 |
|
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Here's some interesting things I've found recently....... First off, one of the things that I love the most about this hobby is the ability to try new things without monetary risk. Sometimes I'm just drawn to something because it sounds weird, and so it was with the Ukulele Orchestra of Great Britain. With a bootleg title like Anarchy in the Ukulele, how can I possibly resist? What I got was a unique and fun blend of virtuosity and humor, as the songs themselves range from the sublime ( The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly) to the ridiculous ( Le Freak). Here's one from the midrange, their their rendition of Respect performed in Berlin on Nov. 15, 2007.  As many of you know from our movie discussions, I am resistant to sequels. That's why, when it comes to Hank Williams, I still prefer the original. I recently found a slew of Hank Williams radio performances from 1951 (Actually, half a slew. There are supposed to be 15 discs total, but for some reason only the first nine were uploaded. Still, that's enough to sate the need for quite awhile.) Like the Flatt and Scruggs radio shows, he was playing to advertise flour - Mother's Best Flour, that is. He'd do a few of his songs, a Mother's Best Flour ad spot, and like Johnny Cash on his radio show years later, he'd always throw in a gospel tune. Here's one I just couldn't resist sharing - On Top of Old Smoky. Last week I offered up a little Grateful Dead with Santana. Here they are at the Euphoria Ballroom in San Rafael, Ca. on July 16, 1970, with none other than Pigpen's pal Janis Joplin. It's one hell of a jam on the tune Turn on Your Lovelight, and they're having so much fun jamming to it that they never actually seem to get around to doing the actual song. Oh well, it's still a hell of a lot of fun.  "Clinics" are small performances - usually, but not always solo - where a musician shares techniques, answers questions, and showcases his sponsor's wares. These can make for great stealth recordings because of their intimate nature and close setting. In 1981, when bass player Jeff Berlin was working for the Musician's Institute in Hollywood, Ca., he invited former Bruford bandmate and fusion guitar icon Allan Holdsworth to conduct such a clinic. They were joined by drummer Gary Husband and Holdsworth fan Eddie Van Halen. They really didn't play any songs, they just jammed, so here is a piece simply called Jam ??
Eddie also joined Allan at his Roxy performance, probably later that same night. The boots are said to sound awful, but the rumor is that EVH has a soundboard recording of that night. Don't be a bogart, Eddie!!!
 Finally, here's a story straight from the liner notes of a boot called Queen- In the Beginning: "Around September 1971, Brian May met up with an old Friend, Terry Yeadon, who was involved in the setting up of a new recording studio in Wembly called De Lane Lea.
The studios needed musicians to try out the new equipment they had installed -- and preferably a band who could play loud! The deal was that the musicians would record using the equipment, and potential studio users would be on hand to hear and watch them. In return for their services, the band could record their demos for free. It was an opportunity not to be missed and, of course, Queen jumped at it. Not only would they be able to make the all important demo tapes, but they would have ample occasion to meet producers and engineers, people who could be vital to their future."
Posted at 10:03 am by Joe_the_Troll
Permalink
Wednesday, July 16, 2008
Grimm’s Cinderella: A World Transformed
 Mankind has maintained a relationship with the arcane since first gaining the ability for abstract thought. To explain the things that confounded him, man developed religions, and as new religions developed, the old ones became mere "magic." In the western world, the greatest example of that was the long process in which Christianity replaced older, "pagan" beliefs. The fairy tale Cinderella, as told by the Brothers Grimm, can easily be seen as an allegory for this historic chain of events. The allegory begins with the death of Cinderella's mother, and with it the passing of life as she had known it. On her deathbed, her mother admonishes her to be pious and pray, yet also tells her that she will be watching and helping her. This touches upon the pre-Christian belief that magical power and protection can be gained from one's ancestors. While strict Catholic doctrine holds that death ends all worldly connections, even when the deceased ascend to Heaven, many Christians to this day feel that their departed loved ones still hear them and look after them. With this in mind, it is pertinent to note that all of Cinderella's prayers are made by her mother's grave, as is all of her exclusively natural magic. 
After her father remarries, a new way of life begins. The stepmother and sisters are outwardly beautiful, but inwardly quite selfish, and they live their lives without the help of pagan "natural" magic. They represent the coming of Christianity to supplant the old beliefs. While Cinderella has been taught the new religion and does pray to God, she actively refuses to completely renounce the old ways. When her father brings gifts, the stepsisters ask for fineries. Cinderella, instead, requests a branch that she grows into a tree at her mother's gravesite – a pagan symbol of life beside a scene of death. Her new family, for their part, does not ignore her. Instead, she is practically enslaved, placed on a lower social tier and denied her rights. Early Christians did much the same to those who hesitated to join them. Many pagans were converted by torture or murdered outright. If early Christians could not covert the pagans, they would subjugate them or destroy them. They were never treated as equals. Those that did convert would then sever past associations in order to fit into their new society, just as Cinderella's father neglects her after remarrying. 
