I finally got around to learning how to use iMovie - Apple's movie editing software - and even have something to show for it. This is a compilation of some video and pictures I took a few months ago at a dance competition that was held at the elementary school I work at here in Taichung, Taiwan. Hope you enjoy. My apologies in advance for the sometimes lousy audio/video quality, as well as for the sometimes audible singing along by yours truly...
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
Taiwanese weirdness
I shot this with my little Sony digital camera last Sunday from my apartment balcony. I think it had something to do with the celebration of the god Matsu, but I'm not at all sure. Strangeness indeed...
Saturday, April 14, 2007
Dr. Seuss and Bob Dylan together!
Apparently the original web site has been taken down because of threats of legal action by Dr. Seuss' executors, but two songs can be heard here here. If I didn't know better, I'd swear it was 1965-66 era Bob Dylan...
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
It's been a long time...
Indeed it has. Far too long in fact, so from now on I'm going to try to post something almost everyday - weekdays at least. My work schedule here in Taiwan is weekday afternoons and evenings, plus all day on Saturday, so I should be using at least some of my morning free time to do what I should have been doing a lot more of these last many months - WRITE! I will do my best...
Many thoughts of late, but then where aren't there? One subject in particular is the total contradiction that exists between economic and social conservatives, and the therefore strangeness of their long-term political collaboration. Let me explain. Economic conservatives want less government regulation - ultimately, perhaps, none - favouring instead the guidance of Adam Smith's (in)famous "invisible hand" metaphor. The virtues of capitalism are therefore exalted and its negative consequences either ignored or explained away as being but the inevitable result of the aggregate of individuals' choices.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, are much more in line with the aristocratic conservatism that saw its final effective demise in World War I; trying to hold onto something deemed as perfect and God-ordained in the face of radical social and cultural transformations.
Of course as Marx put it so well, and so many of today's supposed Marxists seem to have forgotten, capitalism is the most revolutionary economic system in history as the means of production are in constant transformation as the bourgeoisie compete among themselves to avoid falling into the ranks of the proletariat.
It speaks volumes as to the myopia of the social conservatives that so many of them see no contradiction between their wish to uphold traditional ways of life with their generally unquestioned support for an economic system that ruthlessly attacks ALL traditional social arrangements. Suburbanization and big-box retailing, exemplified by Wal-Mart, though symptomatic of larger dilemmas, have brought about massive changes to traditional family life. How easily some people who claim to care about such things lose sight of this.
Many thoughts of late, but then where aren't there? One subject in particular is the total contradiction that exists between economic and social conservatives, and the therefore strangeness of their long-term political collaboration. Let me explain. Economic conservatives want less government regulation - ultimately, perhaps, none - favouring instead the guidance of Adam Smith's (in)famous "invisible hand" metaphor. The virtues of capitalism are therefore exalted and its negative consequences either ignored or explained away as being but the inevitable result of the aggregate of individuals' choices.
Social conservatives, on the other hand, are much more in line with the aristocratic conservatism that saw its final effective demise in World War I; trying to hold onto something deemed as perfect and God-ordained in the face of radical social and cultural transformations.
Of course as Marx put it so well, and so many of today's supposed Marxists seem to have forgotten, capitalism is the most revolutionary economic system in history as the means of production are in constant transformation as the bourgeoisie compete among themselves to avoid falling into the ranks of the proletariat.
It speaks volumes as to the myopia of the social conservatives that so many of them see no contradiction between their wish to uphold traditional ways of life with their generally unquestioned support for an economic system that ruthlessly attacks ALL traditional social arrangements. Suburbanization and big-box retailing, exemplified by Wal-Mart, though symptomatic of larger dilemmas, have brought about massive changes to traditional family life. How easily some people who claim to care about such things lose sight of this.
Sunday, July 02, 2006
And what of Afghanistan?
[I wanted to write this as a letter to a newspaper on Salt Spring Island, but I couldn't find anyway to do so. Instead I posted it as comment to an article I found on the web site of the Salt Spring News (http://www.saltspringnews.com/index.php?name=News&file=article &sid=14781&thold=0&mode=thread&order=0). It's pretty self-explanatory I think.]
So I am curious as to what the author might propose to solve these problems? At least, compared to many on today's self-described left, Bandow accepts post-9/11 American involvement in Afghanistan - though his describing of it as being "not an easy nation to conquer" while accurate is not really appropriate in this context since the majority of Afghans have no desire to be ruled by the Taliban and no country, especially the USA, has any desire to "conquer" it - but he here refuses to draw the seemingly necessary conclusion: Afghanistan needs more Western military support to enable it to free itself from the possibility of a resurgent Taliban.
While on
According to the anonymous author
I have always loved the
July 17 of this year marks the 70th anniversary of the revolt by Nationalist troops that began the Spanish Civil War that ended in 1939 with the Fall of Madrid and the beginning on Franco's fascist dictatorship. During this time over 40,000 mostly men, but some women, left their homes in countries around the world to fight, and often die, to help save the Republic and stem the rise of fascism. For them, and for the left traditionally, injustice anywhere meant injustice everywhere. For them, one should not hide behind national walls to say "it's none of my business" because people everywhere should be free to determine their own fate. Indeed for them, isolationism and lack of concern for those in other countries were the hallmarks of the very reactionary fascism that the progressive left was meant to oppose. How things have changed.
