More on Colbert's satire

The mainstream media, long accused of a liberal bias, seems to have little to say about Colbert's sendup of Bill O'Reilly. If they were truly liberal, they might cover this. Even if you think he bombed, and by comedic standards he did considering that his audience wasn't amused, then it is still news. Yet, most chose to avoid it or dismiss it.

What follows is the best explanation of this I have seen. And a reminder that in the middle of this non-event, we have the Boston Globe detailing 750 times where the President has asserted that he is above the law. That should be our main story.

Chris Durang: Ignoring Colbert, Part Two - Yahoo! News: "The media's ignoring Colbert's effect at the White House Correspondents Dinner is a very clear example of what others have called the media's penchant for buying into the conservative/rightwing 'narrative.'

In this instance, the 'narrative' is that President Bush, for all his missteps, has a darling sense of humor and is a real regular guy, able to poke delightful fun at himself and his penchant for mis-using and mispronouncing words.

Who cares if he lied to start a war? (Or chose to ignore all contrary opinion, which as far as war-starting goes, is pretty crummy.) Who cares if he declares he's above the law, and according to the Boston Globe yesterday there are something like 750 laws he's decided don't apply to him as 'Commander-in-Chief'?

The Globe article's first sentence: 'President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.'

If the President doesn't obey the law, what the heck is he? He's a dictator in a coup, I think -- but no matter, according to the media, he's A-DOR-ABLE!"

Update: A few more links:

Thank You Stephen Colbert.
Whiskey Bar: American Nightmarez
Crooks and Liars
SFGate: Culture Blog! : Stephen Colbert Has Brass Cojones

Sin

I am not Catholic, but I have been mulling over this whole idea of "sin" for sometime. I argued that conservative Christians have thrown over the Catholic idea of the 7 Deadly Sins (you know, greed, envy, wrath, pride, gluttony, sloth, lust) in favor of the 10 Commandments (Thou shall not...). The reason seemed apparent to me. The more catholic idea of sin resonated with every last person. We all grapple with the above sins--hell our entire advertising industry is based on most of them. Wait,... all. You know--the ads that encourage you to covet your neighbor's wife, car, house, income if they aren't encouraging you to consume to be more leisurely or beautiful...

But the 10 Commandments are relatively easy for the average Christian--at least how the society has internalized them. More about murder and adultery--more about what other people do. Less about those internal weaknesses that we all share and fight. Less about our desire to feed self.

In conversations with my Texas friend, this has broken down on my basic argument that conservatives have redefined sin to focus on the sexual--leaving the average, boring, suburbanite church-goer almost sinless. Greed and wealth have been redefined so they don't qualify. He disagrees with me--and says that the Bible is clear on homosexuality and other sexual sins, while the other sins are harder to define.

It finally dawned on me. It isn't that conservatives (or the mainstream church, for that matter) have decided that these other things aren't sins--but rather that they have repositioned how they are determined as "sin." Some of them are personal, and some are corporate. From the conservative perspective, sexual sins are corporately determined. But sins of wealth are personally defined--the deciding issue is "does it come between you and God," or does it "come between you and your personal relationship with Christ." See the difference? If you are gay or having an abortion, you are sinning and the ruling is clear. If you are greedy, then it is up to you. You alone get to decide if your pursuit of money interferes with your relationship with God. So, if you say it doesn't, that story is closed. It doesn't matter how wealthy you are, or how opulent your home is, or how big your SUV is--if you say that it is not a problem, then it isn't a sin--end of story. It is the suburban church-goer's dream--everything that makes the suburban lifestyle is completely up to you.

But clearly, other sins are not given the same leeway. No one says to the gay person, "well, it is really between you and God. It is only a problem if your homosexuality comes between you and God." No one extends the personal decision to the young woman seeking an abortion. Their sin is determined by the group. You can be stinking rich and never be questioned.

Sin becomes something that other people do. How convenient is that?

