ALCORN.BLOGSPOT.COM

Peaceful Pioneers: Articles, Songs, Links, Photographs, Paintings, Ideas, Reviews, Results, Recipes

2.27.2004

MUSIC

Jamie Ross' Current iTunes Playlist

Current iTunes Playlist:

Dave Matthews Band - Crush
Neil Young - For the turnstiles
Ben Harper - Diamonds on the inside
Beth Orton/Chemical Brothers - Alive Alone
Peter Gabriel - Solsbury Hill
Beck - Golden Age
Hotei Tomoyasu - Battle without honor or humanity (Kill Bill Theme)
Jane's Addiction - True Nature
Liz Phair - Friend of mine
Audioslave - Cochise
Blue Man Group (f. Dave Matthews) - Sing Along
Injected - Burn it black
Mark Kozelek - Find me Ruben Olivares
Audiolava - leaf
Pearl Jam - Of the girl
Air - Alone in Kyoto

2.26.2004

MUSIC

I suggest buying the new Sarah Harmer record, "All of our names".

2.25.2004

iTunes playlist:

Thievery Corporation - Focus on Sight
Peter Gabriel - Mercy Street
Innocence Mission – follow me
Earth Wind and Fire – After the love is gone
Now it’s Overhead – Antidote
Jeff Buckley – Last goodbye
Nina Simone – Lilac wine
Beach Boys – God only knows
Jeff Buckley – Lover, you should’ve come over
Beach Boys – Heroes and Villains
Astrud Gilberto – Gentle rain
Outkast – My favourite things
Brad Mehldau – Everything in its right place
Rolling Stones – Winter
Stevie Wonder – We can work it out
Marvin Gaye – What’s happening brother?
The Who – A quick one while he’s away
Wilco – Passenger side
Flaming Lips – Sunship Balloons
Sarah Harmer – Home soon
More Pope Movie Reviews

"It is as it was." — Pope John Paul III's review of Mel Gibson's upcoming film, The Passion, as reported by the Wall Street Journal, 12/17/2003.

On Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
"It is as it wasn't, but it is still just totally awesome. I wish I was named Viggo, and could ride a horse, well."

On Mystic River
"Powerful, gripping, but also confusing. I go to a picture called Mystic River expecting a few scenes on the banks of the Jordan, or at least the Nile, or maybe like a dream action-sequence on the white water of the River Styx. Turns out this is a different kind of thing. But it works, and Sean Penn has always been my kind of guy. Women want him. Men want to be him."

On Along Came Polly
"Jennifer Aniston is a delight."

On Cold Mountain
"What am I missing? Instead of being eternally damned, the guy who's responsible for The English Patient gets to direct another movie with a bunch of big stars? Who's falling for this weepy, indulgent crap? Not The Pope. No sir, not The Pope."

On The Station Agent
"Dwarves weird me out."

On Lost in Translation
"What can I say? I've known Sofia Coppola since she was a baby, and watching her grow into the amazing young woman—and director—that she has become has been among the treats of my life. Not the same kind of treat as being one of the planet's preeminent spiritual leaders, or perfecting the designs for the 'The PopeMobile,' but a treat. The film's delicate observations and subtle humanity brought me closer to my God."

On Elf
"For the last time: ELVES DON'T EXIST! But I gotta tell you, Will Ferrell could read the phone book and I'd be laughing. The Pope is very amused."

On Mona Lisa Smile
"I was going to make a da Vinci joke but the truth is, he deserves better. Julia, honey, repent, and fire your agent. Or fire your agent, and then repent. Either way, you make another one like this and, who knows, maybe you accidentally look in the wrong direction and turn to salt? Don't smirk. It happens."

On The Last Samurai
"Tom Cruise as a samurai? No, wait, correction, Tom Cruise as "the last samurai" (even though there are clearly other, younger samurai around). Well, sure! I mean everyone knows that one only has to grow a beard and a ponytail and take like a week of Sword Skills 101 to become a true samurai... not! Look, the Church has always been all for the whole temporary-suspension-of-disbelief thing, but puh-leeze. It's movies like this that make the French flip out. And, no, my reaction has nothing to do with a certain star actor being, or not being, one of those soon-to-be-burning-in-Hell 'Scientologists.' What can I say? Tommy, take this however you want to take this: you rolls the dice, you takes your chances, you never—ever—know salvation."

In Win a Date with Tad Hamilton
"Why haven't I heard of this Tad Hamilton? Oh, I remember now, because this movie made me gag."

On Barbershop 2
"Everyone knows I haven't gotten a haircut in decades, but I loved Barbershop, and this sequel was just as fun, maybe even twice the fun. Just like last time, I walked out wishing I'd gone ahead and went with a white afro back in the seventies. Cedric the Entertainer, you are truly one of my negroes—somebody say amen!"

On Miracle
"The 'miracle on ice' story of the gold medal-winning 1980 U.S. Olympic hockey team. Not bad. Not a 'miracle'—trust me—but not bad."
FILM

The Passion of the Christ

One review: *

Ever since his star began to rise after the 1979 Australian thriller Mad Max, Mel Gibson hasn't seemed fully alive on screen unless he's being tortured and mutilated. In the Road Warrior and Lethal Weapon films, as well as such one-shots as Conspiracy Theory (1997) and The Patriot (2000), Gibson courted martyrdom, and he achieved it. He won an Oscar for his labors in Braveheart (1995), which ends with its hero managing to scream "FREEEEE-DOM!!" as he's drawn and quartered. Gibson snatched the pulp movie Payback (1999) away from its writer-director, Brian Helgeland, to make the torture of his character even more gruelingly explicit: He added shots of his toes being smashed by an iron hammer. Payback: That's what almost all of Gibson's movies are about (including his 1990 Hamlet.) Even if he begins as a man of peace, Mad Mel ends as a savage revenger.

A devout Catholic—albeit one who believes that Vatican II, which formally absolved the Jews of responsibility for the death of Jesus, is illegitimate—Gibson has said that what moves him most about the Christ story is that Jesus was whipped, scourged, mocked, spat on, had spikes driven through his hands and feet, and was left to die on the cross—and that he didn't think of payback; he thought of forgiveness. But by wallowing in his torture and death for two hours, the director of The Passion of the Christ (Newmarket) suggests that he's thinking of anything but.

Gibson had an ingenious idea for promoting his Passion: as the film that the Jews don't want you to see. Now watch those lines form! Bad reviews won't matter, either, since Gibson has called his critics "the forces of Satan" or, more charitably, the "dupes of Satan." After Gibson's pre-emptive blasts, an attack on his Passion will be interpreted by some as an attack on their religious beliefs instead of on filmmaking that is theologically, morally, and—by the way—artistically suspect.

As you probably know, The Passion of the Christ recounts the last 12 hours of the life of Jesus of Nazareth (played by the lean, high-cheekboned Jim Caviezel), with flashbacks to the Last Supper and a few shots of the little-boy Jesus being hugged by his mother, Mary. (The latter are cross-cut with spikes being hammered through his hands.) The lashes of the soldiers (dispatched by the Jewish priesthood) begin about 15 minutes into the film; by the time Jesus is dragged into the presence of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate (the Bulgarian actor Hristo Naumov Shopov), his face has already been smashed to a pulp.

Pilate, whom historians identify as a surpassingly cruel ruler responsible for crucifying many thousands to maintain his authority, is portrayed as a sorrowful, even-tempered man whose wife (Claudia Gerini) shows acts of loving kindness toward Mary (Maia Morgenstern) and Mary Magdalene (Monica Bellucci). Pilate is shocked by the Jews' brutality and by the determination of the priest Caiphas (Mattia Sbragia) to see this so-called blasphemer executed. While Pilate wrinkles his forehead, searching his tender conscience, sundry Jews lean into the camera and hiss or keen through rotted teeth.

I know, it sounds like a Monty Python movie. You're thinking there must be something to The Passion of the Christ besides watching a man tortured to death, right? Actually, no: This is a two-hour-and-six-minute snuff movie—The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre—that thinks it's an act of faith. For Gibson, Jesus is defined not by his teachings in life—by his message of mercy, social justice, and self-abnegation, some of it rooted in the Jewish Torah, much of it defiantly personal—but by the manner of his execution.

That doesn't exactly put him outside the mainstream: The idea that Jesus died for the sins of mankind is one of the central tenets of Christian faith. But Gibson has chosen those sections of the Gospels (especially the Gospel of Matthew) that reflect the tension between Jews and Christians 50 years after the crucifixion, when the new religion's proselytizers were trying to convert, rather than incite, the Roman authorities. This is the sort of passion play that makes people mad.

Gibson uses every weapon in his cinematic arsenal to drive home the agony of those last dozen hours. While his mother and Mary Magdalene watch, Jesus is lashed until his entire body is covered in bloody crisscrossing canals. When he rises, amazing the Roman soldiers with his stamina, they go for the scourges, which rip and puncture his flesh in slow motion—all while the Romans and the Jews cackle wildly. Carrying his cross, he falls again and again in slow motion on his swollen, battered body while the soundtrack reverberates with heavy, Dolby-ized thuds. It is almost a relief when the spikes are driven into his hands and feet—at least it means that his pain is almost over.

