¿Rove y Libby engañaron a investigadores en filtración de la CIA?
Maria: Hola. De parte de "Democracy Now!" doce cosas que vale hacer notar este fin de semana.
¿Rove y Libby engañaron a investigadores en filtración de la CIA?
La agencia de noticias Bloomberg informa que las dos figuras centrales en la filtración de la identidad de la agente encubierta de la CIA Valerie Plame, podrían haber engañado a los investigadores intencionalmente. La agencia sostiene que el principal asesor del presidente Bush, Karl Rove y el jefe de personal de Dick Cheney Scooter Libby dieron explicaciones a un fiscal especial acerca de cómo los periodistas les informaron la identidad de la agente de la CIA, lo cual contradice lo dicho por los periodistas. Libby le dijo al fiscal especial Patrick Fitzgerald que se enteró por primera vez de la identidad de Plame a través del periodista de NBC Tim Russert. Bloomberg sostiene que Russert declaró ante el gran jurado federal que el no fue quien informó a Libby la identidad de Plame. Mientras que Rove le dijo a Fitzgerald que se enteró por primera vez de la identidad de la agente de la CIA a través del columnista Robert Novak. Sin embargo Bloomberg cita una fuente que dice que Novak le dio una versión diferente al fiscal especial.
Documento identificó a Plame como agente encubierta
Pasamos al escándalo de Karl Rove y la CIA. El Washington Post informa que un documento confidencial del Departamento de Estado fundamental para la investigación federal acerca de quién filtró el nombre de Valerie Plame como agente encubierta de la CIA, contenía información acerca de la agente en el párrafo marcado "(S)", que significa secreto. El Post lo denominó como una clara señal de que cualquier funcionario de gobierno que haya leído el documento debía saber que se trataba de información confidencial. El documento menciona a Plame por su nombre de casada, Valerie Wilson, y se dedica, casi en su totalidad, a explicar por qué los especialistas de inteligencia del Departamento de Estado no creían las afirmaciones de que Saddam Hussein había intentado recientemente comprar uranio a Níger, como había sostenido el esposo de Plame, el embajador Joe Wilson, luego de su misión de investigación al país africano. El documento fue entregado al entonces Secretario de Estado, Colin Powell, el 7 de julio de 2003, mientras se dirigía a África en un viaje con el Presidente Bush en un avión de Air Force One. La identidad de Plame fue revelada siete días después en una columna escrita por Robert Novak. Los fiscales están investigando el registro de llamadas realizadas en el viaje y han interrogado a varios funcionarios de Bush que viajaron con él.
Bush se retracta de despedir a involucrados por caso filtración de CIA
Volvemos a Estados Unidos, donde el presidente Bush parece haber retirado su promesa de despedir a cualquier funcionario involucrado en la revelación de identidad de la agente encubierta de la CIA, Valerie Plame. Existen pruebas claras de que los funcionarios de gobierno Karl Rove, principal asesor del presidente, y Scooter Libby, asesor personal de Dick Cheney, estaban implicados en el caso. Bush señala ahora que despedirá a cualquiera que haya “cometido un delito”, a pesar de que en declaraciones anteriores, tanto el presidente como el vocero de la Casa Blanca, Scott McClellan, habían prometido despedir a cualquier funcionario que estuviera “implicado” en la revelación de identidad de la agente de la CIA. Se trata de una diferencia importante, ya que ahora no se cuestiona el involucramiento de Rove, sino la existencia de un delito en virtud de la Ley de Protección de Identidad de Inteligencia, que por otra parte presenta importantes vacíos legales. En este caso, los fiscales deberán probar que Rove tenía conocimiento que Plame trabajaba como agente encubierta
Ex funcionarios de Inteligencia protestan por filtración de Plame
Mientras tanto, once ex funcionarios de inteligencia redactaron una carta abierta a los líderes del Congreso diciendo que la filtración de la identidad de Plame como funcionaria de la CIA pudo haber perjudicado la seguridad nacional y la capacidad del gobierno para recopilar información. Criticaron al Comité Nacional Republicano por hacer circular puntos de discusión acerca del escándalo, donde sostienen que Plame no trabajaba realmente como agente encubierta porque trabajaba en una oficina en Langley y no ameritaba protección desde el punto de vista jurídico. Los once funcionarios señalan que miles de funcionarios de inteligencia de Estados Unidos que trabajan diariamente en oficinas en la zona de Washington ocultan su identidad al igual que Plame cuando su identidad fue revelada.
Caso Rove: Cooper de la revista Time habla sobre declaración ante el Gran Jurado
Los programas de debate del domingo estuvieron dominados este fin de semana por la investigación de la revelación de la identidad de la agente encubierta de la CIA Valerie Plame. Uno de los protagonistas de la historia, el periodista de la revista Time Matt Cooper, estuvo en el programa de NBC "Meet the press" donde habló acerca de su declaración ante el Gran Jurado. Cooper también escribió un artículo publicado anoche por la revista Time, donde señala que el principal asesor del presidente Bush, Karl Rove, fue la primera persona en decirle a Cooper que Valerie Plame era funcionaria de la CIA. Cooper dijo que declaró esto ante el gran jurado la semana pasada y que Rove finalizó la conversación diciendo que, "ya he dicho demasiado". Cooper escribió que Rove no reveló el nombre de Valerie Plame pero le dijo en julio de 2003 que saldría a la luz pública información que cuestionaría la credibilidad de su esposo, el ex diplomático Joseph Wilson. Cooper escribió, "¿Rove me reveló el nombre de Plame, o me dijo que era una agente encubierta? No. ¿Fue a través de mi conversación con Rove que supe por primera vez que la esposa de Wilson trabajaba para la CIA y podría haber sido responsable de enviarlo a él (a Nigeria)? Sí.. ¿Dijo Rove que ella trabajaba en la 'agencia' en armas de destrucción masiva? Sí". Cooper continuó diciendo "cuando dijo que la información sería pronto revelada ¿estaba eso prohibido? No lo sé. ¿Es algo de esto un delito? Supera mi entendimiento". Cooper escribió que le había dicho antes al gran jurado que ya había hablado de Wilson y de su esposa con Lewis "Scooter" Libby, el jefe de asesores del vicepresidente Dick Cheney. Dijo que le preguntó a Libby acerca de la participación de la esposa de Wilson en el viaje a Nigeria y Libby respondió "Sí, yo escuché lo mismo". Todo esto planteó serios cuestionamientos acerca de si varios funcionarios del gobierno engañaron a la gente y a los investigadores en forma intencional sobre la vinculación de Libby y Rove. El portavoz de la Casa Blanca Scott McClellan dijo en octubre de 2003 que Rove, Libby y otro funcionario habían afirmado no estar involucrados en la revelación de la identidad de Plame.
Nuevos estudios demuestran que política de Estados Unidos radicalizó resistencia iraquí
Dos nuevos estudios cuestionan seriamente las afirmaciones del presidente Bush de que la resistencia en Irak está conformada por yihadistas con experiencia que aprovecharon la oportunidad para hacer de Irak su principal frente. Las dos investigaciones, una realizada por el gobierno saudita y la otra por un investigador israelí, dieron como resultado que la amplia mayoría de los combatientes extranjeros en Irak no son ex terroristas y que la propia guerra los radicalizó. Ambos estudios analizan los antecedentes y motivaciones de cientos de extranjeros que ingresan a Irak a pelear contra Estados Unidos
Ataques de Londres estarían vinculados a la Política de Irak, según principal grupo británico
Mientras el gobierno británico continúa la investigación masiva de los ataques de bomba coordinados en Londres este mes, uno de los más respetados académicos en política exterior, cuestiona las afirmaciones del primer ministro Tony Blair de que los ataques no fueron provocados por la participación de Gran Bretaña en las ocupaciones de Irak y Afganistán. Un nuevo informe de la organización Chatham House dijo que el principal problema para evitar el terrorismo en el Reino Unido es que el país "ocupa el asiento del pasajero en la guerra contra el terrorismo de Estados Unidos". El grupo está formado por prestigiosos intelectuales y ex funcionarios del gobierno. Tony Blair dijo el sábado que los coches bomba fueron motivados por lo que denominó una "ideología malvada" más que por la oposición a cualquier política. Blair denominó las sugerencias en contrario como un "malentendido de orden catastrófico". Sin embargo, Chatham House concluye en el informe que "sin duda" la invasión a Irak impulsó la "propaganda, el reclutamiento y la búsqueda de financiamiento" de la red Al-Qaeda, mientras que le proporcionó una zona ideal para el entrenamiento de terroristas. Continúa diciendo que "estar en el asiento del pasajero con un aliado poderoso demostró ser riesgoso en términos de la pérdida de vidas británicas, estadounidenses e iraquíes; de gasto militar y daño causado a la campaña antiterrorista."
Disparan a miembros sunitas del comité constitucional
Mientras tanto, tres miembros sunitas del comité para redactar la nueva constitución iraquí, murieron en una balacera mientras salían de un restaurante en Bagdad. Los sunitas del comité eran considerados figuras claves en el proceso constitucional organizado por Estados Unidos. Quince miembros sunitas se incorporaron al comité el mes pasado, siendo el primer órgano político en el país con importante representación sunita desde que el nuevo gobierno asumió en abril. Los grupos de la resistencia juraron matar a cualquier sunita que integrara el comité. Se informó que los miembros sunitas abandonaron el comité.
Mujeres perderán derechos en el "nuevo" Irak
Mientras tanto, el New York Times informa que el borrador de la nueva constitución iraquí restringe considerablemente los derechos de las mujeres, imponiendo la ley Sharia o coránica en temas como matrimonio, divorcio y herencia. Limita además su representación en el parlamento. El borrador garantiza derechos legales para las mujeres, en la medida en que no "violen la Sharia", es decir que las mujeres chiítas no podrán casarse sin el permiso de su familia, mientras que sus esposos se podrán divorciar simplemente manifestando su voluntad de hacerlo tres veces y en voz alta. El borrador también elimina una medida incluida en la constitución provisional que exige que las mujeres tengan al menos 25 % de representación parlamentaria. Está programado que el texto constitucional quede terminado para mediados de agosto.
Nuevo estudio indica que murieron 24.000 civiles iraquíes
Un nuevo informe independiente publicado el pasado martes indica que 24.000 civiles iraquíes han muerto violentamente desde que comenzó la invasión de Estados Unidos hace dos años. El estudio concluye que Estados Unidos y su coalición de fuerzas militares son responsables del 37% de las muertes, mientras que las fuerzas contra la ocupación y de resistencia son responsables de un 9%. Otro 36% de las muertes fueron resultado de la violencia criminal. Las cifras divulgadas la semana pasada por el Ministerio del Interior de Irak indican que entre agosto de 2004 y marzo de 2005 un promedio mensual de 800 civiles y policías murieron en ataques de la insurgencia. El informe fue elaborado por Iraq Body Count y Oxford Research Group.
Abogado de Padilla: acúsenlo o libérenlo
El abogado de José Padilla, un ciudadano estadounidense acusado de haber conspirado para detonar una 'bomba sucia' radiactiva, se presentó ante un tribunal federal de apelaciones el martes y exigió al gobierno de Estados Unidos que acusara a su cliente de algún delito o que lo liberara. Pero un abogado del gobierno de Bush le dijo al tribunal que el presidente debe tener autoridad para arrestar a terroristas sospechosos por tiempo indeterminado. El presidente Bush declaró a Padilla "combatiente enemigo", una designación que permite que las fuerzas militares tengan a alguien detenido sin presentar acusaciones, por tiempo indeterminado. Padilla está en la brigada de la Marina en Charleston, Carolina del Sur, y ha pasado los últimos tres años bajo arresto. El tribunal de apelaciones recibió el caso luego de que un juez de Carolina del Sur dictaminara que el gobierno debía acusar a Padilla de algún delito o liberarlo.
Caravana cubana Pastores por la Paz detenida en la frontera
La noticia viene de Texas, donde cientos de voluntarios de Pastores por la Paz, que se preparaban para realizar un envío masivo de ayuda humanitaria a Cuba, fueron detenidos en la frontera entre Estados Unidos y México y podrían permanecer allí varios días.Funcionarios del Departamento de Comercio dicen que registrarán a todos los vehículos de la caravana y cada artículo de ayuda humanitaria, algo que no se hacía desde hace años, y solamente se permitirá pasar a través de la frontera de México aquellos bienes que Washington considere que son "licenciables". Los agentes de la frontera amenazan con remolcar los vehículos de la caravana y ya confiscaron algunas donaciones de ayuda, incluyendo computadoras. Algunos voluntarios atraviesan la frontera de México y Estados Unidos cargando sillas de ruedas, muletas y otros implementos médicos, mientras que otros realizan una protesta en la frontera. Hay 130 ciudadanos estadounidenses que viajan con la delegación, al igual que un camión y dos pequeños autos. Pretenden entregar 140 toneladas en ayuda. El gobierno de Bush extremó las restricciones contra Cuba en 2004, y utiliza fondos de Seguridad Nacional para investigar sospechosos de viajar a la isla.
Maria: Hello again. Francisco is planning on picking this up next week. When C.I. e-mails, I'm happy to this but in case anyone's getting tired of my picks, Francisco is planning to do this next weekend. In English, here are twelve headlines from Democracy Now! Let me say it again: "Read the headlines in English below and ask yourself 'Is there anyone I can pass this on to?'" A lot of you e-mailed to say you alerted at least one person that Democracy Now! is providing their headlines each day in Spanish and English for reading and listening to. Let's try again to get the word out.
Did Rove and Libby Mislead Investigators in CIA Leak?
The Bloomberg News Agency is reporting that the two figures at the center of the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame may have intentionally misled investigators. The agency says that President Bush's senior advisor Karl Rove and Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby both gave accounts to the special prosecutor about how reporters told them the identity of a CIA agent that are at odds with what the reporters have said. Libby told special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald that he first learned Plame's identity from NBC News reporter Tim Russert. Bloomberg says Russert has testified before a federal grand jury that he didn't tell Libby of Plame's identity. Rove, meanwhile, told Fitzgerald that he first learned the identity of the CIA agent from syndicated columnist Robert Novak. But Bloomberg cites a source saying that Novak has given a different version to the special prosecutor. Fitzgerald is investigating whether Libby, Rove, or other administration officials made false statements during the course of the investigation.
Memo Identified Plame as Undercover
Now to the Karl Rove/CIA scandal. The Washington Post is reporting that a classified State Department memo central to the federal investigation into who leaked Valerie Plame's name as an undercover CIA operative contained information about her in a paragraph marked "(S)" for secret. The Post calls it a clear indication that any Bush administration official who read it should have been aware the information was classified. In the memo, Plame is referred to by her married name, Valerie Wilson. Almost the entire memo is devoted to describing why State Department intelligence experts did not believe claims that Saddam Hussein had in the recent past sought to purchase uranium from Niger, as Plame's husband Ambassador Joe Wilson asserted after his fact-finding mission to the African nation. The memo was delivered to Secretary of State Colin Powell on July 7, 2003, as he headed to Africa for a trip with President Bush aboard Air Force One. Plame was unmasked in a syndicated column by Robert Novak seven days later. Prosecutors are reviewing the phone records from that trip and have questioned several of Bush's staffers who were on that trip.