Oh man, Stephen Colbert

Stephen Colbert roasted the President at the correspondent's dinner. As wasp jerky noted, it didn't look like the President was amused. Colbert got in some real shots. My favorite, besides the "arranging deck chairs on the Hindenburg" and the funny film involving Helen Thomas, was the line that "reality has a well-known liberal bias."

Wasp Jerky also notes that the press seemed uncomfortable too. One review I read had an unnamed source saying "This was anti-Bush. Usually they go back and orth between us [making fun of the press corps]and him." I think that shows just how disconnected the press is from the rest of the world. Colbert did little but make fun of the very news and very President that the rest of us live with. Had the press done its job from the beginning, we might have a different situation.

Rule of law?

The poll numbers show that a vast majority of Americans dissapprove of Bush's leadership. Much of that, from what I have read, is frustration with the Iraq war and gas prices. But, as Shaun catches from The Boston Globe, the President has declared that he is above the law--and that should be of great concern for even Bush's conservative evangelical followers. After all, if Bush can claim this kind of executive power, so can a democratic President. I am really unsure why Republicans aren't more afraid of that.

President Bush has quietly claimed the authority to disobey more than 750 laws enacted since he took office, asserting that he has the power to set aside any statute passed by Congress when it conflicts with his interpretation of the Constitution.
Among the laws Bush said he can ignore are military rules and regulations, affirmative-action provisions, requirements that Congress be told about immigration services problems, ''whistle-blower' protections for nuclear regulatory officials, and safeguards against political interference in federally funded research."

****

Speaking of presidents, and this is yet another repeat observation. I turned into CNN's special on global aids that featured former President Clinton. Once again, I am amazed by his grasp of detail and ability to connect broad issues together. I think that conservatives think that Bush is plenty smart (my favorite logic is that "he has to be to be president") or that liberals are just mean to him. And when I am less angry at what he has done to our country, I have some compassion for his lack of speaking ability. But then I think, "hey, this is the Presidency, this isn't a little league team where everyone gets to play." His inability to articulate anything but simplistic ideas is not good for our republic.

I really miss Bill.

This is how Fox addresses dissent

Neil Young--Let's Impeach the President: "For one thing, though Young has lived in California since the late 1960s, his naysayers will decry him as a Canadian. Others will call him unpatriotic or treasonous."

Wow. And color me shocked that Fox's Tony Snow has made the switch from defending Bush on Fox to defending Bush in the press room. Am I unpatriotic or treasonous? All this and more on the Bill O'Reilly show later!

Eh.

A damn fine surprise

As I have noted, this has been a stressful week. Last night, out of the internet ether, I received a really great gift of this. I have long been a fan of Emmylou Harris. I still remember the first time I heard Pieces of the Sky and fell in love with that voice. Her first solo album (1975) and if you can listen to "Before Believing" and not feel the emotion, then...

Since then, she has been one of music's most prolific artists and the list of albums and songs that I treasure are long. Her duet with Don Williams on Townes' "If I needed you" is one of our favorites. Her bluegrass albums, Roses in the Snow and the live At the Ryman are truly amazing. Then there is the semi-autobiographical Ballad of Sally Rose which I think deserved a lot more attention than it received. How about Wrecking Ball? That one made my rock and roll friends who normally scoffed at country agree that she was one of the best voices of our generation. Cowgirl's Prayer, Red Dirt Girl: the list goes on.

Anyway. What a nice gift, and what a nice ending to a rough week.

A few issues

First, found this on Moral Contradictions. As it turns out, the American Dream isn't what we think.

"Several other experts invited to review his work endorsed the general findings, although they were reticent about accompanying policy recommendations.
'This debunks the myth of America as the land of opportunity, but it doesn't tell us what to do to fix it,' said Bhashkar Mazumder, a senior economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland who has researched this field."

Read it. So much of the conservative response assumes this economic reality.

*****

Listened to NPR today. No religious radio. Thought about the voracious nature of capitalism. The recent oil prices suggest that the economy might not grow at the same rate. Capitalism is never satisfied. How is that compatible with the Christian faith?

