Skip to content

Month: February 2014

It’s the guns

It’s the guns

by digby

Following up on David’s post earlier, with which I fully agree, I just want to add that the fundamental problem here isn’t only this radical interpretation of the concept of self defense.  It’s about the guns.

People are going to get into beefs. I heard one on my street the other night about the very same issue that precipitated the one in Florida: loud “thug” music that some older white guy didn’t want to hear. This was coming from a party, not a car, but it was loud and it was late and this fellow was hopping mad. Angry older white guys tend to be short tempered  — and, sure, young males can be mouthy. An argument ensued. Harsh words were exchanged. Just as it looked as if it might come to blows, the police arrived and that was the end of it.

This happens.  Humans get into arguments, they get in each others faces and they sometimes come to blows. There is no way to ensure that will not happen.  But these minor beefs — like texting in a movie theater — would very rarely be deadly if people weren’t packing heat! That’s the real issue here.

The gun nuts like to say that an armed society is a polite society.  That’s just another way of saying that if you are carrying a gun you can make people do what you want them to do — stop texting, stop playing music you don’t like, stop walking through the night with with some candy and a drink from 7-11, even “that’s my parking spot”:

During an argument over the parking spot, witnesses said a security guard, whose name has not been released, shot the owner of the barber shop, 37-year old Gerson Mieses.

Miami Police Officer Frederica Burden said when one of their officers arrived on the scene, he tried to separate the men.

“The security guard then took a step back and shot the employee of the barber shop, which in turn the officer stepped back and asked him to drop his weapon and then he shot the security guard,” Burden said.
Both the guard and Mieses died.

“The security guard flipped his lid and pushed someone aside and shot the barber,” said Martin Cole who saw it all go down. “The security guard came out from behind someone and then shot the barber in the chest area. I didn’t see any weapon on the barber. He was just mad and waving his hands a little bit, but I didn’t see any weapons.”

This is about about power, which is probably why we see so many cases of unarmed black kids being shot. And it’s having a desired effect, I’d guess. I wouldn’t ever assume that someone wasn’t armed anymore in this society. A European friend told me that it’s common advice for travelers to the US to avoid confrontation at all costs because so many Americans are armed and have a hair trigger. That’s just horrifying.

There are just too many guns around and apparently there’s nothing we can do about it. So, most of us will keep our heads down and our mouths shut and let these bullies call it freedom.

.

Debating what’s happening before your eyes

Debating what’s happening before your eyes

by digby

I just heard a “debate”between mayors on TV about the climate change. Here’s an excerpt, featuring a climatologist named Heidi Cullen, Governor McCrory of North Carolina and Mayor Eric Garcetti of Los Angeles:

GARCETTI: This was the driest year on record. But, you know, it’s coming at an immense cost, whether it’s wildfires, whether it’s changing how we get water. But governors and mayors, you know, we don’t have the luxury of debating the issue. I think it’s clear human beings have had an impact on creating the problem, but we have to solve it now.

We’re dealing with that in Los Angeles, because we’ve done some common sense things out here to conserve water, change out our landscaping, strengthen our building codes. But it’s not a question anymore about this happening every so often, we’re expecting this to be the new status quo.

STEPHANOPOULOS: And you’re getting to the question of why.

Let me bring that to Heidi Cullen right here.

And Heidi, first of all, one of the big points you make is that all extreme weather is connect — the drought in the west connected to the blizzards in the east.

HEIDI CULLEN, CLIMATOLOGIST: Yeah, well Ginger did a great job setting it up. The cold that we’re seeing here is very much connected to this broader pattern. And really when you put it into context, climate change, burning fossil fuels means that we’re going to see more of these very expensive extreme weather events, specifically the kinds of extremes we can expect — more heat waves, droughts, floods. We’re already seeing those.

You know, this winter certainly doesn’t disprove global warming. I think it’s one of these things where every time we have a really cold winter we begin to ask ourselves all over again, so is global warming real or not. Cold winter doesn’t mean global warming is gone.

And really, when you look at the big picture, we’ve actually globally been incredibly warm. January is probably going to come in as one of the top three warmest Januaries on record. And, you know, the 10 warmest years have all happened since 1988.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But your big point is that on these intense weather systems they’re made more intense by climate change.

CULLEN: That’s right. I mean, basically when you warm up the planet, you’ve got more moisture in the atmosphere, which means that when it rains it rains heavier. And you can also evaporate more, so that means that the tendency for drought is going to get worse.

So the kinds of droughts that we’ve been seeing in Texas, our in California right now, we know that climate change makes them worse.

