Hartford Conservative Examiner: Having fun with Che
Posted using ShareThis
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Shameless Time and Courics Big Question
News magazines are exceedingly frustrating in their coverage of politics. Certainly it is difficult to be totally objective in covering politics, however some publications don't even try to mask their allegiances. Time magazine for the seventh time has Barak Obama on its cover with the entire issue dedicated to every aspect of his life and candidacy. Time is to liberal politics what Pravda was to the old Soviet Union, it is clear and away a propaganda publication. This may seem a little blunt but in one striking example David Von Drehle makes a yeoman effort to dispel us of Mr. Obama's lack of experience: “...friends of Obama's like to point out that 12 years as a lawmaker is more experience than Abraham Lincoln.” Certainly we expect friends of Obama to think that he's qualified, why such attribution would bolster his article is a mystery. The obvious retort is Obama is certainly no Lincoln. If outrageous comparisons to Lincoln don't sway you Drehle makes an even more extraordinary claim:
Voters accustomed to evaluating governors and generals may have a hard time deciding what value to place on a stint of "organizing." But it was surely real work. Reading Obama's account of his efforts to organize the residents in a single Chicago neighborhood, with weeks of toil going into staging a single meeting, is like watching a man dig the Panama Canal with one Republicaa Swiss Army knife.
Paleeeze!
The whole problem with all this, of course, is the false notion that this is simply reporting the story as it is seen and not the viewpoint of the writer. When Mr. Drehle reports what is obvious in front of him, and us, he has to stretch and distort the idea of experience itself and then exaggerate what little experience Obama has. That Obama may or not have the experience necessary to become presidents is not a matter of opinion, so it seems, and if you ever had to argue the point, don't site someones opinion of the matter, just look at the news.
What is the world coming to?
Katie Couric the anchorperson of CBS news seems mystified that the Democrats would pick Obama, not because of what he stands for or what little experience he has but for what it is he departs from and that is the days of the Clinton white house or even for the missed opportunity of electing John Edwards. Couric in an interview during the Democratic convention asked "Do you think voters want to see a couple who are faithful to one another?" Huh?? Adjectives are difficult to find in describing this jaded mindset. Just who would not want to see a first couple not faithful to each other? Would this drive people to McCain?
Voters accustomed to evaluating governors and generals may have a hard time deciding what value to place on a stint of "organizing." But it was surely real work. Reading Obama's account of his efforts to organize the residents in a single Chicago neighborhood, with weeks of toil going into staging a single meeting, is like watching a man dig the Panama Canal with one Republicaa Swiss Army knife.
Paleeeze!
The whole problem with all this, of course, is the false notion that this is simply reporting the story as it is seen and not the viewpoint of the writer. When Mr. Drehle reports what is obvious in front of him, and us, he has to stretch and distort the idea of experience itself and then exaggerate what little experience Obama has. That Obama may or not have the experience necessary to become presidents is not a matter of opinion, so it seems, and if you ever had to argue the point, don't site someones opinion of the matter, just look at the news.
What is the world coming to?
Katie Couric the anchorperson of CBS news seems mystified that the Democrats would pick Obama, not because of what he stands for or what little experience he has but for what it is he departs from and that is the days of the Clinton white house or even for the missed opportunity of electing John Edwards. Couric in an interview during the Democratic convention asked "Do you think voters want to see a couple who are faithful to one another?" Huh?? Adjectives are difficult to find in describing this jaded mindset. Just who would not want to see a first couple not faithful to each other? Would this drive people to McCain?
Friday, August 15, 2008
Is The Party Finally Over?
With the advent of the Internet popular music has found itself in crisis. No longer would a listener have to shell dollars out to buy albums, now they could just download it for nothing. Online sites such as Napster threatened the industry of its revenue by simply giving the music away for nothing at all. With lawsuits and court battles the site was forced to shut down. As it stands consumers could download music on their ipods and MP3 players and pay per song. That stopped the bleeding somewhat however as Elizabeth Lee Wurtzel writes in the August 10th Wall Street Journal it's too little too late. She says “Today's music industry is either moribund or dead, depending on whom you ask. Downloading has destroyed it, and no one in the business is smart enough to figure out how to fix it.”.