Bush Backs Off Pledge to Fire Anyone 'Involved' in CIA Leak
Back in this country, President Bush on Monday appeared to backtrack on his pledge to fire anyone involved in the outing of CIA operative Valerie Plame. Amid clear evidence that two senior administration officials were involved--namely his senior advisor Karl Rove and Dick Cheney's Chief of Staff Scooter Libby--Bush now says he will fire anyone who "committed a crime." Earlier statements by the president and the White House spokesperson, Scott McClellan, had promised that anyone "involved" in the leak would be fired. The distinction is an important one given there is little debate that Rove is involved. But there is debate over whether he committed a crime under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act, which has significant loopholes. For example, prosecutors would have to prove that Rove knew Plame was operating undercover.
Former Intel Officers Protest Plame Leak
Meanwhile, eleven former intelligence officers have written an open letter to Congressional leaders saying the outing of Plame as a CIA operative may have damaged national security and the government's ability to gather intelligence. They blasted the Republican National Committee for circulating talking points about the scandal that allege that Plame was not really working undercover because she worked at a desk in Langley and legally merited no protection. The eleven point out that thousands of U.S. intelligence officers work at desks in the Washington area every day whose identities are shielded, as Plame's was when her identity was leaked.
Rove Watch: Time’s Cooper Speaks About Grand Jury Testimony
The Sunday talk shows this weekend were dominated by the ongoing investigation into the outing of covert CIA operative Valerie Plame. One of those at the center of the story, Time magazine reporter Matt Cooper, appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press" where he discussed his testimony in front of the Grand Jury. Cooper also has an article piublished last night by Time in which he says that President Bush's senior advisor, Karl Rove, was the first person to tell Cooper that Valerie Plame was a CIA officer. Cooper said he told that to a grand jury last week and that Rove ended the call by saying "I've already said too much." Cooper wrote that Rove did not disclose Valerie Plame's name, but told him in July 2003 that information would be declassified that would cast doubt on the credibility of her husband, former diplomat Joseph Wilson. Cooper wrote, "So did Rove leak Plame's name to me, or tell me she was covert? No. Was it through my conversation with Rove that I learned for the first time that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA and may have been responsible for sending him? Yes. Did Rove say that she worked at the 'agency' on 'WMD'? Yes," Cooper continues, "When he said things would be declassified soon, was that itself impermissible? I don't know. Is any of this a crime? Beats me." Cooper wrote he had previously told the grand jury he had also discussed Wilson and his wife with Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff. He said he asked Libby about Wilson's wife playing a role in the Niger trip, and Libby replied, "Yeah, I've heard that too." This all raises serious questions about whether several administration officials intentionally misled the public and investigators about the involvement of Libby and Rove. White House spokesperson Scott McClellan said in October 2003 that Rove, Libby and another official had assured him they were uninvolved in the leak.
New Studies Show Fighters in Iraq Radicalized by US Policy
This comes as 2 new studies are casting serious doubt on President Bush's claims that the resistance in Iraq is made up of career jihadists who have seized on the opportunity to make Iraq their central front. The two investigations--one by the Saudi Arabian government and the other by an Israeli think tank--have found that the vast majority of foreign fighters in Iraq are not former terrorists and became radicalized by the war itself. Both studies analyzed the backgrounds and motivations of hundreds of foreigners entering Iraq to fight the United States.
London Bombings Linked to Iraq Policy, Says Leading UK Group
As the British government continues its massive investigation into this month's coordinated London bomb attacks, one of Britain's most respected foreign policy thinktanks is challenging Prime Minister Tony Blair's claim that the bombings were not a result of British involvement in the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan. A new report by the Chatham House organization said the key problem in the UK for preventing terrorism is that the country is "riding as a pillion passenger with the United States in the war against terror". The group is made up of leading academics and former government officials. On Saturday, Tony Blair said the bombers were driven by what he called an "evil ideology" rather than opposition to any policy. Blair called suggestions to the contrary a "misunderstanding of a catastrophic order." But in its report, Chatham House concludes there is "no doubt" the invasion of Iraq has "given a boost to the al-Qaida network" in "propaganda, recruitment and fundraising", while providing an ideal targeting and training area for terrorists. It goes on "Riding pillion with a powerful ally has proved costly in terms of British and US military lives, Iraqi lives, military expenditure and the damage caused to the counter-terrorism campaign."
Sunni Members of Iraq Constitutional Committee Gunned Down
Meanwhile, three Sunni Arab members of the committee drafting the country's new constitution were gunned down as they left a Baghdad restaurant on Tuesday. The Sunnis on the committee were seen as central figures in the U.S.-organized constitutional process. Fifteen Sunni members joined it last month, making it the first nationwide political body to include significant Sunni representation since the new government took power in April. Resistance groups have sworn to kill any Sunnis that took part. As we went to air, there were reports that the Sunni members were pulling out of the committee.
Women to Lose Rights in 'New' Iraq
Meanwhile, the New York Times is reporting that a draft of Iraq's new constitution would greatly curtail women's rights, imposing the Sharia or Koranic law in personal matters like marriage, divorce and inheritance. It also would limit their representation in parliament. The draft would guarantee legal rights for women, as long as they do not "violate Sharia," meaning that Shiite women could not marry without their family's permission and that husbands could divorce them simply by saying so out loud three times. The draft would also drop or phase out a measure included in the interim constitution requiring that women make up at least 25 percent of the parliament. The constitution is set to be finalized by mid-August.
New Study Says 24,000 Iraqi Civilians Killed
A new independent report released Tuesday puts the number of Iraqi civilians who died violent deaths in the two years since the US-led invasion began at more than 24,000. The study found that US and coalition military forces were responsible for 37% of the deaths, with anti-occupation forces and the resistance responsible for 9%. A further 36% were blamed on criminal violence. Figures obtained last week from the Iraqi interior ministry put the average civilian and police officer death toll in insurgent attacks from August 2004 to March 2005 at 800 a month. The report was done by Iraq Body Count and the Oxford Research Group.
Padilla Lawyer: Charge Him or Free Him
A lawyer for Jose Padilla, a US citizen accused of plotting to detonate a radioactive "dirty bomb,'' went before a federal appeals court Tuesday and demanded the U.S. government either charge his client with a crime or set him free. But a Bush administration lawyer told the court that the president must have authority to indefinitely detain terror suspects. President Bush declared Padilla an "enemy combatant,'' a designation that allows the military to hold someone indefinitely without charges. Padilla is in the Navy brig in Charleston, S.C., and has been held for the past three years. The appeals court received the case after a South Carolina judge ruled that the government must charge Padilla with a crime or release him.
Pastors for Peace Cuba Caravan Stopped at Border
This news from Texas. Hundreds of Pastors for Peace volunteers preparing to deliver a massive shipment of humanitarian aid to Cuba have been barred at the U.S.-Mexico border and could be held there for days. Commerce Department officials are saying they will search every vehicle in the caravan and every item of humanitarian aid, which hasn't been done for years, and they will only allow what Washington deems "licensable" goods to be allowed to cross into Mexico. Border agents are threatening to tow the caravan's vehicles and have already seized some aid donations, including computers. Some volunteers are walking across the U.S.-Mexico border carrying wheelchairs, crutches and other medical supplies. Others are holding a protest at the border. There are 130 U.S. citizens traveling with the delegation, as well as a truck and 2 small cars. They are attempting to deliver 140 tons of aid. The Bush Administration tightened restrictions against Cuba in 2004, and is using Homeland Security funds to investigate those suspected of travel to the island.
Sunday, July 24, 2005
Kat's Korner: Good God Carole! What crawled into the living room!
Below is Kat's epic review. She got e-mails on it, we got e-mails on it here. We think it's an amazing piece of writing regardless of what you think of Carole King's The Living Room Tour. (We also happen to agree with the points Kat made and check out our musical feature this edition which is a discussion of the album and the review with Kat, Jess and C.I.)
Kat's Korner: Good God Carole! What crawled into the living room!
Carole King is not primarily a lyricist. Primarily, she's a composer.
Now you'll read the hack books from time to time and come across some idiotic nonsense like "Carole King sat down at her typewriter and wrote Tapestry."
That's incorrect. Carole did write the lyrics to some songs on Tapestry (such as "You've Got a Friend" and "So Far Away"); however, the reality is that many more were not written by her.And if I haven't shocked you (and some "rock critics" may be shocked because they repeat so many lies so often they apparently don't even realize it when it makes it into one of their books), let me go further. In the sixties, when Carole was writing hit after hit, she was the composer.
Gerry Goffin (not "Jerry Goffin" as one idiot refugee from Rolling Stone wrote in a book that's key element was "self-embarrassment) wrote the words, Carole wrote the music.I don't know if it's a "girl's are so much better at verbal" nonsense vibe that assures them that King must have written lyrics and brought in composers as co-writers or if they're just lazy. But Carole is primarily a composer.
If there's still any doubt, put The Living Room Tour (her new, double disc, live album) into your CD player. Cue up track four on the second disc. "Sweet Seasons."I'm going to bet that a lot of you know the song. Maybe some fans of the song, including me, can play it on the piano. It's a great song to play, it's a great song to sing along with. It's a fun song but it's got a bit of truth in it, a bit of reality.
Or it did.
"What the f**k!" screamed Sumner.
"Start that over!" yelled Toni.
Maggie hadn't noticed.
Dak-Ho wasn't sure what he'd heard.
I don't know if it's enough to spoil The Living Room Tour for you, but it's a problem. Maybe it will demonstrate finally to everyone who couldn't catch on before that Carole King is not primarily a lyricist.
In case you don't remember this 1971 hit single (off the album Music), it starts out:
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose
And sometimes the blues get ahold of you
Just when you thought you had made it.
Or it did, this song with lyrics by Toni Stern and music by Carole King. It did start off that way.
The Living Room Tour, we're told in notes and in Carole's spoken remarks between performances is the result of small performance during 2004 where she was usually in the room with one or more politicians. She was fundraising and getting the word out. She did that for John Kerry and other candidates.
There's nothing wrong with that. I voted for Kerry. Carole's always a performer who makes a point to be counted at election time. If this album was a recording of one or more of those performance, I'd roll my eyes and get over it.
E-mails keep asking, "Don't you love this album?" I so do not love this album. I so do not love this album that I don't intend to listen to it again.
"There's one word that politicians do not like." Carole says something like that as she sets up "Sweet Seasons." They don't like it and Carole strikes it. The word "lose."
Politician's don't like the word "lose." Well tough on politicians unless this album was made to be handed out to Congress.
Nobody gave me this album, I bought it. I bought it because I love Carole King's work.
She's ruined "Sweet Seasons."
She can't even see that. If she could, she'd have picked another track to include instead of "Sweet Seasons." If she could grasp how she has destroyed the song, she'd want to hide it away.
At best, it should have never been heard until a multi-disc boxed set needed something to round out the fourth disc.
If Carole was primarily a lyricist, she wouldn't have made this mistake.
She can sing whatever she wants for politicians, but this album is supposed to be for the fans. She's going to the well and pulling out some older songs, she's trying to please fans.Maybe some will be pleased. Myself, I haven't been so enraged since I saw "Revolution" used as a commercial for Nike on TV.
Carole always seems like a warm, friendly, sweet woman. I've seen her onstage many times. I feel bad for pointing out the obvious here, that's she ruined "Sweet Seasons." I hadn't planned to. I put the CD away (under old Lemonheads CDs if that gives you an idea of how little I intend to ever listen to it again). I was planning to make my next review about Aimee Mann's new album (which I love). But people kept writing about it.
"What do you think, Kat?"
And as more e-mails came in, it was obvious that I couldn't be diplomatic and just be quiet. A few people are angry about the CD but only one's noted why: "Sweet Seasons."Sometimes you lose.
That's life, Carole.
That's reality.
It may offend a politician's delicate ears, but among non-politicians it was popular enough to reach number nine on the pop charts in March of 1972.
And that's because, sometimes, you do lose.
Instead, Carole's now singing:
Sometimes you win, sometimes you win
Sometimes the blues get ahold of you
Oh just when you thought you had made it.
Okay, let's point out reality again: sometimes you lose.
Why would the blues get ahold of you otherwise? If we all win (she sings that, or babbles it, later), what's the point of blues? Ennui?
Outside of Steely Dan, no one selling ennui quickly springs to mind.
But forget the actual words for a moment, Carole's also trashed the melody. "Win." "Lose." Which one sings? "Lose." Which is why, in the original version, it's held twice as long as "win."
That's the melody. She screws up the melody.
Instead of being ba-bah-ba-bah-ba-bah-ba-BAAH, it's now ba-bah-ba-bah-ba-bah-ba-bah.
Even if she couldn't have grasped how insipid her word choice would make the song sound, she should have grasped the melodic change she was making to the song.
If you play the song, that's the part you play, over and over during the verse. She screwed up the whole song in terms of melody.
And, according to her recorded statements, she did so because politicians don't like "one word:" lose. Was that worth screwing up a song on an album that people are paying money for?I don't think she grasps how much she's destroyed this song.
If she needed to act as the Marianne Williamson of the Barnes & Noble listening set, she could have chosen a word that kept the melody. (And one that actually sung -- "win" doesn't sing.)Instead, politicians didn't like "lose" so she pulled it and shoved the first thing she could think of -- something that required no thought at all.
"They don't like 'lose?' What'll I sing instead? Oh, I know, 'win!' I'll just repeat win! 'Sometimes you win, sometimes you win!'"
We started the song over to listen again, sure that we must have misheard. We hadn't.
And just when you think it can't get worse, she revists the scene of her crime -- apparently so the whole world can grasp how she's destroyed the song. This compulision leads her to offer not the second verse of "Sweet Seasons" but some kind-of first verse, kind-of babbling (yes, I said "babbling"):
Sometimes you win
You know we're going to win
Most times you choose between the two
But we're not wondering*
We're America and you know we're going to make it.
[*Or "wandering"]
Is this Carole King singing "Sweet Seasons" or doing a "The Pride Is Back" commerical for Chrysler?
And what "two" is being chosen "between" when the choices are "win" or "win?"
It's idiotic.
Carole King haters, and there are a lot of them, have often trashed her as "Pollyanna-ish," as "out of touch" and more prone to greeting cards than songs. Who knews Carole would elect to prove them right?
That's what she does here. This is hideous. This is destructive. She should be embarrassed, not out plugging this album. Toni Stern should be embarrassed. As the lyricist, it was Toni's job to protect the song's lyrics.
Tell her she can sing whatever she wants at her fundraisers, but don't let her put this down for posterity. Forget Toni, did no one else around Carole have the guts or sense to tell her she was trashing not just the song, but also her own image?
Songs can be changed. They can be reworked. Not just musically (adding a Latin or calypso beat/feel) but lyrically as well. A writer may want to update a work to reflect wisdom they've gained (or think they have) since they first wrote the song. I'm not a purist about that. At a concert, I don't scream out, "You changed the f**king words, man!"
Even if I end up thinking, "You have not gained the wisdom you think you have" after they're done with their reworking, it doesn't make my blood boil.
This did.
And Sumner, who hadn't taken his copy out of the plastic, immediately returned it.
This isn't a great album to begin with for a number of reasons but her trashing "Sweet Seasons" makes it a hideous album. The first time she sings her win-win line, the audience is captured laughing. Did Carole think she was Fanny Brice?