It is important to note that in this tale of transition, the number three can be seen several times. The family has three girls. Cinderella makes three daily trips to the tree for prayer. There are three nights of dancing and festivities, followed by three attempts by the Prince to find his bride. The number three has been of utmost importance in many pagan religions. The druids, for instance, would knock upon a tree three times to awaken the spirits. By the same token, however, the number is also central to Christianity, which worships the Trinity, one God with three aspects. It can hardly be a coincidence that a number so important to both the old ways and the new ways would appear so frequently in so short a tale. Especially important to the transition theme are Cinderella's three daily trips to the grave, in which she kneels by a pagan symbol of life to pray to the Christian Trinity. 
The behavior of the sisters when trying on the slipper illustrated the behavior of many Christians and converts of the day. In attempts to curry favor, or perhaps merely to stay alive, they would demonstrate their Christianity by showing contempt for older beliefs, rather than through any actual piety. Certainly, the sisters didn't behave kindly toward Cinderella, the pagan, and were never said in the story to pray at all. Rather than be honest about the slipper being too small for them, they chose to make cosmetic changes like lopping off a toe or a heel in order to curry favor by appearing to be something they weren't. Certainly many pagans, as well as Popes, had to deal with those who didn't truly believe in Christ but were quick to seek favor by harshly condemning those who failed to convert. In the end, however, it is the girl with one tiny, delicate foot in each world that curries the favor and marries the Prince. With the help of both natural magic and, presumably, God (who is mentioned several times but never takes an overtly active role in the story), Cinderella marries the Prince and goes on to a better life. She still does not change her ways completely, however, as her magical birds follow along and make sure her family troubles are over. The story ends without the slightest indication that the birds then leave or that she stops visiting her mother's grave or working natural magic. Yet, she is leaving that home and moving to a much more secure and loving environment.  Is this not also how it was with Christianity? It is well known that the dates on which Christmas, the birth of Christ, and Easter, His resurrection, are observed were chosen to coincide with common pagan holy days. Following scripture, it is more likely that Christ was born in the spring or summer, but the observance was placed in the winter because of the fairly ubiquitous winter solstice celebrations. Christians ultimately found it easier to replace one celebration of birth with another than to beat the love of God into the celebrants. The same holds for Easter and what we now call Halloween. Christmas trees and Easter baskets both have pagan origins, as do church bells. As Cinderella's and the Prince's problems were solved by a wedding between them, so did a marriage of sorts end the violent strife between the Christians and the pagans. Whether or not the Brothers Grimm intended their version of Cinderella to allegorically tell the story of Christianity's rise, the tale certainly steps up to the task. Every character serves the allegory. Mother represents the old ways, the stepmother and sisters are the new ways, Father is a willing convert, Cinderella a hesitant convert, and the Prince is the religious establishment that all the others want smiling upon them. As many nursery rhymes and fairy tales throughout history contain a germ of history within them, so it is that the Grimm version of Cinderella can be seen to tell the story of a way of life's demise.  Works Cited Brothers Grimm, The. "Cinderella." Retellings. Ed. M.B. Clarke and A.G. Clarke. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2004. 5-10.
