I Have a Six-Year Old Girl...

... who now likes to draw fighter planes. Would you guess that she does or doesn't have older brothers?

John McCain Rolls the Dice

Literally, that is. I can't say that I'm surprised at these revelations. In hindsight, it all makes sense: Sarah Palin, the "suspend-the-campaign" debacle: the man is a compulsive gambler. My only question is whether this sort of news will have any effect on the cultural conservatives who so vehemently oppose gambling as a moral vice. I've got a hundred to one that says that this won't have any impact on them at all.

Ain't That a Kick in the Head...

It's hard to believe that Simon's soccer season is over now. Since his team never had any practices, it wasn't particularly onerous for us as parents/chauffeurs: just two hour-long matches per week. He went out with a bang, scoring three goals in his last game (including, I must say, an impressive shot with his left foot). He had a great time and was sad that competitive soccer is done for the year.

Y Not?

Hiking up to the "Y" on "Y Mountain" in Provo is one of those rituals in which locals are expected to participate on a semi-regular basis. We had been negligent on that count for quite some time: neither Michelle nor I had made the hike since we were students here years ago and the kids had never been. So, we went.

While steep, the trail is much more developed now than it was back in the early 90s. It probably took us 45 minutes or so to make the 1.1 mile hike, where we were rewarded with some nice views. A guy took off on a hang glider and Michelle was able to snap a few pictures of that as well.

Good exercise, and a good experience overall. I'm looking forward to doing it again in ten years or so.
.

Gavin Bryars: The Stars Gleam, Even from the Gutter

Gavin Bryars is an English avant-garde composer and bassist who has moved in a number of jazz and experimental composition circles since the early 1970s. One of his most striking works, "Jesus' Blood Never Failed Me Yet," was composed in 1971. Bryars had worked on a film about homeless men in London, a number of whom would sing snatches of songs, usually while inebriated. He ended up with some unused material, including a 13-bar clip of a tramp singing a gospel song consisting only of the following refrain: "Jesus' blood never failed me yet / Never failed me yet / Jesus' blood never failed me yet. / That's one thing I know / for he loves me so." As the story goes, Bryars improvised a chordal accompaniment on the piano and, while working on the piece in a recording studio, created a loop which would play continuously. He slipped out for a while, and when he returned to the studio, the loop was still playing and everyone within earshot was listening intently or quietly sobbing. He composed a number of variations on the piece, including a 27-minute long orchestral version and numerous shorter versions, including one that features a vocal overdub by Tom Waits.

In an ideal world, I'd be able to post the entire 27-minute version, but you'll have to pick that one up for yourself. Here's some of the shorter version with Tom Waits, courtesy of imeem.com:



This is an odd and powerful work. One might expect the repetition of the 13-bar loop to become burdensome or oppressive. But it doesn't. The irony is palpable: a homeless man with nothing left to lose repeats again and again the line that Jesus hasn't failed him. But as the song wears on--and again, this is more evident on the long composition than on the short one I'm posting here--the listener comes to realize that the voice is not diminished in its repetition but rather becomes increasingly powerful, until it's clear that in a sense, the tramp's right: there is an element of grace in his voice and perhaps even his life that exceeds anything we could have imagined. I can think of few recent works more spiritually illuminating or deep.

Borges once said that the problem of beauty in our world is not that it's too rare but that it's too common. Bryars' magnificent piece shows Borges may well have been right.

The End of the End

If you cannot in good conscience vote for anyone but John McCain this year, DO NOT WATCH THIS VIDEO. Trust me, just trust me. You'll be much happier if you don't. All kidding aside, I can't say that I take any pleasure in this at all. I never thought it would feel so terrible to be vindicated.



Watch CBS Videos Online

[additional note, added on 9/26: apparently I'm not the only one who is beginning to feel sorry for Ms. Palin. I've been snarky enough about her candidacy. But it's impossible not to feel bad for a candidate so desperately out of her depth and who is probably a fine and decent person who has been put in an untenable position].