What does this protracted exercise in sadomasochism have to do with Christian faith? I'm asking; I don't know. Gibson's revenge movies end with payback—or, in Braveheart, the promise of payback to come. When Jesus is resurrected, his expression is hard, and, as he moves toward the entrance to his tomb, the camera lingers on a round hole in his hand that goes all the way through. Gibson's Jesus reminded me of the Terminator—he could be the Christianator—heading out into the world to spread the bloody news. Next stop: the Crusades. msn.slate.com

Another point of view: ****

If ever there was a film with the correct title, that film is Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." Although the word passion has become mixed up with romance, its Latin origins refer to suffering and pain; later Christian theology broadened that to include Christ's love for mankind, which made him willing to suffer and die for us.

The movie is 126 minutes long, and I would guess that at least 100 of those minutes, maybe more, are concerned specifically and graphically with the details of the torture and death of Jesus. This is the most violent film I have ever seen.

I prefer to evaluate a film on the basis of what it intends to do, not on what I think it should have done. It is clear that Mel Gibson wanted to make graphic and inescapable the price that Jesus paid (as Christians believe) when he died for our sins. Anyone raised as a Catholic will be familiar with the stops along the way; the screenplay is inspired not so much by the Gospels as by the 14 Stations of the Cross. As an altar boy, serving during the Stations on Friday nights in Lent, I was encouraged to meditate on Christ's suffering, and I remember the chants as the priest led the way from one station to another:

At the Cross, her station keeping ...
Stood the mournful Mother weeping ...
Close to Jesus to the last.

For we altar boys, this was not necessarily a deep spiritual experience. Christ suffered, Christ died, Christ rose again, we were redeemed, and let's hope we can get home in time to watch the Illinois basketball game on TV. What Gibson has provided for me, for the first time in my life, is a visceral idea of what the Passion consisted of. That his film is superficial in terms of the surrounding message -- that we get only a few passing references to the teachings of Jesus -- is, I suppose, not the point. This is not a sermon or a homily, but a visualization of the central event in the Christian religion. Take it or leave it.

David Ansen, a critic I respect, finds in Newsweek that Gibson has gone too far. "The relentless gore is self-defeating," he writes. "Instead of being moved by Christ's suffering or awed by his sacrifice, I felt abused by a filmmaker intent on punishing an audience, for who knows what sins."

This is a completely valid response to the film, and I quote Ansen because I suspect he speaks for many audience members, who will enter the theater in a devout or spiritual mood and emerge deeply disturbed. You must be prepared for whippings, flayings, beatings, the crunch of bones, the agony of screams, the cruelty of the sadistic centurions, the rivulets of blood that crisscross every inch of Jesus' body. Some will leave before the end.

This is not a Passion like any other ever filmed. Perhaps that is the best reason for it. I grew up on those pious Hollywood biblical epics of the 1950s, which looked like holy cards brought to life. I remember my grin when Time magazine noted that Jeffrey Hunter, starring as Christ in "King of Kings" (1961), had shaved his armpits. (Not Hunter's fault; the film's Crucifixion scene had to be re-shot because preview audiences objected to Jesus' hairy chest.)

If it does nothing else, Gibson's film will break the tradition of turning Jesus and his disciples into neat, clean, well-barbered middle-class businessmen. They were poor men in a poor land. I debated Martin Scorsese's "The Last Temptation of Christ" with commentator Michael Medved before an audience from a Christian college, and was told by an audience member that the characters were filthy and needed haircuts.

The Middle East in biblical times was a Jewish community occupied against its will by the Roman Empire, and the message of Jesus was equally threatening to both sides: to the Romans, because he was a revolutionary, and to the establishment of Jewish priests, because he preached a new covenant and threatened the status quo.

In the movie's scenes showing Jesus being condemned to death, the two main players are Pontius Pilate, the Roman governor, and Caiaphas, the Jewish high priest. Both men want to keep the lid on, and while neither is especially eager to see Jesus crucified, they live in a harsh time when such a man is dangerous.

Pilate is seen going through his well-known doubts before finally washing his hands of the matter and turning Jesus over to the priests, but Caiaphas, who also had doubts, is not seen as sympathetically. The critic Steven D. Greydanus, in a useful analysis of the film, writes: "The film omits the canonical line from John's gospel in which Caiaphas argues that it is better for one man to die for the people [so] that the nation be saved.

"Had Gibson retained this line, perhaps giving Caiaphas a measure of the inner conflict he gave to Pilate, it could have underscored the similarities between Caiaphas and Pilate and helped defuse the issue of anti-Semitism." This scene and others might justifiably be cited by anyone concerned that the movie contains anti-Semitism. My own feeling is that Gibson's film is not anti-Semitic, but reflects a range of behavior on the part of its Jewish characters, on balance favorably. The Jews who seem to desire Jesus' death are in the priesthood, and have political as well as theological reasons for acting; like today's Catholic bishops who were slow to condemn abusive priests, Protestant TV preachers who confuse religion with politics, or Muslim clerics who are silent on terrorism, they have an investment in their positions and authority. The other Jews seen in the film are viewed positively; Simon helps Jesus to carry the cross, Veronica brings a cloth to wipe his face, Jews in the crowd cry out against his torture.

A reasonable person, I believe, will reflect that in this story set in a Jewish land, there are many characters with many motives, some good, some not, each one representing himself, none representing his religion. The story involves a Jew who tried no less than to replace the established religion and set himself up as the Messiah. He was understandably greeted with a jaundiced eye by the Jewish establishment while at the same time finding his support, his disciples and the founders of his church entirely among his fellow Jews. The libel that the Jews "killed Christ" involves a willful misreading of testament and teaching: Jesus was made man and came to Earth in order to suffer and die in reparation for our sins. No race, no man, no priest, no governor, no executioner killed Jesus; he died by God's will to fulfill his purpose, and with our sins we all killed him. That some Christian churches have historically been guilty of the sin of anti-Semitism is undeniable, but in committing it they violated their own beliefs.

This discussion will seem beside the point for readers who want to know about the movie, not the theology. But "The Passion of the Christ," more than any other film I can recall, depends upon theological considerations. Gibson has not made a movie that anyone would call "commercial," and if it grosses millions, that will not be because anyone was entertained. It is a personal message movie of the most radical kind, attempting to re-create events of personal urgency to Gibson. The filmmaker has put his artistry and fortune at the service of his conviction and belief, and that doesn't happen often.

Is the film "good" or "great?" I imagine each person's reaction (visceral, theological, artistic) will differ. I was moved by the depth of feeling, by the skill of the actors and technicians, by their desire to see this project through no matter what. To discuss individual performances, such as James Caviezel's heroic depiction of the ordeal, is almost beside the point. This isn't a movie about performances, although it has powerful ones, or about technique, although it is awesome, or about cinematography (although Caleb Deschanel paints with an artist's eye), or music (although John Debney supports the content without distracting from it).

It is a film about an idea. An idea that it is necessary to fully comprehend the Passion if Christianity is to make any sense. Gibson has communicated his idea with a singleminded urgency. Many will disagree. Some will agree, but be horrified by the graphic treatment. I myself am no longer religious in the sense that a long-ago altar boy thought he should be, but I can respond to the power of belief whether I agree or not, and when I find it in a film, I must respect it.

Note: I said the film is the most violent I have ever seen. It will probably be the most violent you have ever seen. This is not a criticism but an observation; the film is unsuitable for younger viewers, but works powerfully for those who can endure it. The MPAA's R rating is definitive proof that the organization either will never give the NC-17 rating for violence alone, or was intimidated by the subject matter. If it had been anyone other than Jesus up on that cross, I have a feeling that NC-17 would have been automatic. Roger Ebert

2.11.2004

POLITICS

An Open Letter from Michael Moore to George "I'm a War President!" Bush


February 11, 2004 (67th anniversary of the Great Flint Sit-Down Strike)

Dear Mr. Bush,

Thank you for providing the illegible Xeroxed partial payroll sheets (or whatever they were) yesterday covering a few of your days in the National Guard. Now we know that, not only didn't you complete your tour of duty, you were actually paid for work you never did. Did you cash those checks? Wouldn't that be, um, illegal?

Watching the press aggressively demand the truth from your press secretary -- and refusing to accept the deceit, the dodging, and the cover-up -- was a sight to behold, something we really haven't seen since you took office (to watch or listen to the entire press conference, or to read the full transcript, go here ).

More than one reporter pointed out that those pieces of paper your press secretary waved at them yesterday mean nothing. Even if they aren't forged documents, getting paid does not necessarily mean you showed up to do your duties. As retired Army Col. Dan Smith, a 26-year veteran, told the AP:


"Pay records don't mean anything except that you're in or you're out," said Smith. "It doesn't necessarily reflect what duty you've actually performed because pay records simply record your unit of assignment and then all of your pay and benefits per pay period."

Mr. Bush, this issue is not going to go away -- and I think yesterday's actions just dug you into a deeper hole. You're probably wondering why the heck this story won't just die. You probably thought that after I brought it up last month and then got slammed by Peter Jennings for uttering the "d" word, the whole matter would just disappear as fast as bag of blow being thrown out the window of a speeding car on a deserted Maine highway.

But your "desertion" didn't go away -- and here's the reason why. You have sent countless numbers of our sons and daughters in the National Guard to their deaths in the last 11 months. You did this while misleading their parents and the nation with bogus lies about weapons of mass destruction and scary phony Saddam ties to al Qaeda. You sent them off to a never-ending war so that your benefactors at Halliburton and the oil companies could line their pockets. And then you had the audacity to prance around in a soldier's uniform on an aircraft carrier proclaiming "Mission Accomplished" -- while the cameras from your re-election campaign ad agency rolled.