Is militarism a problem in the world? Most certainly. But one does not intelligently oppose the excessive spending and focus on military means by opposing any military actions whatsoever. It has always struck me as acutely ironic that the majority of whom are most concerned about American intrusions into Canadian sovereignty also seem to be the most against increased military spending; having the practical effect of leaving
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
All about food
In this month's issue of Mother Jones magazine (and available online at http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/05/no_bar_code.html) is a very interesting article on an evangelical Christian organic farmer who lives and works in Pennsylvania - with a difference. The organic food industry has grown enormously over the last 10 years, but it's debatable how much of a good thing this atually is.
I’d heard a lot about the quality of the meat raised on [this] “beyond organic” farm, and was eager to sample some. Salatin and his family raise a half-dozen different species (grass-fed beef, chickens, pigs, turkeys, and rabbits) in an intricate rotation that has made his 550 hilly acres of pasture and woods in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley one of the most productive and sustainable small farms in America. But when I telephoned Joel to ask him to send me a broiler, he said he couldn’t do that. I figured he meant he wasn’t set up for shipping, so I offered to have an overnight delivery service come pick it up.
“No, I don’t think you understand. I don’t believe it’s sustainable—‘organic,’ if you will—to FedEx meat all around the country,” Joel told me. “I’m afraid if you want to try one of our chickens, you’re going to have to drive down here to pick it up.”
This man was serious. He went on to explain that Polyface does not ship long distance, does not sell to supermarkets, and does not wholesale its food. All of the meat and eggs that Polyface produces is eaten within a few dozen miles or, at the most, half a day’s drive of the farm—within the farm’s “foodshed.” At first I assumed Joel’s motive for keeping his food chain so short was strictly environmental—to save on the prodigious quantities of fossil fuel Americans burn moving their food around the country and, increasingly today, the world. (The typical fruit or vegetable on an American’s plate travels some 1,500 miles to get there, and is frequently better traveled and more worldly than its eater.) But after taking Joel up on his offer to drive down to Swoope, Virginia, to pick up a chicken, I picked up a great deal more—about the renaissance of local food systems, and the values they support, values that go far beyond the ones a food buyer supports when he or she buys organic in the supermarket. It turns out that Joel Salatin, and the local food movement he’s become an influential part of, is out to save a whole lot more than energy.
The whole article is fascinating, but especially so in relation to the opinions of the well-known (to some anyways) ethicist Peter Singer. In an article/interview on Salon.com (at http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/05/08/singer/ and requires watching of a brief advertisement) Singer argues against the very ideas of local food that Joel Salatin and other usual advocates of organic food usually so cherish; based on his utilitarian ethical principles.
In your book you say that socially responsible folks in San Francisco would do better to buy their rice from Bangladesh than from local growers in California. Could you explain?
This is in reference to the local food movement, and the idea that you can save fossil fuels by not transporting food long distances. This is a widespread belief, and of course it has some basis. Other things being equal, if your food is grown locally, you will save on fossil fuels. But other things are often not equal. California rice is produced using artificial irrigation and fertilizer that involves energy use. Bangladeshi rice takes advantage of the natural flooding of the rivers and doesn't require artificial irrigation. It also doesn't involve as much synthetic fertilizer because the rivers wash down nutrients, so it's significantly less energy intensive to produce. Now, it's then shipped across the world, but shipping is an extremely fuel-efficient form of transport. You can ship something 10,000 miles for the same amount of fuel necessary to truck it 1,000 miles. So if you're getting your rice shipped to San Francisco from Bangladesh, fewer fossil fuels were used to get it there than if you bought it in California.
In the same vein, you argue that in the interests of alleviating world poverty, it's better to buy food from Kenya than to buy locally, even if the Kenyan farmer only gets 2 cents on the dollar.
My argument is that we should not necessarily buy locally, because if we do, we cut out the opportunity for the poorest countries to trade with us, and agriculture is one of the things they can do, and which can help them develop. The objection to this, which I quote from Brian Halweil, one of the leading advocates of the local movement, is that very little of the money actually gets back to the Kenyan farmer. But my calculations show that even if as little as 2 cents on the dollar gets back to the Kenyan farmer, that could make a bigger difference to the Kenyan grower than an entire dollar would to a local grower. It's the law of diminishing marginal utility. If you are only earning $300, 2 cents can make a bigger difference to you than a dollar can make to the person earning $30,000.
I’d heard a lot about the quality of the meat raised on [this] “beyond organic” farm, and was eager to sample some. Salatin and his family raise a half-dozen different species (grass-fed beef, chickens, pigs, turkeys, and rabbits) in an intricate rotation that has made his 550 hilly acres of pasture and woods in Virginia’s Shenandoah Valley one of the most productive and sustainable small farms in America. But when I telephoned Joel to ask him to send me a broiler, he said he couldn’t do that. I figured he meant he wasn’t set up for shipping, so I offered to have an overnight delivery service come pick it up.
“No, I don’t think you understand. I don’t believe it’s sustainable—‘organic,’ if you will—to FedEx meat all around the country,” Joel told me. “I’m afraid if you want to try one of our chickens, you’re going to have to drive down here to pick it up.”
This man was serious. He went on to explain that Polyface does not ship long distance, does not sell to supermarkets, and does not wholesale its food. All of the meat and eggs that Polyface produces is eaten within a few dozen miles or, at the most, half a day’s drive of the farm—within the farm’s “foodshed.” At first I assumed Joel’s motive for keeping his food chain so short was strictly environmental—to save on the prodigious quantities of fossil fuel Americans burn moving their food around the country and, increasingly today, the world. (The typical fruit or vegetable on an American’s plate travels some 1,500 miles to get there, and is frequently better traveled and more worldly than its eater.) But after taking Joel up on his offer to drive down to Swoope, Virginia, to pick up a chicken, I picked up a great deal more—about the renaissance of local food systems, and the values they support, values that go far beyond the ones a food buyer supports when he or she buys organic in the supermarket. It turns out that Joel Salatin, and the local food movement he’s become an influential part of, is out to save a whole lot more than energy.