Posted at 11:12 am by Joe_the_Troll
Permalink
Sunday, July 13, 2008
As I said before, Trolling the Underground is on hiatus for lack of time. I'll be doing a lot of writing today and tomorrow, believe me, but nothing for Blogovia unless you'd like to read my literary analysis of Cinderella (Two versions!) or my paper on ethical technical writing. I don't even want to know about that second one. But I'm still downloading music and listening to a lot of new bootlegs, so I'll share a sampling with you throughout the month. Here's the stuff I've been listening to on campus this past week! The first cut has a story to it. On 08-06-2003, I went with my friends to the Journal Pavilion just south of Albuquerque to see Galactic, Jeff Beck, and B.B. King. I had scored us some sweet second row center seats for this one, and as Beck was starting I noticed that the guy to my left was recording it! Cool! It turned out sad, though, because the guy hadn't checked his batteries before starting, and they died during the fourth song. Fie! I still wanted the recording, though, so we exchanged e-mails. He offered me a copy, and I suggested we get together so I could buy him a beer for his troubles. I never heard from him again. I figured maybe he thought I was hitting on him or something. Then, last weekend, I see it posted on my fave site. I made a comment about the guy I met, and it was indeed him posting it. He said his hard drive had crashed, so maybe we'll have that beer someday after all. In the meantime, here's the first song that Jeff played that night, called Psycho Sam. You can hear me and my former friend to my left discussing the presence of drummer Terry Bozzio (whose name I mispronounce) on stage, a happy thing that we hadn't known would happen. You can tell that I'd had a few and didn't yet know that my neighbor was recording.  I got into Doc Watson through listening to a radio show where he performed with blues great Taj Mahal. His blend of blues and bluegrass adds up to true Americana. I was surprised to hear this song, called Deep River Blues, because I learned it from Jorma Kaukonen under the title Big River Blues. Same cool old country blues, though. Here's Doc and Merle Watson doing Deep River Blues on September 14, 1982. Moving right along, here's the Jimi Hendrix Experience on 2-24-69 at some London nightclub dive called the Royal Albert Hall. I guess you have to play a few places like that before you get to the Fillmore. The song is I Don't Live Today. I first saw my favorite live performer, Peter Gabriel, in 1983. I've been looking for a copy of that show, or any great sounding 1983 show, ever since. I still don't have the show I saw, but I finally found a great sounding recording from the show in Werchter( which I think is Bavarian) on 7-03-83. First, Peter gets a little advice from an audience member, then launches into one of his most popular songs, Solsbury Hill. I've long known of Jan Hammer's incredible keyboard skills from his time with the Mahavishnu Orchestra and his magnificent work with Jeff Beck. I've long since forgiven him for his 80s transgressions such as the Miami Vice theme. Since this bootleg was recorded between Mahavishnu and Beck, I figured I'd give it a try, and I'm glad I did! This song, called Plants and Trees and recorded at Ratso's in Chicago on 11-26-75 is some PRIME jazz fusion.  Finally, here's All Along the Watchtower as brought to you by the Grateful Dead and guest Carlos Santana on 8-23-87. Both Jerry and Carlos jam here and anyone who can't hear the difference has to stay after class!  Hope you enjoy! Seeya around.
Posted at 10:25 am by Joe_the_Troll
Permalink
Thursday, July 10, 2008
 When you say "Hellen Keller" but you're thinking "Lizzie Borden," it's time to get some fucking sleep!
Posted at 11:14 pm by Joe_the_Troll
Permalink
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
Trolling the Underground: Billie Holiday
 I first heard of Billie Holiday in high school when I was in the chorus. I had joined for two reasons. First it was a very easy "A", since the teacher needed basses something fierce and just appreciated having a few guys there to sing the low notes. Second, that teacher was fine, and any excuse to just sit and look at her while getting an easy "A" worked for me. We did God Bless the Child, and I really didn't like it much. Of course, why would I? High school chorales don't exactly make the music sound cool. In fact, we sucked every last vestige of blues out of that puppy in no time at all. It was years before I even bothered to listen to anything Billie had actually recorded, and when it finally happened I wasn't in control of the musical situation, so I had no choice. Wow. What an eye-opener. I don't remember what song it was, but what a delivery. It's difficult to describe my reaction to her singing. I could analyze it every way 'till Sunday like the intellectuals do, but I'd just end up sounding like a jackass, as they do. Billie just had something, something so genuine. Billie was real blues.
Of course, there's good reason for that. She had a rough ride from the get-go. Abused throughout childhood and adulthood, she died in 1959 from the effects of long-term heroin abuse. It was after her death that she finally received the appreciation she deserved, first with a film about her life and then with her induction to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2000. I sometimes wonder if performers like her, Charlie Parker, Elmore James and others would have done that to themselves if they knew how much we'd look up to them eventually. When I first found this bootleg from 1951, it unseated my 1954 Louis Armstrong recording as the oldest in my collection. That lasted about 2 weeks when some 1940s Benny Goodman popped up. You have to love these old radio recordings! These songs come from the Storyvill Club in Boston, MA. on the 29th, 30th, and 31st of October. Her band included Buster Harding (piano), John Fields (bass), and Marquis Foster (drums), but that subtle sax you'll hear hanging back there came from the soon-to-be-world-famous Stan Getz. First, from Oct. 29, 1951, I offer a helping of Billie's famous attitude, with a song that's been covered many times. It's called Ain't Nobody's Bizzness If I Do.Then, from the next night, we have the autobiographical Billie's Blues.From the 31st, I give you the lonely, forlorn I Cover the Waterfront. Well, my second summer class kicked in yesterday, and since both classes are writing classes, July promises to be much more intense. So, I won't really get into any big posts for the next few weeks, and we'll see how things are during the fall semester. In the meantime, Trolling the Underground is a little cumbersome, so I'm temporarily bagging it. I'm going to start a new series of music posts, however, that will allow me to share more music without all the research, expository and whatnot. It will be much simpler, so I'll do it weekly and I'll start this weekend at Where the Vibe Is. That blog needs aome attention, methinks. The name lives on.