THAT is what makes this whole business of you being AWOL so despicable, and makes the grief-stricken relatives want to turn away from you in disgust. The reason your skipping-out on your enlistment didn't matter in the 2000 election was because we were not at war. Being stuck in a deadly, daily quagmire now in 2004 makes your military history-fiction and your fly-boy costume VERY relevant.

You still have not answered the questions surrounding your National Guard "service." Let me repeat them as simply as I can for you (all of them based on the investigative work of the Associated Press and the Boston Globe):

1. How were you able to jump ahead of 500 other applicants to get into the Texas Air National Guard, thus guaranteeing you would not have to go to Vietnam? What calls did your father (who was then a United States Congressman representing Texas) make on your behalf for you to get this assignment?

2. Why were you grounded (not allowed to fly) after you either failed your physical or failed to take it in July 1972? Was there a reason you were afraid to take the physical? Or, did you take it and not pass it? If so, why didn't you pass it? Was it the urine test? The records show that, after the Guard spent years and lots of money training you to be a pilot, you never flew for the rest of your time in the Guard. Why?

3. Can you produce one person who can verify that he served with you in the Guard during the year that your Texas commanders said you did not show up? Why have you failed to bring forth anyone who served with you in the Guard while you were in Alabama? Why hasn't ONE SINGLE PERSON come forward?

4. Can you tell us what you did when you claim to have shown up in Alabama for Guard duty? What were you duties? You were grounded, so what did they have you do instead?

5. Where are the sign-up sheets that would have your name and service number on them for each weekend you showed up? Aaron Brown on CNN told us how, when he was in the reserves, he had to sign in each time he reported, and his guest from the Washington Post said, that's right, and there would be "four copies of that record" in the files of various agencies. Will you ask those agencies to release those records?

6. If you were in fact paid for that time when you apparently went AWOL, will you authorize the IRS to release your 1972-73 tax returns?


7. How did you get an honorable discharge? What strings were pulled? Who called who?

Look, I'm sorry to have put you through all this. I was just goofing around when I made that comment about wanting to see a debate between the general and the deserter. I had no idea that it would lead to this. And there you were, having to suffer through Tim Russert on Sunday, saying weird things like "I'm a war president!" I guess you believe that, or you want us to believe that. Americans have never voted out a Commander-in-Chief during a war. I guess that's what you're hoping for. You need the war.

But we don't. And our troops in the National Guard don't either. I know you see the writing on the wall, so why not come clean now? We are a forgiving people, and though you will not be returned to White House, you will find us grateful for a little bit of truth. Answer our questions, apologize to the nation, and bring our kids home.

Yours,

Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
RESPONSE TO BELOW ARTICLE ON G.W. BUSH:

1. It is insulting to include Plato with Bush in the same breath. One look at his use of the English language speaks volumes about his intellect.

2. Bush was planning to attack Iraq the moment he got into office to avenge daddy's assassination attempt (per his own staffers). He just needed an excuse. Blair was simply window dressing and will most likely take the fall (Powell too).

3. Notice that Saddam Hussein is nowhere to be found? It's because he will be trotted out (most likely late summer) and used as a reelection ploy to whip up the right prior to elections. No need now. (see the P.S. below as to actual timing)

4. This whole thing about Bush's military service will probably sink him once and for all. Even on the surface, it smacks of preferential treatment. Sources note that hundreds (maybe thousands) were in line to get that plum assignment. Guess who went to the front of the line? Even worse, the guy who ran his group had "no recollection" of his presence - ever. Look for that guy to "disappear." And to say that this cowboy "correctly and competently completed his military service" for getting paid for six lousy days is beyond outrageous. The most telling part of this will be the location of anyone (and I mean anyone) who remembers that Bush actually showed up at all.
MUSIC

ipod to the heart
villagevoice.com

Time was, if you met someone cool and cute, someone you wanted to know better, you might make that person a mix tape. It was the perfect courtship calling card: a neat little package of songs carefully selected to say something about both you and your understanding of the recipient.

Today, such compilations are an anachronism. Most stereos don't even have tape decks anymore. Countless couples will probably trade mix CDs this Valentine's Day, but the point-and-click process of CD burning is rather sterile; it's possible to make someone a mix CD without having to listen to a single song. As an inveterate trader of cassettes, I've been in steady mourning for the mix tapes of my youth for some time now. However, I recently acquired both an iPod and a boyfriend—who'd just gotten an iPod of his own. We were debating whose library had more songs when he had a brilliant idea, one that could replace the mix tape for the 21st century: the iPod swap.

If anything synthesizes the personal nature of a homemade recording with the ease and techie charm of digital music, it's the iPod. While other MP3 players reflect the individual tastes of the owner, no other gadget has been so successful at developing a certain kind of image: Call it L-train sex appeal. The distinctive white headphones, cutely called "earbuds," identify a user at 30 yards, so that it's possible to scan a subway car and instantly know who's in the club. As a result, even when the plugs in an iPod user's ears isolate her from the rest of the world, the shiny white oblong on the other end of the wire makes her part of a growing community. Apple has sold 1.4 million iPods since their introduction in 2001; the number of sales in the past year alone has increased by 235 percent. Straddling the gap between individualized entertainment and shared experience, the iPod is a wildly popular paradox. It's also, in my experience, the most eminently swappable format for music since the cassette tape mix.

Of course, there's one dramatic difference between an iPod and a mix tape: Mixes are entirely constructed. As Nick Hornby wrote in High Fidelity, the process of making a tape for a romantic interest is as laborious as it is rewarding. You have to select the right songs, arrange them in the optimal order, and spend at least an hour hovering over the tape deck recording them onto the cassette. (Certain types will follow all of this by taking scissors to old magazines to make a cover-art collage.) The end product is not a reflection of your record collection so much as a presentation of how you'd like it to look.

An iPod, by contrast, keeps no secrets. The iPod records what songs have been played both most recently and most often, so it quickly becomes a record of the owner's internal aural landscape. Listening to someone else's iPod is thus an intimate, almost invasive activity. On the scale of personal exposure, it's not exactly trading diaries, but it's much more revealing than a mix tape—for example, I never would have expected the boyfriend to have an ethereal cover version of "Leaving on a Jet Plane," mislabeled "Björk," as his most recently played track. It also quickly gets self-referential: When I got my iPod back, I put on the "Recently Played" list to see what bands he'd checked out. My iPod then dutifully recorded me listening to the songs he'd heard.

While the iPod swap seems to be undocumented so far, the November Wired reported on another way the gadgets have facilitated the person-to-person music exchange: jack sharing. When iPod users cross paths in suburban New Jersey, they sometimes greet by briefly plugging their earbud cords into each other's jacks. Software executive Steve Crandall noted the trend on his blog (tingilinde.typepad.com), concluding, "People fundamentally want to share the experience of listening to music—this is something that is part of us and is generally ignored by the music industry."

Like the iPod swap, Crandall's final sentence gets at the paradox of the iPod. As countless music geeks and Luddites have pointed out, iPods should be bad for music and bad for communities. The unit of exchange in an iPod is the song, not the album, and the intended user is the individual, not the group. This should discourage music sharing, instead creating a world in which listeners dismantle albums for the gratification of no one but themselves. At the same time, however, iPods are not only surprisingly good devices for person-to-person exchanges of music—they also have created a new community among their owners.

The ubiquitous neon-and-silhouette Apple ad posters play on this paradox. Each features a dancing hipster alone with the machine, which appears to be all he or she needs to have fun. The only distinctive thing about the dancers, and the only thing they have in common from ad to ad, is their white device. Plugged into an iPod and walking past one of the ads, it's impossible not to feel a thrill of recognition: Hey, I've got white earbuds too, just like that silhouette of the girl with the jaunty newsboy cap!

You and Cap Girl, however, are still rocking out to different songs; in fact, Cap Girl may have personally constructed her own idiosyncratic playlist for rocking-out purposes. And since most of us under a certain age have TV-shriveled attention spans, it's safe to assume that when a song ceases to rock, Cap Girl sometimes just skips to the next one. Cap Girl might also have forgone the work of making a playlist, instead using the "Browse" feature, which shuffles through all of your songs for you. In a way, "Browse" is like having your own personal radio station; then again, that station is being DJ'd by someone else. Luddites love to hate this function because it's a potent symbol of the worst effects of technology in a society based on individualism. As it selects songs from your very own music collection, "Browse" marries the pleasingly personal with the incredibly lazy.

Then again, other people might be just as gratified by what "Browse" does to your own library of songs, and it's not like an iPod can't be plugged into a stereo. In fact, in addition to exposing our friends to music via iPod swapping and jack sharing, many of us are bringing our iPods out on the town. Using iPods as music-exchange devices has caught on with DJs like Andrew Andrew of New York's APT, who run their iParties entirely with their shiny white toys. In L.A., iPod parties do away with DJs entirely—guests each get to plug their iPods into the bar's sound system for a certain amount of time.

A final element in the iPod paradox: No one throws "Personal MP3 Player Parties," and people with Nomads or Rios tend not to make eyes at each other on the subway. While the content of your iPod is deeply revealing, iPod ownership in itself tells the world something about you. Even aside from the white earbuds, an iPod is a gorgeous creature: Sleek and seamless, it looks nothing like the Walkman or Discman of old. It does, however, look like many other Apple products, which tend to be fetish items among design fans. In fact, it may be that the iPod is the highest-selling Mac item because it gets the most street exposure. If people regularly used their G4s or iBooks on the sidewalk, those items might also escape the cult of Mac and become coveted by the mainstream. Since iPods are both publicly used and easy to spot, they have become shorthand for a certain kind of cool that can only be achieved by purchasing an iPod of your own—in other words, they sell themselves.