*****

Speaking of capitalism and oil. All the hubbub regarding the oil prices annoys me. A) the oil companies are right (to an extent). They do what they do. It is irrational to punish them for profiting when capitalism tells them to profit. B) I have no problem with higher oil prices. Higher prices will force the issue of alternative fuels and conservation. Correct that: I have one major problem. This will hurt those at the bottom more than anyone else. Any political steps should be aimed at reducing the disruption for the poor. C) NPR noted that all politicians (both sides of the aisle) don't want to call on conservation. They don't want to ask the American people to sacrifice. If there was ever a political effort where the church should (I say should) be leading, it should be this sense of sacrificing comfort and liesure for some public good.

But they aren't. James Dobson spoke out against the evangelicals standing against global warming, saying something like "we reject any policy that prefers animals over human beings." Idiot. If he was not a complete moron, he might recognize that human beings are animals and that we all live in the same nest. But he is an idiot. Dr. or not. Christians, if they care about their world, should shun people like Dobson, Falwell, and Robertson like such bad trash.

****

Still on the idea of the oil prices. I filled up today and winced. But I am trying to reduce my usage. I look at the people driving Hummers and Suburbans by choice and feel the desire to flip them the bird. After all, they are sending a giant "fuck you" to the rest of us and the planet. We should all return the sentiment.

*****

One more thing. Walking through our local Hastings, I glanced over the current issues publications. Anyone who continues the mantra of the liberal elite needs to do the same. Count how many books are in the conservative camp. For every Al Franken, there are two Ann Coulter's and Sean Hannity's; Hugh Hewitt's and Laura Ingram's. I am tired of this verse. Conservatives control the vast majority of the news and information. Time we acknowledge that.

****

Ok, that is enough for today. Go listen to some good music.

Slow blogging

ubub asked why I haven't "updated the damn blog." Short answer is that I have been so busy and so stressed that I haven't even kept up. Long answer is that my emotions are so depleted this week that I don't know what to say. It isn't a terrible week by any definition, and much of the stress is either fatigue or opportunity--but still stress. I know I am short tempered. I have snapped at more than one student this week--though most of them have deserved it. But still. I don't like to snap. Even when students complain about grades or don't show up for class or refuse to quiet down when we are discussing class matters.

Sigh.

But most of this is fatigue on all sides. I hope to return to some semblance of blogging/ranting/railing at the world. But for now, I am hoping to catch up on some sleep. Tomorrow I do yoga, get a hair cut (hippie) and possibly listen to some music. Make that "definitely listen to some music." Need to retune the guitar. Play some music. Refocus.

Peace.

Always listen to Zalm and UBUB

Both insisted that I buy the Neko Case Fox Confessor Brings the Flood album. I did (though from Emusic.com--though these links are to Amazon) and really like it. My favorite song right now is "Hold on, Hold on" though "The needle has landed" is stunning. I don't recall a more unique or powerful voice.

That said, however, my recent blog post on Brandi Carlile (odd that I am pushing a singer named "Brandi") and a conversation with my friend Mary reminded me how much I like Lone Justice and Maria McKee. I pulled out those albums and remembered how blown away I was when I first heard "east of eden," and "after the flood." Good stuff.

Zalm recommended Calexico's Garden Ruin and I read how many people were discussing this album. I saw Calexico play a song with Wilco at the ACL fest (they opened for them the night before--or so I heard) and they sounded great (if you like horns), but I was not filled with a strong urge to go out and buy their stuff. Then came Calexico's collaboration with Iron & Wine on In the Reins and I was intrigued. Now this album, which everyone seems to be in agreement marks a departure from their earlier stuff--in a very good way. While I am in no place to comment on that, I can say that I find myself wanting to listen to this album over and over.

Leaks and firings

The CIA recently fired an officer who supposedly leaked the secret prison story to the press. On one hand, this is ridiculous in an administration that has looked the other way or aided and abetted the outing of a CIA agent for political purposes. On the other hand, this is a reasoned response. You can't have CIA agents leaking classified information on a whim. Her losing her job may be the price she has to pay to do the right thing. Kind of the way I feel about the torture problem. If you really, really believe that you have a ticking bomb and the only way to get the info is to torture, you do what you have to do, but you do it knowing that you are a) breaking the law, b) doing something terribly wrong only because you think a greater wrong can be prevented, and c) going to have to stand accountable for your actions. Not sure that makes sense, but it does to me.