The Beginning of the End

... of the McCain campaign, that is. Hopefully not the financial infrastructure. I happen to disagree with McCain's critics that claim he wanted to avoid debating Obama. McCain in fact had called for more debates than Obama would agree to. So I don't think he's running scared. But I think he is definitely trying to cut a dramatic image of a reformer who would put Country-Above-Politics®. By rushing off to Washington, he wants to burnish his image as someone who is in fact profoundly aware of the significance of the current crisis and try to undo some of the damage from his infamous statement last week that the fundamentals of the economy "are strong."

But I think McCain's histrionic performance probably marks the beginning of the end for his campaign. The wheels are coming off. And he continues to demonstrate he doesn't think that Palin is up to the job of assuming a more prominent role in his campaign: she is to be seen and not heard. I have a funny feeling that right about now senator McCain is regretting passing up a vice-presidential running mate with real economic chops (farewell, Mitt, we hardly knew ye...) in favor of Ms. Moose-Kill-Eye-Candy.

"Our Brand is Crisis" in Five Words

"Carville does Bolivia; Bolivia explodes."

"Juno" in Five Words

"Pithy brat learns to love."

A Picture's Worth a Thousand Sub-Prime Loans

[click to enlarge]

... or one trillionth of the net worth of Senator McCain's fleet of vehicles. As one wag put it, "Now, who's the rich, elitist candidate again?"

Alex's 12th.

Grandparents by the dozens were here (well, at least four). Priesthood Ordination. Presents. Chuck-a-rama (no arugula, unfortunately). Good times, indeed. Alex passed the sacrament for the first time on Sunday and did a great job. Am I really old enough for all this?

No pics (negligent parents).

Why My Views On Politics, Even if They're Right, Probably Aren't Worth Very Much

You've probably already come to that conclusion on your own. And, the truth is, I don't take a deep interest in politics for the simple reason that I'm generally too inconsistent in my views to be much of an ideologue. Now, I happen to think that inconsistency in one's political views may be a virtue, as long as it's the right kind of inconsistency (the wrong kind would be: hypocrisy). So, let me say a word or two about my political philosophy and offer a brief apologia for writing so many political posts of late.

Aristotle, helpful as always, noted that politics is more a matter of practical wisdom than scientia. Other disciplines, such as those that we would today call the physical sciences, may and indeed must deal with objects of scientia, but there is no such object corresponding to the governing of the polis. A good Aristotelian leader is one possessed of practical wisdom, endowed with a talent for solving particular problems in particular circumstances. The art of politics consists in identifying, prioritizing, and addressing those problems. There is no magic algorithm for doing so, and the ideological purists on the left and right fail to appreciate this simple point.

As it turns out, I've lived in one of the most politically liberal cities in America (Ithaca, which at the time boasted the country's only socialist mayor) and the most conservative (Provo, no explanation necessary). And neither is exactly a paradise or a hell on earth. In point of fact, they aren't terribly different in terms of quality of life, although I think I found Ithaca somewhat more tolerant and family-friendly than Provo (the reason, I guess, is that my family's kind of conservative lifestyle and our exotic religious views made us somewhat subversive and counter-culture). So it's hard for me to accept the premise that "if only the Republicans/ Democrats were more dominant things would be oh-so-much better." Well, I doubt it. So, party politics, ideology-driven politics, "principle"-driven politics: that stuff doesn't mean much to me, at least at the crude level of presidential and congressional elections (now, political theory in a deep sense is another matter entirely).

Neal A. Maxwell was fond of quoting C.S. Lewis to the effect that some people like to run around with fire extinguishers in times of flood. That strikes me as a good enough definition of an ideologue. The purists who believe that Democrats are for big government haven't bothered checking how recent Republican administrations have done on that count, and those that believe that Democrats are against big business don't know what they're talking about either. Both parties are ideologically schizophrenic and that's fine. If you're going to vote for one or the other, you should do so because you believe that your party has a set of priorities consistent with your own and that their leaders are (at least relatively) wise and capable.