It’s actually very similar to cigarette smoking and lung cancer, it increases the likelihood of that risk. We’ve already looked at the Texas drought in 2011. We know that climate change made that drought 20 times more likely.

STEPHANOPOULOS: Governor McCrory, do you accept that argument? In the past you’ve said that you believe that this whole issue of climate change is in god’s hands.

MCCRORY: Well, I believe there is climate change. I’m not sure you can call it climate warming any more, especially here in the Carolinas.

I think the big debate is how much of it is man-made and how much will just naturally happen, as the Earth evolves. And the question then is what do we do about it, and how much it will cost the consumer.

I concentrate on cleaning the environment. I think that’s where our argument should be, cleaning our air, cleaning our water and cleaning the ground. And we’re at a brown fields area which we’re in right now in Charlotte where we cleaned up the ground right here and cleaned up old brown fields and now we have great new development.

But the whole issue of cleaning the environment I think is the issue we ought to talk about more than getting to a debate from the left and the right about climate change or global warming. It’s all about cleaning our environment and have a good quality of life for not only now, but for future generations.

Uhm, no. There is no debate and “cleaning the water and the ground” is not going to solve this problem. I’m sure it’s a good thing to persuade the neanderthals that not polluting the water is necessary. In fact, we settled that whole debate about 40 years ago. Under Richard Nixon. But it’s simply not good enough to say that anymore. Until leaders accept their responsibility to tell the people the truth about this we’re just going to watch it happen. And it’s scarier than hell. In fact, here in the west we’re already burning up.

.

Foreign .001 percenters are people too

Foreign .001 percenters are people too

by digby

It stands to reason that the .001% would band together to influence elections. There are so few of them, it also stands to reason they’d recruit foreign members of their class. And why not? The policies that help the American mega-rich will very likely help the foreign mega-rich as well. And that’s what counts:

In a first of its kind case, federal prosecutors say a Mexican businessman funnelled more than $500,000 into U.S. political races through Super PACs and various shell companies. The alleged financial scheme is the first known instance of a foreign national exploiting the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision in order to influence U.S. elections. If proven, the campaign finance scandal could reshape the public debate over the high court’s landmark decision.

Until now, allegations surrounding Jose Susumo Azano Matsura, the owner of multiple construction companies in Mexico, have not spread beyond local news outlets in San Diego, where he’s accused of bankrolling a handful of southern California candidates. But the scandal is beginning to attract national interest as it ensnares a U.S. congressman, a Washington, D.C.-based campaign firm and the legacy of one of the most important Supreme Court decisions in a generation.

How could this happen? Well, there’s one big change in campaign finance law that made it possible:

“Before Citizens United, in order for a foreign national to try and do this, they’d have to set up a pretty complex system of shell corporations,” said Brett Kappel, a campaign finance expert at the law firm Arent Fox. “And even then, there were dollar limits in place. After Citizens United, there are no limits on independent expenditures.”

Read on. It’s quite a story.

But remember that the real problem with our elections is non-existent voter fraud.

.

Stand Your Ground is simply an invitation to more killing, not less crime, by @DavidOAtkins

Stand Your Ground is simply an invitation to more killing, not less crime

by David Atkins

Since first-degree murder is apparently legal in Florida as long as the victims are black, it’s important to look at the overall impact of the ALEC-funded evil Stand Your Ground laws. The upshot is: more death, more shooting, huge racial disparities in who is killed, and no decrease in crime. Not only do they allow racist killers to get away with murder, they don’t provide even the least bit of deterrent to crime. In fact, it’s likely quite the opposite:

For any given case, these questions are impossible to answer, and you can make arguments either way. But it is possible to say something more definitive about whether these laws have led to a greater number of total homicides. That is the question my coauthor Cheng Cheng and I addressed in our recent study in the Journal of Human Resources. We asked what happened to homicide rates in states that passed these laws between 2000 and 2010, compared to other states over the same time period. We found that homicide rates in states with a version of the Stand Your Ground law increased by an average of 8 percent over states without it — which translates to roughly 600 additional homicides per year. These homicides are classified by police as criminal homicides, not as justifiable homicides.

It is fitting that much of this debate has centered on Florida, which enacted its law in October of 2005. Florida provides a case study for this more general pattern. Homicide rates in Florida increased by 8 percent from the period prior to passing the law (2000-04) to the period after the law (2006-10).By comparison, national homicide rates fell by 6 percent over the same time period. This is a crude example, but it illustrates the more general pattern that exists in the homicide data published by the FBI.