Posted at 11:03 am by Joe_the_Troll
Permalink
Saturday, June 28, 2008
When I first saw the article that inspired the Prison Poll below I wasn't sure how I felt about it overall. I had a lot of easily identified feelings swirling around, but no workable consensus amongst them. That's why I made it a poll. Many times, when I see others discuss something and turn it over a few times, it helps my thoughts on the matter gel. No so much this time, however, despite the superior nature of this particular debate. I mean, how often do you get so many new folks in on such a hot topic and have everything stay as civil as it did? I was amazed. Overall, it made some things a bit swirlier, though, but I did learn a few things and get some thoughts sorted out. First, I learned not to be so glib on the polls. I didn't expect anyone to really think that she'd done enough time for what she'd done, and I figured everyone would get that it was an off-the-cuff remark, just as "dying can be done anywhere" was. That was wrong of me, as new readers don't know my dry, twisted sense of humor and regulars may not always have it in mind when reading my words. So in the polls, I'll either be dead serious or so damned absurd that no one could possibly miss it. Secondly, that picture of her that I used is about the creepiest damn photo ever. When I look into those eyes, I hear Robert Shaw's voice. "Sometimes that shark he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. And, you know, the thing about a shark... he's got lifeless eyes. Black eyes. Like a doll's eyes." Now on to the confusing part; that is, the main point. The debate brought up a few points that make me think hard. Fez Monkey pointed out that "a society is best measured by how they deal with the lowest and the worst of their population." I find truth in that. It is interesting to ponder that while we point at China's use of executed prisoners' organs for transplants without consent and Saudi Arabia's stern punishments for what we consider menial offenses as barbaric, many other western civilizations see us in the same light just because we execute criminals at all. I saw many mentions of mercy in the debate, with the poop-slinger's observation being the most pertinent. People see mercy in one of two ways. Many see it as something to be given to the worthy. Who is worthy? On the whole, the worthy people are those who haven't done anything worse than the giver of the mercy has. (Not always, though. How many people who would like to be healthy enough to work are derided as "lazy" by people who would begrudge them some food stamps? That's not pertinent to this particular conversation, however, just a siding.) You know that attitude. Someone who has only cheated on his wife and his taxes will rarely speak up to eliminate the death penalty for murderers. Someone in prison for murdering a prostitute won't have any mercy on someone who murdered a child. Sure, he's a murderer, but at least he didn't do THAT.
We all have some sins to deal with, even those of us the police aren't looking for and would have no interest in, so our examples aren't all that extreme, but we dole out the mercy in similar ways. We'll give it to folks who didn't go too far in their criminal enterprises, but there is a line drawn somewhere. I always find it interesting that those who draw the hardest lines in these instances are also those that will identify themselves as being very religious. As such, they feel entitled to the mercy that they might be giving out with an eyedropper.
Then there are the folks that Fez was alluding to, who feel that the mercy they give is a reflection of themselves and the people that they want to be, rather than a reflection of the recipient's worth. In fact, they consider it quite a good thing, perhaps even a Godly thing, to extend mercy to those who do not deserve it in the eyes of most people, and perhaps in their own eyes as well. These folks are often called naive, but you really can't fault what's in their hearts. One has to wonder what history would look like if these people, in all cultures and societies, were listened to a little more.
Another phrase that grabbed me repeatedly in your debate was the phrase "die in peace." First off, brain cancer does not sound at all peaceful, barring the use of lots and lots of morphine. Is it inherently "less peaceful" to die in a prison ward than in a hospice? I don't know. Perhaps, after I die, I'll meet some folks I can compare notes with. Another thing I don't know - is it more "dignified" to be released from prison only to die? I have to wonder if perhaps people are creating a victory where there really isn't one. When you're being carried off of the field for the last time, are you concerned with whether you won or lost? I just don't know.
(Trust me, this is all going to come together.)
There was talk about the two aspects of prison, those being the punitive and the reformative. I can't pretend that the latter is really taken seriously here in America. For one thing, I cannot believe that a country that practices capital punishment is really all that concerned with rehabilitation. Honestly, folks, we just want to put people away. We have the highest per capita prison population in the world, and it isn't just because of people like Atkins. We have too damn many laws that end with imprisonment. We could release the pot smokers and coke sniffers and keep the embezzlers at home with an ankle bracelet and make plenty of room for the violent folks. We'd rather just lock these folks up. America is all about the punitive. If you doubt that, ask yourself why funds are scarce for drug rehab but always there for sending the same person to prison.