Wurtzels thesis is two-fold. One is the end of an era. The second is cultural and economic. For the first thesis she begins with the story of Pete Yorn an artist who makes music writing for movies and has reached the billboard charts. Yorn makes a pretty good living however in the good old days of the 70's, Wurtzel writes, Yorn “would be a multiplatinum artist living in a Malibu mansion with mountains of cocaine on every horizontal surface, lithe, hippie-ish blonde groupies with names like Veruschka...” and this is a bad thing, she continues: “You may feel that this in no great loss. But these rock stars were fun, larger than life people with real talent-and bad habits. Now all we have left are the bad habits. All we've got left is Britney Spears.” There's a bit of an old fogy in Wurtzel here. Certainly Ms Spears may not have the kind of talent as a Jim Morrison but the same was probably said about Morrison not having the same talent as Frank Sinatra in the 60's. Aside from that to say that Mr Yorn is deprived of mountains of cocaine and a large following, and more disastrously, teens looking to emulate his lifestyle, is certainly nothing to get nostalgic about. If musicians had made a modest profit the likes of Yorn are making now, perhaps Janis Joplin, Morrison, and many others who lost their lives because of lavish living would still be with us.
As for her second thesis Wurtzel makes a compelling case that with consumers buying individual songs instead of albums, the genre of popular music is being taken over by one-hit wonders rather then “consummate musicians”. This is a development that is hardly new. Popular music by its nature is a departure from true musicianship. The songs that we have grown up are constructed with just a handful of cords repeated over and over again, the rest of an album is much of the same. This is not an indictment on popular music, it has a simple formula that works. But to say that the demise of the whole album format is akin to the loss of virtuosity doesn't hold much water. Technology is producing a change in music much the way AM radio or vinyl recordings had done in the past. Certainly artist will adapt as they had done before. The worst part of Wurtzels argument is a call to government action. Could there be a more wrongheaded prescription?
Popular culture is an export the United States has, as Wurtzel points out, conquered the world. Because of the the ability to download this industry is in trouble and along with that, of course, are jobs. Wurtzel cites impressive numbers to point out just how big and influential this industry is in economic and cultural terms but then again the demise of the horse and buggy was a shock to the system as well. Capitalism, its been said, is the process of creative destruction. The more successful economies don't improve on the light bulb they replace it. As for the cultural dimensions to her argument lets just say once and for all, for all its virtues, American pop culture is somewhat of an embarrassment. Instead of being a light form of true art it is America's art. America has yet to produce one Mozart. Of course Mozart is a hard act to follow but we could at least settle for a Berlioz. But these were serious musicians writing the sort of music that doesn't produce the kind of celebrity and fortune of pop music. For the few who cherish classical music and shun pop music, the notion that new technology will threaten the latter may feel that the chickens have come home to roost. Indeed with the prospect of diminishing influence of popular culture Wurlitzer's points out that the fine arts are making a resurgence and she cautions that “This is antithetical to the American mission. I have nothing against all the great fine artists this country has produced, but they are a carryover from Europe. They are Old World.” Well excuse me.
Art and culture, if we are to believe Wurtzel, are in a state of dramatic change and hopefully for the better. For all the good it has done no other genre of music has had a more destructive influence on the young as had popular music. True art may be “old world” to Wurtzel and because of mid-20th century technology and youth culture it has fallen by the wayside. Now that a newer form of technology threatens this all we could say to Wurtzel is simply get with the times baby.