Ultimately, this sort of infinite regress may reveal the most about how iPods are changing the way people interact through music today. Unlike the fait accompli of a 30-track mix tape wrapped in annotated liner notes and packaged with a cover-art collage, an iPod's internal organization is always shifting. Just as iPod sightings on the subway create more iPod-using subway riders, an intriguing "Recently Played" list causes those same songs to be played once again. This vertigo can't exist in a vacuum—not even a neon-colored vacuum occupied by a lone dancer in earbuds. Intentionally or not, Apple's MP3 player realizes its true potential as a personal device only when it's shared.
POLITICS

from slate.msn.com:

"The American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is."

That's the message President Bush conveyed this morning on Meet the Press. He sees things as they are, not as liberals wish they were. As Bush put it:

"That's very important for, I think, the people to understand where I'm coming from—to know that this is a dangerous world. I wish it wasn't. I'm a war president. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign policy matters with war on my mind. Again, I wish it wasn't true, but it is true. And the American people need to know they got a president who sees the world the way it is. And I see dangers that exist, and it's important for us to deal with them. … The policy of this administration is … to be realistic about the different threats that we face."

Realistic. Dangers that exist. The world the way it is. These are strange words to hear from a president whose prewar descriptions of Iraqi weapons programs are so starkly at odds with the postwar findings of his own inspectors. A week ago, David Kay, the man picked by Bush to supervise the inspections, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that his team had found almost none of the threats Bush had advertised. No chemical and biological weapons stockpiles. No evidence of a renewed nuclear weapons program. No evidence of illicit weapons delivered to terrorists. "We were all wrong," said Kay.
Again and again on the Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Bush to explain the discrepancies. Again and again, Bush replied that such questions had to be viewed in the "context" of a larger reality: I see the world as it is. Threats exist. We must be realistic.

This big-picture notion of reality, existence, and the world as it is dates back 2,400 years to the Greek philosopher Plato. Plato believed that what's real isn't the things you can touch and see: your computer, your desk, those empty barrels in Iraq that Bush thought were full of chemical weapons. What's real is the general idea of these things. The idea of a computer. The idea of a desk. The idea of an Iraqi threat to the United States. Whether you actually have a computer or a desk, or whether Saddam Hussein actually had chemical weapons, is less important than the larger truth. The abstraction is the reality.

Plato's successor, Aristotle, took a different view. He thought reality was measured by what you could touch and see. That's the definition of reality on which modern science was founded. It's the definition Colin Powell used when he told the world Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. It's the definition David Kay used when he set out to find the weapons. Kay and Powell are dismayed by our inability to see and touch the weapons. But Bush isn't. He isn't going to let Aristotle's reality distract him from Plato's.
In Bush's Platonic reality, the world is dangerous, threats exist, and the evidence of our senses must be interpreted to fit that larger truth. On the night he launched the war, for example, Bush told the nation, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Russert asked Bush whether, in retrospect, that statement was false. Bush replied, "I made a decision based upon that intelligence in the context of the war against terror. In other words, we were attacked, and therefore every threat had to be reanalyzed. Every threat had to be looked at. Every potential harm to America had to be judged in the context of this war on terror."

You can hear the gears turning in Bush's mind. We were attacked on Sept. 11, 2001. That attack exposed a new reality. That new reality changed the context for interpreting intelligence. Or, as Howard Dean less charitably puts it, if Bush and his administration "have a theory and a fact, and [the two] don't coincide, they get rid of the fact instead of the theory."

The more you study Bush's responses to unpleasant facts, the clearer this pattern becomes. A year and a half ago, the unpleasant facts had to do with his sale of stock in Harken Energy, a company on whose board of directors he served, shortly before the company disclosed that its books were far worse than publicly advertised. Bush dismissed all queries by noting that the Securities and Exchange Commission had declined to prosecute him. "All these questions that you're asking were looked into by the SEC," Bush shrugged. That conclusion was his measure of reality. As to the different version of reality suggested by the evidence, Bush scoffed with metaphysical certainty, "There's no 'there' there."

On Meet the Press, Bush handled questions about his service in the National Guard during Vietnam the same way. Russert reminded Bush, "The Boston Globe and the Associated Press have gone through some of their records and said there's no evidence that you reported to duty in Alabama during the summer and fall of 1972." Bush replied, "Yeah, they're just wrong. There may be no evidence, but I did report. Otherwise, I wouldn't have been honorably discharged." That's the Bush syllogism: The evidence says one thing; the conclusion says another; therefore, the evidence is false.

Why did Americans elect a president who thinks this way? Because they wanted a leader different from Bill Clinton. They liked some things about Clinton, but they were sick of his dishonesty in the Monica Lewinsky affair and his constant shifting in the political winds. Bush promised that he would say what he believed and stick to it.

On Iraq, Bush fulfilled both promises. "What I do want to share with you is my sentiment at the time," he told Russert. "There was no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a danger to America." Note Bush's emphasis on his subjective reality: "my sentiment," "no doubt in my mind." When Russert asked Bush about his unpopularity abroad, Bush answered, "I'm not going to change, see? I'm not trying to accommodate. I won't change my philosophy or my point of view. I believe I owe it to the American people to say what I'm going to do and do it, and to speak as clearly as I can, try to articulate as best I can why I make decisions I make. But I'm not going to change because of polls. That's just not my nature."
No, it isn't. Bush isn't Clinton. He doesn't change his mind for anything, whether it's polls or facts. And he always tells the truth about what's in his mind, whether or not what's in his mind corresponds to what's in the visible world.

What are the consequences of such a Platonic presidency? The immediate risk is the replacement of Saddam with a more dangerous fundamentalist regime. Bush is certain this won't happen. "They're not going to develop that, because right here in the Oval Office, I sat down with Mr. Pachachi and Chalabi and al-Hakim, people from different parts of [Iraq] that have made the firm commitment that they want a constitution eventually written that recognizes minority rights and freedom of religion," Bush told Russert. "I said [to Mr. al-Hakim], 'You know, I'm a Methodist. What are my chances of success in your country and your vision?' And he said, 'It's going to be a free society where you can worship freely.' "
There you have it: The regime will be pluralistic, because Bush believes it, because nice men came to the Oval Office and told him so.

Beyond Iraq, the risk is that the rest of the world won't believe anything the U.S. government says. Bush explained to Russert that he invaded Iraq in part because "when the United States says there will be serious consequences" and those consequences don't follow, "people look at us and say, 'They don't mean what they say.' " True enough. But meaning what you say won't get other nations to join you in policing the world, if what you think and say bears no relationship to reality.
The punch line is that Bush accomplished exactly what he set out to do in this interview: He showed you how his mind works. Republicans used to observe derisively that Clinton had a difficult relationship with the truth. Bush has a difficult relationship with the truth, too. It's just a different—and perhaps more grave—kind of difficulty.

2.09.2004

FILM

My friend John wrote this note after watching Lost in Translation this week:

There were 2 affairs in the movie. One was an emotional infidelity that Charlotte had with Bob, and the other was, in comparison, a vulgar physical infidelity, which Bob had with the lounge singer. I recognize that Bob was emotionally unfaithful to his wife as well, but I gave it less consideration than his physical indiscretion. I wish Bob's liaison with the lounge singer did not need to be included in the film. After it happened I so wanted it to be stricken from the record, because it degraded the relationship that had
developed with Charlotte. I'm a romantic with a guilty conscience, and these situations unsettle me. Life and love are bittersweet, however, and the scene was unquestionably necessary. Without it the movie would have had a "Hollywood-happy ending". How inappropriate. The film would also have lost an important element: the frequent disconnection between emotional intimacy and physical urges. My explanation for the affair with the lounge singer, is the she was a substitute for Charlotte. I regarded this as a demonstration of Bob's unwillingness to involve Charlotte in something she might later regret (to taint her with the stain of infidelity). Bob's decision not to sexualize his relationship with Charlotte whether conscious or not), was a sacrifice. It was an act of love and respect.

I felt significant empathy for Bob, who as an older man, remembered what it felt like to love and laugh with his wife, to meet the "most delightful people" in his life (his children), and to recognize how time and
circumstances impact relationships. These are all feelings and experiences I will likely encounter one day. As an aside, I hope I make better decisions. I also empathized with Charlotte, who was obviously at an awkward stage in her life: a recent graduated with no sense of professional purpose, newly married to a person she thought she knew, but is really just getting to know. I got the impression that John loved harlotte (the "I Miss You" fax), and the voice of Bob's wife registered concern and love for him, albeit
slightly distracted by the dilemma of choosing the right rug color for his study. Hollywood often justifies infidelity by villanizing the victim. How different would the film be if John was sleeping with the bimbo actress, or if Bob's wife was a cold bitch? That these people were both in "sound" relationships made it more difficult to justify Bob and Charlotte's relationship. It forced the audience to grapple with the ambiguity and come to their own conclusions.