If I've been hard on McCain and Palin, it's because I don't think either shares my priorities and the latter, at least, is ideologically driven in dangerous ways (at least she raises enough red flags for me that I find her candidacy very troubling). It should be obvious by now that I think they both fall short, far short, on the "wise and capable" meter as well. So, you can feel free to disagree with my political priorities and my assessment of the merits of the two main presidential tickets. But don't tell me that you're voting "on principle" and expect me to do the same. You lost me there with "principle," which in my view is a synonym for "ideological" (which is not, of course, to say, that the converse of "principled" is: "without integrity." Au contraire).

Coming in a future post: what is wrong with Mormons' tendency to identify with the Republican party.

John McCain es un idiota.

Does John McCain (a) know that José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero is the current president of Spain? and (b) know that Spain is in Europe? It appears that the good senator is having a hard time distinguishing between the usual suspects in Latin America (Chávez, Morales, Castro) and the current Spanish head of state. In a recent interview with Cadena Ser radio network, McCain didn't seem to have the faintest idea who Zapatero is and thus waffled on whether or not he would meet with him as president of the United States (click here for an audio interview with McCain in Spanish). Now, it's okay that a politician doesn't spend his day texting and swapping viral videos with every foreign head of state in the world. But for heaven's sakes, Spain has had a significant role to play in the Iraq saga and should at least be on the radar screen of someone that wants to govern the United States. To be sure, Zapatero has his share of extremist detractors that would link him with the Latin American hard left (of course, for those people, anyone to the left of Pope Benedict is a commie and even he is a bit dubious at times). And Zapatero's relationship with Washington has been decidedly cool during his tenure. I happen to think that Zapatero is an idiot as well, for reasons I won't go into here. And, well, yes, he could pass for Mr. Bean's stunt double. But if he's an idiot, and if Hugo, Evo, and Raúl are idiots, they are so for different reasons. And there's no question that diplomatic protocol would dictate that Zapatero should be received at the White House.

So, here we are with a presidential ticket that thinks a refueling stop in a foreign country counts as a visit and is hazy on the difference between Spain and Latin America. Heaven help us.

... In Which All of Alex's Wildest Dreams Come True

I pleaded and pleaded for a B.B. gun when I was a kid. Did I ever get one? No. Am I still bitter about it? Maybe. Did Alex get one for his birthday? Yes. Was he thrilled? What do you think? Am I a bad parent? Perhaps. Am I popular right now within my own household? Polls show me rapidly gaining ground among the younger demographic.

As fate would have it, this morning I ran into an old, old comic book that I had forgotten about. Note that I had apparently begun to fill out the paperwork at the bottom of the page before my mom shot me down, so to speak.

To My "Fiscally Conservative" Friends...

As Ricky Ricardo used to say, "Lucy, you got some 'splainin' to do..."

[http://greenberg-art.com/.Toons/.Toons%20recent/FiscalConservative.html]

"The 'Bush Doctrine'? You Mean His World View?"

What is this? An outtake from "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth-Grader"? Please, please, please tell me that this is a joke and that there is no chance that this person could become the most powerful political figure in the world. I mean, seriously, there's no chance of that ever happening. Right? Right?



Here's one blogger on how Palin probably crammed for this interview:

"I can just imagine a note card in her pocket.
Side A: 'Terrorists'
Side B: 'Hell bent on destroying America'"

I guess the positive spin on all this is that John McCain clearly believes that America should be the land of opportunity for absolutely everyone. Think I'm exaggerating? Lest you be tempted to explain this away by saying, "Yeah, but she's smart. She can get up to speed on foreign policy quick enough," here's James Fallows' take on what this slip tells us about how Palin might govern.

[update on 9/13: apparently some commentators have tried to make the point that the interviewer himself is unaware of what the term "Bush Doctrine" means and that Palin's request for clarification is perfectly appropriate. It's true that Gibson doesn't distinguish between preemptive military action in general and what's novel about the Bush Doctrine. But if you think that Sarah Palin had this sort of nuance in mind when she asked for clarification, you're ... --what's the word?-- oh, yeah. Deluded. Your clue should be her question whether "Bush Doctrine" means "Bush's world view." Go back and watch the clip and read Fallows, linked above. There is no room for respectful disagreement on this point: anyone arguing otherwise is just being obtuse or disingenuous. If you're a Palin fan, it's better to accept the criticism, cut your losses, and move on].

