad strategically. Anyhow, I'm sticking with my wave analysis and my prediction of 10.
As for governors, who knows? I haven't been following those as closely but I'm going for the far-end of what I've seen predicted. 32 is my bet.
In 1988 I nailed all 50 states in the office pool for the presidential race. I'm hoping this time if I'm off, it's on the low side. We need a wave to get it through the thick skulls of the GOP leadership that things have changed. For it is what happens after the election that really matters.
Not that I've not been paying attention. One of the reasons I haven't blogged is because I'm reading other blogs, finding out all I can about the upcoming election. My one recent post had to do with my feeling that the polls, as good as they look for Republicans, may not really being showing the extent of the wave that is sweeping the country. As Jay Cost said the other day, it's either a tsunami or the tsunami to end all tsunamis. More and more I think it could be the latter.
So it's prediction time, time to put up or shut up. How many House seats will the GOP win? How many Senate seats? And how many governorships will they end up holding? Based on pure gut instinct, I say:
House: 73 seats
Senate: 10 seats
Governors: 32 seats
Lots of people are upping their House predictions over the past few days. For awhile the pros were all hedging their bets, most of them granting that the GOP would win the 39 necessary seats to take control of the House plus a few more. Now, most are predicting mid-50+, others are saying at least 60. I'm sticking with my feeling that the wave has been underestimated by the pollsters. So put me down for 73, with the hope that it could be more.
As for the Senate, it's gone a bit the opposite way. A few weeks ago, according to most pollsters, it appeared quite likely the GOP could pick up the 10 seats necessary to take control of the Senate. But over the past few weeks both West Virginia and Alaska have switched. Joe Manchin, the very popular Democratic governor, now has taken the lead over John Raese, who'd previously been ahead and who seemed to be pulling away. No more. And in Alaska, the detestable Lizza Macrooski (like Ace, I refuse to spell her name correctly since she's running as a write-in and we don't want to help) seems to be ahead of Joe Miller, who'd defeated Makhoosky in the Republican primary. So both those races are up in the air now. Still, I'm sticking with my prediction of 10. It's quite difficult to win a close race as a write-in, especially when your name is as hard to spell as McCronskey's, and I think Sarah Palin's push for Miller this weekend will help swing things back in his direction. West Virginia may be lost but I still think the GOP wins in Arkansas, Indiana, Florida (go away, Charlie Crist), Wisconsin, Colorado, Kentucky, Illinois, Nevada (bye-bye Harry), and Pennsylvania. The GOP wins West Virginia, or possibly Washington, or (less likely) California, and there is your 10. Even if Alaska goes, Mcluskey will end up caucusing with Republicans, so a loss there would not be so bad strategically. Anyhow, I'm sticking with my wave analysis and my prediction of 10.
As for governors, who knows? I haven't been following those as closely but I'm going for the far-end of what I've seen predicted. 32 is my bet.
In 1988 I nailed all 50 states in the office pool for the presidential race. I'm hoping this time if I'm off, it's on the low side. We need a wave to get it through the thick skulls of the GOP leadership that things have changed. For it is what happens after the election that really matters.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Are the polls wrong?
I few weeks ago I told my buddy Mike that I thought the polls, as good as they look for Republicans right now, can't really be trusted. Why? Because I think the models are wrong. There has been a sea-change of opinion in America over the past two years; Obama, and liberalism, stand exposed. People are scared about country's future as well as their own. There is a new understanding that if we don't curb spending, and fast, America's future prospects will be vastly diminished. What is more, many Americans are understanding conservatism and the benefits of smaller government for the first time. A new-found respect for the founders and their ideas have swept over the country. Things have changed.
But the polling models haven't. Sure, some of the pollsters are trying to take into consideration what's gone on these past two years but none really know the extent of it. All the respected pollsters are trying to figure out how many people have switched, which years in the past are most like this year, etc. and base their models on that. But my point is that there probably are no models that truly reflect the wave of opinion that has swept over the country. The pollsters are trying to evaluate who are the likely voters and how many of them are are Republican, Democrat, or Independent but they don't really know the answers to those questions, not this year. If they are using old models than they are probably wrong. My opinion is that they are underestimating likely voters on the conservative side and overestimating them on the liberal side. As such, I think that the coming Republican landslide will be even more significant than many predict.
Mike, a few days later, admitted (I know it was hard for him) that he thought I was right. But we are just two interested outsiders. Yesterday, I got confirmation from a political insider that my opinion is valid. Pat Caddell, former pollster for McGovern and Carter, an old-time liberal who has been alienated from modern liberalism and thinks the Democratic party under Obama is corrupt, echoed my thoughts yesterday on the Ricochet podcast - see Episode 39, "The Shrinking Violets." "Shrinking Violets" is used here ironically - there is nothing shy or retiring about Pat Caddell. He let's loose on both parties during the podcast and it makes for terrific fun. Listen to the whole thing if you're a political junkie like myself. You won't be disappointed. While you're at it subscribe to the podcast and perhaps subscribe to the Ricochet website. It costs $3.47 per month, which they say is the costs of a cup of Starbucks coffee.