This was a song you sung along with and thought, "True that." It was about the life you want and the life you get and the hope you have that you will get better at some point.
Now it's just a ditty about win-win. With babbles tossed in. It's embarrassing. And anyone who was primarily a lyricist would have been embarrassed to sing it.
What's the rest of the album like, Kat?
As long as I'm letting it rip, can someone please tell Carole no one needs to hear "Chains" again in their lives. The Beatles recorded her song (words by Gerry Goffin). Yeah, we get it. We got it years ago. We got it when she was doing it in concert in the eighties in a doo-wop manner while wearing a poodle skirt. We got in the nineties in some sort of mixture between that and a hard driving rock song. (I'm not kidding.)
Everybody repeat after me, "Lennon & McCartney recorded Goffin & King, Carole King never recorded Lennon & McCartney."
We all got it? Good. Now maybe Carole can drop the insipid song that's wasted time on the lineup of far too many concerts.
I knew "Chains" would be on this album. I didn't need the TV commercials for the album to know it. You can't see her in concert without her coming to the mike (she doesn't stay at the piano for this song). So you know you're stuck with it. Buy a ticket, know you're going to have to hear that piece of crap one more time.
You might not get "Up on the Roof" or even "Don't Bring Me Down," but you know you're stuck with "Chains."
But the commercial tells you that you also get "Take Good Care of My Baby," "It Might As Well Rain Until September" (a bigger hit in England, but her first singing hit in this country), "Go Away Little Girl," "I'm Into Something Good," "Hey Girl," "One Fine Day" (which she actually remade in the early 80s and landed just outside the top ten with) and "Will You Love Me Tomorrow." They don't tell you that all those songs come in a medley.
A medley, that might be fun, right?
Wrong. In concert, she usually does a bit here and there connecting them with spoken details. On this album, she starts the medley that way but quickly drops it. So we're left with bits of songs. And sorry, there's no tapestry they get woven into.
Considering that "One Fine Day" remains her last big hit, I think people may rightly feel cheated that it's reduced to this medley. "I'm Into Something Good" just passes by. She's got no reason to perform it apparently because she brings nothing to it. ("Hey Girl" she sings, as she usually does, with amazing power, but she sings very little of the song.) In the past, when you heard "Take Good Care of My Baby" and then, right after, "It Might As Well Rain Until September," she would explain that it was basically a rewrite of the same song. That explanation isn't on the album. So why are the songs paired together on the album?
A new song, "Loving You Forever," seems promising. Then it gets handed over to a Lee Greenwood sound-alike (Gary Burr) and you're left wondering why he was even on stage with her, let alone recorded for posterity. Their voices don't mix. They don't even mingle.
Burr comes back to destroy "You've Got A Friend." If the message here is supposed to be, "I wrote this song and James Taylor took it to number one" (his only number one), we get it. We all know that already. But, as Maggie -- of all people -- pointed out, "Why is Carole giving the best part of the song over to some nobody?"
I have no idea. Maybe her voice needed a rest. But the section he sings is the most emotional part of the song, the part where her voice always rises and breaks. And the audience that paid to hear Carole at the concert and the people buying this disc have a right to feel disappointed that she's handed over the strongest part to some guy I doubt most of us have ever heard of.
Daughter Louise Goffin comes out to sing a duet of "Where You Lead I Will Follow" (forever known now as the theme to The Gilmore Girls). Louise is actually a strong singer. She's also a talented writer. For whatever reason, she's never broken through. Though she sings the duet well enough, I seriously doubt mother & daughter duets are going to help her career. Still, it's one of the few highlights on this album -- the other ones are "Lay Down My Life" and "(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman."
(Then again, I could have never predicted The Judds.)
"Pleasant Valley Sunday!" She does that song, Kat!
Yes, she does. And I was looking forward to that. I thought I'd heard her perform it in concert in years past. I must either be remembering wrong or she just wanted to have fun this go round. As I remember it, she invested it with a detachment that made it work on a new level.
Here, she's competing with The Monkees to see who can sound the most stupid. (And Carole wins, sadly, mainly because she never gets into the melody but makes it all about the surface.)
In concert, it's always seemed like she never grasped how amazing "I Feel the Earth Move" was as a recording. Sometimes, she'll use it as an excuse to step away from the piano and start jumping around onstage. I honestly wish she'd done that here. Instead, she's pounding away like the song's nothing but pounding. It's so overdone that it's frightening.
Kat, isn't there anything to praise?
Her piano playing with the exception of "Pleasant Valley Sunday" (all surface) is strong throughout."Lay Down My Life for You" is rescued from Colour of Your Dreams. (Don't e-mail me, "Colour" is how the word's spelled in the title -- she must have been feeling British.) I'm less enchanted with "Wishful Thinking" than she is. (I was less enchanted with it on Colour of Your Dreams as well. I can think of three songs off that album that were more effective.)
She seems to be going for a mood. And she seems to be choosing by lyrics to get the theme across. That explains "Being At War With Each Other" (a song that should only make a brief appearence in a medley) and "Peace In the Valley" (ditto).
Obviously, she could do an album (maybe a double-disc one) on just her sixties catalogue. That might make for a better album. Or she could pair it up with one disc being sixties, one being seventies.But before she records a live album again, somebody better sit her down friend to friend and explain that "deep" lyrics (written by others) don't make for a good song. People aren't reading the lyrics while someone performs. They're at a concert for the songs. That means the music has to be strong to whatever song you choose.
So next time, she should pull "Venusian Diamond" off Welcome Home (the weirdest thing she's ever written musically -- weird in a good way, she compared it to her attempt at Lennon & McCarthy) or "Time Gone By" (from the album of the same name). And if she wants to go all Eagles and grab a peaceful, easy feeling, someone should remind her that she achieved that (and a message) with her seventies hit "Been to Canaan" (which doesn't make an appearance on the double disc set). Digging into the sixties, "Keep Your Hands Off My Baby" and "Some Kind of Wonderful" are both more musically interesting than some of the songs she's selected for this double disc set. (As is anything off her first album, Writer.)
Unless I've forgotten one, there have been only three studio albums since 1989. "Ain't That The Way" would probably be too "realistic" for some politicians, so she might want to consider redoing "I Can't Stop Thinking About You" (City Streets). "Tears Falling Down On Me" would probably make some politicians blanch and changing it to "Puppies Falling Down On Me" might seem good since everyone likes puppies, but puppies falling might frighten off a candidate so better to skip that and focus on something like "Just One Thing" (Colour of Your Dreams). "Love Makes the World" (from the album of the same name) is pure corn mush, so naturally it ends up on The Living Room Tour. There's really nothing to suggest from that album -- her last studio album. "Monday Without You" might be too much of a downer and "An Uncommon Love" (which she sang as a duet with k.d. lang) might scare off the pols.
But having done two live albums in eleven years (three discs), it's probably time for someone to suggest that "The Locomotion," though a fun song, isn't a requirement for a live album. Someone might also explain to her that the lyrics she wrote for Time Gone By say more than any "Peace in the Valley" or "Being At War With Each Other." Musically, the songs are solid and if she's missed it, "You Still Want Her" and "Eagle" lyrically top much of what makes it onto The Living Room Tour.
Look it, maybe you'll love The Living Room Tour.
Maybe you'll be able to stomach the destruction that is "Sweet Seasons." But the idea that Carole is once again going to be sitting down at the piano and performing in an intimate manner requires strong songs. Sure, the TV commerical got me excited. Jess and I learned of this album from C.I. and we both love Carole King's work so were were both thrilled at the thought of her doing a live album, double disc, revisiting some of her finest songs. I asked Jess what he thought and he said, "I'm still waiting for that album."
I wasn't expecting Tapestry. I was expecting a mature artist to revisit her past and find richness and wonder in what she presented. The concept for the album was a good one. It just wasn't executed properly.
Sometimes you win
Sometimes you win
Not on this album. Maybe on the next one she can say, "Screw what the politicians like, this one's for my fans." Carole King still has something to say. The two new songs prove she can still write. Certainly "(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman" demonstrates that when she's paying attention to the music, she's unbeatable. Somewhere along the line, she or someone decided that what her fans really wanted, really needed, was a scattering of songs guaranteed to make everyone (especially politicians) feel good. Regardless of the song, it's always been her dedication to the music that's given you the warm feeling. I wish I could tell you to rush out and buy this album. As it is, I'm now scared off the Carly Simon album coming out today. Though hopefully, Carly will have enough sense not to write in the liner notes: "this is the version that is designed not to offend policitians."
Kat's Korner: Good God Carole! What crawled into the living room!
Carole King is not primarily a lyricist. Primarily, she's a composer.
Now you'll read the hack books from time to time and come across some idiotic nonsense like "Carole King sat down at her typewriter and wrote Tapestry."
That's incorrect. Carole did write the lyrics to some songs on Tapestry (such as "You've Got a Friend" and "So Far Away"); however, the reality is that many more were not written by her.And if I haven't shocked you (and some "rock critics" may be shocked because they repeat so many lies so often they apparently don't even realize it when it makes it into one of their books), let me go further. In the sixties, when Carole was writing hit after hit, she was the composer.
Gerry Goffin (not "Jerry Goffin" as one idiot refugee from Rolling Stone wrote in a book that's key element was "self-embarrassment) wrote the words, Carole wrote the music.I don't know if it's a "girl's are so much better at verbal" nonsense vibe that assures them that King must have written lyrics and brought in composers as co-writers or if they're just lazy. But Carole is primarily a composer.
If there's still any doubt, put The Living Room Tour (her new, double disc, live album) into your CD player. Cue up track four on the second disc. "Sweet Seasons."I'm going to bet that a lot of you know the song. Maybe some fans of the song, including me, can play it on the piano. It's a great song to play, it's a great song to sing along with. It's a fun song but it's got a bit of truth in it, a bit of reality.
Or it did.
"What the f**k!" screamed Sumner.
"Start that over!" yelled Toni.
Maggie hadn't noticed.
Dak-Ho wasn't sure what he'd heard.
I don't know if it's enough to spoil The Living Room Tour for you, but it's a problem. Maybe it will demonstrate finally to everyone who couldn't catch on before that Carole King is not primarily a lyricist.
In case you don't remember this 1971 hit single (off the album Music), it starts out:
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose
And sometimes the blues get ahold of you
Just when you thought you had made it.
Or it did, this song with lyrics by Toni Stern and music by Carole King. It did start off that way.
The Living Room Tour, we're told in notes and in Carole's spoken remarks between performances is the result of small performance during 2004 where she was usually in the room with one or more politicians. She was fundraising and getting the word out. She did that for John Kerry and other candidates.
There's nothing wrong with that. I voted for Kerry. Carole's always a performer who makes a point to be counted at election time. If this album was a recording of one or more of those performance, I'd roll my eyes and get over it.
E-mails keep asking, "Don't you love this album?" I so do not love this album. I so do not love this album that I don't intend to listen to it again.
"There's one word that politicians do not like." Carole says something like that as she sets up "Sweet Seasons." They don't like it and Carole strikes it. The word "lose."
Politician's don't like the word "lose." Well tough on politicians unless this album was made to be handed out to Congress.
Nobody gave me this album, I bought it. I bought it because I love Carole King's work.
She's ruined "Sweet Seasons."
She can't even see that. If she could, she'd have picked another track to include instead of "Sweet Seasons." If she could grasp how she has destroyed the song, she'd want to hide it away.
At best, it should have never been heard until a multi-disc boxed set needed something to round out the fourth disc.
If Carole was primarily a lyricist, she wouldn't have made this mistake.
She can sing whatever she wants for politicians, but this album is supposed to be for the fans. She's going to the well and pulling out some older songs, she's trying to please fans.Maybe some will be pleased. Myself, I haven't been so enraged since I saw "Revolution" used as a commercial for Nike on TV.
Carole always seems like a warm, friendly, sweet woman. I've seen her onstage many times. I feel bad for pointing out the obvious here, that's she ruined "Sweet Seasons." I hadn't planned to. I put the CD away (under old Lemonheads CDs if that gives you an idea of how little I intend to ever listen to it again). I was planning to make my next review about Aimee Mann's new album (which I love). But people kept writing about it.
"What do you think, Kat?"
And as more e-mails came in, it was obvious that I couldn't be diplomatic and just be quiet. A few people are angry about the CD but only one's noted why: "Sweet Seasons."Sometimes you lose.
That's life, Carole.
That's reality.
It may offend a politician's delicate ears, but among non-politicians it was popular enough to reach number nine on the pop charts in March of 1972.
And that's because, sometimes, you do lose.
Instead, Carole's now singing:
Sometimes you win, sometimes you win
Sometimes the blues get ahold of you
Oh just when you thought you had made it.
Okay, let's point out reality again: sometimes you lose.
Why would the blues get ahold of you otherwise? If we all win (she sings that, or babbles it, later), what's the point of blues? Ennui?
Outside of Steely Dan, no one selling ennui quickly springs to mind.
But forget the actual words for a moment, Carole's also trashed the melody. "Win." "Lose." Which one sings? "Lose." Which is why, in the original version, it's held twice as long as "win."
That's the melody. She screws up the melody.
Instead of being ba-bah-ba-bah-ba-bah-ba-BAAH, it's now ba-bah-ba-bah-ba-bah-ba-bah.
Even if she couldn't have grasped how insipid her word choice would make the song sound, she should have grasped the melodic change she was making to the song.
If you play the song, that's the part you play, over and over during the verse. She screwed up the whole song in terms of melody.
And, according to her recorded statements, she did so because politicians don't like "one word:" lose. Was that worth screwing up a song on an album that people are paying money for?I don't think she grasps how much she's destroyed this song.
If she needed to act as the Marianne Williamson of the Barnes & Noble listening set, she could have chosen a word that kept the melody. (And one that actually sung -- "win" doesn't sing.)Instead, politicians didn't like "lose" so she pulled it and shoved the first thing she could think of -- something that required no thought at all.
"They don't like 'lose?' What'll I sing instead? Oh, I know, 'win!' I'll just repeat win! 'Sometimes you win, sometimes you win!'"
We started the song over to listen again, sure that we must have misheard. We hadn't.
And just when you think it can't get worse, she revists the scene of her crime -- apparently so the whole world can grasp how she's destroyed the song. This compulision leads her to offer not the second verse of "Sweet Seasons" but some kind-of first verse, kind-of babbling (yes, I said "babbling"):
Sometimes you win
You know we're going to win
Most times you choose between the two
But we're not wondering*
We're America and you know we're going to make it.
[*Or "wandering"]
Is this Carole King singing "Sweet Seasons" or doing a "The Pride Is Back" commerical for Chrysler?
And what "two" is being chosen "between" when the choices are "win" or "win?"
It's idiotic.
Carole King haters, and there are a lot of them, have often trashed her as "Pollyanna-ish," as "out of touch" and more prone to greeting cards than songs. Who knews Carole would elect to prove them right?
That's what she does here. This is hideous. This is destructive. She should be embarrassed, not out plugging this album. Toni Stern should be embarrassed. As the lyricist, it was Toni's job to protect the song's lyrics.
Tell her she can sing whatever she wants at her fundraisers, but don't let her put this down for posterity. Forget Toni, did no one else around Carole have the guts or sense to tell her she was trashing not just the song, but also her own image?