Popularity and Moral Authority

It is being reported, to the surprise of absolutely no one at all, that people throughout the world strongly prefer Barack Obama to John McCain. What, if anything, does this mean? In practical terms, perhaps not much. Such stories may even hurt Obama's popularity at home. Should this sort of data point be of any interest whatsoever to an American voter?

A case could be made that such things should be irrelevant to American voters. In the first place, it seems there's no reason to think that citizens of Panama or Indonesia or Italy would know much of anything about the policy positions of either candidate or that they are directly affected by them (although the latter point is perhaps more difficult than ever to make in a global economy). Indeed, American voters themselves are often woefully uninformed about the issues which most directly concern them: why should we think that citizens of other countries would have opinions worth hearing about our own presidential elections? In the second place, it could be argued that in competitive global labor markets, citizens of other countries might take an interest in a weaker, rather than a stronger, United States.

Of course Americans have generally given very little importance to foreigners' views on US politics (remember how John Kerry may have actually been hurt by his popularity with the French in 2004?). But should that be so? With respect to the first question--the degree to which foreigners are knowledgeable about the candidates--I don't have any firm basis upon which to draw conclusions. But I can say, having lived in Spain for some ten months between 2004 and 2007, that the foreign press covers American presidential politics extensively. The days leading up to the November 2004 presidential election were filled with almost non-stop coverage on the main television stations there. Take it for what it's worth, but my gut feeling--supported by admittedly modest anecdotal evidence--is that foreign observers are generally much more sophisticated and informed than we give them credit for in the US. Certainly there's no question that they're better informed about our domestic politics than we are about theirs (quick: who's the Canadian Prime Minister? The President of Mexico? The Prime Minister of Italy?).

With regard to the second point, I think we citizens of the US sometimes misunderstand anti-American sentiment abroad. I daresay--and no, I'm not gonna back this up with evidence here: I've got more important stuff I should be doing now!--that envy or resentment of the U.S. is fueled less by our economic prosperity than by a vague sense that the US has become politically, militarily, and culturally hegemonic and that the US perceives itself to be above international law and unanswerable to anyone or anything other than its own interests. That may be wrong. But it's certainly not good that such a sentiment is so widespread. I believe, and I suspect that I could back this up had I the time and the inclination, that we have unquestionably lost a great deal of what might be called our "moral authority" over the last eight years.

"So what?" some of my readers might say. "Who cares what foreigners think about us?" Well, I do, for one. As maudlin as it might sound to some, I think Reagan's "city on a hill" metaphor is inexplicably powerful and that it speaks to our "better angels." A real tragedy of Iraq in general and Guantánamo in particular is that they tarnish that image of a country guided by ideals rather than brute political calculation. I don't envy US diplomats assigned to convey to Russia our disapproval of their attempt to reassert control over Georgia. That's the sort of task that becomes more difficult when our rivals can gleefully point to the hypocrisy (whether perceived or real) of our own foreign policy. The point is not that popularity entails moral authority on any given issue: it is indeed possible to imagine a government taking a morally principled stance that is widely unpopular, just as one can admire a certain vice-presidential candidate's decision to keep a child rather than abort it, even if one does not share that candidate's policy views about the matter of abortion (and I'm definitely not making a point about abortion one way or the other here). But rather I'm claiming that moral authority is not altogether separable from perception: one must be generally perceived to be acting not in one's own self-interest (or at least not exclusively so) but rather in terms of a higher principle. In a nutshell, I think there's ample evidence that the US is widely perceived to be incapable now of acting out of anything but naked self-interest and I think that that perception is unlikely to change if John McCain is elected.

To be sure, foreigners may be spectacularly wrong about Obama: if he were to be elected they may decide that he's as bad, or even worse, than Bush (a logical possibility, if difficult to imagine). But to the extent that one cannot claim moral authority without being perceived to merit it, it stands to reason that we should take an interest in what others think of us. It would be too crude to say that we need to elect Barack Obama to make up for eight years of George Bush. But it wouldn't be entirely wrong either.