I don't think any of us who believe the polling models to be wrong are being pollyannish. I'm not the type, Mike isn't the type, and Pat Caddell definitely isn't the type. We just don't think there is any real gauge yet for the extent of the ideological shift of the past two years. We'll see on election day. Caddell says we'll know by 6:30 or 7:30 pm the extent of the wave. It might be bigger than you think. For Democrats I'd offer the following advice:
[youtube]XypVcv77WBU[/youtube]
But the polling models haven't. Sure, some of the pollsters are trying to take into consideration what's gone on these past two years but none really know the extent of it. All the respected pollsters are trying to figure out how many people have switched, which years in the past are most like this year, etc. and base their models on that. But my point is that there probably are no models that truly reflect the wave of opinion that has swept over the country. The pollsters are trying to evaluate who are the likely voters and how many of them are are Republican, Democrat, or Independent but they don't really know the answers to those questions, not this year. If they are using old models than they are probably wrong. My opinion is that they are underestimating likely voters on the conservative side and overestimating them on the liberal side. As such, I think that the coming Republican landslide will be even more significant than many predict.
Mike, a few days later, admitted (I know it was hard for him) that he thought I was right. But we are just two interested outsiders. Yesterday, I got confirmation from a political insider that my opinion is valid. Pat Caddell, former pollster for McGovern and Carter, an old-time liberal who has been alienated from modern liberalism and thinks the Democratic party under Obama is corrupt, echoed my thoughts yesterday on the Ricochet podcast - see Episode 39, "The Shrinking Violets." "Shrinking Violets" is used here ironically - there is nothing shy or retiring about Pat Caddell. He let's loose on both parties during the podcast and it makes for terrific fun. Listen to the whole thing if you're a political junkie like myself. You won't be disappointed. While you're at it subscribe to the podcast and perhaps subscribe to the Ricochet website. It costs $3.47 per month, which they say is the costs of a cup of Starbucks coffee.
I don't think any of us who believe the polling models to be wrong are being pollyannish. I'm not the type, Mike isn't the type, and Pat Caddell definitely isn't the type. We just don't think there is any real gauge yet for the extent of the ideological shift of the past two years. We'll see on election day. Caddell says we'll know by 6:30 or 7:30 pm the extent of the wave. It might be bigger than you think. For Democrats I'd offer the following advice:
[youtube]XypVcv77WBU[/youtube]
O’Reilly on Muslims
There's been some kerfuffle over Bill O'Reilly's comment on The View the other day. When asked why he was against the Ground Zero mosque, he responded, "Because Muslims killed us on 9/11!”
Let me preface my remarks by stating that I've never been an O'Reilly fan. I rarely watch his show and when I do it's never planned, it's only because I'm flipping channels and see that he has an interesting guest on. I don't consider O'Reilly a conservative. He's more of a populist and a self-promoter. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not the main reason I don't watch him. The real reason is because I find the man's belligerence off-putting in the extreme. His attitude that he is the arbiter of all that is right or wrong may make for popular television but it makes me boil. I find him nearly unwatchable for more than ten minutes at a time.
And I've never watched The View. I've seen plenty of clips of the show posted on conservative blogs and that is quite enough for me, thank you. Beyond that I won't comment on my opinion of the show (cop out!).
At any rate, I watched the clip of O'Reilly making his comment and a couple of the panelists walking off the set (including Whoopi Goldberg, who wins the award for the most unfunny comedian in history.) It seemed to me ridiculous.
What Bill O'Reilly said, "Because Muslims killed us on 9/11!” is true, factually. That the 19 men who flew the airplanes into our buildings and killed nearly 3000 people on American soil were Muslim is without doubt. Furthermore, they did it in the name of Islam. No one denies that. Could he have said what he meant more artfully? Sure, I suppose. But no one can argue with the factual basis of the statement. So why all the fuss? I dismissed the panelists walking off the set as a couple of loony leftists making a grandstanding gesture and the ensuing kerfuffle as nonsense.
Now, along comes Peter Wehner, a man for whom I have great respect and whom I've praised often on this blog, posting on Commentary's Contentions blog that O'Reilly was wrong. He explains why he thinks so by stating the following:
I disagree with Wehner because I think his analogy is wrong. To say, "Catholics are child molesters" is indeed a statement that indicts all Catholics. But O'Reilly did not indict all Muslims with his statement. He was plainly speaking of the 19 men who commandeered those airliners, not all Muslims. A more proper analogy to the O'Reilly statement would be, "Catholics molested those children." That is an inarguable fact, just as O'Reilly's statement is. So Wehner's analogy is incorrect.