The whole article is fascinating, but especially so in relation to the opinions of the well-known (to some anyways) ethicist Peter Singer. In an article/interview on Salon.com (at http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/05/08/singer/ and requires watching of a brief advertisement) Singer argues against the very ideas of local food that Joel Salatin and other usual advocates of organic food usually so cherish; based on his utilitarian ethical principles.
In your book you say that socially responsible folks in San Francisco would do better to buy their rice from Bangladesh than from local growers in California. Could you explain?
This is in reference to the local food movement, and the idea that you can save fossil fuels by not transporting food long distances. This is a widespread belief, and of course it has some basis. Other things being equal, if your food is grown locally, you will save on fossil fuels. But other things are often not equal. California rice is produced using artificial irrigation and fertilizer that involves energy use. Bangladeshi rice takes advantage of the natural flooding of the rivers and doesn't require artificial irrigation. It also doesn't involve as much synthetic fertilizer because the rivers wash down nutrients, so it's significantly less energy intensive to produce. Now, it's then shipped across the world, but shipping is an extremely fuel-efficient form of transport. You can ship something 10,000 miles for the same amount of fuel necessary to truck it 1,000 miles. So if you're getting your rice shipped to San Francisco from Bangladesh, fewer fossil fuels were used to get it there than if you bought it in California.
In the same vein, you argue that in the interests of alleviating world poverty, it's better to buy food from Kenya than to buy locally, even if the Kenyan farmer only gets 2 cents on the dollar.
My argument is that we should not necessarily buy locally, because if we do, we cut out the opportunity for the poorest countries to trade with us, and agriculture is one of the things they can do, and which can help them develop. The objection to this, which I quote from Brian Halweil, one of the leading advocates of the local movement, is that very little of the money actually gets back to the Kenyan farmer. But my calculations show that even if as little as 2 cents on the dollar gets back to the Kenyan farmer, that could make a bigger difference to the Kenyan grower than an entire dollar would to a local grower. It's the law of diminishing marginal utility. If you are only earning $300, 2 cents can make a bigger difference to you than a dollar can make to the person earning $30,000.
What to make of these conflicting viewpoints? For Salatin and other advocates of the importance of local food, its value is simply not reducible to a question of simply to whom the profit goes, as Singer does. This is, of course, the problem with utilitarian ethics; necessarily relying on quantification, and disregarding as meaningless that which cannot be so portrayed, to solve ethical dilemnas. The value of food as part of an active web of individual relationships based on sustainable agricultural practices becomes metaphysical mumbo-jumbo in comparison to the "fact" that poor countries in the world can grow food cheaper than rich countries. The utilitarian ethical calculus therefore demands that rich countries should import as much food as possible from poor countries, irrespective of their own agricultural capacities, as a way of alleviating poverty.
More later...
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Worth a read
I would be remiss were I to not mention a topic of great discussion, primarily in Britain its land of origin: the so-called Euston Manisfesto.
First published in the British New Statesman (found online at http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/eustonmanifesto/2006/04/07/manifesto/) it also has its own web site where the text can be downloaded (http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/). It calls for today's Left to re-evaluate what it should stand for: forbearing reflexive anti-Israel and American sentiments, while proclaiming loudly deserved criticisms of these and any other countries; to offer unrelenting support to progressive forces around the world, even those who find themselves - like the Kurds in Iraq and the labour unions in Iran - on the same side as the USA to mention only a couple of things. A few quotes:
We defend liberal and pluralist democracies against all who make light of the differences between them and totalitarian and other tyrannical regimes. But these democracies have their own deficits and shortcomings. The battle for the development of more democratic institutions and procedures, for further empowering those without influence, without a voice or with few political resources, is a permanent part of the agenda of the Left.
The social and economic foundations on which the liberal democracies have developed are marked by deep inequalities of wealth and income and the survival of unmerited privilege. In turn, global inequalities are a scandal to the moral conscience of humankind. Millions live in terrible poverty. Week in, week out, tens of thousands of people - children in particular - die from preventable illnesses. Inequalities of wealth, both as between individuals and between countries, distribute life chances in an arbitrary way.
These things are a standing indictment against the international community. We on the Left, in keeping with our own traditions, fight for justice and a decent life for everyone. In keeping with those same traditions, we have also to fight against powerful forces of totalitarian-style tyranny that are on the march again. Both battles have to be fought simultaneously. One should not be sacrificed for the other.
We repudiate the way of thinking according to which the events of September 11 2001 were America’s deserved comeuppance, or ‘understandable’ in the light of legitimate grievances resulting from US foreign policy. What was done on that day was an act of mass murder, motivated by odious fundamentalist beliefs and redeemed by nothing whatsoever. No evasive formula can hide that.
The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted - rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.
What thinks you? I'll hopefully get around to writing my comment soon...