So, I am ok with her being fired, though I see her as a hero and hope there are more people like her in the CIA. But buried in the Wash Post story is a line that I think is not only typical of this administration, but represents a horrible trend that should be fought:

"The White House also has recently barraged the agency with questions about the political affiliations of some of its senior intelligence officers, according to intelligence officials."

Like I have said repeatedly, Clinton was accused of politicizing everything, yet his record seemed more moderate than that. He politicized political things, and understood that policy should be left to experts and making the best choice. Bush thinks everything is politics, and has politicized scientific inquiry, foreign policy decisions, and if this quote is true, is politicizing the CIA. You shouldn't care who these people vote for as long as they do their job right.

Morality in the time of Republicans

Walking home from school yesterday, I walked past an empty lot--recently emptied. I expect that soon a monstrous house will fill it. That seems to be the trend around here. I guess we live in a popular neighborhood, which makes for elevated property values. Now the people who are moving in, come with a lot of money and seemingly no problem with showing off that money.

I recall a conversation with someone about large homes. He is conservative, but couldn't understand why people continued to build these huge homes. "It is none of my business what they do with their money...." It was clear he disapproved, but didn't think he could do so with any standing. I wondered at the time, (but didn't say it) why isn't it our business? Why is conspicuous consumption something we can't criticize?

Take the recent retirement package of Lee Raymond, Exxon CEO:

"According to a recent proxy filing by the company, Raymond received $48.5 million in salary, bonuses and incentive payments last year; exercised more than $20 million in stock options in 2005; and in January received a lump-sum retirement payment of $98.5 million. The proxy said that after 43 years of service, Raymond had accumulated $183 million of stock holdings plus stock options worth a net of about $69 million at current share prices.

Evidently, even the Republican House Speaker is concerned about this, but how can he really do anything? Who in the conservative base really thinks there is something called "enough?" From talking to religious conservatives, I get the sense that they no longer even ask the question. One of my friends continues to tell me that while the Bible verses on homosexuality are clear, the numerous passages questioning wealth "don't really mean that." (Nor, of course, do the passages on loving enemies and turning cheeks, which leads us to idiots like Falwell talking about "blowing away terrorists in the name of the Lord.") Wealth is only a problem, he says, if it comes between the person and God. Never mind that the NT seems to imply that money does that all by itself, conservative Christians seem to have parsed it so that money is only a problem if you want to literally have sex with it.

If the church has no criticism of wealth, who will question conspicuous consumption in an age of poverty?

Street Prophets--selective Bible verse on leadership

My friend Mary is a fan of the Street Prophets, and I think I need to read it more often. Here is an interesting post on how many conservatives justify their support for Bush.

There is a strong cultural norm among fundamentalists and other conservatives that says they must respect authority for its own sake even when it is demonstrably wrong. The (twisted) theology goes like this: God is in control, and God is guiding our leaders, and what seems to be "wrong" may actually be some manifestation of God's will we don't presently understand, but in any event those leaders ultimately have to answer to God if they use their power unwisely. Conservative Baptists are taught a similar message, which we can compare with Bush's support in the Southeast where these Baptists are concentrated.

Here is the passage in question, Romans 13:1-7:

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

As an aside, it is interesting that the folks who are so hot for this passage usually stop right there and do not continue with what immediately follows:

This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing. Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes....

So let me get this Republican fundy thinking straight: we must obey George Bush unquestioningly because he wouldn't be in authority if God didn't want him to be, but we can still feel free to bitch and moan about paying taxes regardless of what the Bible says about that? The selectiveness of these people is what frustrates me the most--they claim to be so pure and literal about scripture but feel perfectly free to ignore or distort any passages that don't suit their political needs. Isn't that what they accuse us of doing? The naked hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me.