Wurtzels thesis is two-fold. One is the end of an era. The second is cultural and economic. For the first thesis she begins with the story of Pete Yorn an artist who makes music writing for movies and has reached the billboard charts. Yorn makes a pretty good living however in the good old days of the 70's, Wurtzel writes, Yorn “would be a multiplatinum artist living in a Malibu mansion with mountains of cocaine on every horizontal surface, lithe, hippie-ish blonde groupies with names like Veruschka...” and this is a bad thing, she continues: “You may feel that this in no great loss. But these rock stars were fun, larger than life people with real talent-and bad habits. Now all we have left are the bad habits. All we've got left is Britney Spears.” There's a bit of an old fogy in Wurtzel here. Certainly Ms Spears may not have the kind of talent as a Jim Morrison but the same was probably said about Morrison not having the same talent as Frank Sinatra in the 60's. Aside from that to say that Mr Yorn is deprived of mountains of cocaine and a large following, and more disastrously, teens looking to emulate his lifestyle, is certainly nothing to get nostalgic about. If musicians had made a modest profit the likes of Yorn are making now, perhaps Janis Joplin, Morrison, and many others who lost their lives because of lavish living would still be with us.
As for her second thesis Wurtzel makes a compelling case that with consumers buying individual songs instead of albums, the genre of popular music is being taken over by one-hit wonders rather then “consummate musicians”. This is a development that is hardly new. Popular music by its nature is a departure from true musicianship. The songs that we have grown up are constructed with just a handful of cords repeated over and over again, the rest of an album is much of the same. This is not an indictment on popular music, it has a simple formula that works. But to say that the demise of the whole album format is akin to the loss of virtuosity doesn't hold much water. Technology is producing a change in music much the way AM radio or vinyl recordings had done in the past. Certainly artist will adapt as they had done before. The worst part of Wurtzels argument is a call to government action. Could there be a more wrongheaded prescription?
Popular culture is an export the United States has, as Wurtzel points out, conquered the world. Because of the the ability to download this industry is in trouble and along with that, of course, are jobs. Wurtzel cites impressive numbers to point out just how big and influential this industry is in economic and cultural terms but then again the demise of the horse and buggy was a shock to the system as well. Capitalism, its been said, is the process of creative destruction. The more successful economies don't improve on the light bulb they replace it. As for the cultural dimensions to her argument lets just say once and for all, for all its virtues, American pop culture is somewhat of an embarrassment. Instead of being a light form of true art it is America's art. America has yet to produce one Mozart. Of course Mozart is a hard act to follow but we could at least settle for a Berlioz. But these were serious musicians writing the sort of music that doesn't produce the kind of celebrity and fortune of pop music. For the few who cherish classical music and shun pop music, the notion that new technology will threaten the latter may feel that the chickens have come home to roost. Indeed with the prospect of diminishing influence of popular culture Wurlitzer's points out that the fine arts are making a resurgence and she cautions that “This is antithetical to the American mission. I have nothing against all the great fine artists this country has produced, but they are a carryover from Europe. They are Old World.” Well excuse me.
Art and culture, if we are to believe Wurtzel, are in a state of dramatic change and hopefully for the better. For all the good it has done no other genre of music has had a more destructive influence on the young as had popular music. True art may be “old world” to Wurtzel and because of mid-20th century technology and youth culture it has fallen by the wayside. Now that a newer form of technology threatens this all we could say to Wurtzel is simply get with the times baby.
Tuesday, June 24, 2008
With Friends Like These
The Waterbury Observer and Friends mini-newspapers provide a useful forum for community news and cultural calendars. The Observer is the more popular of the two for its innovative “The Best Of” series where readers vote on the best businesses or politicians. Both publications contain articles about local events, profiles of politicians and helpful advice on day to day living. There are also opinion pieces which by nature not everyone will agree. In this space there has been criticism of one of the Observers columnist (Peace and Blame) whom, from the position of advocating peace and disarmament, blamed America as an international aggressor at the same time giving true belligerence the benefit of a doubt. It is not an uncommon mindset and diverse opinions are always welcome if anything so that it could be dissected and debated.