Songs can be changed. They can be reworked. Not just musically (adding a Latin or calypso beat/feel) but lyrically as well. A writer may want to update a work to reflect wisdom they've gained (or think they have) since they first wrote the song. I'm not a purist about that. At a concert, I don't scream out, "You changed the f**king words, man!"
Even if I end up thinking, "You have not gained the wisdom you think you have" after they're done with their reworking, it doesn't make my blood boil.
This did.
And Sumner, who hadn't taken his copy out of the plastic, immediately returned it.
This isn't a great album to begin with for a number of reasons but her trashing "Sweet Seasons" makes it a hideous album. The first time she sings her win-win line, the audience is captured laughing. Did Carole think she was Fanny Brice?
This was a song you sung along with and thought, "True that." It was about the life you want and the life you get and the hope you have that you will get better at some point.
Now it's just a ditty about win-win. With babbles tossed in. It's embarrassing. And anyone who was primarily a lyricist would have been embarrassed to sing it.
What's the rest of the album like, Kat?
As long as I'm letting it rip, can someone please tell Carole no one needs to hear "Chains" again in their lives. The Beatles recorded her song (words by Gerry Goffin). Yeah, we get it. We got it years ago. We got it when she was doing it in concert in the eighties in a doo-wop manner while wearing a poodle skirt. We got in the nineties in some sort of mixture between that and a hard driving rock song. (I'm not kidding.)
Everybody repeat after me, "Lennon & McCartney recorded Goffin & King, Carole King never recorded Lennon & McCartney."
We all got it? Good. Now maybe Carole can drop the insipid song that's wasted time on the lineup of far too many concerts.
I knew "Chains" would be on this album. I didn't need the TV commercials for the album to know it. You can't see her in concert without her coming to the mike (she doesn't stay at the piano for this song). So you know you're stuck with it. Buy a ticket, know you're going to have to hear that piece of crap one more time.
You might not get "Up on the Roof" or even "Don't Bring Me Down," but you know you're stuck with "Chains."
But the commercial tells you that you also get "Take Good Care of My Baby," "It Might As Well Rain Until September" (a bigger hit in England, but her first singing hit in this country), "Go Away Little Girl," "I'm Into Something Good," "Hey Girl," "One Fine Day" (which she actually remade in the early 80s and landed just outside the top ten with) and "Will You Love Me Tomorrow." They don't tell you that all those songs come in a medley.
A medley, that might be fun, right?
Wrong. In concert, she usually does a bit here and there connecting them with spoken details. On this album, she starts the medley that way but quickly drops it. So we're left with bits of songs. And sorry, there's no tapestry they get woven into.
Considering that "One Fine Day" remains her last big hit, I think people may rightly feel cheated that it's reduced to this medley. "I'm Into Something Good" just passes by. She's got no reason to perform it apparently because she brings nothing to it. ("Hey Girl" she sings, as she usually does, with amazing power, but she sings very little of the song.) In the past, when you heard "Take Good Care of My Baby" and then, right after, "It Might As Well Rain Until September," she would explain that it was basically a rewrite of the same song. That explanation isn't on the album. So why are the songs paired together on the album?
A new song, "Loving You Forever," seems promising. Then it gets handed over to a Lee Greenwood sound-alike (Gary Burr) and you're left wondering why he was even on stage with her, let alone recorded for posterity. Their voices don't mix. They don't even mingle.
Burr comes back to destroy "You've Got A Friend." If the message here is supposed to be, "I wrote this song and James Taylor took it to number one" (his only number one), we get it. We all know that already. But, as Maggie -- of all people -- pointed out, "Why is Carole giving the best part of the song over to some nobody?"
I have no idea. Maybe her voice needed a rest. But the section he sings is the most emotional part of the song, the part where her voice always rises and breaks. And the audience that paid to hear Carole at the concert and the people buying this disc have a right to feel disappointed that she's handed over the strongest part to some guy I doubt most of us have ever heard of.
Daughter Louise Goffin comes out to sing a duet of "Where You Lead I Will Follow" (forever known now as the theme to The Gilmore Girls). Louise is actually a strong singer. She's also a talented writer. For whatever reason, she's never broken through. Though she sings the duet well enough, I seriously doubt mother & daughter duets are going to help her career. Still, it's one of the few highlights on this album -- the other ones are "Lay Down My Life" and "(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman."
(Then again, I could have never predicted The Judds.)
"Pleasant Valley Sunday!" She does that song, Kat!
Yes, she does. And I was looking forward to that. I thought I'd heard her perform it in concert in years past. I must either be remembering wrong or she just wanted to have fun this go round. As I remember it, she invested it with a detachment that made it work on a new level.
Here, she's competing with The Monkees to see who can sound the most stupid. (And Carole wins, sadly, mainly because she never gets into the melody but makes it all about the surface.)
In concert, it's always seemed like she never grasped how amazing "I Feel the Earth Move" was as a recording. Sometimes, she'll use it as an excuse to step away from the piano and start jumping around onstage. I honestly wish she'd done that here. Instead, she's pounding away like the song's nothing but pounding. It's so overdone that it's frightening.
Kat, isn't there anything to praise?
Her piano playing with the exception of "Pleasant Valley Sunday" (all surface) is strong throughout."Lay Down My Life for You" is rescued from Colour of Your Dreams. (Don't e-mail me, "Colour" is how the word's spelled in the title -- she must have been feeling British.) I'm less enchanted with "Wishful Thinking" than she is. (I was less enchanted with it on Colour of Your Dreams as well. I can think of three songs off that album that were more effective.)
She seems to be going for a mood. And she seems to be choosing by lyrics to get the theme across. That explains "Being At War With Each Other" (a song that should only make a brief appearence in a medley) and "Peace In the Valley" (ditto).
Obviously, she could do an album (maybe a double-disc one) on just her sixties catalogue. That might make for a better album. Or she could pair it up with one disc being sixties, one being seventies.But before she records a live album again, somebody better sit her down friend to friend and explain that "deep" lyrics (written by others) don't make for a good song. People aren't reading the lyrics while someone performs. They're at a concert for the songs. That means the music has to be strong to whatever song you choose.
So next time, she should pull "Venusian Diamond" off Welcome Home (the weirdest thing she's ever written musically -- weird in a good way, she compared it to her attempt at Lennon & McCarthy) or "Time Gone By" (from the album of the same name). And if she wants to go all Eagles and grab a peaceful, easy feeling, someone should remind her that she achieved that (and a message) with her seventies hit "Been to Canaan" (which doesn't make an appearance on the double disc set). Digging into the sixties, "Keep Your Hands Off My Baby" and "Some Kind of Wonderful" are both more musically interesting than some of the songs she's selected for this double disc set. (As is anything off her first album, Writer.)
Unless I've forgotten one, there have been only three studio albums since 1989. "Ain't That The Way" would probably be too "realistic" for some politicians, so she might want to consider redoing "I Can't Stop Thinking About You" (City Streets). "Tears Falling Down On Me" would probably make some politicians blanch and changing it to "Puppies Falling Down On Me" might seem good since everyone likes puppies, but puppies falling might frighten off a candidate so better to skip that and focus on something like "Just One Thing" (Colour of Your Dreams). "Love Makes the World" (from the album of the same name) is pure corn mush, so naturally it ends up on The Living Room Tour. There's really nothing to suggest from that album -- her last studio album. "Monday Without You" might be too much of a downer and "An Uncommon Love" (which she sang as a duet with k.d. lang) might scare off the pols.
But having done two live albums in eleven years (three discs), it's probably time for someone to suggest that "The Locomotion," though a fun song, isn't a requirement for a live album. Someone might also explain to her that the lyrics she wrote for Time Gone By say more than any "Peace in the Valley" or "Being At War With Each Other." Musically, the songs are solid and if she's missed it, "You Still Want Her" and "Eagle" lyrically top much of what makes it onto The Living Room Tour.
Look it, maybe you'll love The Living Room Tour.
Maybe you'll be able to stomach the destruction that is "Sweet Seasons." But the idea that Carole is once again going to be sitting down at the piano and performing in an intimate manner requires strong songs. Sure, the TV commerical got me excited. Jess and I learned of this album from C.I. and we both love Carole King's work so were were both thrilled at the thought of her doing a live album, double disc, revisiting some of her finest songs. I asked Jess what he thought and he said, "I'm still waiting for that album."
I wasn't expecting Tapestry. I was expecting a mature artist to revisit her past and find richness and wonder in what she presented. The concept for the album was a good one. It just wasn't executed properly.
Sometimes you win
Sometimes you win
Not on this album. Maybe on the next one she can say, "Screw what the politicians like, this one's for my fans." Carole King still has something to say. The two new songs prove she can still write. Certainly "(You Make Me Feel Like) A Natural Woman" demonstrates that when she's paying attention to the music, she's unbeatable. Somewhere along the line, she or someone decided that what her fans really wanted, really needed, was a scattering of songs guaranteed to make everyone (especially politicians) feel good. Regardless of the song, it's always been her dedication to the music that's given you the warm feeling. I wish I could tell you to rush out and buy this album. As it is, I'm now scared off the Carly Simon album coming out today. Though hopefully, Carly will have enough sense not to write in the liner notes: "this is the version that is designed not to offend policitians."
Blog Spotlight: Cedric's Big Mix "When we going to make it onscreen?"
The latest community member to start their own site is Cedric. If you haven't checked out Cedric's Big Mix, you need to get over there. Now. We're not kidding. We'll wait.
Cedric's epitomizing the do it yourself motto and not waiting for someone to bring up issues he wants to talk about. Make a point to check in regularly with Cedric.
When we going to make it onscreen?
Last night my cousin comes over. You got a relative you like but feel like you need some distance between? That's me and my cousin.He brings over this DVD and CD that's sold together. The movie was a piece of crud and I'm not even dropping the name in here because I don't want anyone looking it up. The soundtrack was worse.They want you to think that they recorded it in 2003. Maybe so. Rap songs require rapping.Infomercials are not rapping. There were two tracks, without music, that were nothing but infomericals and best I can figure they were a) trying to raise awareness on Project Pat and b) making fools out of themselves. Help us raise some money for Project Pat so we can buy beers and cigarettes isn't a message of truth to power.
I kept thinking it was a put up but my cousin swears it was for real. If it was for real then it's still a joke but a joke on the people who shell out almost 25 bucks for this crud.
My cousin kept telling me "It's like Mike Jones." No, it ain't. Mike Jones drops his name nearly every track but he's got a beat and he's got some rhymes. The two guys doing "raps" had no beat and they stumbled around trying to figure out what to say sounding like really bad talk radio. I kept waiting for one of them to holler, "With four payments of $19.99 you can have your own thigh master!"
When I wrote about Dutch, C-Murder's upcoming movie, a few wrote in to say it was "Dutch" and that it would be great. Those are the same fellows swearing up and down that the third Fridays was incredible.I want more representation onscreen too. And I don't care if it's a "noble" character or not. I do care if the movie's worth watching or not. A few years back, you couldn't turn on HBO early in the morning without catching an Ice (not Vanilla) in some straight to cable movie. That didn't help any of us.
But I don't think every film needs to have Denzel "uplifting" us.
But even a bad Denzel film works better than some of the crud that's being made.
What I'd really like to see isn't Denzel as a doctor, lawyer or some other white collar guy. I also don't need him to try to play it up by being bad cops.
I'd like to see people on the screen like my grandfather.
My grandfather ain't Donald Trump. He didn't make a pile of money.
But what he did and what he taught us mattered.
Same thing with my mother and grandmother.
I see a lot of ghetto fabulous movies and a lot of films where Denzel or Hallie seem to be up on the screen because maybe Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts wanted too much money. They play these cartoons and I just wonder where are the real people I know.I got a neighbor who just got off parole. He's worked hard to put his life together and I don't see him up onscreen. I got a lady living 1 floor below me who is working 2 jobs and raising 3 kids and she's not a crackhead and she's not a slut so I don't see anybody like her onscreen.
I see people who have either cashed in or are doing anything they can to cash in.
And I got to wonder if that's all we're going to be about in movies from now on? Cash hungry, money grubbers.
There are kids I grew up with that are living it up ghetto fab and disgracing themselves. There are 2 kids I grew up with who "made something" of themeselves. And there's this huge section of kids who are just trying to do the right thing. That's the group I don't see much of at the movies.
That's the group I want to see. People living lives where they try to hold on to dignity.
They aren't saints, they make mistakes, but they're trying to keep it together.
They're not exchanging gun shots or doing lines or hits. They ain't all about the next booty call. They're trying to make their lives just a little better. If they got kids, they're trying to make sure their kids have it a little better. And they are out in the community doing something not clubbing or running some scam.
There were a few films worth seeing when I was a kid. When Cornbread Earl and Me would come on TV, it was a big deal. I got a 12 year old brother who thinks The Fast and the Furious is a great movie and what life's all about. So I wonder how we let Hollywood screw us up so bad?
I don't have links at this site and that's cause of the way blog drive is set up. But I do like all the bloggers from The Common Ills community. C.I., Betty, The Third Estate Sunday Review, Rebecca (and Elaine who's subbing), Kat and Mike.
So when I can remember to, I'll copy and paste them at the bottom of my post. If you haven't checked them out, you should.
Links
The Common Ills
The Third Estate Sunday Review
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
A Winding Road
Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man
Mikey Likes It!
Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
DIY Dragon
Cedric's Big Mix
Cedric's epitomizing the do it yourself motto and not waiting for someone to bring up issues he wants to talk about. Make a point to check in regularly with Cedric.
When we going to make it onscreen?
Last night my cousin comes over. You got a relative you like but feel like you need some distance between? That's me and my cousin.He brings over this DVD and CD that's sold together. The movie was a piece of crud and I'm not even dropping the name in here because I don't want anyone looking it up. The soundtrack was worse.They want you to think that they recorded it in 2003. Maybe so. Rap songs require rapping.Infomercials are not rapping. There were two tracks, without music, that were nothing but infomericals and best I can figure they were a) trying to raise awareness on Project Pat and b) making fools out of themselves. Help us raise some money for Project Pat so we can buy beers and cigarettes isn't a message of truth to power.
I kept thinking it was a put up but my cousin swears it was for real. If it was for real then it's still a joke but a joke on the people who shell out almost 25 bucks for this crud.
My cousin kept telling me "It's like Mike Jones." No, it ain't. Mike Jones drops his name nearly every track but he's got a beat and he's got some rhymes. The two guys doing "raps" had no beat and they stumbled around trying to figure out what to say sounding like really bad talk radio. I kept waiting for one of them to holler, "With four payments of $19.99 you can have your own thigh master!"
When I wrote about Dutch, C-Murder's upcoming movie, a few wrote in to say it was "Dutch" and that it would be great. Those are the same fellows swearing up and down that the third Fridays was incredible.I want more representation onscreen too. And I don't care if it's a "noble" character or not. I do care if the movie's worth watching or not. A few years back, you couldn't turn on HBO early in the morning without catching an Ice (not Vanilla) in some straight to cable movie. That didn't help any of us.
But I don't think every film needs to have Denzel "uplifting" us.
But even a bad Denzel film works better than some of the crud that's being made.
What I'd really like to see isn't Denzel as a doctor, lawyer or some other white collar guy. I also don't need him to try to play it up by being bad cops.