--snip--

I don't recall any of these wingnuts quoting Romans 13 to slam conservatives for failing to support Bill Clinton, a leader no more flawed than King David, and a man who exercised his faith in ways that seemed much more legitimate to me because of everything he did to improve the country under his care. I don't recall any of these wingnuts quoting Romans 13 to slam conservatives for failing to support Jimmy Carter, a man who on any given random day shows more evidence of serious and genuine commitment to following Christ than George Bush has shown in his entire political career.

Democracy whiplash

Driving home from guitar this afternoon, I listened to the NPR coverage of Bush's meeting with China's president, as well as the discussion regarding the Falun Gong heckler. First, we have the standard American finger wag of Chinese human rights policies:

CNN.com: "'As the relationship between our two nations grows and matures, we can be candid about our disagreements,' Bush said. 'I'll continue to discuss with President Hu the importance of respecting human rights and the freedoms of the Chinese people.'Bush called for expanded Chinese freedoms to 'assemble, speak freely and to worship.'"

Stupid Chinese. Don't even allow people free speech.

Then:

China heckler at White House prompts Bush apology: Reuters.com: "After being welcomed by Bush, the Chinese president was just beginning his response when a woman, who had been allowed into the press section, started shouting. She was escorted away by a uniformed U.S. guard.'President Hu, your days are numbered. President Bush, make him stop persecuting Falun Gong,' the woman yelled. U.S. officials later identified her as Wang Wenyi, 47, a reporter with The Epoch Times, an English-language publication strongly supportive of the meditation movement that is banned in China.

'This was unfortunate and I'm sorry this happened,' Bush told Hu, according to Dennis Wilder, a senior official with the National Security Council.The Secret Service charged Wang with disorderly conduct under local statutes. The U.S. Attorney's office was weighing federal charges of 'willing intimidation or disruption of a foreign official,' said Secret Service spokesman Eric Zahren."

Shorter Bush: "I am sorry that you saw an example of free speech. We will prosecute her and put her in jail just as you would. We probably won't shoot her as you would, but we will take care of this. But you be sure to extend freedomosity to your people, even as we do. Oh wait..."

Wednesday stuff

Just saw a blurb on the Talking Points Memo that Scott McClellan is stepping down. Undoubtedly to spend more time lying to his family. Heh. Stole that from Jon Stewart, I am sure. I am sure that Bush will say this is cleaning house, even as he continues to fill positions with close friends. His poll numbers don't surprise me. I knew he was incompetent early on--though he continues to show more. I am watching people distance themselves--even evangelicals who now say they didn't vote for him because of his supposed faith. Right. Perhaps I am influenced this morning by listening to the Dixie Chicks pre-release single of "Not Ready to Make Nice," but I am also still mad as hell. (the song is good, btw, and available for a buck on Itunes.

****

Ok, back to cheerier stuff. Real life experience on Monday. The gas company upgraded our gas line--the main line to the meter. It was their project, not our request. Sure, they dug up our backyard, but that has already been an ongoing project of Alafair and her mouthy-lefty-blogging dog friend. So, anyway, I return from Yoga to find them finished. They send out a guy to hook up the new meter and light my one pilot. He does and leaves. 20 minutes later, the pilot is out. I call back. Woman says (after 20 minutes of calling, btw) "was the pilot lit when our man came out?" I say (stupidly) that it was. She says, ok, we can send him back out, but there will be a 35 dollar relighting fee.
I say, excuse me, are you kidding? She says nope. I say, hey, you dug up my back yard. She says (and I am not making that up) yes, but we didn't charge you for that.

I sputtered something about incompetence and gall and hung up. Later that day, returned to my usual calm and easy going manner (no jokes, please) I call back and a nice lady (not same one) helps me get our gas working. It ended well, but I was pretty annoyed for a while. :)

****

Today is music day for me. This is the day that my Emusic sub re-ups and I get to download some new stuff. I am looking hard at the new Neko Case (anyone listened to it yet?), the new Drive By Truckers, and even the new Calexico. Good old Aquarium Drunkard has a few downloads off the new album that I am liking very much.