I'll blog some other time on the implications of the "war on terror" in terms of the popularity of Obama and McCain and the question of moral authority. Tune in later. Or, not.

My Ad from the Personals

You: an irreverent, edgy novelist with an eye for detail, a penchant for overstatement, and an astonishing imagination for coming up with great backstories.

Me: a guy who happened across a great scenario that cries out for novelization. Read on.

From today's Deseret News: "Cedar City police have arrested a wheelchair-bound man they say stabbed his brother-in-law in the face with a ballpoint pen as they were going to church."

Desert Island Disc: The Venezuela Joropo (Victor Feldman)

My dad had a great record collection when I was a kid. Looking back at it, it was a weird collection. Some of it was kind of predictable given the day and the age: Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass, Roger Williams, The Limeliters, Stan Getz and João Gilberto. I loved all that stuff and have a soft spot in my heart for some of those albums to this day (Getz/Gilberto was one of the first albums that Michelle and I bonded over, having discovered that both our fathers had had it in their collections). But there was a lot of unusual stuff as well for an American music collection back then: The Sounds of Paraguay, Los Tres Caballeros, albums by Amalia Rodrigues and The Soviet Army Chorus and Band.

I don't remember that when I was a young kid those albums were actually played much in our house. But I managed to finagle them all from my folks, and along with the albums, I acquired something of my dad's decidedly offbeat penchant for all things foreign and/or exotic. One of those albums, The Venezuela Joropo by Victor Feldman, became one of my all time favorites. Victor Feldman was a respected jazz pianist whose resumé included gigs with such luminaries as Miles Davis and Cannonball Adderley. In the mid-60s, the bossa-nova craze was in full swing and American artists were looking to Latin America for musical inspiration. While most were turning to countries like Brazil and Cuba, Feldman ended up looking to Venezuela, of all places. Venezuela's musical history was different from its neighbors: it had been influenced less by African musical trends than other countries and its colonial Spanish roots were better preserved. It was, in short, an unlikely place to seek inspiration at a time when bossa nova and samba were all the rage.

But the album, a mix of original compositions and traditional folk tunes, makes me wonder why more jazz artists never picked up on the potential of Venezuelan folk music. Here's a composition by Feldman called "Caracas Nights:"



And here is "Pasión." Ethnomusicologist Robert Garfías wrote the liner notes for the album and said the following about this cut: "Certainly the most amazing piece on the entire record is Victor Feldman's composition "Pasión."Although it is an original composition by Feldman it captures as much of the true flavor of Venezuelan folk music as can be heard in "El Gavilán" [a traditional joropo that Feldman also recorded]. The performance retains the tight, synchronized rhythmic quality of Venezuelan music throughout, but it is the natural ease and the strong Venezuelan flavor of the tune itself which makes it practically impossible to distinguish from traditional Venezuelan music."



The Venezuela Joropo has long been out of print and has never been transferred to CD. So I was delighted a few years ago to get some software that allowed me to digitize my old albums. This was the first one I chose: not a moment too soon because I would have certainly worn the album out. Here's to you, Pop!

Should Have Brought the Video Camera...

Simon's soccer team played their third match of the season. Their team has been up-and-down this year and things have been decidedly low-key (a mixed blessing): no pressure, no crazed soccer parents (not counting Michelle, who can shout a lot louder than her innocent façade would suggest!) but, on the other hand, no practices and not much instruction per se beyond whatever the coach and parents yell during the match.

But Simon played beautifully today. He scored three goals in the first half alone, before resting and playing defense in the second. It wasn't long before other parents were whooping and hollering when he got the ball. Okay, so I'm a suburban soccer dad. You gotta problem with that?Here's "Simon and Goliath" (Simon's #2 in the red). Guess which of the two ended up leaving the field in tears?

Here's Simon kicking his second goal. Nice pic, Michelle!

Light. Sweet. Crude.