I'd like to see people on the screen like my grandfather.
My grandfather ain't Donald Trump. He didn't make a pile of money.
But what he did and what he taught us mattered.
Same thing with my mother and grandmother.
I see a lot of ghetto fabulous movies and a lot of films where Denzel or Hallie seem to be up on the screen because maybe Tom Cruise or Julia Roberts wanted too much money. They play these cartoons and I just wonder where are the real people I know.I got a neighbor who just got off parole. He's worked hard to put his life together and I don't see him up onscreen. I got a lady living 1 floor below me who is working 2 jobs and raising 3 kids and she's not a crackhead and she's not a slut so I don't see anybody like her onscreen.
I see people who have either cashed in or are doing anything they can to cash in.
And I got to wonder if that's all we're going to be about in movies from now on? Cash hungry, money grubbers.
There are kids I grew up with that are living it up ghetto fab and disgracing themselves. There are 2 kids I grew up with who "made something" of themeselves. And there's this huge section of kids who are just trying to do the right thing. That's the group I don't see much of at the movies.
That's the group I want to see. People living lives where they try to hold on to dignity.
They aren't saints, they make mistakes, but they're trying to keep it together.
They're not exchanging gun shots or doing lines or hits. They ain't all about the next booty call. They're trying to make their lives just a little better. If they got kids, they're trying to make sure their kids have it a little better. And they are out in the community doing something not clubbing or running some scam.
There were a few films worth seeing when I was a kid. When Cornbread Earl and Me would come on TV, it was a big deal. I got a 12 year old brother who thinks The Fast and the Furious is a great movie and what life's all about. So I wonder how we let Hollywood screw us up so bad?
I don't have links at this site and that's cause of the way blog drive is set up. But I do like all the bloggers from The Common Ills community. C.I., Betty, The Third Estate Sunday Review, Rebecca (and Elaine who's subbing), Kat and Mike.
So when I can remember to, I'll copy and paste them at the bottom of my post. If you haven't checked them out, you should.
Links
The Common Ills
The Third Estate Sunday Review
Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude
A Winding Road
Thomas Friedman Is a Great Man
Mikey Likes It!
Kat's Korner (of The Common Ills)
DIY Dragon
Cedric's Big Mix
Blog Spotlight: Elaine filling in for Rebecca, "Sgt. Kevin Benderman"
On Thursday, Elaine noted the article Monica Benderman wrote about the military's attempts to retaliate against her husband, Sgt. Kevin Benderman. The good news, as Elaine noted Friday, is that the army has dropped the trumped up larceny charge. Hopefully, Sgt. Benderman's days of being the victim of reprisals is over. But we'll try to continue to follow this story.
For those who don't know Elaine, she's filling in for Rebecca at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude while Rebecca takes a much needed vacation. We think Elaine's doing a great job. She disagrees. (She may be harder on herself than anyone we've met other than C.I.) We hope to have an interview with her soon. Until then, make sure you visit Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude. Rebecca made a wise choice in choosing Elaine as her substitute.
Sgt. Kevin Benderman
Day three. I want to thank C.I. who is on the phone with me and has been a huge help. I want to thank everyone who's written via common_ills@yahoo.com. I think I've replied to every e-mail. Rebecca didn't give me the password for the e-mail to this site. Mike said some nice words in his post today and thank you for that, Mike.
I've got two things tonight. At the bottom is another peace quote. Before that, I'm posting something in full. I didn't write this and I'm not attempting to claim credit for it. I found it at Not In Our Name which is a great organization.
I'm posting it in full. If I'm asked to take it down, I will do so and put it up in a small excerpt but today is July 21st and, as you will see when you read it, there's not a great deal of time. I'll probably hit on this tomorrow as well.
This is by Monica Benderman and it's entitled "One Soldier’s Fight to Legalize Morality: Army Sgt. and conscientious objector Kevin Benderman to face court martial July 28:"
On July 28, 2005, in a small non-descript courtroom on Ft. Stewart, Georgia, a Courts Martial is scheduled to begin. Again. One Army NCO who decided that he had no choice but to make a conscious choice NOT to return to war is being put on trial for caring about humanity.
This soldier fulfilled his commitment, he kept his promise to his enlisted contract, and when ordered to deploy to Iraq at the start of the invasion, he went, not because he wanted to "kill Iraqis" or "destroy terrorist cells," but because he wanted the soldiers he served with to come home safely. He returned knowing that war is wrong, the most dehumanizing creation of humanity that exists. He saw war destroy civilians, innocent men, women and children. He saw war destroy homes, relationships and a country. He saw this not only in the country that was invaded, but he saw this happening to the invading country as well – and he knew that the only way to save those soldiers was for people to no longer participate in war. Sgt. Kevin Benderman is a Conscientious Objector to war, and the Army is mad.
Sgt. Kevin Benderman, after serving one tour of duty in Iraq, filed for Conscientious Objector status, his Constitutional right. His commander refused to accept his application and one called him a coward. One chaplain was ashamed of his lack of moral fortitude, another, of higher rank, testified to the true sincerity of Sgt. Benderman’s beliefs, in writing. A military intelligence officer decided that he knew matters of the soul better than a man of God, and recommended to deny the CO claim. Five commissioned officers who had never met Sgt. Benderman agreed with the "intelligent officer" and the claim was denied, twice.
More than two weeks after my husband was placed in the Rear Detachment unit here at Ft. Stewart, charges of Missing Movement and Desertion were filed against him, even though he has never missed a single day of duty in almost ten years. At the first Courts Martial proceedings, the investigative hearing was over turned. According to the judge's decision, the presiding officer had shown implied bias toward Sgt. Benderman, and a new hearing was ordered. As the session adjourned, the same command that brought the first charges were marching up the aisle in the courtroom to file a new charge, Larceny, against Sgt. Benderman. The command that brought the charge, had erroneously ordered combat pay to be paid to Sgt. Benderman, along with 7 other soldiers in their unit. Rather than accept their responsibility for the error, these leaders chose to punish Sgt. Benderman for the mistake, and have yet to discipline any of the remaining soldiers for the officers' gaffe.
The new investigating officer strongly recommended dismissing this larceny charge, but the convening authority, Ft. Stewart’s garrison commander, pressed on and filed the charges anyway, along with desertion and missing movement. The Courts Martial is scheduled to begin on July 28. The games began in January.
At the conclusion of the first hearing, I returned to the courtroom briefly for some things I had forgotten. The lights were dimmed, and no one was there. This small dark room, vintage WW II, had a reverent calm. Desks and chairs sat waiting, slightly turned, empty jurist panel, attorney’s podium – the stage had been set. I look back on it now, and the feeling is strangely surreal.
Last week we learned that the United States Supreme Court allows itself to keep the Ten Commandments hanging on the walls of its chambers, as a testimony to another form of law. The guardian of the Constitution of our country, presiding over the human rights of our people, maintains that the Ten Commandments, religious context aside, represent a form of law that is powerful enough to occupy a place in its chambers.
In a small, quiet courtroom, on the Ft. Stewart military installation, the stage is set. One soldier who, after firsthand experience with the destructive force of war, decided to take the Ten Commandments at their word – "Thou Shall Not Kill" – and use the rights given to him to declare his conscious objection to war, to no longer be in a position to voluntarily have to kill another human being, is now on trial for not wanting to kill.
The Army has removed itself so completely from its moral responsibility, that its representatives are willing to openly demand, in a court of law, that they be allowed to regain "positive control over this soldier" by finding him guilty of crimes he did not commit, and put him in jail – a prisoner of conscience, for daring to obey a moral law.
It is "hard work" to face the truth, and it is scary when people who are not afraid to face it begin to speak out. Someone once said that my husband's case is a question of morality over legality. I pray that this country has not gone so far over the edge that the two are so distinctly different that we can tell them apart.
A sixteen year old in New York, was charged with involuntary manslaughter yesterday for stabbing another teen in the chest twice, over a computer game. There is no question of why. He broke a law – a legal, MORAL law – "Thou Shall Not Kill."
After seeing war firsthand, Sgt. Kevin Benderman chose to follow a legal, MORAL law – "Thou Shall Not Kill." A form of law significant enough to be represented on the walls of our Supreme Court. The US Army cannot let him go. I have to ask – "WHY?"
Sgt. Kevin Benderman is stationed at Ft. Stewart, Georgia.
He has served on combat tour in Iraq. After seeing war firsthand, he made the decision to file for Conscientious Objector status in December 2004. His command refused the request, and filed charges of Missing Movement and Desertion against him. They have since added a charge of Larceny.
Sgt. Benderman is scheduled to face a second attempt at Court Martial for these charges on July 28, 2005 and Ft. Stewart.
Please try to pass that on.-- Elaine
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.
Thomas Edison
For those who don't know Elaine, she's filling in for Rebecca at Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude while Rebecca takes a much needed vacation. We think Elaine's doing a great job. She disagrees. (She may be harder on herself than anyone we've met other than C.I.) We hope to have an interview with her soon. Until then, make sure you visit Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude. Rebecca made a wise choice in choosing Elaine as her substitute.
Sgt. Kevin Benderman
Day three. I want to thank C.I. who is on the phone with me and has been a huge help. I want to thank everyone who's written via common_ills@yahoo.com. I think I've replied to every e-mail. Rebecca didn't give me the password for the e-mail to this site. Mike said some nice words in his post today and thank you for that, Mike.
I've got two things tonight. At the bottom is another peace quote. Before that, I'm posting something in full. I didn't write this and I'm not attempting to claim credit for it. I found it at Not In Our Name which is a great organization.
I'm posting it in full. If I'm asked to take it down, I will do so and put it up in a small excerpt but today is July 21st and, as you will see when you read it, there's not a great deal of time. I'll probably hit on this tomorrow as well.
This is by Monica Benderman and it's entitled "One Soldier’s Fight to Legalize Morality: Army Sgt. and conscientious objector Kevin Benderman to face court martial July 28:"
On July 28, 2005, in a small non-descript courtroom on Ft. Stewart, Georgia, a Courts Martial is scheduled to begin. Again. One Army NCO who decided that he had no choice but to make a conscious choice NOT to return to war is being put on trial for caring about humanity.
This soldier fulfilled his commitment, he kept his promise to his enlisted contract, and when ordered to deploy to Iraq at the start of the invasion, he went, not because he wanted to "kill Iraqis" or "destroy terrorist cells," but because he wanted the soldiers he served with to come home safely. He returned knowing that war is wrong, the most dehumanizing creation of humanity that exists. He saw war destroy civilians, innocent men, women and children. He saw war destroy homes, relationships and a country. He saw this not only in the country that was invaded, but he saw this happening to the invading country as well – and he knew that the only way to save those soldiers was for people to no longer participate in war. Sgt. Kevin Benderman is a Conscientious Objector to war, and the Army is mad.
Sgt. Kevin Benderman, after serving one tour of duty in Iraq, filed for Conscientious Objector status, his Constitutional right. His commander refused to accept his application and one called him a coward. One chaplain was ashamed of his lack of moral fortitude, another, of higher rank, testified to the true sincerity of Sgt. Benderman’s beliefs, in writing. A military intelligence officer decided that he knew matters of the soul better than a man of God, and recommended to deny the CO claim. Five commissioned officers who had never met Sgt. Benderman agreed with the "intelligent officer" and the claim was denied, twice.
More than two weeks after my husband was placed in the Rear Detachment unit here at Ft. Stewart, charges of Missing Movement and Desertion were filed against him, even though he has never missed a single day of duty in almost ten years. At the first Courts Martial proceedings, the investigative hearing was over turned. According to the judge's decision, the presiding officer had shown implied bias toward Sgt. Benderman, and a new hearing was ordered. As the session adjourned, the same command that brought the first charges were marching up the aisle in the courtroom to file a new charge, Larceny, against Sgt. Benderman. The command that brought the charge, had erroneously ordered combat pay to be paid to Sgt. Benderman, along with 7 other soldiers in their unit. Rather than accept their responsibility for the error, these leaders chose to punish Sgt. Benderman for the mistake, and have yet to discipline any of the remaining soldiers for the officers' gaffe.
The new investigating officer strongly recommended dismissing this larceny charge, but the convening authority, Ft. Stewart’s garrison commander, pressed on and filed the charges anyway, along with desertion and missing movement. The Courts Martial is scheduled to begin on July 28. The games began in January.
At the conclusion of the first hearing, I returned to the courtroom briefly for some things I had forgotten. The lights were dimmed, and no one was there. This small dark room, vintage WW II, had a reverent calm. Desks and chairs sat waiting, slightly turned, empty jurist panel, attorney’s podium – the stage had been set. I look back on it now, and the feeling is strangely surreal.
Last week we learned that the United States Supreme Court allows itself to keep the Ten Commandments hanging on the walls of its chambers, as a testimony to another form of law. The guardian of the Constitution of our country, presiding over the human rights of our people, maintains that the Ten Commandments, religious context aside, represent a form of law that is powerful enough to occupy a place in its chambers.
In a small, quiet courtroom, on the Ft. Stewart military installation, the stage is set. One soldier who, after firsthand experience with the destructive force of war, decided to take the Ten Commandments at their word – "Thou Shall Not Kill" – and use the rights given to him to declare his conscious objection to war, to no longer be in a position to voluntarily have to kill another human being, is now on trial for not wanting to kill.
The Army has removed itself so completely from its moral responsibility, that its representatives are willing to openly demand, in a court of law, that they be allowed to regain "positive control over this soldier" by finding him guilty of crimes he did not commit, and put him in jail – a prisoner of conscience, for daring to obey a moral law.
It is "hard work" to face the truth, and it is scary when people who are not afraid to face it begin to speak out. Someone once said that my husband's case is a question of morality over legality. I pray that this country has not gone so far over the edge that the two are so distinctly different that we can tell them apart.
A sixteen year old in New York, was charged with involuntary manslaughter yesterday for stabbing another teen in the chest twice, over a computer game. There is no question of why. He broke a law – a legal, MORAL law – "Thou Shall Not Kill."
After seeing war firsthand, Sgt. Kevin Benderman chose to follow a legal, MORAL law – "Thou Shall Not Kill." A form of law significant enough to be represented on the walls of our Supreme Court. The US Army cannot let him go. I have to ask – "WHY?"
Sgt. Kevin Benderman is stationed at Ft. Stewart, Georgia.
He has served on combat tour in Iraq. After seeing war firsthand, he made the decision to file for Conscientious Objector status in December 2004. His command refused the request, and filed charges of Missing Movement and Desertion against him. They have since added a charge of Larceny.
Sgt. Benderman is scheduled to face a second attempt at Court Martial for these charges on July 28, 2005 and Ft. Stewart.
Please try to pass that on.-- Elaine
"Peace Quotes" (Peace Center)
Non-violence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages.
Thomas Edison
Sunday, July 17, 2005
A note to our readers
Another edition.
You've got Ava and C.I. taking on The Princes of Malibu in their review "The Bull of Malibu." You've got an interview with Betty. You've got "1 Book, 1 Minute." You've got . . .
Wait a second. "1 Book, 1 Minute?" What happened to "Five?"
Good question.
If you read the essay, you'll see exactly what happened.
When we met up in person and via phone Saturday evening we had a number of features planned. And we intended to do "Five Books, Five Minutes." But C.I. dropped a bombshell: The Common Ills might be going dark.