As Bob and Charlotte's relationship developed it was easy for me to suspend disbelief and accept that under these unusual circumstances two people could develop very strong feelings for each other. The contradiction between Charlotte's desire to feel understood and both character's moral responsibility to recognize the commitment they made to their spouses provided a tension that drove the movie forward. Whatever Bob whispered into Charlotte's ear at the end of the movie will remain a mystery. It's effect
on them both, however, allowed for the resolution I needed, a resolution that would not have been possible if the last encounter they had was in the hotel lobby. I'm still trying to figure out what was said. Any ideas? I am assuming he addressed the possibility of Charlotte perceiving his affair with the lounge singer as either a rejection of her (physically) or a sign that his interest in her was common (he did this often with little consideration). Perhaps he said something that impressed upon her that their
connection was special, and that it improved him?

The context in which these interactions happened (Tokyo) is important to note. It could have been anywhere, but I think it needed to be alien, so both characters felt disconnected to their daily lives. I believe behaviour is more frequently defined by context than character. There is something about being anonymous, perhaps the expectation that your actions will have zero impact on your "real" life, that gives people the freedom to take risks they would otherwise walk away from. I felt this movie was like a more
complicated version of Before Sunrise. Like if Ethan and Julie's characters were involved in relationships with other people, the interaction between them in Before Sunrise would have been fundamentally different. That would be a cool movie. Apparently Linklater is considering a sequel. I'll call him to chat...

A day in the life in Japan was also pretty cool: the karaoke, the Japanese surfers, the clubs, videogames, a Japanese Johnny Carson, Japanese directors... It's always a delight to see how other cultures work.

A tangential note: Movies seems to depict stability with negative stereotypes, for example presenting the decision as to which "storage solution" one should buy from IKEA as a crisis. I suppose it is merely a
reflection of the artistic types (directors/writers) backlash against the homogenization of cultures. It's a slap in the face to people who have played by the rules their whole life and are "successful", or certainly
enjoy the trappings of success. After being consistently employed, paying off a mortgage on a house, sending kids to college, and saving enough to retire, you are told (via popular culture) that you lived uneventful and sterile lives, as if risk and change should have been your focus. It's a freakin contradiction that makes us all uncertain about the larger sense of purpose in our lives.

2.06.2004

FILM

The Corporation
Directed by Mark Achbar and Jennifer Abbott
from www.globeandmail.com

Corporations are wonderful things, if you own shares and they're up. But, as Enron's chief financial officer marched off to 10 years in prison this week, many agree that all is not well in the corporate world. Is it a question of "bad apples," or is the tree rotten?

These are big questions, and The Corporation is a documentary with big answers. It's not friendly to corporations, but it's careful to give CEOs lots of space to tell their story. It starts with a fast-cut montage of dozens of business people chirping variants of the phrase "bad apples." Then it answers with another fast-cut montage, this time the logos of familiar companies convicted of serious crimes (trading with pariah regimes, cheating shareholders, dumping poison into sewers): General Electric, Chevron, IBM, Kodiak, Pfizer, Sears and a blur of other mainstream names.

How did we arrive in a place where venerable companies persistently flout the law?

Corporations were originally government charters to people who wanted to undertake a project -- building a bridge or a ship -- and make money from it. The charter had a time limit, and the corporation couldn't buy other corporations, or sue anybody. After the U.S. Civil War, these now-gigantic entities tried to find a way to make themselves permanent and extend their power. Using the 14th Amendment, passed after the war to protect the equal rights of freed slaves, lawyers in 1880 won a bizarre victory whose snowballing effects are still with us today: Corporations won the status of a "person," with legal rights equal to those of a living human being.

It's by now generally agreed that a corporation is an amoral person (as a sardonic Lord Edward Thurlow observed, it is just like a person "except it has no soul to be damned.") It must be carefully regulated. But, say the filmmakers, growing power has transformed the "amoral" corporate person into a psychopath. They interview Robert Hare, an FBI expert at profiling deviant behaviour who shows how typical corporate decisions satisfy the "checklist" profile of a psychopathic personality. A series of cases, complete with gory footage of agonized cows dragging their udders on the ground (thank you Monsanto for bovine growth hormones) and children locked in factories for 12-hour work days (thank you Kathy Lee Gifford and Wal-Mart), demonstrates how the modern corporation answers every criterion of pathology.

Many of these dreadful cases are familiar. But The Corporation does follow-up which shows that even penitent CEOs cannot prevent these companies from repeating their sins. Then it asks how they feel about it. Sam Gibara (retired CEO of Goodyear Tires) answers simply that he had to do things which violated his personal ethics, or he would have been fired. Commodities trader Carlton Brown describes the glee his colleagues felt on Sept. 11, 2001: "Every trader will tell you that their first thought was, gold must be exploding!"

Some attempt to justify this system on ethical grounds. Michael Walker of the Fraser Institute explains that we would be better off if everything on Earth -- water, plant genes, the air itself -- is privately owned: Things will be better taken care of.

Now that it is legal to patent genes and own airplane routes, Walker's vision is being realized. But emerging evidence does not support his optimism. Every living system on Earth is now in decline, according to scientific studies. The documentary offers a few hopeful examples of business leaders who have faced the ugly facts. The most striking is Ray Anderson of Interface Carpets. "We are plunderers," he says in a speech to his peers. "The first industrial revolution is the mistake. We must move on to another and better industrial revolution."

2.05.2004

MARS

BOOKS

THE DA VINCI CODE
Dan Brown

"The latest art history mystery by Dan Brown is a fast-paced book that is hard to put down. With deliciously short chapters that usually end in cliff-hangers, The Da Vinci Code is an exciting summer read with serious undertones. An intelligent spin that challenges the typical interpretation of Western history, the novel draws upon historical backing to suggest radical theories on art, politics, and religion - all set in a Bond-like context throughout the streets of Paris. Unfolding dark secrets in a modern-day setting, The Da Vinci Code appeals to Harry Potter fans as well as history buffs due to its smart blend of myth and reality.

The protagonist, Robert Langdon, is a symbology professor at Harvard (we'll excuse him in this case…) who is visiting Paris to give a lecture and meet with the head curator of the Louvre, Jacques Saunière. However, Langdon's plans to meet the famous curator are spoiled when his body is discovered on the floor of the Grand Hall of the museum. Strangely enough, Saunière's body, naked and spread-eagled, resembles…Leonardo da Vinci's Vitruvian Man! Before the puzzled professor can make sense of the scene, agent Sophie Neveu, a French police cryptologist, enters the room to decipher the riddle. It turns out that she is the deceased curator's granddaughter, and her quest is to decipher what her grandfather was really trying to explain from the grave. And that's only the first chapter… From that point, the book takes off at a startling pace, with each brief chapter ending in suspense as the two characters try to make sense of the clues Saunière left behind. You'll fly through the pages as the main characters rampage the streets of Paris in search of the truth.

Brown's writing has a cinematic feel, due to the sharp plot twists and short chapters. You can imagine the book becoming a modern-day Indiana Jones adventure. The story might occasionally border on the didactic for you as you await yet another explanation from Robert or Sophie in order to solve the next piece of the puzzle. But the history and art criticism that Brown fits into this novel are all part of the fun. For instance, he enjoys naming characters in the book from real life cases. Jacques Saunière is named after Bérenger Saunière (1852 - 1917), a Parish priest at Rennes-le-Château who is said to have found four mysterious parchments in a hollow pillar. Also, Brown's actual editor, and his publisher, Doubleday, are masked under “Jonas Kaufman” and “Double Knight Publishers.”

Brown presents a credible account of history gone astray in his thrilling tale. The book's publicity hints darkly that the novel uncovers the “greatest conspiracy of the past 2,000 years.” Tracking a harrowing yet fascinating trail, Langdon and Neveu unearth secrets concerning the legend of the Holy Grail. According to Brown, the Holy Grail actually refers to a bloodline descended from Jesus and Mary Magdalene, whose descendants gave rise to the Merovingian dynasty, which ruled France from 476 to 750 A.D. Some characters want to preserve the secret of the Grail, others want to expose them, and still others threaten to destroy the truth.

The conservative Catholic organization called Opus Dei, whose members will stop at nothing to extinguish the Grail mystery, plays a major role in the story. In real life, Opus Dei is a personal prelature of the Catholic Church, founded in Madrid on October 2, 1928, by St. Josemaría Escrivá. As its website claims, “The aim of Opus Dei is to contribute to the evangelizing mission of the Church.” In The Da Vinci Code, its home base is located on Lexington Avenue in New York City; however, its actual headquarters are situated in Rome. In the novel, Silas, the devout monk representative of Opus Dei, goes to any extreme to get at the Grail, including murder. Yet the actual organization claims to promote qualities such as divine filiation, sanctifying work, love for freedom, prayer, sacrifice, and charity.

On the other hand, in the story, the Priory of Sion acts to preserve the Grail. In the book, the Priory of Sion is a secret society that claims to be an offshoot of the Knights of Templar, set up to guard the Merovingian lineage and secrets of the Grail. Its former leaders supposedly include: Leonardo da Vinci, Sandro Botticelli, Victor Hugo, Isaac Newton, and of course, the deceased (and fictional) Jacques Saunière. Considered a modern hoax by certain critics today, the Priory of Sion is rumored not to exist outside of the imaginations of a handful of French mythmakers. However, Brown brings to life the conspiracy theory with vigor, poking holes in arguments that have been published over time.