No, the title of this post does not represent my summary of the Republican National Convention (although two of the three adjectives do seem à propos) but rather the following clip from Jon Stewart. Enjoy and/or despair.

From Big Tent to Three-Ring Circus

The buzz this weekend was that there may be another line you can add to Sarah Palin's impressive resumé: the rumor was that she may be a moose-killin'-trash-talkin' -good-ol'-girl- former-beauty-queen mother-of-five-married-to-an-Eskimo-creationist grandma. Now, if this kind of claim could be substantiated, I'd be the first to admit that her motives for protecting her teenage daughter from public embarrassment would, arguably, be noble (if not slightly twisted, from my perspective). But--and I underscore that this kind of speculation is just that, speculation--then it would demonstrate a remarkable capacity to blatantly lie to the press and even those closest to her. Not to mention the fact that she would be politically naive enough to believe that this kind of story wouldn't eventually be outed. I don't know how this will play out and I'm sympathetic to those that claim we should refrain from subjecting the personal lives of politicians and their families to undue scrutiny. But it's another thing altogether when part and parcel of your political message are the details of your own rosy-hued "personal story." And hers is a personal story worth paying attention to.

[update at 3:30 pm on Sept 1: it now turns out that while this rumor was probably false, the campaign has announced that her unmarried 17-year old daughter is currently pregnant. I tend to agree with Obama's statement that nobody outside the family has any business mucking around with this issue. But it can't be good for the Republicans that they're getting this much soap opera drama only three days after the announcement that Palin was McCain's choice. If this kind of decision on McCain's part in choosing Palin in the first place--the "maverick" shooting from the hip, advisors and pundits be damned--well, then I think I've seen all I need to see of the governing style he would bring to the White House].

I'll just say one more thing about Palin, at least for now. I don't know what LDS church members will make of her but I think it's fair to point out that one of the items that has been touted to sell her to the socialcons is her former leadership of a chapter of the Fellowship of Christian Athletes. This, of course, is an organization that very pointedly does not allow members of the LDS faith to join. In fact, they made a show recently of stripping a high school athlete of an award once they found out he was Mormon. John McCain sure made the right choice if he was determined to appease the evangelical socialcons that had threatened to stay home. There's nothing they would have hated more than to see a Mormon on the ticket.

As for McCain, there was a time (about eight years ago, to be precise) when he really did seem different from other Republicans, when his candidacy seemed to betoken an uncommon willingness to work with colleagues across the aisle for the common good (remember the old "Straight Talk Express"?). But the crude calculations involved in his selection of Palin is disappointing in the extreme. In fact, those calculations are so transparent--"let's throw a bone to the evangelical nutcases and see if we can pick off a few Hillary supporters as well"-- that you almost have to believe that he intended for his motives to be regarded as both transparent and crass. And that would represent, for me, a willingness to make contemporary politics postmodern in a brand new way: maybe this is the new Straight Talk Express after all.

For the sake of comparison, consider Obama's selection of Joe Biden. I confess that I felt a certain disappointment when he announced his choice. Certainly, Obama made this choice as the result of a kind of political calculation as well: Biden helps with the Catholic vote, he helps with the blue collar vote, he helps with those worried about Obama's lack of experience. But Obama at least intended his choice to be construed as one that was principled. And, in some sense, it is. If anything were to happen to Obama, I don't think there's any doubt that Biden would be capable of competently assuming the presidency, and I think both Democrats and Republicans would agree on that much.

But here we have McCain, choosing a former beauty queen and darling of the socialcons, not caring that his motives simply are just what they appear to be: winning the election, no matter the cost. And that, my friends, is the true postmodern spirit. Who'dda thunk that a crusty old war veteran would be breaking ground like this? Give the wrinkly old white guy--to cite the ever-relevant Paris Hilton--his props.

In a not-altogether-unrelated item, take a gander at this clown from the "Christian"-oriented organization, Focus on the Family. Isn't he witty and droll? Do you suppose that this guy's finely honed comedic chops include an appreciation of irony? Nah, probably not. (That's not to say that the Republicans have the market cornered on such trash).