The essence of the punitive is simple - you don't get the freedom to do what you want to do. That is obviously what is scaring a lot of people - the idea that Atkins could get to do what she wants after what she did. Given this, I'm frankly puzzled that she was allowed to get married twice and allowed to write a book, which certainly "gave her a voice." Despite those allowances, however, the deathbed scene is considered a step too far.
But the deathbed scenes make me ponder quite a bit. My dad cries when he thinks of the fact that his father, mother, and wife all died and he wasn't there to say goodbye. It really tears him up. I was just a few months old when grandpa died, but I was in high school when we lost grandma and mom went just over a year ago, and my absence on the scene doesn't bug me, because neither death was a surprise and I had said my "I love you"s and made my peace. That is what it really is all about. The deathbed scenes aren't for the deceased. Let's face it, the deceased aren't really going to take that much away from the experience. These scenes are for the survivors, to provide the closure that some folks need.
I wonder what it is like to be related to someone like Susan Atkins. Certainly, we all have relatives and friends that we accept despite their faults. Many reading this can think of someone in their family - someone close - who has done some time. I can. I'm sure that causes mixed feelings for a lot of you. I can only wonder what it's like to be Atkin's brother, for instance. Would I stop loving my brother if he did something like this? Would I hate him? If I did, would it fade as time went by, would it alter over the years as I saw him try to do good things for others while doing his time?
Fuck me like an altar boy, I just don't know.
It seems, however, that I do know a few things.
I know that Atkins did something absolutely inhuman. I know that it isn't easy at all to even consider giving her the mercy that she denied Sharon Tate. I don't think it's necessary to. I know that I can easily dole out some mercy to the relatives that have been saddled with what must be an emotional maelstrom ever since 1969. I know that, if I err, I would rather err on the side of mercy than of judgement. Not because I want to be better than others, but because I want to be better than I used to be. I guess some of that old catechism stuff did seep in, after all.
In the final analysis, I guess I don't mind if she is released at such a time as all she can do is die. While she is still mobile and able to go to the mall, see a movie, enjoy time with other people, then it is too soon. When she is bedridden and can go nowhere but to hospice, why not let her go there, and let those other people have their closure? They've never killed anyone, yet they've lived with the stigma of being related to this whole mess for most of their lives. Tate's relatives can still have their closure, knowing that she died without ever having another day of freedom. Let's face it, nothing comes out really well for anyone here. No one is laughing all the way to the bank.
Susan Atkins was indeed merciless. I am not her, however, and I don't see her gaining anything if it is done the way I outline. And when I think about it closely, I have to believe that even if it is no good for anyone else in the end, having a little mercy when it isn't absolutely necessary just might be very good for me.
Posted at 09:02 am by Joe_the_Troll
Permalink
Sunday, June 22, 2008
In 1969 Susan Adkins helped commit some of the grisliest murders in history, including the merciless slaying of a woman 8 1/2 months pregnant. She has been in prison ever since.
Since then, she has been Born Again, earned an Associate's degree, written an autobiography, gotten married twice, lost a leg, and started a Ministry. Having recanted on her original confession, and now saying that she was a present non-participant in the Tate murder, she is still seen as being unremorseful. As a result, she's been denied parole every time she's been up for it - between 10 and 17 times, depending on what website you read.
Evidently, she now has brain cancer. The prognosis is that she has less than six months to live. She's asking for a compassionate release so she can go die somewhere private.
The warden doesn't think she should get it. What do you think? The poll is to the right.
Posted at 03:06 pm by Joe_the_Troll
Permalink
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
So I'm sitting here, you see, reading e-mail and news and blogs as I do every morning and drinking my tea. As I read, I realize that Miles has jumped up on my lap and is purring happily in a curl while I softly rub his jowls and scritch behind his ears. I suddenly know that this has, in fact, been going on for several minutes.
And I think "Why am I being sweet to this little bastard when I'm pissed at him and his sister for waking me up at least ten times last night running and jumping around playing Animal Planet or James Bond Meets the Tomb Raider or whatever the hell cats play at 3:30 a.m.? And then woke me up another five times trying to get through the screen to the birds! I should be flogging him repeatedly! WHY AM I GIVING HIM RUBS????"
Sigh.