It was hard to come back from that. Which isn't a complaint to C.I. or about C.I. After we got over the jaw drop, we had a long discussion (The Third Estate Sunday Review, C.I., Betty, Mike, Rebecca and Kat).
The reality is that one person can only do so much. The reality is also that 15 minutes of sleep on a Friday night doesn't cut it. As C.I. said, it leaves one feeling like an exposed nerve. (We have permission for that quote.) There are things that fall by the wayside in posting to The Common Ills. And when you've got other things on your plate (as C.I. does) making time for a website isn't easy. It's not helped by members like ourselves. We take a hard look at our own actions in the essay we wrote (while Ava and C.I. were doing their TV review). We're asking that other members of The Common Ills community take a look at their own actions.
It's hard to rally some days. We're lucky to only post once a week. Some days the news knocks us out, leaves us depressed. If we go over to The Common Ills, we can find the call to take on the news and fight back. We're sure that's not easy day after day, several times a day. C.I.'s not doing linkfests. There are entries that we've teased about which start off with one item that's relatively important and a few paragraphs in, it's suddenly a jumping point for a hard hitting essay. (Like the thing C.I. posted two Saturdays ago -- on a twenty minute break from helping us, at that.) There's original thought going up there and not just "linkfests." They're rough drafts, as C.I.'s notes at the site, but they require work and thought. And they require time.
The way the community is set up, time's also required for e-mails. And with the volume of e-mails, a lot of time's being spent on them. We've offered our thoughts and ideas on ways to cut down on some of the time spent on e-mails in the essay. We encourage other members of The Common Ills to come up with their own ideas and to examine their own actions.
As backup if C.I. steps down (as opposed to shutting the site which is what was discussed), Ava has been designated. Due to that, she's been brought in for joint entries and she has access to the e-mails to get a feel for what's involved. When she knows things are really tight, she'll offer to go in and go through some e-mails. She didn't take part in the essay (she and C.I. were doing their TV review) but she's read the essay and she notes that since the defense of a reporter's stance not to reveal a source went up at The Common Ills, the drive by e-mails have gotten larger in volume and more heated in their comments. In the middle of composing the essay, Dona dropped a bombshell that Ava had told her about a drive byer who weighed in to wish that C.I. dies of cancer because C.I. hadn't written back. Ava says that a number of people write in now that the news is out and offer such "hopes."
C.I.'s not Adam Nagourney and doesn't come running to people saying, "Oh, this person said they hope I die!" Knowing that this isn't a single incident but a pattern in the drive bys, we're honestly surprised that C.I. still bothers to read e-mails from nonmembers. But if they weren't read, you wouldn't get Attorney X offering legal analysis of the Plame case like you did twice last week. And it's the "what might be missed" that's always made C.I. refuse to turn over the reading of e-mails to others. Jess makes a suggestion in the essay: two e-mail accounts, one for members that goes out only via Gina and Krista's newsletter and the other for visitors posted publicly at the site. Jess has already offered to go through a public e-mail account. We all stand by that offer and would gladly help by reading it and passing on anything that really needed to be passed on. But we're willing to bet that with all the members out there who care, you can probably think of additional ideas, probably better ones. So we're asking you to provide input to Gina and Krista and not just vote in the poll this week about should the comments option return to the web site.
On the Fourth of July we were shocked to discover that Folding Star had packed it in. If C.I. decides to follow that, we'll support the decision. But in the meantime, we should all be thinking of ideas that would make The Common Ills less time consuming. We wrote the essay with C.I.'s permission ("write what you want" was what we were told) and we wrote it because The Common Ills matters to us. If it matters to you, you need to do a little more work than just voting in the latest poll Gina and Krista are putting together.
When you read their round-robin, you get a valuable resource. But are you aware that it's two of them producing it. Are you aware that, as Krista said on the phone when we called her last night, "We usually only do the one a week and we get help. I can't imagine doing it every day and that's what The Common Ills is like." As we bullshit and joke around putting together each edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review, we can't imagine it either. Even without the e-mails.
We make a point in the essay that we want to make here: The Common Ills does not exist, and did not come about, to give you a Cliff's Notes version of The New York Times. Members asked for more opinion. C.I.'s doing that at members request. But some people seem to think that this important story or that important story got missed. If you think something was important, you do an e-mail and say "quote me and share this with the community" where you talk about that article. Quit expecting C.I. to do all the work for you.
We've teased C.I. about the post that went up at tax time, as the deadline drew near, that contained an apology for the slow pace in posting but explained a member was filing for the first time and was lost. Members, according to Ava, make requests like that all the time. We hate to break it to you, but helping you with your taxes isn't something you should be writing in about.
(We also think that C.I. could and should say, "Good luck with that, I hope you find someone to help you." If replying at all. But let's face it, if you ask for help -- on taxes, a school project or whatever -- C.I.'s going to hunt down what's huntable for you. That started when the community was a reasonable number of members. It's too big for that now. Most members have been paired up with several buddies by C.I. so we'd urge to use your buddies when possible. It is a community and everyone should help each other out. But C.I. shouldn't be your first resource, the first one you to go to.)
When C.I.'s apologized to the community, we've complained. Regardless of the reason for the apology. We've argued that there's no reason to be the sin eater. But the community formed around The Common Ills and C.I. feels a strong responsibility to it. We need to all (that includes us) look at our own actions and ask if we're making reasonable requests or unreasonable demands?
To that end, we're planning next week's edition right now. We had urged C.I. not to assist with this edition and go get some rest. Even suggested no TV review for this edition (knowing that e-mails would stream in nonstop asking and complaining about such a move). We did that because C.I. needs some rest but also because we didn't know if a TV review was possible. Ava reports that they worked a little slower but otherwise it was their usual process. We read it and think you'll enjoy it (we did). (We were surprised to find laughs in there because there weren't a lot of laughs last night or this morning.)
With Folding Star's decision, we had no head's up. With this possiblity, we do have a heads up and we're using that heads up to encourage everyone to take a look at their own actions.
On our end, if we don't have stuff already close to final drafts when Saturday rolls around, we're doing a best of edition. We're trying to think of what we can do differently and we'd encourage you to do the same.
We thank Dallas for his hard work this edition hunting down links. Always there to make the online edition of this a strong one. We thank Maria for compiling her Spanish and English entry that demonstrates that Democracy Now! is covering headlines in two languages. We thank Maria and C.I. for permission to reprint and we urge you to get the word out. We thank Gina and Krista for their advise tonight and for listening.
For help in the writing of this edition, we thank Rebecca, Mike, Betty and Kat. We thank Betty for the interview (which C.I. had suggested to both us and Betty mid-week).
We thank, always, C.I. And certainly we credit C.I. and Ava for their TV reviews. They continue to refuse a byline for their reviews because they say that goes against the collaborative nature of The Third Estate Sunday Review. So there's no byline but readers know who writes the TV review.
Check out the editorial.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava
You've got Ava and C.I. taking on The Princes of Malibu in their review "The Bull of Malibu." You've got an interview with Betty. You've got "1 Book, 1 Minute." You've got . . .
Wait a second. "1 Book, 1 Minute?" What happened to "Five?"
Good question.
If you read the essay, you'll see exactly what happened.
When we met up in person and via phone Saturday evening we had a number of features planned. And we intended to do "Five Books, Five Minutes." But C.I. dropped a bombshell: The Common Ills might be going dark.
It was hard to come back from that. Which isn't a complaint to C.I. or about C.I. After we got over the jaw drop, we had a long discussion (The Third Estate Sunday Review, C.I., Betty, Mike, Rebecca and Kat).
The reality is that one person can only do so much. The reality is also that 15 minutes of sleep on a Friday night doesn't cut it. As C.I. said, it leaves one feeling like an exposed nerve. (We have permission for that quote.) There are things that fall by the wayside in posting to The Common Ills. And when you've got other things on your plate (as C.I. does) making time for a website isn't easy. It's not helped by members like ourselves. We take a hard look at our own actions in the essay we wrote (while Ava and C.I. were doing their TV review). We're asking that other members of The Common Ills community take a look at their own actions.
It's hard to rally some days. We're lucky to only post once a week. Some days the news knocks us out, leaves us depressed. If we go over to The Common Ills, we can find the call to take on the news and fight back. We're sure that's not easy day after day, several times a day. C.I.'s not doing linkfests. There are entries that we've teased about which start off with one item that's relatively important and a few paragraphs in, it's suddenly a jumping point for a hard hitting essay. (Like the thing C.I. posted two Saturdays ago -- on a twenty minute break from helping us, at that.) There's original thought going up there and not just "linkfests." They're rough drafts, as C.I.'s notes at the site, but they require work and thought. And they require time.
The way the community is set up, time's also required for e-mails. And with the volume of e-mails, a lot of time's being spent on them. We've offered our thoughts and ideas on ways to cut down on some of the time spent on e-mails in the essay. We encourage other members of The Common Ills to come up with their own ideas and to examine their own actions.
As backup if C.I. steps down (as opposed to shutting the site which is what was discussed), Ava has been designated. Due to that, she's been brought in for joint entries and she has access to the e-mails to get a feel for what's involved. When she knows things are really tight, she'll offer to go in and go through some e-mails. She didn't take part in the essay (she and C.I. were doing their TV review) but she's read the essay and she notes that since the defense of a reporter's stance not to reveal a source went up at The Common Ills, the drive by e-mails have gotten larger in volume and more heated in their comments. In the middle of composing the essay, Dona dropped a bombshell that Ava had told her about a drive byer who weighed in to wish that C.I. dies of cancer because C.I. hadn't written back. Ava says that a number of people write in now that the news is out and offer such "hopes."
C.I.'s not Adam Nagourney and doesn't come running to people saying, "Oh, this person said they hope I die!" Knowing that this isn't a single incident but a pattern in the drive bys, we're honestly surprised that C.I. still bothers to read e-mails from nonmembers. But if they weren't read, you wouldn't get Attorney X offering legal analysis of the Plame case like you did twice last week. And it's the "what might be missed" that's always made C.I. refuse to turn over the reading of e-mails to others. Jess makes a suggestion in the essay: two e-mail accounts, one for members that goes out only via Gina and Krista's newsletter and the other for visitors posted publicly at the site. Jess has already offered to go through a public e-mail account. We all stand by that offer and would gladly help by reading it and passing on anything that really needed to be passed on. But we're willing to bet that with all the members out there who care, you can probably think of additional ideas, probably better ones. So we're asking you to provide input to Gina and Krista and not just vote in the poll this week about should the comments option return to the web site.
On the Fourth of July we were shocked to discover that Folding Star had packed it in. If C.I. decides to follow that, we'll support the decision. But in the meantime, we should all be thinking of ideas that would make The Common Ills less time consuming. We wrote the essay with C.I.'s permission ("write what you want" was what we were told) and we wrote it because The Common Ills matters to us. If it matters to you, you need to do a little more work than just voting in the latest poll Gina and Krista are putting together.
When you read their round-robin, you get a valuable resource. But are you aware that it's two of them producing it. Are you aware that, as Krista said on the phone when we called her last night, "We usually only do the one a week and we get help. I can't imagine doing it every day and that's what The Common Ills is like." As we bullshit and joke around putting together each edition of The Third Estate Sunday Review, we can't imagine it either. Even without the e-mails.
We make a point in the essay that we want to make here: The Common Ills does not exist, and did not come about, to give you a Cliff's Notes version of The New York Times. Members asked for more opinion. C.I.'s doing that at members request. But some people seem to think that this important story or that important story got missed. If you think something was important, you do an e-mail and say "quote me and share this with the community" where you talk about that article. Quit expecting C.I. to do all the work for you.
We've teased C.I. about the post that went up at tax time, as the deadline drew near, that contained an apology for the slow pace in posting but explained a member was filing for the first time and was lost. Members, according to Ava, make requests like that all the time. We hate to break it to you, but helping you with your taxes isn't something you should be writing in about.
(We also think that C.I. could and should say, "Good luck with that, I hope you find someone to help you." If replying at all. But let's face it, if you ask for help -- on taxes, a school project or whatever -- C.I.'s going to hunt down what's huntable for you. That started when the community was a reasonable number of members. It's too big for that now. Most members have been paired up with several buddies by C.I. so we'd urge to use your buddies when possible. It is a community and everyone should help each other out. But C.I. shouldn't be your first resource, the first one you to go to.)
When C.I.'s apologized to the community, we've complained. Regardless of the reason for the apology. We've argued that there's no reason to be the sin eater. But the community formed around The Common Ills and C.I. feels a strong responsibility to it. We need to all (that includes us) look at our own actions and ask if we're making reasonable requests or unreasonable demands?
To that end, we're planning next week's edition right now. We had urged C.I. not to assist with this edition and go get some rest. Even suggested no TV review for this edition (knowing that e-mails would stream in nonstop asking and complaining about such a move). We did that because C.I. needs some rest but also because we didn't know if a TV review was possible. Ava reports that they worked a little slower but otherwise it was their usual process. We read it and think you'll enjoy it (we did). (We were surprised to find laughs in there because there weren't a lot of laughs last night or this morning.)
With Folding Star's decision, we had no head's up. With this possiblity, we do have a heads up and we're using that heads up to encourage everyone to take a look at their own actions.
On our end, if we don't have stuff already close to final drafts when Saturday rolls around, we're doing a best of edition. We're trying to think of what we can do differently and we'd encourage you to do the same.
We thank Dallas for his hard work this edition hunting down links. Always there to make the online edition of this a strong one. We thank Maria for compiling her Spanish and English entry that demonstrates that Democracy Now! is covering headlines in two languages. We thank Maria and C.I. for permission to reprint and we urge you to get the word out. We thank Gina and Krista for their advise tonight and for listening.
For help in the writing of this edition, we thank Rebecca, Mike, Betty and Kat. We thank Betty for the interview (which C.I. had suggested to both us and Betty mid-week).
We thank, always, C.I. And certainly we credit C.I. and Ava for their TV reviews. They continue to refuse a byline for their reviews because they say that goes against the collaborative nature of The Third Estate Sunday Review. So there's no byline but readers know who writes the TV review.
Check out the editorial.
-- Jim, Dona, Ty, Jess and Ava
Editorial: What did Hadley know and what did he do?
Karl Rove's latest defense (as pointed out by The Common Ills) is that after speaking with Matt Cooper when Valerie Plame's name came up he immediately e-mailed then deputy national security advisor Stephen J. Hadley. And then what?
And then what?
Did the e-mail confuse Hadley? Was their a follow up conversation of "Karl, what's this e-mail about?" Did Hadley immediately notify his boss (Condi Rice) what was going on? Did she follow up by notifying the Bully Boy?
For those who forget, before she moved over to the State Department, Condi Rice was in charge of national security issues. It's easy to forget that because 9-11 happened while she was in charge and there was no accountability for her.
There needs to be accountability on this.
Did Hadley do his job?
If so, did others do their job?
We're not foolish enough to think the White House wasn't orchestrating the outing of Plame. But if that's going to be the spin point ("I prove I'm not guilty with my e-mail to Hadley!") then let's examine that spin point.
The spin argues Rove passed the news on up. Did it stop there? If so Hadley didn't do his job.
Did it go higher? How much higher?