First published in the British New Statesman (found online at http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/eustonmanifesto/2006/04/07/manifesto/) it also has its own web site where the text can be downloaded (http://eustonmanifesto.org/joomla/). It calls for today's Left to re-evaluate what it should stand for: forbearing reflexive anti-Israel and American sentiments, while proclaiming loudly deserved criticisms of these and any other countries; to offer unrelenting support to progressive forces around the world, even those who find themselves - like the Kurds in Iraq and the labour unions in Iran - on the same side as the USA to mention only a couple of things. A few quotes:
We defend liberal and pluralist democracies against all who make light of the differences between them and totalitarian and other tyrannical regimes. But these democracies have their own deficits and shortcomings. The battle for the development of more democratic institutions and procedures, for further empowering those without influence, without a voice or with few political resources, is a permanent part of the agenda of the Left.
The social and economic foundations on which the liberal democracies have developed are marked by deep inequalities of wealth and income and the survival of unmerited privilege. In turn, global inequalities are a scandal to the moral conscience of humankind. Millions live in terrible poverty. Week in, week out, tens of thousands of people - children in particular - die from preventable illnesses. Inequalities of wealth, both as between individuals and between countries, distribute life chances in an arbitrary way.
These things are a standing indictment against the international community. We on the Left, in keeping with our own traditions, fight for justice and a decent life for everyone. In keeping with those same traditions, we have also to fight against powerful forces of totalitarian-style tyranny that are on the march again. Both battles have to be fought simultaneously. One should not be sacrificed for the other.
We repudiate the way of thinking according to which the events of September 11 2001 were America’s deserved comeuppance, or ‘understandable’ in the light of legitimate grievances resulting from US foreign policy. What was done on that day was an act of mass murder, motivated by odious fundamentalist beliefs and redeemed by nothing whatsoever. No evasive formula can hide that.
The founding supporters of this statement took different views on the military intervention in Iraq, both for and against. We recognize that it was possible reasonably to disagree about the justification for the intervention, the manner in which it was carried through, the planning (or lack of it) for the aftermath, and the prospects for the successful implementation of democratic change. We are, however, united in our view about the reactionary, semi-fascist and murderous character of the Baathist regime in Iraq, and we recognize its overthrow as a liberation of the Iraqi people. We are also united in the view that, since the day on which this occurred, the proper concern of genuine liberals and members of the Left should have been the battle to put in place in Iraq a democratic political order and to rebuild the country’s infrastructure, to create after decades of the most brutal oppression a life for Iraqis which those living in democratic countries take for granted - rather than picking through the rubble of the arguments over intervention.
What thinks you? I'll hopefully get around to writing my comment soon...
Friday, April 21, 2006
The BBC on Taiwan and China
"The Chinese may have been willing to overlook the foul-up as their National Anthem was introduced as that of "the Republic of China" - the other name for Taiwan - the part of China that has rebelled and broken away from the mainland and sought security from the United States." (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4929066.stm)
This paragraph of Jonathan Beale's otherwise good story of the Falun Gong protester at the Washington D.C. meeting of Bush and Jintao deserves a correction. Anyone who has done even the most basic research into the history of the China-Taiwan dispute knows that Taiwan never "rebelled" or broke away from the mainland and to say so in this article is to regurgitate the Chinese government's own propaganda - something I would hope the BBC would have the decency to avoid. I'll here avoid pedantically recounting the real story behind Taiwan's separateness from the mainland as the information is easily accessible online - wikipedia.org being the most obvious - but it deserves a correction or the BBC will have become nothing but a tool of China's authoritarian ways. I can almost see it: next, in an article about Tibet, they'll be stating that PRC troops "liberated" it from "bourgeois oppression." Please...
This paragraph of Jonathan Beale's otherwise good story of the Falun Gong protester at the Washington D.C. meeting of Bush and Jintao deserves a correction. Anyone who has done even the most basic research into the history of the China-Taiwan dispute knows that Taiwan never "rebelled" or broke away from the mainland and to say so in this article is to regurgitate the Chinese government's own propaganda - something I would hope the BBC would have the decency to avoid. I'll here avoid pedantically recounting the real story behind Taiwan's separateness from the mainland as the information is easily accessible online - wikipedia.org being the most obvious - but it deserves a correction or the BBC will have become nothing but a tool of China's authoritarian ways. I can almost see it: next, in an article about Tibet, they'll be stating that PRC troops "liberated" it from "bourgeois oppression." Please...
Monday, March 27, 2006
Of these protests in France...
So only a few months after France saw out-of-control rioting comes mass protests by students and unions against a new labour law that would make it easier (horror of horrors!) for employers to fire new employees in the first two years - something that is now next to impossible. As someone from Canada where such a reality is so commonplace as to merit not the slightest mention were France not at present so worrisomely convulsed, it is hard to feel much sympathy for the protesters. France's economy is in desperate need of reform; that such a minor and obviously needed change as this could arouse such indignation reveals a great deal as what has gone wrong with this formerly great country.
A couple days ago in The Washington Post anyways, Claire Berlinski wrote a great op-ed piece about the situation deserving of a read. (Found in its entirety at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032402401.html)
This is the second time in four months that France has been seized with violent protests. And in an important sense, these are counter-riots, since the goals of the privileged students conflict with those of the suburban rioters who took to the streets last November. The message of the suburban rioters: Things must change. The message of the students: Things must stay the same. In other words: Screw the immigrants.
The issue at stake is not, of course, the CPE, which in addition to being unknown in its effects would apply only to a two-year trial period, after which employees would still, effectively, be guaranteed jobs for life. The issue is fear of a real overhaul of France's economically stifling labor laws. While some of the suburban hoodlums have joined in these protests -- after all, a riot is a riot -- it is clear that unless this overhaul proceeds, the immigrants are doomed. If so, last year's violence will seem a lark compared with what is coming.