The Da Vinci Code achieved record summer sales and sparked debate across the board, from Time magazine to the New York Times. Although it is a work of fiction, it questions touchy issues with roots in the history of art and religion. The theological side of the Grail/Magdalene controversy can be argued endlessly; however, Brown's visual interpretation of The Last Supper seems pretty solid. The famous fresco is frequently referenced in popular culture, from Andy Warhol's oversize silkscreens to The Matrix Reloaded. Brown brings to life unnoticed details in Leonardo's paintings that the average viewer might not ponder. By examining the Mona Lisa's elusive smile or The Last Supper's floating dagger in a new light, he scrutinizes valid visual discrepancies in the art. His suggestions are so engaging that even the casual reader will want to reexamine Leonardo da Vinci's work in detail to judge the credibility of the author's claims."
WRITING

The Rocky Road to Paper Heaven
(The Process that Transfers the Work from the Writer to the Ideal Reader)

1) Writing it. This is the writer’s own business. No one can help while s/he forges in the smithy of his/her soul the uncreated conscience of its race, and labours in silence, cunning and exile. (If you don’t recognize this paraphrase you may be in the wrong business.)

2) Resulting in: the work. Considered, reconsidered. Vised, revised, revised. To the end of your tether. Till there’s nothing more you can do to it. Till you need help!

3) The work is shown to a few knowledgeable friends, if the writer is lucky enough to have some. Suggestions may be made, which the writer is free to acceptor reject.

Pitfall 1: If s/he savages the friends for giving the suggestions, they are unlikely to make any more in future.

Pitfall 2: The friends may be wrong.

Pitfall 3: If all the writer wants from these people is an encouraging “reaction,” i.e. not real suggestions but a “Hey, that’s great,” it would help matters to say so at the outset. There is nothing illegitimate about such a wish. Everyone needs morale uplift.

4) If the writer already has an agent, the work goes to the agent.

Pitfall 1: Finding the right agent. (Would-be writers are lined up around the block. The agent has a lot to choose from.)

Pitfall 2: The agent may be wrong, or incompetent, or caught at a moment of life crisis.

Pitfall 3: If the writer makes life too impossible for the agent, the agent will decide there are easier ways of making a living, and dump the writer.

5) The agent sells the work.

Pitfall 1: The agent may fail to do this. (Would-be writers are lined up, etc.)

Pitfall 2: The agent may sell the work to the wrong publisher, who doesn’t understand the book.

Pitfall 3: The writer may make life so impossible for the publisher that the publisher dumps the writer. Or vice versa.

Pitfall 4: Recession strikes, and the publisher dumps the writer anyway.

6) The work gets edited. (Pitfalls of not understanding, etc., as above.)

Being edited is like falling face down into a threshing machine. Every page gets fought over, back & forth like WW1. Unless the editor and the writer both have in mind the greater glory of the work, to the subordination of their own egos and peevishness, blood will flow and the work will suffer. Every comma, every page break, may be a ground for slaughter. Editing comments are likely to be of these sorts:

A. “You have spinach on your teeth.” (Spelling, grammar, unfortunate double-meanings, factual errors, and some punctuation – other punctuation being a matter of house style or taste, see below.) In other words: These are some mistakes which look accidental. I am pointing them out. If you have done these things on purpose, you’d better have a good reason.

B.“Your socks don’t match.” (Internal consistency: Mary’s name is Mary on page 1, and Mary-Jane on page 5, and Marianne on page 11.) Perhaps you did this on purpose too – why? Does it work? Etc.

C. “I think you look better in blue than in green.” Matters of taste and judgment. Here is where the writer must be prepared to stand his’r ground. Sulkily changing things you feel in your gut should not be changed, and then blaming the editor, is no good. But the writer must be prepared to put the case. Sometimes the case is simply, “I choose green.”

D. “You just pulled a turnip out of your hat, when it’s supposed to be a rabbit.” (Bathos, failed effects, patchy character development, stuff that doesn’t convince, magic tricks that don’t come off, loose ends etc.) See C.

E. “You’ve jumped the gun, you’ve blown the plot, you’ve got the art before the hearse.” Matters of structure, which means timing, too. You’ve told too much too early, or too little too late. There are logjams. There are digressions that lead nowhere. There are windows you don’t need to look through, there are doors that don’t open.

F. “Where is the voice coming from?” Who’s telling this story, anyway, and do we believe it? Is there unwarranted authorial intrusion? Does the narrator sound like Descartes on Page 5 and like Tugboat Annie on page 10, and is there a reason for this? Matters of tone enter here.

G. “In India they drive on the left.” Fact checking. Can cover anything from the accuracy of Biblical quotations to what year Tabu perfume came in. A good editor will pick every nit. No point in accusing them of nit-picking. It’s their job.

And so it goes, and so it goes FOR EVERYONE. The final decision however rests with the writer – because it’s the writer who will have to take the rap (the criticism) and stand behind the work. You’re really in trouble when you get so famous, or so irascible, that people are afraid to tell you you’ve got spinach on your teeth. You’ll become like those Bad Breath ads of the 40’s: “Even his best friends won’t tell him.”

Both writer and editor are engaged to the same end. The end is – should things go so far – the reader’s experience of reading the book. Moments that bring the reader up short and cause her/m to say, “This is an error” or “I just stopped believing in the author, or the spell, or the charm,” or whatever it is, are like someone turning the lights on during a movie.

If a guest you’d invited to dinner started to eat the spaghetti with his hands, there might be several explanations.

— The man is a mannerless boor, or drunk.

— He is trying to shock you, and insult those present.

— It’s a ‘happening.’

— He knows that spaghetti was once eaten thus, and is a period-piece purist.

(Point of story: there are many reasons for “breaking” “rules.” Some breakages may have an artistic point to make. Others, not. The editor is there to help the writer sort out his/her intentions, and to make the work WORK.)

Some people treat editors as the Room Service of literature. This is a mistake. A good editor’s price is beyond rubies (although a bad one may be a tedious pedant). But if you spit on these (good) folk, they won’t want to edit you again.

7) The work gets published. Now – after the last galleys have been proofed – now the die is cast! Now it’s too late to turn back! Now is when all that hard work you put in with your editor pays off – or not, as the case may be. Now is when you open the book and say – Oh no! Why didn’t I fix that, when I had the chance?

One of the results of publication is that some of your friends will stop speaking to you, because they won’t be able to handle what they perceive as your sudden fame. Others will accuse you of not speaking to them. The friends you’ll need now are those who can acknowledge your accomplishment without thinking you’ve suddenly become stuck-up, or a different human being. Treasure them.

You may be asked to do Publicity. Sometimes this sells books, sometimes not.

If your book does very well, you will receive three nasty vicious personal attacks from people you’ve never met, in print, within the year. Don’t take them personally. They aren’t personal. They are just part of the time-honoured tradition of cutting the legs off people who grow fast – especially beloved by Canadians, but observed elsewhere as well. Keep the clippings. Apply them to your head if it gets swelled. Don’t bother with revenge. It will take care of itself.

8) If your opus is a book (ie. not a magazine story), it gets reviewed. (You wish! You hope!) This is like Kafka’s The Trial – altogether a surreal and nightmarish experience. The ego is put in the stocks, and eggs, tomatoes and inexplicable bouquets of flowers – if you’re lucky – are hurled. But if you’ve been well-edited, at least you won’t be accused of having spinach on your teeth. Just remember: not being reviewed is worse.

9) People buy the book. Whether this happens or not will depend partly on the reviews, partly on luck, partly on how good a job the publisher and its sales force have done – and partly on whether or not the people who own and run bookstores like the book. No good sneering at them as a class, either. Some are jerks, but others are well-read and intelligent folk who are devoted to books and who are ardent readers. Why else would they be in the business? Not to make a million, that’s for sure.

10) The book reaches the ideal reader, who understands every word, every nuance, every hint, every melody, is elated when you want her/m to be, mystified on cue, enlightened ditto, gets all the jokes (if any), participates fully, thinks you are a Great Artist, and writes you touching letters of gratitude. At these also it would be as well not to sneer. Answer them graciously, and save them up until it’s time for 1. (above) again. They may help to remind you why you are putting yourself through this meat-grinder in the first place.

May the Fierce be with you.

- Margaret Atwood
WRITING

The Road of Excess leads to the Palace of Wisdom.
— William Blake

Load every rift with ore.
— John Keats

You must be proud, bold, pleasant, resolute,
And now and then stab, when occasion serves.
— Christopher Marlowe

A book should be as an axe, to break the frozen sea within us.
— Franz Kafka

don’t be so fast,
you’re all you’ve got.
— Rita Dove

It all comes back to that, to my and your ‘fun’—if we but allow the term its full extension; to the production of which no humblest question involved, not even to the shade of a cadence or the position of a comma, is not richly pertinent.
— Henry James

Charming villains have always had a decided social advantage over well-meaning people who chew with their mouths open.
— Miss Manners

2.04.2004

POLITICS

Sex, Lies and Bush Tapes
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF (New York Times)

Using this week's White House budget methodology, I can project that if you just keep reading this column, your assets will increase by $28,581 and you will lose 12.42 pounds. And this column is projected to end after just one paragraph.

Well, so much for White House projections. If we're serious about confronting threats to our way of life, we don't have to hunt them in the caves of eastern Afghanistan. We can find a serious threat in the West Wing of the White House as the Bush administration charts its fiscal policy.