Friends on occasion takes it a step further in its criticisms and goes so far as to cross the line of decency. On two occasions where teenagers met tragic deaths Friends found it fitting to question the integrity of the parents which was utterly useless and just plain mean. Whether or not the parents were at fault it served no public interest other then to add public chastisement on top of horrific anguish.
In the June 08 issue of Friends a curiously anonymous article entitled “The best and worst of Greater Waterbury: People can be fine or waste our precious time” Friends informs us on two people who ought to be on the “worst of” list. Why a worst of list? Well first of all this is meant as a dig to the Observer citing that if your going to list the best of things it “smacks of discrimination to some...They argue, convincingly, that without the one there can’t be the other,…” Oh really? It doesn’t occur to the friends of Friends that by not balancing a best with the worst is not discriminatory but by doing so is just poor taste. Just to be clear lets just point out the obvious and note there isn’t any “they”. Mr. Anonymous should jettison the faux objectivity. Just come out and say there ought to be a worst list and take the credit. Whats to worry the article is anonymous.
For the first of Friends victims thankfully the lack of clarity gets in the way of any embarrassment they may have intended:
Without further suspense, herewith is the first installment of the Worst of Greater Waterbury,…The honor of the first person selected, after serious skull-searching, is Jacqueline “Jackie” Ford, one of the brightest stars in the constellation of the Department of Children and Families’ Brass City’s locale.
Daily, Ford ventures forth promoting the adoption of children neglected or abused, bringing them together with potential new parents.
Dealing with the media is not Ford’s forte. However. Reaching her via telephone can be nigh impossible, and her tune of yesterday could change, without notice, tomorrow.
But being a bureaucrat, the Fords of this world have naught to fret.
And? The writer gets so caught up in look-how-cute-I-can-write that whatever it is that makes Ford the worst is not mentioned. Why was she being contacted in the first place? What are we suppose to think, how dare she “naught to fret”? At some point matching neglected children with adopting parents has made poor Ms. Ford one of the worst people in the city. Couldn’t the writers skull contain a better (or worst-er) candidate?
For the next honoree is a pizza and deli owner who was once on the Observers Best list but not anymore. Who is the pizza deli owner and what is his establishment? We're not told: “The engaging, fairly young entrepreneur, intentionally, one must assume , has incited the passions of more than one lesser creature. There’s a rumor afoot that fists almost flew in his shop, twice.” Since the deli owners new designation as being the worst is based on rumors Friends thought it best to keep names out, presumably.
But there is more to the story: “An ongoing run around he subjected a salesman to for several years ended with shouts that featured a waitress hastening to her employer’s aid. She was bid to mind her own business, a command the winsome shrew instantly dismissed, to nobody’s shock.” Did a salesmen have an argument with the owner and a waitress helping her boss somehow? Why is the waitress a "winsome" shrew? The story goes on: “Unlike the tormentor in the above anecdote was a veritable bear of a person in the same neighborhood, but who did not consume the salesman’s time?” Same neighborhood, what happened to the shop? If the “veritable bear” wasted no ones time why does he fit in to the story? “He’d always come to the telephone, invariably politely and in a good mood, a greeting much appreciated.” Unlike the naught-to-frets of the world. “Although his invitation to get back to him boosted the salesman’s spirits as a seraphim might have, the predictable outcome over long period was a frustrating squandering of time. Finally, the solicitor tossed in the towel.” in an attempt at deciphering this a deli owner wasted the time of a salesmen, got into an argument where by his waitress (a shrew) tried to help. In the meantime some big guy in the neighborhood was nice and was polite on the phone. In the meantime the salesman just gave up. Right? Now does this sound like one of the worst people in town?
In short Friends two worst persons award goes to a bureaucrat for reasons we’re not told and to a person we don’t know whom, from a business we don't know where, for reasons we can’t understand. The best guess here is an attempt at vindictive pay back. The writer was rubbed the wrong way and by being so consumed in anger resorted to old fashion muckraking. Fortunately emotions got in the way of coherent writing. Stick to the calender guys.