Posted at 10:35 am by Joe_the_Troll
Permalink
Thursday, June 05, 2008
 Hoo boy! We are jam-packed with assholes this time around. Maybe something in the water? Remember folks, one vote per person and no anonymous votes. Voting and making everyone you know vote is mandatory and essential to the wellbeing of the Homeland. And awwwwaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyy we go! Rush Limbaugh - How dare you attempt so crassly to manipulate our elections yet still call yourself an American? And what a pathetic attempt to get a pathetic plan back on track.Hillary Clinton - As I've said, how is voting as a racist better than voting as a sexist? This, this, and this also helped you get nominated - here, at least. (2)Harvey Weinstein - See what I said to Rush. Marie Osmond- When we need someone's opinion of someone else's parenting, we'll ask someone who does not have a kid in rehab. George W. Bush - Until you have an idea that actually works, shut the fuck up. Mike Norman - No, this isn't the 1940s, and racism is no longer considered funny. Mike Huckabee - Don't quit your day job. If you still have one, that is. Wendy Portillo - You don't have the empathy or the common sense it takes to be a kindergarten teacher. You SHOULD quit your day job. (4)Liz Trotta - You're an idiot, and if anyone made a joke about assassinating McCain the hypocrites ar Fox would be having shitfits. Nick Bollea - Perhaps it wasn't your friend's negativity that put him in a coma as much as your own drunken driving did. Then again, l shouldn't be surprised considering that you were raised by a giant turd. (1)Sharon Stone - While I agree about China's human rights record, it is just plain assholey to use a natural disaster to make a political point. You also completely misstated the concept of karma. (1)Kristen Woodward - Another kindergarten teacher from Hell. With teachers like you, who needs bullies? Jim Pruett - I'm not even anti-gun and you still offend me. You should take lessons from this this guy.Geraldine Ferraro - Racism is racism no matter how you dress it up. Michael Pfleger - You just completely forgot what your job was supposed to be, didn't you? And a special AA shoutout to this guy's neighbor, who wasn't named in the article but is obviously a real asshole. Glad I don't live next to him. Have we ever had this long a ballot? I don't think so. Like I said, election year seems to be bringing the assholes out like cicadas, and they're almost as noisy. Well, God Bless America and all that, eh? Have fun choosing!!!!
Posted at 06:02 am by Joe_the_Troll
Permalink
Monday, June 02, 2008
Hello.
When this primary season began, I had a "Let's wait and see" attitude by necessity. You see, being an Independent (what they now call "DTS" but I do not as it does not accurately state my political feelings) means that I cannot vote in the primaries. This isn't true everywhere, but it is where I live, so I have to accept it.
My decision was to vote for whomever the Democrats nominate. I've rarely had that attitude before. In fact, I've voted Libertarian more than anything else. This time, however, I feel the stakes are very high. I don't buy that each Republican is a unique individual, especially when I hear McCain espousing support for failed policies that belie his no longer deserved "maverick" status. I feel that the organization is rotted and termite-ridden from within, and needs to be taken out of circulation as much as possible, at least until they can doff their self-imposed evangelical shackles and get back to their platform in deed as well as word. Also, I don't expect my usual "vote of rebellion" to make me feel better should the Republicans hold the office.
So it is that I simply sat back and watched what happened. Like everyone else, I assumed that you would be the nominee, and I was okay with that. You have already made American political history by showing conclusively that a woman CAN be considered - that is, really and truly be in the running- for the office of President. It's something that should be obvious, I agree, but it hasn't been, and no female candidate before you every got nearly as far as you have. Certainly not Ferarro or Mosely-Braun. I still will place my vote AGAINST John McCain regardless of who is nominated.
I've gotten to hoping that it won't be you, however, and I will tell you why.
The first chink in your armor was your strong and whole-hearted defense of our current lobbying system. You say that these lobbyists speak for real people doing real jobs. I disagree. I personally see the current lobbying system as one of America's political problems, one that gives corporations greater access - often unduly so - to a representative's ear. While many will say that what is good for the company is good for it's employees, we've seen where this is not necessarily true, and so we differ strongly on this point.
Another place where we differ is in foreign policy. You seem ready to continue the same policies that are demonstrably failing now, as does McCain. Our current policies are based on hubris. We have somehow become so filled with our own importance that we feel that no one can exist for long without our blessing, and that simply being seen speaking to us elevates a nation's position in the world. Thus, you will continue to refuse speaking to nations we don't like when I feel that we can gain more by being open and engaging in dialogue. That doesn't mean giving the farm away in a frantic effort to be conciliatory. It simply means being as open to peace and progress as we like to say we are in political speeches. After all, we really aren't putting any pressure on China as long as there's a quick buck to be made, are we? Do you and Bill still have pals there, by the way? Any preconditions there?
I've heard much about your greater experience, but frankly, I'm not as impressed as many others seem to be. You count heavily on your White House experience, where you were First Lady. I'll be honest- never before have I heard of two terms as first lady being used as a qualification for President. I would hope you'll be handy with advice should you be elected and Bill opts to redecorate. Kidding aside, however, I'll admit that you were more hands-on than the usual First Lady, but all First Ladies make speeches about stuff like literacy and all that, so that doesn't mean much to me as a voter, and neither does an attempt at revamping healthcare that failed despite your party's control of Congress. So what I'm left with is a few more years than Obama as a New York Senator, a position that has ALWAYS been a stepping-stone to the Presidency despite your frequent assurances to your constituents that it was not. And in those few years, you didn't really give the Bush administration much friction, did you? You went along to get along, and awaited "your turn."