I am also excited to note that Emusic has added the old New Pornographer albums which will save me a lot of money. I really love the title track off Mass Romantic. Music like that kind of gets the blood going and improves my Wednesday morning-tired-as-hell mood.

****

Walking with SOF the other night after a pretty terrible day, we talked about elitism and snobbery. It was interesting to note how historians, to pick on one group, have a kind of rotating snobbery that is really hard to pin down. One scholar (that I respect) told me how little he liked one book because of its "American Studies" approach. Another, who I respect less, is incredibly dismissive of some of his colleagues because they are "too theoretical." Others in the department complain that, especially the Americanists, don't "understand theory." Need a damn flow chart.

Of course, I am no better. Bucky and I are acknowledged music snobs. I chuckle when talking to friends who don't even recognize 90 percent of the music that I listen to. They have never heard of Wilco, much less Uncle Tupelo. They think I buy the New Pornographers in a plain wrapper, and still think that I am saying Bryan Adams.

Yet, there are those, and some who probably read here, who think that Wilco and Ryan Adams are too popular to really enjoy. :) Need a damn flow chart.

****

Back to music. I mentioned yesterday that I was listening to Josh Ritter for the first time. I downloaded a few tracks yesterday morning and "Girl in the War" already has a playcount of 11 and I have worked it up on guitar (e-flat). Really great song and I urge all of you to give it a listen.

Paul said to Petey
"You gotta rock yourself a little harder;
Pretend the dove from above is a dragon and your feet are on fire"
And I got a girl in the war, Paul the only thing I know to do
Is turn up the music and pray that she makes it through

Because the keys to the kingdom got locked inside the kingdom
And the angels fly around in there, but we can't see them
And I gotta girl in the war, Paul I know that they can hear me yell
If they can't find a way to help, they can go to Hell
If they can't find a way to help her, they can go to Hell

"I'm the decider" WTF?

Talking Points Memo: by Joshua Micah Marshall: "America in good hands.

Pres. Bush: 'I'm the decider, and I decide what's best. And what's best is for Don Rumsfeld to remain as the secretary of defense.'
-- Josh Marshall"

What kind of list am I on? And language is funny

I open up the email this afternoon to receive an invitation to join a yahoo group with the catchy name of [further update I deleted the link--google it if you want to see them. I won't link to racist garbage like this.] getmycountryback. Sigh. My first instinct? Join up. After all, I too want my country back. I want to getmycountryback from religious theocrats and corporate polluters. I would like to getmypoliticalsystemback from people like Karl Rove, George Bush and Tom Delay. I would like to likewise getmyconstitutionback from the same people. Hell, while we are at it I would like to getmychurchback and getmyreligionback from people like Falwell, Dobson, Robertson and Mohler.

Unfortunately, this group is not that. They want to get "their" country back from illegal immigrants--all, I assume, without actually addressing the economic issues that lay under the issue of immigration.

Part of what bothers me is not that people protest immigration, but the historical and cultural myopia that so many of these people display. On this site (and I don't recommend visiting them, btw), you can read a mock letter to Bush about wanting to go to Mexico without obeying their laws and then demanding that the Mexican government educate their kids, pay for health care and the ability to fly the American flag over their house. As if that is really analagous to the situation. The letter reads: "I would also like to have a nice job without paying any taxes, and don't enforce any labor laws or tax laws."

See, I respect that we can certainly talk about immigration and actually should. We need to be honest about how important immigrants have been historically and are currently to our economy and culture. But this is simply disengenuous lies. Millions of illegals work hard at jobs Americans won't take, without the benefit of labor laws or health insurance, AND many of them also pay taxes.

Sigh. The site, for those who dare brave it, is replete with American flag images, suggesting that those who like to claim the posture of patriotism have little shame.

Update. I ignored my own advice and clicked on their link called "humor." The first item was so racist, distasteful and disgusting that I almost lost my coffee. Samuel Johnson had it right: "Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels."