I would add a few more things. The Catholic priests who molested those children did not do it in the name of Catholicism, as the 9/11 killers did in the name of Islam. The priests did it because they were weak, dishonorable men who could not control their vile impulses. You could argue that they got into the priesthood for the purposes of putting themselves into closer proximity to children and to better gain their trust, but that is a different thing than committing their outrages in the name of the Church.
Furthermore, the vast, vast, majority of other Catholics were as horrified as anyone else (perhaps more so) when the facts of the child molestations came to light, and they condemned it as much as anyone (again, perhaps more so.) I do not believe that the same percentage of Muslims throughout the world had similar reactions when learning of the 9/11 atrocities. I seem to remember dancing in the streets. Afterwards there were many Islamic extremists claiming support for the murderers. Even those prominent Muslims who condemned the actions of the 9/11 terrorists often did so in equivocated language, often hinting that our actions may have provoked and justified the attacks. While I am sure there are millions of Muslims who reacted with the same horror and disgust as the rest of us on 9/11, their voices are seldom heard. To me, and others, there seems to be many Muslims who, while they would never engage in terrorism themselves, give tacit approval to those who do. And that is a problem (about which I plan to post more about soon.)
So please spare me the outrage over O'Reilly's comment. What he said was true and those that are feigning outrage over it are frauds. They know what he meant.
Let me preface my remarks by stating that I've never been an O'Reilly fan. I rarely watch his show and when I do it's never planned, it's only because I'm flipping channels and see that he has an interesting guest on. I don't consider O'Reilly a conservative. He's more of a populist and a self-promoter. There's nothing wrong with that and it's not the main reason I don't watch him. The real reason is because I find the man's belligerence off-putting in the extreme. His attitude that he is the arbiter of all that is right or wrong may make for popular television but it makes me boil. I find him nearly unwatchable for more than ten minutes at a time.
And I've never watched The View. I've seen plenty of clips of the show posted on conservative blogs and that is quite enough for me, thank you. Beyond that I won't comment on my opinion of the show (cop out!).
At any rate, I watched the clip of O'Reilly making his comment and a couple of the panelists walking off the set (including Whoopi Goldberg, who wins the award for the most unfunny comedian in history.) It seemed to me ridiculous.
What Bill O'Reilly said, "Because Muslims killed us on 9/11!” is true, factually. That the 19 men who flew the airplanes into our buildings and killed nearly 3000 people on American soil were Muslim is without doubt. Furthermore, they did it in the name of Islam. No one denies that. Could he have said what he meant more artfully? Sure, I suppose. But no one can argue with the factual basis of the statement. So why all the fuss? I dismissed the panelists walking off the set as a couple of loony leftists making a grandstanding gesture and the ensuing kerfuffle as nonsense.
Now, along comes Peter Wehner, a man for whom I have great respect and whom I've praised often on this blog, posting on Commentary's Contentions blog that O'Reilly was wrong. He explains why he thinks so by stating the following:
Assume that Sam Harris went on The O’Reilly Factor and, based on the child-abuse scandals that tarnished the reputation of the Catholic Church, made the sweeping claim that “Catholics are child molesters.” My guess is that O’Reilly would (rightly) respond, “No. Some priests molested children, and it was a horrific thing. But you can’t indict an entire faith based on the sins of a relatively few number of priests."
I disagree with Wehner because I think his analogy is wrong. To say, "Catholics are child molesters" is indeed a statement that indicts all Catholics. But O'Reilly did not indict all Muslims with his statement. He was plainly speaking of the 19 men who commandeered those airliners, not all Muslims. A more proper analogy to the O'Reilly statement would be, "Catholics molested those children." That is an inarguable fact, just as O'Reilly's statement is. So Wehner's analogy is incorrect.
I would add a few more things. The Catholic priests who molested those children did not do it in the name of Catholicism, as the 9/11 killers did in the name of Islam. The priests did it because they were weak, dishonorable men who could not control their vile impulses. You could argue that they got into the priesthood for the purposes of putting themselves into closer proximity to children and to better gain their trust, but that is a different thing than committing their outrages in the name of the Church.
Furthermore, the vast, vast, majority of other Catholics were as horrified as anyone else (perhaps more so) when the facts of the child molestations came to light, and they condemned it as much as anyone (again, perhaps more so.) I do not believe that the same percentage of Muslims throughout the world had similar reactions when learning of the 9/11 atrocities. I seem to remember dancing in the streets. Afterwards there were many Islamic extremists claiming support for the murderers. Even those prominent Muslims who condemned the actions of the 9/11 terrorists often did so in equivocated language, often hinting that our actions may have provoked and justified the attacks. While I am sure there are millions of Muslims who reacted with the same horror and disgust as the rest of us on 9/11, their voices are seldom heard. To me, and others, there seems to be many Muslims who, while they would never engage in terrorism themselves, give tacit approval to those who do. And that is a problem (about which I plan to post more about soon.)
So please spare me the outrage over O'Reilly's comment. What he said was true and those that are feigning outrage over it are frauds. They know what he meant.