So what you have over Barack is two terms as First Lady, and a few years in Senate. You're both still Junior Senators, you know. I, personally, would not have voted for the Iraq war because I opposed it from the beginning, so those years don't work well for you in my view. Much less impressive are your obvious attempts to inflate your experience. I know that Obama said the name of the wrong concentration camp, and immediately called it misspeaking. Many people have equated that to your misstatement about sniper fire. I have to admit, however, that I've said the wrong place names before. I can't count how many times I've juxtaposed "home" and "work", "Huntley" and "Hampshire," or "Texas" and "Hell' s outhouse," but I cannot for the life of me think of one time that I've claimed to have been shot at when I actually wasn't. That's really misspeaking.
Your poor money management during the primaries concerns me also. It seems you shot your wad in preparation for Super Tuesday, and had no follow up plan in case things didn't proceed according to your vision. Frankly, that reminds me of a President I'm all too familiar with that entered into something big with only one plan, one that still hasn't fleshed itself out several years after "Mission Accomplished." In times of high public debt, how can I talk myself into voting for the candidate that ran her campaign into a deficit long before the finish line was in sight?
Now, a question here. Did you or did you not publicly agree that Michigan and Florida should be sanctioned, that you would not campaign there during the primaries, and that you would remove yourself from the ballot as all your opponents did? From all reports, it seems you did. Yet you've been championing those states and repeatedly claiming an idealistic reason, that all these votes deserve to be heard. Where was this ideal just a few weeks prior? You know, it looks to me as if they only came to be important as part of a hastily-crafted post-Super Tuesday "Plan B."
As it stands, everyone is clamoring for a "fair resolution" when one is now absolutely impossible. You may consider it fair to call you the winner with all the spoils, but I cannot consider any election with only one candidate named on the ballot to be truly awardable to that candidate. If you'd gotten the landslide across the map, perhaps, but let's face it, you didn't. Obama has a lot of support, and could very well have given you stiff competition in both states had he been giving them the attention he gave other states. There is also the fact that since the ineligibility of these two primaries was well publicized, many people in those states gave it a pass. Thus, there is no way, no way on Earth, that I can consider these two primaries to be anything less than deeply flawed and inconclusive. Personally, I feel the DNC should re-tool the primaries completely, but the fact is that you were in complete agreement with the way things were being run to begin with, and found this idealistic love for the will of the people as an afterthought.
In fact, I seem to recall you saying that no matter who won the popular election, you intended to pursue the blessings of the superdelegates in order to become the nominee. That does not sound like someone who respects the will of the people. It sounds like someone who is so certain that she belongs there that she'll do what she can to get there despite what the people think. It also makes me wonder why you say that the superdelegates are bound to the will of the people in the event that you successfully convince America that you won the popular vote. You do not, obviously, feel that they are so bound should Obama get the lion's share of votes. I would call that an underwhelming adherence to principal.
In fact, your attitude that you are our only hope and that nothing can be improved without you is, to me, off-putting when I haven't heard anything that convinces me that it is so. After all, you did already have eight years to press that healthcare thing. I realize that you were dealing with distractions, such as being the first First Lady in history to be subpoenaed, but still you had eight years and didn't get it done. Why am I to consider you the only one who can do it now? Why should I consider you the only one able to lessen our woes in the Middle East when you agree with McCain on keeping to policies that I don't see working? I'm not saying that you can't do these things, but I am saying that I do not see you as the only option, or even the best and most obvious one. I disagree with the foreign policy and I distinctly remember you using the term "wage garnishment" when speaking of your health plan, which you later denied. I guess you had "misspoken?"
In fact, your mouth is where most of my problem with you lies. You continue to say that you have more votes than Obama, but news reports continually show that that assessment uses some pretty funky math. In fact, they all say that your claim ignores completely more than one state that went to Obama. Those people's votes are less important to you, I guess, than the votes in Michigan and Florida. Gee, I wonder why that might be? And when you continue to repeat it over and over and over so that it becomes a mantra amongst the listeners regardless of its veracity, guess which President you begin to remind me of? I also have to wonder how many of these votes you're going to keep, since conservative pundits, most notably Rush, have been exhorting their mindless minions en masse to vote for you in open primaries, knowing that you are the more likely candidate to make McCain's base solidify in opposition. I have more faith that Obama's primary votes will remain in place come November.