President Bush's budget policies have mortgaged America, yet instead of repairing the damage, he is intensifying the harm by trying to make his tax cuts permanent. And this week he presented a budget that is so dazzlingly deceitful it does not even attempt to include the bills for our presence in Iraq. Conservatives have traditionally been the conscience of America's checkbook (and, to their credit, many now are screaming). If Mr. Bush were a genuine conservative, he might cut taxes, but he would cut spending to match. If he were an honest liberal, he might increase spending, and taxes as well. Instead, the president is inviting us out for a wild night on the town and leaving us — and our children — with the bill.

I'm sorry if I sound screechy. But my first beat at this newspaper, in 1984, was covering the Latin American debt crisis. Later I lived in Japan as its economy went from a global juggernaut to a global laughingstock. After you've seen how quickly national leaders can bungle national economies, and how difficult it is to put Humpty Dumpty together again, you have less patience for high-risk intellectual dishonesty like Mr. Bush's fiscal policy. Dishonesty is a strong word. But the new book about former Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill discloses that Mr. Bush's 2001 speech to a joint session of Congress about his budget contained a falsehood — about paying off all possible American debt — even after Mr. O'Neill pointed it out.

"That night, Bush stood before the nation . . .," recounts the book, "The Price of Loyalty," "and said something that knowledgeable people in the U.S. government knew to be false." I've excerpted that speech at nytimes.com/kristofresponds (look for Posting No. 266), and it makes painful reading.

In the 2000 campaign, I covered Mr. Bush a bit, so this week I dug out tapes of his speeches. On those tapes, he claims that he will leave the great bulk of the surplus intact: "My plan is to take a portion of the projected surplus, a little over $1 trillion of the $4 trillion surplus, and give it to the people who pay the bills." The reality is that under Mr. Bush, surpluses have completely vanished. Granted, he had help from a bad economy. But spending has increased more rapidly than under any president since Lyndon Johnson, and Mr. Bush refuses to pay for it. I've seen that story before — in Argentina.

Now the I.M.F. has warned that the U.S. budget and trade deficits are a threat to the global economy. A new study from the Brookings Institution, "Restoring Fiscal Sanity," estimates that by 2014 the average family's income will be $1,800 lower because of slower economic growth caused by these budget deficits. A family with a 30-year $250,000 mortgage will be paying $2,000 more per year in interest costs alone.

All in all, as I look at the economy, I miss President Bill Clinton. Mr. Clinton had egregious personal failings, and I deplored what I felt was his dishonesty. But as a steward of the economy, he combined fiscal conservatism with a willingness to stand against protectionism. No leader today, Democrat or Republican, is so forthright about the economy, and it's sad to see Democrats retreating from free trade.

Compared with Mr. Bush, John Kerry and most other Democratic presidential candidates are paragons of responsibility — but only compared with Mr. Bush. The reality is that promises by Democrats like Mr. Kerry to start new health care programs, keep some of the tax cuts and restore black ink are nonsense. But it's less nonsense to say 2 + 2 = 5 (Mr. Kerry) than to say 2 + 2 = 22 (Mr. Bush). Mr. Clinton lied about sex, and he was sleazy in other respects as well, but he was willing to tell America the unpleasant truth about trade and about budgets. I wish Mr. Bush and his Democratic challengers would be half as honest with the American public as Mr. Clinton was.
TRAVEL

U.S. States I've visited


BOOKS

"People say I talk slowly. I talk in a way sometimes called laconic. The phone rings, I answer, and people ask if they've woken me up. I lose my way in the middle of sentences, leaving people hanging for minutes. I have no control over it. I'll be talking, and will be interested in what I'm saying, but then someone -- I'm convinced this is what happens -- someone -- and I wish I know who, because I would have words for this person -- for a short time, borrows my head. Like a battery is borrowed from a calculator to power a remote control, someone, always , is borrowing my head."

- D. Eggers, You Shall Know our Velocity

"To string incongruities and absurdities together in a wandering and sometimes purposeless way, and seem innocently unaware that they are absurdities, is the basis of the American art."

- Mark Twain
MUSIC

The Intrepid Human Serviette Understands The Importance Of Being Interesting

Ten autographed photos hang behind the lunch counter at the Tomahawk Restaurant, a wood-panelled temple of kitsch-cool in North Vancouver. Famous for its Native-obsessed décor, the Lower Mainland institution has hosted celebrities from the Rolling Stones to Rod Stewart since opening its doors in 1926. Pierre and Maggie Trudeau stopped by once but left when told they'd have to wait for a table like everybody else. Later in the '70s, a greasy-haired kid named Bryan Adams toiled away in the dish pit.

You won't find any of the aforementioned on the Tomahawk's wall of fame. Instead, the framed and signed shots are from the likes of MacGyver's Richard Dean Anderson, stone-faced Canuck comic Leslie Nielsen, and broadcasting veteran Terry David Mulligan. It's the picture on the far left that stands out the most, though, and not just because it's of Nardwuar the Human Serviette in the hospital. Taken shortly after he suffered a cerebral hemorrhage in 1999, it's the only one in colour. That's somehow appropriate, seeing how the 35-year-old guerrilla interviewer, celebrated rock 'n' roll frontman, MuchMusic personality, and terminally curious man-child favours clothes of the retina-searing variety.

Twenty feet away from that photo, Nardwuar sits at a table, dressed down in jeans and a striped long-sleeved shirt. On his head is a plaid tam, and across the table is his mom, who, in contrast to her only child, radiates an almost-serene sense of calm. At Nardwuar's insistence, all three of us have ordered his favourite item: the Skookum Chief, a volleyball-sized house specialty that comes with onions, lettuce, tomato, ground beef, grilled Yukon bacon, an egg, cheese, a wiener, and Tomahawk special sauce.

Over the past 17 years, Nardwuar has ambushed everyone from heads of state to porn stars, punk-rock icons to conspiracy theorists, cheeba-dazed rappers to former child television actors, demanding answers to things he is convinced people need to know. Famously, he's asked Mikhail Gorbachev which world leader wears the biggest pants, Crispin Glover if he owns a coffin filled with tar, and Sean Lennon whether or not masturbation was frowned upon by John and Yoko. He's enraged Ernest Angley by asking him if he can cure the summertime blues, been physically assaulted by bands ranging from Blur to Skid Row, and pressed Elijah Wood on whether or not it's true the cast and crew did a shot of liquor each time a Hobbit cried during the filming of The Lord of the Rings. Almost every one of the hundreds of interviews he's conducted starts with a signature question: "Who are you?"

THERE'S NO EASY answer to that query where Nardwuar himself is concerned. He's a lot of things: an amateur history buff, a devoted son, an obsessive musicologist, a stubborn only child, a university-radio DJ at CiTR, a walking thrift-store explosion, a Canadian patriot, a strong candidate for Ritalin, a Vancouver music-scene legend, and a sometimes-paranoid worrier with no shortage of superstitions. The one thing that's immediately obvious is that he doesn't consider himself anything special.

"Someone once asked me what my dream category on Jeopardy! would be," he says, his mouth full of Skookum burger. "I was like, 'Menu items at the Tomahawk', but I'd even get all those wrong. I'm not one of those guys who can play a song back the first time he hears it or do a great interview on the spot. I have to work at it. I come from a family of losers."

The genius of Nardwuar is that you'd never know that. Since 2000, he's been a fixture on MuchMusic, making him a budding Canuck pop-culture icon. He recently fulfilled a long-time dream when Ripple Rock, the new album by his band, the Evaporators, was released on Alternative Tentacles, the legendary label owned by former Dead Kennedy Jello Biafra. Over the years, he's been offered a blowjob by Courtney Love, told to fuck off by Beck, and described by Michael Moore as a prime example of what happens when you drink too much coffee. His Web site (www.nardwuar.com/) reputedly receives a million hits each month.

Nardwuar argues that none of this is a result of godsent talent. "The thing for me is that I don't ever get discouraged just because I'm bad at everything. I'm an example of how, if you have the desire to do something, that it's possible to just go out and do it. And then it's a matter of sticking with it long enough and trying as hard as you can."

With that, Nardwuar the Human Serviette inadvertently answers the question "Who are you?". He's an average, if a bit strange, guy who's been too stubborn to give up.

Grant Lawrence, frontman for veteran Vancouver garage kings the Smugglers, says people always want to know the same thing: "What's Nardwuar really like?" As someone who met him in kindergarten, Lawrence has a better idea than most.

"I don't believe there's a switch that he turns on and off," he says, reached at the CBC, where he works as a producer. "When I turn on MuchMusic, I see the same guy doing the interview with Blur that I talk to on the phone at night when he's bitching about the new garage-rock revolution."

Most people are convinced Nardwuar the Human Serviette is a character, a sartorially challenged creation famous for two things. The first is obscure questions rattled off in such rapid-fire succession that his subjects have no time to bullshit through the answers. The second is his voice, a seemingly designed-to-grate marvel that sounds like Gilbert Gottfried being dragged across a chalkboard.

Nardwuar has long denied that such affectations are an act, and those who know him concur. "Take his effusiveness, for example," his mom says at the Tomahawk. "That really is an extension of his personality."

The burning desire to know things--whether or not Henry Rollins's joy prong really is shaped like a soup can, or if Rush once opened for the New York Dolls--is something picked up during his childhood.

"My mom used to do a local TV show on Shaw cable," Nardwuar says. "She probably did hundreds of interviews where she had to come up with questions."