Friends on occasion takes it a step further in its criticisms and goes so far as to cross the line of decency. On two occasions where teenagers met tragic deaths Friends found it fitting to question the integrity of the parents which was utterly useless and just plain mean. Whether or not the parents were at fault it served no public interest other then to add public chastisement on top of horrific anguish.
In the June 08 issue of Friends a curiously anonymous article entitled “The best and worst of Greater Waterbury: People can be fine or waste our precious time” Friends informs us on two people who ought to be on the “worst of” list. Why a worst of list? Well first of all this is meant as a dig to the Observer citing that if your going to list the best of things it “smacks of discrimination to some...They argue, convincingly, that without the one there can’t be the other,…” Oh really? It doesn’t occur to the friends of Friends that by not balancing a best with the worst is not discriminatory but by doing so is just poor taste. Just to be clear lets just point out the obvious and note there isn’t any “they”. Mr. Anonymous should jettison the faux objectivity. Just come out and say there ought to be a worst list and take the credit. Whats to worry the article is anonymous.
For the first of Friends victims thankfully the lack of clarity gets in the way of any embarrassment they may have intended:
Without further suspense, herewith is the first installment of the Worst of Greater Waterbury,…The honor of the first person selected, after serious skull-searching, is Jacqueline “Jackie” Ford, one of the brightest stars in the constellation of the Department of Children and Families’ Brass City’s locale.
Daily, Ford ventures forth promoting the adoption of children neglected or abused, bringing them together with potential new parents.
Dealing with the media is not Ford’s forte. However. Reaching her via telephone can be nigh impossible, and her tune of yesterday could change, without notice, tomorrow.
But being a bureaucrat, the Fords of this world have naught to fret.
And? The writer gets so caught up in look-how-cute-I-can-write that whatever it is that makes Ford the worst is not mentioned. Why was she being contacted in the first place? What are we suppose to think, how dare she “naught to fret”? At some point matching neglected children with adopting parents has made poor Ms. Ford one of the worst people in the city. Couldn’t the writers skull contain a better (or worst-er) candidate?
For the next honoree is a pizza and deli owner who was once on the Observers Best list but not anymore. Who is the pizza deli owner and what is his establishment? We're not told: “The engaging, fairly young entrepreneur, intentionally, one must assume , has incited the passions of more than one lesser creature. There’s a rumor afoot that fists almost flew in his shop, twice.” Since the deli owners new designation as being the worst is based on rumors Friends thought it best to keep names out, presumably.
But there is more to the story: “An ongoing run around he subjected a salesman to for several years ended with shouts that featured a waitress hastening to her employer’s aid. She was bid to mind her own business, a command the winsome shrew instantly dismissed, to nobody’s shock.” Did a salesmen have an argument with the owner and a waitress helping her boss somehow? Why is the waitress a "winsome" shrew? The story goes on: “Unlike the tormentor in the above anecdote was a veritable bear of a person in the same neighborhood, but who did not consume the salesman’s time?” Same neighborhood, what happened to the shop? If the “veritable bear” wasted no ones time why does he fit in to the story? “He’d always come to the telephone, invariably politely and in a good mood, a greeting much appreciated.” Unlike the naught-to-frets of the world. “Although his invitation to get back to him boosted the salesman’s spirits as a seraphim might have, the predictable outcome over long period was a frustrating squandering of time. Finally, the solicitor tossed in the towel.” in an attempt at deciphering this a deli owner wasted the time of a salesmen, got into an argument where by his waitress (a shrew) tried to help. In the meantime some big guy in the neighborhood was nice and was polite on the phone. In the meantime the salesman just gave up. Right? Now does this sound like one of the worst people in town?
In short Friends two worst persons award goes to a bureaucrat for reasons we’re not told and to a person we don’t know whom, from a business we don't know where, for reasons we can’t understand. The best guess here is an attempt at vindictive pay back. The writer was rubbed the wrong way and by being so consumed in anger resorted to old fashion muckraking. Fortunately emotions got in the way of coherent writing. Stick to the calender guys.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