I've heard you complain of sexism holding you back. Well, if sexism is the only thing keeping you from being nominated, imagine how much more powerful the sexism that Mosely - Braun and Ferraro dealt with was. By that standard, it would seem that things are improving on that front. Or did they fail because of their politics? Is it only you, the most successful female candidate ever, that is held back by sexism?
Now, I know that it is out there, as all types of bigotry always are. Remember, there were doubts in 1960 that a Catholic could ever be elected. There are many television and radio personalities that have said sexist things, and I contend that this is to be expected. After all, these people are paid to be divisive knobs and divisive knobs they are. However, I find it offensive to hear that sexism is the only reason I wouldn't prefer you when I seem to have no problem finding reasons that don't involve gender at all. I also have to wonder if sexism has outpaced racism in America.
After all, I know just as well that racism will affect Obama's chances, especially with so many people still lying quite loudly about him being a Muslim. I don't hear him complaining about it, however. In fact, racism most prominently raised its filthy head in this election when you repeatedly trumpeted the fact that white males that didn't go to college - especially in West Virginia - won't vote for Obama because he's black. Or mostly black, anyway, and maybe even a Muslim. Anyway, your point seems to be that we should not let Obama be nominated because despite what we say about racism, we have to acknowledge the power it has and only put someone white up for election. Not your exact words, but very much how they translated in my mind.
How proud you must be to lead such a constituency. Are you planning to use "Don't Stop" as a campaign jingle again, or would "Dueling Banjos" suit you better this time around? Can anyone explain to me how voting as a racist is somehow more acceptable than voting as a sexist?
I'd also like to understand how you, of all people, could accuse Obama of "elitism." Isn't saying that you'll go after the superdelegates for a nomination if the elections don't give it to you an elitist stance? Sure looks like one from my desk. And how can you call him an elitist when you are able and willing to loan your campaign more private money than Obama even made last year? Please, you have never once in your life been in a position to equate with anyone even remotely underprivileged. That doesn't mean that you can't help these folks, but your repeated assertion that you somehow understand the common man better than Obama can is, quite simply, a royal crock. It is also the type of personal attack that, frankly, I haven't seen him leveling at you.
The events of the past few weeks simply steel my resolve. You have nurtured among your followers a severe discontentment, a feeling of resentment against the very party you claim to represent. There is a palpable attitude that you have been entitled to be the nominee from the beginning, and any impediment to that goal is unfair and an example of organized bias against you from your own ramparts. You have, as Jon Stewart put it, traded the "vast right-wing conspiracy" for a "vast left-wing conspiracy." This has resulted in a deep schism that is beginning to threaten the entire general campaign. There should be ways for you to make the case for yourself without dragging down the entire party, but you haven't been going that route. Since you have switched your stance on the Michigan and Florida primaries, you have made a lot of noise about the party itself of ignoring the will of the people, just as you are willing to do in certain situations, and thus "violating their core principles." This has turned into an antagonistic stance against the party unless we all suddenly become intelligent enough to throw all support behind YOU. You obviously feel that no matter what the vote tallies say, you are the only candidate that deserves the full backing of the Democratic Party.
I disagree. In fact, I think that in the matter of Michigan and Florida, the Obama camp could have drawn a much harder line in favor of keeping those votes off the table than they did. Indeed, they seemed more than willing to compromise. Your side, however, continues to draw a hard line simply because you didn't get full benefit from obviously faulty elections. Which side is looking at the big picture, Hillary? I don't see you working for party unification, I see you working against it. It should be easy for a Democrat to win this year. If that doesn't happen, I will most definitely be among those that place the blame quite squarely on your lap, as long as Obama doesn't flap up in a major way in general campaigning. I'm not expecting that, however. I've found his campaigning to be much more thoughtful and palatable than yours.
Many people can and will say things to me about Obama and his shortcomings. I don't expect him to lack those. He's a politician, after all. Quite frankly, I don't expect all our problems to be solved in the next administration, or the next, or the next. I'm voting this November in the hopes that things won't keep getting worse. If the best I can do is have, for the first time in over twenty years, a President that actually pauses to think and look at the big picture before opening his or her big fat yap, then I will grab that with both hands and hold on for dear life, especially after these past eight years. Neither you nor McCain impress me as having that ability or any desire to acquire it. In fact, your behaivior says to me that you care less about the future of America than you do about the sucess of Hillary Clinton. That may be true of every candidate ever, but holy crap, Hillary, you do make it obvious.
In short, Obama hasn't won me so much as you have, through word, action, and invective, lost me. It isn't that Obama has shown me every quality I want in a President, it's that you and McCain have repeatedly shown me qualities that I do not want in a President. That is that in a rather sizable nutshell.
Good day to you. I hope this letter finds you well.
Sincerely, Joe the Troll
Posted at 10:04 am by Joe_the_Troll
Permalink
|
|
 |