A CIA agent was a national security issue. The outing of an agent was a national security issue.
No one's attempting to say Rove's absolved and innocent. We think he's neither. But if he's going to push this latest point, then we say let's explore it.
Once someone in charge of national security was notified, it was incumbent upon them (due to their position) to immediately determine the nature of Valerie Plame's work. It was also incumbent upon them to notify then CIA director George Tenet. If they themselves did not alert Plame, the reason should be because they were given assurance from within the CIA that someone in the agency would alert Plame.
Plame doesn't appear to have been alerted. Nothing in the public record suggests that she was anything but surprised when Robert Novak outed her in a July 14, 2003 column.
Cooper spoke to Rove on the 11th of July. Rove's spin is that he e-mailed Hadley immediately upon getting off the phone with Cooper. What was being done by the administration in those three days?
Rove's conversation with Cooper, by Rove's account, made it obvious that the press knew Valerie Plame was CIA. What did Hadley do? If he didn't know who Plame was or what her position was, he should have checked with the CIA (or maybe read the memo that the State Department prepared). That was Hadley job.
Unless Condi relieved him of the responsibility. Then it became her job. (And regardless, his actions reflect upon her because she was his boss.)
Did anyone contact the CIA to alert them?
If Plame had been a translator for the CIA, we'd argue a notification would be required. If she'd been an office assistant, we'd argue a notification would be required. If Hadley and/or Rice had done any work on the issue, they'd know that she had been an undercover agent.
And as such, regardless of when she was last undercover, it was their job to ensure that she and those she worked with while undercover knew what was coming.
This goes beyond the quibbling by Republicans of whether a law was broken due to some five year rule on when you were last undercover. Plame appears to have been undercover as late as 1999 so the rule is in place and outing her was a violation of the law.
But in terms of procedures and responsibilities, it didn't matter if Plame had retired from the CIA ten years prior. It terms of procedures and responsibilities, the administration should have been working overtime to ensure that all working with Plame and Plame herself knew what was about to come out.
Whether you personally favor the use of undercover CIA agents or not, it should be obvious that having gone undercover for their government, when their cover is about to be blown, it's the government's responsibility to alert them.
That was the administration's responsibility. Did they carry it out? If not, why not?
Were any agents currently undercover and in the field, agents who had worked with Plame, alerted that someone who'd taken part in missions with them was about to be outed and that, therefore, their own cover was in danger?
It doesn't appear that they were.
The latest spin is "Rove's not guilty! He alerted Hadley!" The spin doesn't prove that. But the spin argues that the administration knew (Hadley) and that they did nothing.
The spin suggests that Plame was outed with the administration's knowledge while the administration (with at least a three days heads up) sat around and waited for the explosion.
The spin's imploding. This talking point is cratering. Not only does it not clear Rove, it suggest incompetence (at best) on the part of the administration. It's time to know what Hadley did after he received the e-mail from Rove. If he did nothing, he needs to explain why. If he passed it up, we need to hear what those above him did.
It's time for Congressional hearings on this matter. We're no longer dealing with only the outing of a CIA agent. We're now dealing with, by Rove's talking point, the impression that the administration sat by and waited for a CIA agent to be outed. There need to be some answers and there needs to be some accountability.
[This editorial was written by the following: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, Jess, Dona, Jim and Ava, C.I. of The Common Ills, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Kat of Kat's Korner and Mike of Mikey Likes It!]
And then what?
Did the e-mail confuse Hadley? Was their a follow up conversation of "Karl, what's this e-mail about?" Did Hadley immediately notify his boss (Condi Rice) what was going on? Did she follow up by notifying the Bully Boy?
For those who forget, before she moved over to the State Department, Condi Rice was in charge of national security issues. It's easy to forget that because 9-11 happened while she was in charge and there was no accountability for her.
There needs to be accountability on this.
Did Hadley do his job?
If so, did others do their job?
We're not foolish enough to think the White House wasn't orchestrating the outing of Plame. But if that's going to be the spin point ("I prove I'm not guilty with my e-mail to Hadley!") then let's examine that spin point.
The spin argues Rove passed the news on up. Did it stop there? If so Hadley didn't do his job.
Did it go higher? How much higher?
A CIA agent was a national security issue. The outing of an agent was a national security issue.
No one's attempting to say Rove's absolved and innocent. We think he's neither. But if he's going to push this latest point, then we say let's explore it.
Once someone in charge of national security was notified, it was incumbent upon them (due to their position) to immediately determine the nature of Valerie Plame's work. It was also incumbent upon them to notify then CIA director George Tenet. If they themselves did not alert Plame, the reason should be because they were given assurance from within the CIA that someone in the agency would alert Plame.
Plame doesn't appear to have been alerted. Nothing in the public record suggests that she was anything but surprised when Robert Novak outed her in a July 14, 2003 column.
Cooper spoke to Rove on the 11th of July. Rove's spin is that he e-mailed Hadley immediately upon getting off the phone with Cooper. What was being done by the administration in those three days?
Rove's conversation with Cooper, by Rove's account, made it obvious that the press knew Valerie Plame was CIA. What did Hadley do? If he didn't know who Plame was or what her position was, he should have checked with the CIA (or maybe read the memo that the State Department prepared). That was Hadley job.
Unless Condi relieved him of the responsibility. Then it became her job. (And regardless, his actions reflect upon her because she was his boss.)
Did anyone contact the CIA to alert them?
If Plame had been a translator for the CIA, we'd argue a notification would be required. If she'd been an office assistant, we'd argue a notification would be required. If Hadley and/or Rice had done any work on the issue, they'd know that she had been an undercover agent.
And as such, regardless of when she was last undercover, it was their job to ensure that she and those she worked with while undercover knew what was coming.
This goes beyond the quibbling by Republicans of whether a law was broken due to some five year rule on when you were last undercover. Plame appears to have been undercover as late as 1999 so the rule is in place and outing her was a violation of the law.
But in terms of procedures and responsibilities, it didn't matter if Plame had retired from the CIA ten years prior. It terms of procedures and responsibilities, the administration should have been working overtime to ensure that all working with Plame and Plame herself knew what was about to come out.
Whether you personally favor the use of undercover CIA agents or not, it should be obvious that having gone undercover for their government, when their cover is about to be blown, it's the government's responsibility to alert them.
That was the administration's responsibility. Did they carry it out? If not, why not?
Were any agents currently undercover and in the field, agents who had worked with Plame, alerted that someone who'd taken part in missions with them was about to be outed and that, therefore, their own cover was in danger?
It doesn't appear that they were.
The latest spin is "Rove's not guilty! He alerted Hadley!" The spin doesn't prove that. But the spin argues that the administration knew (Hadley) and that they did nothing.
The spin suggests that Plame was outed with the administration's knowledge while the administration (with at least a three days heads up) sat around and waited for the explosion.
The spin's imploding. This talking point is cratering. Not only does it not clear Rove, it suggest incompetence (at best) on the part of the administration. It's time to know what Hadley did after he received the e-mail from Rove. If he did nothing, he needs to explain why. If he passed it up, we need to hear what those above him did.
It's time for Congressional hearings on this matter. We're no longer dealing with only the outing of a CIA agent. We're now dealing with, by Rove's talking point, the impression that the administration sat by and waited for a CIA agent to be outed. There need to be some answers and there needs to be some accountability.
[This editorial was written by the following: The Third Estate Sunday Review's Ty, Jess, Dona, Jim and Ava, C.I. of The Common Ills, Betty of Thomas Friedman is a Great Man, Rebecca of Sex and Politics and Screeds and Attitude, Kat of Kat's Korner and Mike of Mikey Likes It!]
TV Review: The Bull of Malibu
So reality TV that treats women as dithering fools finally decides to take a look at two pampered, pretty boys? It debuted last Sunday and you know your critics were front and center waiting to see how it played out.
The title's The Princes of Malibu. The channel is Fox. The focus is the pampered two-some Brody and Brandon Jenner. Young men (adults, we don't criticize physical children, though mental ones in adult bodies sometime get their comeuppance) have been living with their mother Linda Thompson and their step-father David Foster. Theme: It's been a free ride, as the grown men have dabbled in college while spending money without holding down a job.
Disclosure, one of us has encountered Linda Thompson a few times. In terms of reality versus "reality" on the show, we'll note that she's smarter than she comes off in the TV show. To know what Thompson is thinking, the show should have filmed her with a friend. (No, neither of us is auditioning for the job!) Instead, she's shown trying to smooth the waters which appears in keeping with the real Thompson. However, she is also a smart woman who, when given the opportunity to speak without being cut off, has much to say.
David Foster comes off onscreen like the rudest man in the world. We're not doubting that Brody and Brandon are a handful nor are we suggesting that he go easy on them (more on that in a bit) but we're a bit taken aback by the screaming, stomping and yelling we're seeing onscreen which goes far beyond someone at the end of their rope.
We think that a better, more realistic show could have been done focusing on a lyricist Foster's worked with -- a lyricist married to a woman who's both a horror and a hypochondriac. Want easy laughs? Put a camera in front of that woman. Anyone missing Omarosa would eagerly tune in only to find out that Omarosa was, at best, difficult and not horrible.
It's weird to watch this "reality show" when you've encountered one of the people involved. It's especially weird when you see the person (Thompson) and realize that such a huge part of who she is doesn't make it to your TV screens. Throughout the week, we would ask people who'd seen the show what did they think of Thompson? Onscreen, she's a caricature for "wishy-washy" and "unable to make up her mind." That's the general feeling among people who've watched the show. We think this goes to the problem with "reality television."
We're not going into any personal details on Thompson. But we are going to note that reality wouldn't present Thompson through the eyes of only males. (Though "reality television" is happy to do so.) We are going to note that whole aspects of who she is (including who she is as a mother) don't fit with the narrative that's going up onscreen.
The show has a point of view and it's not Thompson's. It's not the "princes" (though they're the stars of the title). It may be David Foster's but it's obviously Fox's point of view and it fits in with the stereotypes reality TV too often promotes. We will note, for anyone thinking this is Thompson's point of view, that we have a hard time believing she saw the graphics in the opening and approved of them. Even from the limited view that the show presents of her, it should be obvious to viewers that the little "bits" with Elvis and Bruce Jenner do not fit her personality. (And if any Elvis fans have complaints, they need to direct them at Fox and the people making the show, not at Thompson.)
This is another in a series of authoritarian tales that passes for "reality TV." In this one, Big Step-Daddy is going to lay down the law. And we'll all tune to see how apparently.
Personally, we kind of wish he'd pants Brody and take him over his knee. We're sure that Brody (like everyone else involved in this show) has more to offer than what on the TV screen but he comes off like such an ass in need of direction. And let's be honest, TV needs more male nudity. Even if it is only butt shots. With the mouth on him and the fact that he's an adult, we'd strongly support Foster taking a belt to Brody's heinie.
Brandon? He looks so much like his father (Bruce Jenner) that it's hard to watch him. We wonder how hard it is for Bruce Jenner to watch the show? (We've never met Bruce Jenner.)
An American sports hero who's been held up as an inspiration for many and he's going out in public life as the father to two spoiled brats. (Jenner's not on the show thus far and we've been told he won't be. If that's accurate, it's a smart move for him to keep his distance.)
To fit the framework of the show, Brody and Brandon have to be portrayed as lay around bums. They may very well be that. At one point during the debut, one of them attempts to make the point that they have earned money as musicians. They both have. The show's not interested in that. (Which is why it's "reality" TV.) Does that excuse their living off the funds of Foster and Thompson (and are viewers getting the impression that Thompson has made her own money because she has)? No.
But they are struggling musicians. These two are living the high life off funds from their mother and step-father (and we're guessing some help from Bruce Jenner though we could be wrong on that). No point in working up any tears because, unlike many young musicians, they're not living off Ramen and peanut butter or working a crappy job to make the rent. But the TV Foster is apparently unaware of how difficult it is for musicians. Session work, the kind he found as a teenager, doesn't exist as it once did. Especially for someone like Brody who's a drummer. Note, those drums you hear on jingles and in songs are rarely, in fact, drums. Machines have replaced humans.
It's cheaper. And few people notice. And possibly when your name is David Foster and you get the sound you want regardless of the money required, you're unaware that for most of the current recording scene, musicians aren't always required.
In a Bully Boy economy (read "bad") when machines and outsourcing have resulted in job losses, we're frankly surprised that Foster doesn't come off as more aware of economic realities. The world he broke into no longer exists and if in reality (as opposed to "reality") he doesn't grasp that fact, he's the one most out of tune with the world.
That's not excusing the behavior of Brandon and Brody. Nothing's preventing Foster from sitting them down and breaking the cold, hard news to them. That probably wouldn't fit into the Murdoch theme of "Rah-rah America! The Bull is back!" It might even upset some viewers.
Which should be the point of reality TV. But we're not getting reality, we're getting "reality."
By comparison, Fox's The Simple Life looks positively liberating -- two spoiled airheads stumbling through the world. The message is different here and viewers need to ask themselves why?
We'd argue the message is different because two female airheads can be embraced by a nation but two male airheads are supposed to have gotten careers. If there's a problem with either set of airheads, it goes to the message that they were raised with. But The Princes of Malibu is so determined to sell you the line of "authoritarian father" that it, like the Bully Boy, can't own up to the reality of mistakes.
"My money! My toys!" the Bull roars throughout. It's as though we're watching a "reality" show on the home life of Wall Street's Gordon Gekko. Adult children in Brody & Brandon's set are usually set up with their own apartments, sometimes fashionable apartments, sometimes not. One of the two of us heard repeatedly that the Bull had humiliated himself by doing this series (from people in Foster's own "set"). We're inclined to agree.
What goes up on the screen (a limited view, granted) speaks of ineffective parenting that remains ineffective. There are ways someone in Foster's situation handles things and this isn't how. Due to the differing nature of the fields, people in music are allowed to retain a little more "street" or "common touch" after they make it than those in the movie business. There are whispers that a little too much "street" is coming out of the Bull.
We're sure he'll embarrass himself further but for our money the person who embarrassed his or herself the most on the debut episode was Chaka Khan. "Chaka Who?" caused Chaka Khan to lose it. Sorry to break it to her but she's not a name to most young adults. Her big hit on the pop charts came in 1984. That's twenty-one years ago, Chaka, Chaka Khan, Chaka Khan.
The shocka' was that Chaka thought anyone who wasn't a teenager (at least a teenager) in 1984 should know who she is. She hasn't even been the butt of jokes for years. Her most memorable nonsinging performance came as the non-lead guest on Joan Rivers' attempt at a late night show on Fox -- and memorable only because she was offering (a not present) Donna Mills dating tips. Does Chaka not grasp how long ago that was?
For non R&B audiences (which includes a larger portion of the listening population today due to the fact that rap has overtaken R&B), Chaka Khan is "Chaka Who?" A one hit wonder in their eyes (if they know that much). The sampling of "Ain't Nobody" (a song she did with Rufus) didn't result in headlines for Khan. Nor did a song on Waiting to Exhale. (The best selling album her name's been attached to in years. Think about how long ago Waiting To Exhale actually was and you'll realize how far from the water cooler talk Chaka Khan has wandered.)
But there she was, having a snit fit. Hissing that she was late for a session. Squinting her eyes and ready to lose it at a minute's notice.