Curiously, however, no French politician will say this openly. They will not even say these obvious words: France is a representative democracy; if you don't like what your elected leaders are doing, you can vote against them. Some more words you will never hear in France: Students who continue to disrupt civil and academic life will be expelled. Strikers will be fired. We are calling in the troops.
Instead, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin is nightly seen on television, earnestly proposing one compromise after the other, even as his supporters scuttle for cover. The powerful barons of the labor unions, on the other hand -- the puppet masters of that golden flock of imbeciles now on the streets -- can scarcely be bothered to give interviews. Compromise? Only when the law is repealed. By then, of course, compromise would be unnecessary. Instead of negotiations, they call for a general strike.
That's because France is still in the grip of precisely the political mentality that has prevailed here since the Middle Ages. As the protesters themselves cheerfully declare: It's the street that rules. Today's mobs, like their predecessors, are notable for their poor grasp of economic principles and their hostility to the free market. Only wardrobe distinguishes these demonstrations from those that led to the invasion of the national convention in 1795, when first the mob protested that commodity prices were too high; when the government responded with price controls, it protested with equal vigor that goods had disappeared and black market prices had risen. Similarly, the students on the streets today espouse economic views entirely unpolluted by reality. If the CPE is enacted, said one young woman, "You'll get a job knowing that you've got to do every single thing they ask you to do because otherwise you may get sacked."
Imagine that.
Update:
On today's Slate.com is an article by Elizabeth Eaves entitled "March Malaise" about the protests. She discusses the law they're ostensibly protesting against, but also offers a interesting, if rather depressing, window into the mentality of the protesters. (http://www.slate.com/id/2138949/)
There appeared to be three kinds of demonstrators. Some, like the group dancing around a bongo drum at the Place de la République, or the dreadlocked kids swigging beer and smoking joints as they ambled through the Place de la Bastille, had apparently come for a big day out. Then there were the casseurs, troublemakers in from the suburbs, looking for opportunities for mayhem. The morning news had reported that police would be monitoring inbound trains to keep the casseurs out of the city center; this would presumably involve targeting black and Arab young men.
The third and largest group was comprised of people out for the cause—or causes. Members of ACT UP Paris marched with signs pointing out that "AIDS is still with us." A Marxist group sold Che Guevara T-shirts. And everywhere, on stickers, signs, and T-shirts, and shouted through bullhorns, the demonstrators declared themselves to be "contre la précarité!"
Against precariousness, instability, uncertainty. I'm trying for the kindest translation here, but even so, the sentiment is hard (for an Anglo-Saxon capitalist) to take seriously. Except, if more than a million French citizens take to the streets to demand that the government protect them from uncertainty, something must be seriously wrong, even if it's not the CPE.
A couple days ago in The Washington Post anyways, Claire Berlinski wrote a great op-ed piece about the situation deserving of a read. (Found in its entirety at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/24/AR2006032402401.html)
This is the second time in four months that France has been seized with violent protests. And in an important sense, these are counter-riots, since the goals of the privileged students conflict with those of the suburban rioters who took to the streets last November. The message of the suburban rioters: Things must change. The message of the students: Things must stay the same. In other words: Screw the immigrants.
The issue at stake is not, of course, the CPE, which in addition to being unknown in its effects would apply only to a two-year trial period, after which employees would still, effectively, be guaranteed jobs for life. The issue is fear of a real overhaul of France's economically stifling labor laws. While some of the suburban hoodlums have joined in these protests -- after all, a riot is a riot -- it is clear that unless this overhaul proceeds, the immigrants are doomed. If so, last year's violence will seem a lark compared with what is coming.
Curiously, however, no French politician will say this openly. They will not even say these obvious words: France is a representative democracy; if you don't like what your elected leaders are doing, you can vote against them. Some more words you will never hear in France: Students who continue to disrupt civil and academic life will be expelled. Strikers will be fired. We are calling in the troops.
Instead, Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin is nightly seen on television, earnestly proposing one compromise after the other, even as his supporters scuttle for cover. The powerful barons of the labor unions, on the other hand -- the puppet masters of that golden flock of imbeciles now on the streets -- can scarcely be bothered to give interviews. Compromise? Only when the law is repealed. By then, of course, compromise would be unnecessary. Instead of negotiations, they call for a general strike.
That's because France is still in the grip of precisely the political mentality that has prevailed here since the Middle Ages. As the protesters themselves cheerfully declare: It's the street that rules. Today's mobs, like their predecessors, are notable for their poor grasp of economic principles and their hostility to the free market. Only wardrobe distinguishes these demonstrations from those that led to the invasion of the national convention in 1795, when first the mob protested that commodity prices were too high; when the government responded with price controls, it protested with equal vigor that goods had disappeared and black market prices had risen. Similarly, the students on the streets today espouse economic views entirely unpolluted by reality. If the CPE is enacted, said one young woman, "You'll get a job knowing that you've got to do every single thing they ask you to do because otherwise you may get sacked."
Imagine that.
Update:
On today's Slate.com is an article by Elizabeth Eaves entitled "March Malaise" about the protests. She discusses the law they're ostensibly protesting against, but also offers a interesting, if rather depressing, window into the mentality of the protesters. (http://www.slate.com/id/2138949/)
There appeared to be three kinds of demonstrators. Some, like the group dancing around a bongo drum at the Place de la République, or the dreadlocked kids swigging beer and smoking joints as they ambled through the Place de la Bastille, had apparently come for a big day out. Then there were the casseurs, troublemakers in from the suburbs, looking for opportunities for mayhem. The morning news had reported that police would be monitoring inbound trains to keep the casseurs out of the city center; this would presumably involve targeting black and Arab young men.