His mother (whom the Human Serviette still lives with, and whose name he insists, for a variety of unfathomable reasons, not be used) interjects: "I'm quite interested in local history. I would interview people and get them to talk about their lives on the North Shore. Frankly, though, my style was a little different from his."

Nardwuar jumps back in with: "What my mom taught me, basically, was who, what, where, when, and how. She also taught me that everyone has a story--you just have to find it. And, most importantly, she taught me that it's the interviewer's job to make the interviewee excited to be there."

Chris Nelson, who shoots Nardwuar's MuchMusic segments, says Nardwuar's greatest talent is the way he's able to do just that. "In an age when everyone understands the power of PR and marketing and where they control how they spin their artists, he subverts that entire process," he says, on his cellphone. "He gets away with things that conventional interviewers don't because he looks the way he does and sounds the way he does, and because he does more, and better, research than most people ever think to."

You don't truly appreciate how much work Nardwuar puts into things until you've seen him in action. It's a rainy Saturday night, and he's shown up at the Commodore to talk to an Ontario punk band called Jersey. He's done five hours of prep work--phoning friends, and friends of friends, surfing the Net, and poring over fanzines for information on a group virtually unknown outside its hometown of Burlington. As Nelson turns on the camera, Nardwuar begins with "Who are you?" There's no mistaking who he is--dressed like an Australian's nightmare, he's sporting his tam, tartan bondage pants, grey cross-trainers, and what appears to be a psychedelic, camouflage-patterned blazer. He then proceeds to prove why he's among the best--and certainly the most underrated--interviewers in Canada. By the time he's done, he's linked Jersey to everyone from Nickelback to Avril Lavigne, produced artifacts the band's members are known to covet but can only dream of owning (a rare copy of an old Dayglo Abortions album, a fanzine called Soap 'n Spikes), and dredged up junior-hockey stats to dispute bassist Johnny Lubera's frequently quoted contention that he was once scouted by the NHL. At least four times during the questioning, a band member shouts, "How the fuck did you know that?"

Nardwuar gets his biggest reaction, though, when he turns the mike toward Lubera and asks, "Didn't you almost have to get your hand amputated after fighting with one of your friends backstage?" Afterward, the clearly pissed-off bassist says that next to no one knows about the incident, which he isn't proud of.

"In most interviews, you get asked the same things over and over," Lubera says after the Serviette has departed. "I don't know where he found that stuff out about me. I'm the furthest thing away from a celebrity, but now I know how they must feel when they are confronted by things from their past. I wanted to smack him."

AS MUCH AS he loves obsessively digging up dirt on others, Nardwuar argues incessantly that there's no reason his real name--which he stopped using in 1986--needs to appear in print. He notes that Iggy Pop is never referred to as James Osterberg, and that no one ever writes that the Cramps' Poison Ivy Rorschach was christened Kristy Wallace. Taking this one step further, he also insists, as noted, that his mom's name not be revealed. At one point, he asks the Georgia Straight to call her "Cynthia". She's somewhat puzzled by that and suggests instead that she go by "Nardwuar's mom".

Such idiosyncrasies don't stop with name games.

"I don't know if you know this," Lawrence says, "but Nardwuar and his mom both pray to a higher, unseen power, and they call it the White Light. There's a doorway in their house between the kitchen and the dining room. Whenever Nardwuar leaves the house, his mom will say 'White Light'. Nardwuar will then say 'White Light' and touch the wood around the doorway nine times in sets of three in a specific order. As he's walking out the door, he'll say 'Eck', and his mom will reply 'Eck'. It's like listening to a couple of dolphins. They have this incredibly deep, odd relationship."

Asked about this, Nardwuar confirms that truth is sometimes stranger than fiction. "White Light--I think that's from Star Wars or something like that. Anyhow, I always pray to a wooden door frame, and also to a lucky chestnut. You know how those who begin the day singing end the day crying? When I'm on the treadmill at the gym, I won't start singing to myself until after 12 noon. If you drop a fork you get a phone call from a woman, if you drop a knife you get a phone call from a man, and if you drop a spoon it's bad luck. Also, if you whistle you're calling upon the devil. All the little things we're supposed to be superstitious about completely freak me out."

He suggests, however, that Lawrence has confused eck with something else. "What we're doing is mimicking my cat, Cleopatra Von Fluffenstein. She'd dead now, but as she got older, she couldn't meow. Instead, she'd go 'Uhhhh'. So when I come into the house, I'll go 'Uhhhh' in honour of her. I loved Cleo. She's actually used as the catalogue number for Nardwuar Records--the new Evaporators album is Cleo12, and the free 7-inch inside by Thee Dublins is Cleo13."

Released on CD, vinyl, and, like past Evaporators recordings, on fabulous 8-track tape, Ripple Rock is a tip-off to Nardwuar's fascination with B.C. history. (Following a long string of nautical disasters, the provincial government literally blew a giant chunk of stone called Ripple Rock out of the water near Campbell River on April 5, 1958.) Although no one's going to confuse the singer with Kurt Cobain, the album in many ways provides a personal window into his world. It is, of course, a strange place. The hyperactive, organ-fuelled "Addicted to Cheese" finds him screeching "Chunks of Cheddar make me feel better". The crash and bash "I Feel Like a Fat Frustrated Fuck" is self-explanatory, and it's best not to think too much about the guitar-frayed stomper "(I've Got) Icicles on my Testicles".

The album unleashes a veritable torrent of great garage-splattered pop songs, but characteristically, Nardwuar, who sings and plays keyboards, describes himself as an utter failure as a musician. He argues that the real geniuses behind Ripple Rock are Evaporators bassist John Collins (whose full-time gig is the New Pornographers), guitarist David Carswell (of the Smugglers), and drummer Scott Livingstone. "I'm totally uncoordinated. I've never been musical, and I'm still not musical. I don't know any chords, and whenever we do a gig, the other guys have to put stickers on the keyboard so I know where to press."

It's likely he's exaggerating, but that doesn't change the fact that Ripple Rock, the band's third full-length, is as fun as it is infectious. From the horn-infused "Get off the Treadmill" to the sing-along anthem "I.D.N.M.F.T.T.M.W.M.F.A.", it's strong enough to secure the Evaporators a place in the Vancouver underground-music scene's hall of fame, right next to the now-legendary groups--the Pointed Sticks, the Subhumans, the Modernettes--that convinced Nardwuar in the early '80s that anyone can form a band.

Or host a radio show on CiTR, which the Human Serviette has done on Fridays since 1987. Or stage their own gigs, which the Evaporators will do at the Brickyard on February 14 and at the all-ages Mesa Luna on February 17. Or evolve from DIY guerrilla interviewer to MuchMusic featured player. (His recent one-hour special, Nard Wars, drew a whopping 120,000 viewers, even though it had aired twice before. Coldplay's much-hyped Intimate & Interactive performance on Much attracted an audience of 40,000.) Or pursue a dream, whether it's one as simple as founding a record label or something altogether bigger. And for all he's done, Nardwuar isn't finished yet.

"Ultimately, I'd love to have my own television show," he reveals. "I'd come out, do a song with my band the Evaporators, and then slide behind a desk and just sit there asking questions."

If that sounds about as unlikely as Tom Green making it in Hollywood, then consider the tenacity of the person. Nardwuar's mom likes to tell the following story: long before his picture went up on the wall at the Tomahawk, her son was a member of his high-school track team.

"I remember this one particular race," she says, back at the North Van eatery. "All the runners were in, but there was no Nardwuar. They finally started packing up the meet and he still hadn't come in. And then, just when people were leaving, he came running in. The chairs and tables were gone--so was the finish line--but I admired him for sticking it out."

He continues to do that to this day. If Nardwuar the Human Serviette has learned anything over the years, it's that self-described average guys can't be quitters. Once he sets his mind on something--whether it's grilling Iggy Pop about his cock or getting Jean Chrétien to utter the immortal line "For me, pepper, I put it on my plate"--no one's going to tell him it can't be done. "If you ask what are my goals, well, of course, my own TV show," he says. "But if that doesn't happen, I'm going to keep doing interviews. I love talking to people and learning bits and pieces and facts about them. Everyone has a story. And I love getting those stories out."

2.03.2004

MUSIC

Songlist of the day

01. Rambling Man/Lemon Jelly
02. American Woman/The Guess Who
03. Tits and Ass: The Great Canadian Weekend/Manitoba
04. Human Beat Box/Disco Three & Freddy Fresh
05. Blaze of Glory (feat. Parrell & Ab-Liva)/Clipse
06. Pop Shit (feat. Pharrell)/Dirt McGirt
07. Crazy In Love (feat. Jay-Z)/Beyoncé
08. Superstar Part Zero/K-Os
09. Don't Let Me Be Misunderstood/Santa Esmeralda
10. Run Fay Run/Isaac Hayes
11. Meryl's Theme/Me
12. Episode #7/The New Deal
13. Hot in Here/Tiga
14. The Snow/Audio Bullys
15. Miagi/Audio Bullys
16. We Don't Care (Instrumental)/Audio Bullys
17. The Beginning/Audio Bullys
18. Black Light/DJ Touche
19. Long Time (feat. The Mullet Men)/Static Revenger & Fatboy Slim
20. Section 9 (Light & Day/Reach For The Sun)/The Polyphonic Spree
21. Stars and Sons/Broken Social Scene
22. Stray Dog and The Chocolate Shake/Grandaddy
23. Slow Life/Super Furry Animals
24. If You Find Yourself Caught In Love/Belle & Sebastian