Chaka's devotion in recent years to all things Bully Boy hasn't endeared her to us so that moment was probably our favorite of the show. We even created our own little rap:
But as we've noted, that was a moment. A strong one, maybe one they could work in every episode? Next time we could see an angry woman scream, "I am Melissa Manchester!" at a group of twenty-somethings and teens and grow enraged when one of them asked, "Melissa Who?" Otherwise, the shows going to revolve around, as this episode did, "Give me back my toys!"
Does Foster think this is good parenting? By all means send the boys packing. But he's not scoring any points for himself as he continues to come off as though he's obsessed with nothing but money. (It also doesn't play well in his "set." One man cracked that he bets Foster haggles over the price of a pack of gum.)
As this "authoritarian theme" plays out, other themes may go unnoticed. Fortunately, we won't overlook them here.
Paris and Nicole sport plenty of skin in their show (their show for now, supposedly Nicole's out -- big mistake) The Simple Life. Brody and Brandon do actually take their shirts off, the camera just isn't interested. Lying by the pool (with their friend), three men are shirtless and we're treated to a wide shot, not a close up. We also quickly move on. Though it's not surprising to see Paris or Nicole walking around in their nighties after waking up, apparently seeing Brody and Brandon strut in their underwear is off limits for The Princes of Malibu.
"Wow!" we hear you exclaim, "A show that doesn't treat people as subject objects." Au contraire, it still happens. To the women. The cameras that are apparently stationed on a crane in Seattle when the guys are disrobed suddenly come to life and zoom in at the car wash featuring bikini clad women. Or to a note a woman with no bottom to her bikini on the back of a man.
Brandon looks just like his father (Bruce Jenner) so we're having a hard time grasping how even an old timer operating a camera wouldn't realize that Brandon's body merits the slow, once over.
Bruce Jenner's looks hardly went without comment "back in the day." The show also ignores Brody's body.
This appears in keeping with the simplistic nature of "reality" TV where men do and women are, where men are what they do and women are what they look like. It also goes to the point we made earlier which is that we're supposed to be delighted by the antics of Paris & Nicole but we're supposed to be embarrassed by the antics of Brody & Brandon.
We're not fans of the spoiled and pampered, but there's a double standard going on. It's there in showing (long shot again) one of the young men diving into the pool, it's their in the constant screaming (by the Bull) about money. Considering the looks on the kids, we're surprised Bull hasn't already suggested that they film their sexual antics to make some quick bucks.
When Thompson's cut off (nearly every time she speaks), that's what she's trying to get at. Not, "Oh, let them live off us all our lives! Come on, Dave, don't be a grouch!" She's getting at the fact that they do need to carry their own weight but that money is not the sole focus of life. (And her own work in other areas demonstrate that belief.) We're having a hard time believing that almost fifteen years later, she and Foster are still married if he doesn't grasp that. We think he does grasp it. We think the people behind the show don't care about it.
Which is why everyone involved should have been suspicious when Fox came sniffing.
This is a train wreck onscreen. Brody and Brandon have already signed modeling contracts (they are good looking) so we're having a hard time believing that any "lesson" will be taught in reality. But we're quite sure that "reality" on our screen will find a way to portray this as resulting from the Bull going on a stampede. Make no mistake, they didn't get their contracts because the Bull laid down the line. They got their contracts because they were going to be on TV and because of who they are. They haven't learned a thing about making it on their own. They've learned that if you're in a certain position, things come to you, you don't work for them.
The way the show plays out, that's "success" in TV Foster's book because all he's concerned about is the money. And we're sure that a happy ending will be stamped on it and we'll all learn that Father Knows Best. Before the final episode comes (we're praying that there's not a second season), we hope that the producers and editors do a better job of getting reality up on screen because what they're featuring isn't "reality." We're also hoping that we see Brody's butt taking a walloping but we know that's a failed hope from reports of the filming (translation, it didn't happen so there's no footage).
That's "reality" television for you. Carefully orchestrated so that no reality intrudes on the "reality." Let's hope the viewers aren't fooled.
The title's The Princes of Malibu. The channel is Fox. The focus is the pampered two-some Brody and Brandon Jenner. Young men (adults, we don't criticize physical children, though mental ones in adult bodies sometime get their comeuppance) have been living with their mother Linda Thompson and their step-father David Foster. Theme: It's been a free ride, as the grown men have dabbled in college while spending money without holding down a job.
Disclosure, one of us has encountered Linda Thompson a few times. In terms of reality versus "reality" on the show, we'll note that she's smarter than she comes off in the TV show. To know what Thompson is thinking, the show should have filmed her with a friend. (No, neither of us is auditioning for the job!) Instead, she's shown trying to smooth the waters which appears in keeping with the real Thompson. However, she is also a smart woman who, when given the opportunity to speak without being cut off, has much to say.
David Foster comes off onscreen like the rudest man in the world. We're not doubting that Brody and Brandon are a handful nor are we suggesting that he go easy on them (more on that in a bit) but we're a bit taken aback by the screaming, stomping and yelling we're seeing onscreen which goes far beyond someone at the end of their rope.
We think that a better, more realistic show could have been done focusing on a lyricist Foster's worked with -- a lyricist married to a woman who's both a horror and a hypochondriac. Want easy laughs? Put a camera in front of that woman. Anyone missing Omarosa would eagerly tune in only to find out that Omarosa was, at best, difficult and not horrible.
It's weird to watch this "reality show" when you've encountered one of the people involved. It's especially weird when you see the person (Thompson) and realize that such a huge part of who she is doesn't make it to your TV screens. Throughout the week, we would ask people who'd seen the show what did they think of Thompson? Onscreen, she's a caricature for "wishy-washy" and "unable to make up her mind." That's the general feeling among people who've watched the show. We think this goes to the problem with "reality television."
We're not going into any personal details on Thompson. But we are going to note that reality wouldn't present Thompson through the eyes of only males. (Though "reality television" is happy to do so.) We are going to note that whole aspects of who she is (including who she is as a mother) don't fit with the narrative that's going up onscreen.
The show has a point of view and it's not Thompson's. It's not the "princes" (though they're the stars of the title). It may be David Foster's but it's obviously Fox's point of view and it fits in with the stereotypes reality TV too often promotes. We will note, for anyone thinking this is Thompson's point of view, that we have a hard time believing she saw the graphics in the opening and approved of them. Even from the limited view that the show presents of her, it should be obvious to viewers that the little "bits" with Elvis and Bruce Jenner do not fit her personality. (And if any Elvis fans have complaints, they need to direct them at Fox and the people making the show, not at Thompson.)
This is another in a series of authoritarian tales that passes for "reality TV." In this one, Big Step-Daddy is going to lay down the law. And we'll all tune to see how apparently.
Personally, we kind of wish he'd pants Brody and take him over his knee. We're sure that Brody (like everyone else involved in this show) has more to offer than what on the TV screen but he comes off like such an ass in need of direction. And let's be honest, TV needs more male nudity. Even if it is only butt shots. With the mouth on him and the fact that he's an adult, we'd strongly support Foster taking a belt to Brody's heinie.
Brandon? He looks so much like his father (Bruce Jenner) that it's hard to watch him. We wonder how hard it is for Bruce Jenner to watch the show? (We've never met Bruce Jenner.)
An American sports hero who's been held up as an inspiration for many and he's going out in public life as the father to two spoiled brats. (Jenner's not on the show thus far and we've been told he won't be. If that's accurate, it's a smart move for him to keep his distance.)
To fit the framework of the show, Brody and Brandon have to be portrayed as lay around bums. They may very well be that. At one point during the debut, one of them attempts to make the point that they have earned money as musicians. They both have. The show's not interested in that. (Which is why it's "reality" TV.) Does that excuse their living off the funds of Foster and Thompson (and are viewers getting the impression that Thompson has made her own money because she has)? No.
But they are struggling musicians. These two are living the high life off funds from their mother and step-father (and we're guessing some help from Bruce Jenner though we could be wrong on that). No point in working up any tears because, unlike many young musicians, they're not living off Ramen and peanut butter or working a crappy job to make the rent. But the TV Foster is apparently unaware of how difficult it is for musicians. Session work, the kind he found as a teenager, doesn't exist as it once did. Especially for someone like Brody who's a drummer. Note, those drums you hear on jingles and in songs are rarely, in fact, drums. Machines have replaced humans.
It's cheaper. And few people notice. And possibly when your name is David Foster and you get the sound you want regardless of the money required, you're unaware that for most of the current recording scene, musicians aren't always required.
In a Bully Boy economy (read "bad") when machines and outsourcing have resulted in job losses, we're frankly surprised that Foster doesn't come off as more aware of economic realities. The world he broke into no longer exists and if in reality (as opposed to "reality") he doesn't grasp that fact, he's the one most out of tune with the world.
That's not excusing the behavior of Brandon and Brody. Nothing's preventing Foster from sitting them down and breaking the cold, hard news to them. That probably wouldn't fit into the Murdoch theme of "Rah-rah America! The Bull is back!" It might even upset some viewers.
Which should be the point of reality TV. But we're not getting reality, we're getting "reality."
By comparison, Fox's The Simple Life looks positively liberating -- two spoiled airheads stumbling through the world. The message is different here and viewers need to ask themselves why?
We'd argue the message is different because two female airheads can be embraced by a nation but two male airheads are supposed to have gotten careers. If there's a problem with either set of airheads, it goes to the message that they were raised with. But The Princes of Malibu is so determined to sell you the line of "authoritarian father" that it, like the Bully Boy, can't own up to the reality of mistakes.
"My money! My toys!" the Bull roars throughout. It's as though we're watching a "reality" show on the home life of Wall Street's Gordon Gekko. Adult children in Brody & Brandon's set are usually set up with their own apartments, sometimes fashionable apartments, sometimes not. One of the two of us heard repeatedly that the Bull had humiliated himself by doing this series (from people in Foster's own "set"). We're inclined to agree.
What goes up on the screen (a limited view, granted) speaks of ineffective parenting that remains ineffective. There are ways someone in Foster's situation handles things and this isn't how. Due to the differing nature of the fields, people in music are allowed to retain a little more "street" or "common touch" after they make it than those in the movie business. There are whispers that a little too much "street" is coming out of the Bull.
We're sure he'll embarrass himself further but for our money the person who embarrassed his or herself the most on the debut episode was Chaka Khan. "Chaka Who?" caused Chaka Khan to lose it. Sorry to break it to her but she's not a name to most young adults. Her big hit on the pop charts came in 1984. That's twenty-one years ago, Chaka, Chaka Khan, Chaka Khan.
The shocka' was that Chaka thought anyone who wasn't a teenager (at least a teenager) in 1984 should know who she is. She hasn't even been the butt of jokes for years. Her most memorable nonsinging performance came as the non-lead guest on Joan Rivers' attempt at a late night show on Fox -- and memorable only because she was offering (a not present) Donna Mills dating tips. Does Chaka not grasp how long ago that was?
For non R&B audiences (which includes a larger portion of the listening population today due to the fact that rap has overtaken R&B), Chaka Khan is "Chaka Who?" A one hit wonder in their eyes (if they know that much). The sampling of "Ain't Nobody" (a song she did with Rufus) didn't result in headlines for Khan. Nor did a song on Waiting to Exhale. (The best selling album her name's been attached to in years. Think about how long ago Waiting To Exhale actually was and you'll realize how far from the water cooler talk Chaka Khan has wandered.)
But there she was, having a snit fit. Hissing that she was late for a session. Squinting her eyes and ready to lose it at a minute's notice.
Chaka's devotion in recent years to all things Bully Boy hasn't endeared her to us so that moment was probably our favorite of the show. We even created our own little rap:
ChakaChaka WhoChaka WhoChaka WhoCares about you anymore Chaka WhoCares about you anymore Chaka WhoEverybody say "Who?"Let me hear you now "Who?"Chaka WhoChaka Who
Does Foster think this is good parenting? By all means send the boys packing. But he's not scoring any points for himself as he continues to come off as though he's obsessed with nothing but money. (It also doesn't play well in his "set." One man cracked that he bets Foster haggles over the price of a pack of gum.)
As this "authoritarian theme" plays out, other themes may go unnoticed. Fortunately, we won't overlook them here.
Paris and Nicole sport plenty of skin in their show (their show for now, supposedly Nicole's out -- big mistake) The Simple Life. Brody and Brandon do actually take their shirts off, the camera just isn't interested. Lying by the pool (with their friend), three men are shirtless and we're treated to a wide shot, not a close up. We also quickly move on. Though it's not surprising to see Paris or Nicole walking around in their nighties after waking up, apparently seeing Brody and Brandon strut in their underwear is off limits for The Princes of Malibu.
"Wow!" we hear you exclaim, "A show that doesn't treat people as subject objects." Au contraire, it still happens. To the women. The cameras that are apparently stationed on a crane in Seattle when the guys are disrobed suddenly come to life and zoom in at the car wash featuring bikini clad women. Or to a note a woman with no bottom to her bikini on the back of a man.
Brandon looks just like his father (Bruce Jenner) so we're having a hard time grasping how even an old timer operating a camera wouldn't realize that Brandon's body merits the slow, once over.
Bruce Jenner's looks hardly went without comment "back in the day." The show also ignores Brody's body.
This appears in keeping with the simplistic nature of "reality" TV where men do and women are, where men are what they do and women are what they look like. It also goes to the point we made earlier which is that we're supposed to be delighted by the antics of Paris & Nicole but we're supposed to be embarrassed by the antics of Brody & Brandon.
We're not fans of the spoiled and pampered, but there's a double standard going on. It's there in showing (long shot again) one of the young men diving into the pool, it's their in the constant screaming (by the Bull) about money. Considering the looks on the kids, we're surprised Bull hasn't already suggested that they film their sexual antics to make some quick bucks.
When Thompson's cut off (nearly every time she speaks), that's what she's trying to get at. Not, "Oh, let them live off us all our lives! Come on, Dave, don't be a grouch!" She's getting at the fact that they do need to carry their own weight but that money is not the sole focus of life. (And her own work in other areas demonstrate that belief.) We're having a hard time believing that almost fifteen years later, she and Foster are still married if he doesn't grasp that. We think he does grasp it. We think the people behind the show don't care about it.
Which is why everyone involved should have been suspicious when Fox came sniffing.
This is a train wreck onscreen. Brody and Brandon have already signed modeling contracts (they are good looking) so we're having a hard time believing that any "lesson" will be taught in reality. But we're quite sure that "reality" on our screen will find a way to portray this as resulting from the Bull going on a stampede. Make no mistake, they didn't get their contracts because the Bull laid down the line. They got their contracts because they were going to be on TV and because of who they are. They haven't learned a thing about making it on their own. They've learned that if you're in a certain position, things come to you, you don't work for them.
The way the show plays out, that's "success" in TV Foster's book because all he's concerned about is the money. And we're sure that a happy ending will be stamped on it and we'll all learn that Father Knows Best. Before the final episode comes (we're praying that there's not a second season), we hope that the producers and editors do a better job of getting reality up on screen because what they're featuring isn't "reality." We're also hoping that we see Brody's butt taking a walloping but we know that's a failed hope from reports of the filming (translation, it didn't happen so there's no footage).
That's "reality" television for you. Carefully orchestrated so that no reality intrudes on the "reality." Let's hope the viewers aren't fooled.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