The third and largest group was comprised of people out for the cause—or causes. Members of ACT UP Paris marched with signs pointing out that "AIDS is still with us." A Marxist group sold Che Guevara T-shirts. And everywhere, on stickers, signs, and T-shirts, and shouted through bullhorns, the demonstrators declared themselves to be "contre la précarité!"
Against precariousness, instability, uncertainty. I'm trying for the kindest translation here, but even so, the sentiment is hard (for an Anglo-Saxon capitalist) to take seriously. Except, if more than a million French citizens take to the streets to demand that the government protect them from uncertainty, something must be seriously wrong, even if it's not the CPE.
Sunday, March 26, 2006
On Music and Traditions
In the world of classical music (most notably with the piano) there is a long history of performance styles passed down from their innovators by teachers from their general codification in the 19th century. In the non-classical music world, on the other hand, there is an inherent resistance to such a tradition of styles as originality (or at least the pretense of) is of such primary importance. Yet as the innovators in these popular musical styles recede into the past it would be of great service to the musical community, and to the listening public in general, to not let their musical innovations disappear along with them.
One notable example, especially relevant to those who play the electric bass, is the playing of Phil Lesh, the bassist in the Grateful Dead who now performs mostly with his own group Phil and Friends. Though the Dead were (and still are by some) dismissed as an inconsequential group of 60’s “hippy” leftovers, the devotion of their so-called “Deadhead” followers was perhaps matched only by the originality of their sound; a large part of which had to do with Lesh’s unique approach to the bass guitar.
Eschewing the finger plucked, “playing the root” style of most electric bassists, Lesh crafted a distinctive, contrapuntal approach (usually always using a plectrum), that was of crucial importance to the development and delivery of the Dead’s sound. Whereas nearly all other popular music groups in the history of the genre have played their songs (as well as their set-lists and indeed entire concerts) as similarly as possible each time they performed, the Dead, influenced as they were by directions in modern jazz, self-consciously tried to never duplicate themselves: “to never play a song the same way twice” was their unofficial motto. Not only did individual songs find themselves being constantly re-invented, however, but their concerts as well. Planned set lists were avoided in favor of getting on stage and figuring things out as they went along, which often meant (and deliberately so) not the usual practice of individuated 3-5 minute songs, but rather long stretches of unbroken music involving improvised segues between their always already partially improvised songs. Lesh’s relation to this can best be understood through a brief digression into the specifics of his playing style, and how different it is from the vast majority of other electric bassists.
The traditional approach to playing the bass in popular music can perhaps best be understood as having a primarily vertical role. As all beginning bass players are usually—and, I agree, should be—taught, the function of the bass, as the lowest pitched instrument, is to define the harmony; meaning that all other notes played at the same time are related by the listener’s ear to the note played by the bass. Thus, a piano player playing an A minor chord (A, C, E) with his left-hand and soloing using an A natural minor scale with his right can find both the chord and the scale he is playing instantly re-defined as soon as a bass player plays an F note; causing the A minor chord to be heard instead as a F major seventh and the A natural minor scale (or Aeolian mode) to respectively become a F Lydian mode (the fourth modal inversion of a C major scale).
Lesh’s style, in contrast, is best understood as functioning much more in terms of the horizontal elements of music. Instead of focusing primarily on defining the vertical harmony by emphasizing the roots and fifths of chords, his playing acts very much like a bass lead guitar in melodic counterpoint to the higher melodic lines; whether sung or played instrumentally. Using thirds and sixths (all the notes of the chord/scale in fact) to a much greater degree than most bassists—often beginning a melodic pattern on a higher pitch and then working down to the chord fundamental—he is able to realize more melodic, and thereby contrapuntal, bass lines than are usually found in popular music.
The problem with this approach, and the justification for the traditional emphasis on roots and fifths, is that it leads to aural instability—harmonies lacking definitive grounding. As the Grateful Dead showed, however, this is not necessarily a bad thing.
As explained above, the Dead’s performances were uniquely characterized by long stretches of music (often lasting an hour or more) made up of alternating rehearsed (at least partially) and non-rehearsed (i.e. improvised) sections. A notable early example of this would be their second set performance from November 8, 1969 at the Fillmore West Auditorium in San Francisco (the entire concert has been officially released as Dick’s Picks 16). The set list (“>” indicating a musical segue) is: “Dark Star>The Other One>Dark Star>Uncle John’s Band Jam>Dark Star>Saint Stephen>The Eleven>Caution (Do Not Stop on Tracks)>The Main Ten>Caution (Do Not…)>Feedback>We Bid You Goodnight.” Notice the recurrence of the same song more than once. This is a common happening for the Dead that means not the same song played twice (or three times as “Dark Star” seems to be here so indicated), but rather different portions, verses or even just the tonal/modal and rhythmic qualities of a song being segued into (and eventually out of) as their temporary improvisational “space.”
In a context like this, Lesh’s melodically-horizontal—yes contrapuntal—bass playing fits perfectly. Indeed it would be hard to imagine the Dead’s musical explorations developing as they did with a more conventional bassist. Though the bass in popular music lacks the inherent “star” quality of the lead instruments (usually vocals and lead guitar) it is arguably of more crucial importance in determining the overall “sound” of an ensemble due to its functionally structural role: helping to define both the rhythmic and harmonic basis (no pun intended) of a song . The harmonic instability due to Lesh’s more horizontal style is then precisely what gives the Dead’s music its sense of momentum, of directionality that is so integral to their extended playing approach. Paradoxically, the other interestingly unique aspect of his playing is his sometimes playing of chords—something most bassists avoid because of the bass’s low pitch and its difficulty when not using a plectrum. (For an excellent example, see the officially released Dick’s Picks 12, first disc, track 7, from approximately 1:06 to 2:23.)