Music and politics

Never really that far apart, of course. Some of our best musicians have been intensely political. Woody Guthrie, Pete Seeger, Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, and of course, my personal favorite, Steve Earle--have all written about politics.

We are intensely divided by this war, so it is understandable that our music will increasingly reflect that. Steve Earle's "Jerusalem" still stands as an early critique of Bush's pro-war anti-Islam stance, but others are joining in. I didn't expect it from this one, but evidently Neil Young has cranked out an anti-war album. In what sounds like "The Revolution Starts Now" type speed, Young has recorded a pretty angry anti-Bush screed.

"Not only has he recorded an entire album about the conflict, but in one of the songs he spells out who he thinks is to blame for the ongoing chaos and violence and what the consequences for that person should be. That track is called 'Impeach the President.""

Pretty remarkable coming from the same guy who recorded a rather bloodthirsty response to 9-11 called "Let it Roll," and who reportedly defended the Patriot Act and the President. Evidently, even for Neil, this has been handled poorly.

Young has long been one of my favorites. From Harvest with "Heart of Gold" and "Out on a Weekend" to Everyone Knows this is Nowhere's "Cinnamon Girl" (only song I know that has a guitar solo that consists of one note--listen to it), or Freedom's "Rocking in the Free World" (still one of my favorite SNL live music moments), Young's writing and haunting voice works for me. The fact that he sang with CSN and opened for Pearl Jam demonstrates a pretty wide range.

So, that means that I have one more album to buy in the "vote with my feet" (and wallet) sense. Young's new album Living with War, the Dixie Chicks Taking the Long Way look interesting.

****

Non political music I am looking at?

Alejandro Escovedo's first studio album in years The Boxing Mirror due out in early May.

Emmy Lou Harris and Mark Knopfler's All the Road Running. I have been a long time fan of Emmy Lou and what I have heard sounds great.

Josh Ritter's The Animal Years. Downloaded a track this morning and am intrigued.

More on repub disinformation

Blame Builds More Barriers in Immigration Debate - Los Angeles Times: "The proposal to designate illegal immigrants as criminals, more than anything else, has ignited the nationwide wave of protests against the House bill. To attribute the idea to Democrats, Frist, Hastert and the RNC have to join the story on the last page — and then misrepresent the evidence to boot. In fact, from the start of the recent debate, Republicans have driven the notion of imposing criminal penalties on illegal immigrants. Although President Bush has never acknowledged paternity, the idea's fathers include his administration."

Tax lyrics

And from one of my favorite Wilco songs:

"Spiders are singing in the salty breeze
Spiders are filling out tax returns
Spinning out webs of deductions and melodies
On a private beach in Michigan "

****

Guess it is movie weekend

Last night, we watched In Her Shoes with Cameron Diaz. We weren't sure what to expect, but it turned into a thoughtful film about family, generational conflict, and loss. Those themes caught me at a very personal level and even the next morning, I am still mulling over the characters. Shirley Maclaine may be a nutjob, but her role as the grandmother is one that still sticks in my head. In a film like this, the greatest compliment is that it replicated real conversations, and real people. You know the difference. Most films and tv characters aren't real. They don't talk, or fight, or argue like real people. This one has moments where they are palpably real. Not always, mind you. This isn't a perfect film. The stepmother is a caricature, as is the sister's ex-boyfriend/boss, but many of the others are quite real and interesting.

The film worked for me. The characters still resonate--the issues are deeply personal and even painful. In one of my favorite scenes, Cameron's character reads a poem by Elizabeth Bishop called "The Art of Losing."

The art of losing isn't hard to master; so many things seem filled with the intent to be lost that their loss is no disaster. Lose something every day. Accept the fluster of lost door keys, the hour badly spent. The art of losing isn't hard to master. I lost two cities, lovely ones. And, vaster, some realms I owned, two rivers, a continent. I miss them, but it wasn't a disaster. Even losing you... the joking voice, a gesture I love... I shan't have lied. It's evident the art of losing's not too hard to master though it may look like (Write it!) like disaster. Look like disaster.