Alright, you might be saying, but why is this important for other bass players with their own styles and methods? The answer is that the more conventional vertical style of bass playing, while highly effective in some contexts, presumes an end result—music with stable, “grounded” harmonies—that should by no means be accepted as necessary or even always desirable. In fact, I would argue, the emphasis on the importance of stable harmonies and the subsequent necessity of therefore playing “vertically” reveals a musical mindset that is characterized by its own kind of stability—utter predictability. For other than musical groups influenced by the Dead (the now defunct Phish, String Cheese Incident and Widespread Panic among others) and those now involving former members of the Dead (Ratdog with Bob Weir and the previously mentioned Phil & Friends), live popular music is for the most part now typified by a total avoidance of risk-taking.
That most performers want to do the best they can each and every performance is an obvious truism. Yet in the past unrepeatable human action, with its inevitable foibles and imperfections, guaranteed that not only would every performance not be perfect, but that indeed sometimes they might fail altogether. In the case of music, the “perfections” that are made possible with all-digital (therefore totally manipulable) recording software such as Pro Tools, and (for live performances) real-time pitch correction effects — the TC Electronics “Intonator” being one of the most popular— (among other things) as part of already completely choreographed shows, however, reveals a performance reality defined by its mechanization and necessary elimination of as much subjective initiative as possible.
The political or broader sociological significance of this should not be hard to see. Art is, I would argue, by definition an expression of human subjectivity; a placing of an order, or at least understanding, around an expression or physical state. For our civilization to have therefore realized an artistic (at least as defined functionally) performance reality that is so fundamentally at odds with this essence of art should be of at least some concern to intelligent people.
An instrumental performance practice that helps counteract this mind-numbing predictability should therefore not be taken lightly, or easily forgotten. And though I think it important to try to develop one’s own “voice” on an instrument, this should not be taken as an emphatic, self-justifying quest for originality. Though it does sometimes happen, the vast majority of legitimate musical (and more broadly artistic) performances have, in fact, nothing, original about them. If originality is supposed to be the criterion of art then few things would indeed so qualify. It is rather the exemplification of a certain skill that is generally sought in artistic performances. When true originality does occur, it is by incremental evolutions—syntheses of what has come before—rather than the supposed inspiration of a lone tormented genius—an overall nefarious idea, still sadly with us, due to the continuing influence of Romanticism, especially in the popular music world, and its veneration of Beethoven’s famous “Heiligenstadt Testament” that was written by him in 1802 at the outset of the hearing loss that would eventually render him completely deaf.
I am by no means here arguing that Lesh’s style should be slavishly imitated by other bassists. Whether anyone could ever, in fact, realize a convincing copy of his playing is itself perhaps doubtful. Yet, that should not discourage musicians, bass players in particular, from learning what they can from one who has made such an original, and so far more or less unique, contribution to the performance practice of an instrument less than sixty years old; as well as to seriously consider what kind of extra-musical political and social effects their performances might have on themselves and on those who listen and watch.
One notable example, especially relevant to those who play the electric bass, is the playing of Phil Lesh, the bassist in the Grateful Dead who now performs mostly with his own group Phil and Friends. Though the Dead were (and still are by some) dismissed as an inconsequential group of 60’s “hippy” leftovers, the devotion of their so-called “Deadhead” followers was perhaps matched only by the originality of their sound; a large part of which had to do with Lesh’s unique approach to the bass guitar.
Eschewing the finger plucked, “playing the root” style of most electric bassists, Lesh crafted a distinctive, contrapuntal approach (usually always using a plectrum), that was of crucial importance to the development and delivery of the Dead’s sound. Whereas nearly all other popular music groups in the history of the genre have played their songs (as well as their set-lists and indeed entire concerts) as similarly as possible each time they performed, the Dead, influenced as they were by directions in modern jazz, self-consciously tried to never duplicate themselves: “to never play a song the same way twice” was their unofficial motto. Not only did individual songs find themselves being constantly re-invented, however, but their concerts as well. Planned set lists were avoided in favor of getting on stage and figuring things out as they went along, which often meant (and deliberately so) not the usual practice of individuated 3-5 minute songs, but rather long stretches of unbroken music involving improvised segues between their always already partially improvised songs. Lesh’s relation to this can best be understood through a brief digression into the specifics of his playing style, and how different it is from the vast majority of other electric bassists.
The traditional approach to playing the bass in popular music can perhaps best be understood as having a primarily vertical role. As all beginning bass players are usually—and, I agree, should be—taught, the function of the bass, as the lowest pitched instrument, is to define the harmony; meaning that all other notes played at the same time are related by the listener’s ear to the note played by the bass. Thus, a piano player playing an A minor chord (A, C, E) with his left-hand and soloing using an A natural minor scale with his right can find both the chord and the scale he is playing instantly re-defined as soon as a bass player plays an F note; causing the A minor chord to be heard instead as a F major seventh and the A natural minor scale (or Aeolian mode) to respectively become a F Lydian mode (the fourth modal inversion of a C major scale).
Lesh’s style, in contrast, is best understood as functioning much more in terms of the horizontal elements of music. Instead of focusing primarily on defining the vertical harmony by emphasizing the roots and fifths of chords, his playing acts very much like a bass lead guitar in melodic counterpoint to the higher melodic lines; whether sung or played instrumentally. Using thirds and sixths (all the notes of the chord/scale in fact) to a much greater degree than most bassists—often beginning a melodic pattern on a higher pitch and then working down to the chord fundamental—he is able to realize more melodic, and thereby contrapuntal, bass lines than are usually found in popular music.
The problem with this approach, and the justification for the traditional emphasis on roots and fifths, is that it leads to aural instability—harmonies lacking definitive grounding. As the Grateful Dead showed, however, this is not necessarily a bad thing.
As explained above, the Dead’s performances were uniquely characterized by long stretches of music (often lasting an hour or more) made up of alternating rehearsed (at least partially) and non-rehearsed (i.e. improvised) sections. A notable early example of this would be their second set performance from November 8, 1969 at the Fillmore West Auditorium in San Francisco (the entire concert has been officially released as Dick’s Picks 16). The set list (“>” indicating a musical segue) is: “Dark Star>The Other One>Dark Star>Uncle John’s Band Jam>Dark Star>Saint Stephen>The Eleven>Caution (Do Not Stop on Tracks)>The Main Ten>Caution (Do Not…)>Feedback>We Bid You Goodnight.” Notice the recurrence of the same song more than once. This is a common happening for the Dead that means not the same song played twice (or three times as “Dark Star” seems to be here so indicated), but rather different portions, verses or even just the tonal/modal and rhythmic qualities of a song being segued into (and eventually out of) as their temporary improvisational “space.”
In a context like this, Lesh’s melodically-horizontal—yes contrapuntal—bass playing fits perfectly. Indeed it would be hard to imagine the Dead’s musical explorations developing as they did with a more conventional bassist. Though the bass in popular music lacks the inherent “star” quality of the lead instruments (usually vocals and lead guitar) it is arguably of more crucial importance in determining the overall “sound” of an ensemble due to its functionally structural role: helping to define both the rhythmic and harmonic basis (no pun intended) of a song . The harmonic instability due to Lesh’s more horizontal style is then precisely what gives the Dead’s music its sense of momentum, of directionality that is so integral to their extended playing approach. Paradoxically, the other interestingly unique aspect of his playing is his sometimes playing of chords—something most bassists avoid because of the bass’s low pitch and its difficulty when not using a plectrum. (For an excellent example, see the officially released Dick’s Picks 12, first disc, track 7, from approximately 1:06 to 2:23.)
Alright, you might be saying, but why is this important for other bass players with their own styles and methods? The answer is that the more conventional vertical style of bass playing, while highly effective in some contexts, presumes an end result—music with stable, “grounded” harmonies—that should by no means be accepted as necessary or even always desirable. In fact, I would argue, the emphasis on the importance of stable harmonies and the subsequent necessity of therefore playing “vertically” reveals a musical mindset that is characterized by its own kind of stability—utter predictability. For other than musical groups influenced by the Dead (the now defunct Phish, String Cheese Incident and Widespread Panic among others) and those now involving former members of the Dead (Ratdog with Bob Weir and the previously mentioned Phil & Friends), live popular music is for the most part now typified by a total avoidance of risk-taking.
That most performers want to do the best they can each and every performance is an obvious truism. Yet in the past unrepeatable human action, with its inevitable foibles and imperfections, guaranteed that not only would every performance not be perfect, but that indeed sometimes they might fail altogether. In the case of music, the “perfections” that are made possible with all-digital (therefore totally manipulable) recording software such as Pro Tools, and (for live performances) real-time pitch correction effects — the TC Electronics “Intonator” being one of the most popular— (among other things) as part of already completely choreographed shows, however, reveals a performance reality defined by its mechanization and necessary elimination of as much subjective initiative as possible.
The political or broader sociological significance of this should not be hard to see. Art is, I would argue, by definition an expression of human subjectivity; a placing of an order, or at least understanding, around an expression or physical state. For our civilization to have therefore realized an artistic (at least as defined functionally) performance reality that is so fundamentally at odds with this essence of art should be of at least some concern to intelligent people.
An instrumental performance practice that helps counteract this mind-numbing predictability should therefore not be taken lightly, or easily forgotten. And though I think it important to try to develop one’s own “voice” on an instrument, this should not be taken as an emphatic, self-justifying quest for originality. Though it does sometimes happen, the vast majority of legitimate musical (and more broadly artistic) performances have, in fact, nothing, original about them. If originality is supposed to be the criterion of art then few things would indeed so qualify. It is rather the exemplification of a certain skill that is generally sought in artistic performances. When true originality does occur, it is by incremental evolutions—syntheses of what has come before—rather than the supposed inspiration of a lone tormented genius—an overall nefarious idea, still sadly with us, due to the continuing influence of Romanticism, especially in the popular music world, and its veneration of Beethoven’s famous “Heiligenstadt Testament” that was written by him in 1802 at the outset of the hearing loss that would eventually render him completely deaf.
I am by no means here arguing that Lesh’s style should be slavishly imitated by other bassists. Whether anyone could ever, in fact, realize a convincing copy of his playing is itself perhaps doubtful. Yet, that should not discourage musicians, bass players in particular, from learning what they can from one who has made such an original, and so far more or less unique, contribution to the performance practice of an instrument less than sixty years old; as well as to seriously consider what kind of extra-musical political and social effects their performances might have on themselves and on those who listen and watch.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)