The critical question for our research is whether this relative increase in homicide rates was caused by these laws. Several factors lead us to believe that laws are in fact responsible. First, the relative increase in homicide rates occurred in adopting states only after the laws were passed, not before. Moreover, there is no history of homicide rates in adopting states (like Florida) increasing relative to other states. In fact, the post-law increase in homicide rates in states like Florida was larger than any relative increase observed in the last 40 years. Put differently, there is no evidence that states like Florida just generally experience increases in homicide rates relative to other states, even when they don’t pass these laws.

We also find no evidence that the increase is due to other factors we observe, such as demographics, policing, economic conditions, and welfare spending. Our results remain the same when we control for these factors. Along similar lines, if some other factor were driving the increase in homicides, we’d expect to see similar increases in other crimes like larceny, motor vehicle theft and burglary. We do not. We find that the magnitude of the increase in homicide rates is sufficiently large that it is unlikely to be explained by chance.

In fact, there is substantial empirical evidence that these laws led to more deadly confrontations. Making it easier to kill people does result in more people getting killed.

I know that one isn’t supposed to use hyperbole, and that using the strongest moral language to describe politicians and legislation is deeply frowned upon (unless you belong to the Tea Party right and the subject is the deficit or Benghazi, in which case it’s culturally forgiven.)

But only the strongest possible aspersions can begin to describe laws funded by plutocrats whose only purpose is to allow racist killers to walk free, and whose ultimate impact is to allow more murders, including of children.

If one cannot condemn such a thing in the strongest possible moral terms an even an expletive or two, when would such language be appropriate?

.

Saturday Night at the Movies by Dennis Hartley: Girls just wanna play 7th Flat 9th Chords “The Girls in the Band” (plus top 5 jazz flicks!)

Saturday Night at the Movies




Girls just wanna play 7th Flat 9th Chords


By Dennis Hartley

In the pocket: The Girls in the Band













“I have a dream that my four little children will live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”
-Martin Luther King, Jr.

Contextual to a curiously overlooked component within the annals of American jazz music, it’s tempting to extrapolate on Dr. King’s dream. Wouldn’t it be great to live in a nation where one is not only primarily judged by the content of their character, but can also be appreciated on the merits of their creativity, or the pure aesthetics of their artistic expression, as opposed to being judged solely by the color of their skin…or perhaps even gender? At the end of the day, what is a “black”, or a “female” jazz musician, anyway? Why is it that a Dave Brubeck is never referred to as a “white” or “male” jazz musician?

Of course, in these (allegedly) enlightened times, these might be considered trite questions. But there was a time, not so long ago, in a galaxy pretty close by, when these questions would be considered heresy by some. For example, back in 1938, the venerable (and otherwise progressively-minded) music magazine Down Beat ran an article entitled “Why Women Musicians Are Inferior”. This is but one of the eye-openers in an overall eye-opening documentary by Judy Chaikin called The Girls in the Band, which (to my knowledge) is the first film to chronicle the largely unsung contributions that female jazz musicians have made (and continue to make) to this highly influential American art form.

I know what you’re thinking. Billie Holiday, Ella Fitzgerald, Dinah Washington…they’ve had plenty of press over the years, right? Yes, they have. But (and not to denigrate those jazz giants) there is an important distinction…they are vocalists. Traditionally, as Chaikin points out in her film, that was a woman’s most accepted “place” in jazz. Piano? Sure, that was “allowed” (Hazel Scott, Jane Jarvis, Dorothy Donegan were early pioneers), but drums, vibes, guitar, horns, sax…fuhgettaboutit. Those take a man’s strength and stamina! But it turns out that female players have been acing it all along, having no problem keeping it (as my friend’s dad, a veteran jazz pianist, was fond of saying) “in the pocket”.

Utilizing rare archival footage and interviews with veteran and contemporary players, Chaikin has assembled an absorbing, poignant, and celebratory piece. Among the veteran interviewees, 88 year-old saxophonist Roz Cron gives the most fascinating perspective regarding the double roadblock of sexism and racism that she and her contemporaries bumped up against time and again (and not just from their male counterparts, who at times out-and-out mutinied against band leaders who invited female players to join or even merely sit in). As the only white musician in the all-female outfit, The International Sweethearts of Rhythm, she experienced some Kafkaesque moments while the band was touring through the South. Thanks to the pretzel logic of then still-extant Jim Crow “laws”, Cron was once arrested and jailed on a charge of “associating with negroes”. Oy.

While things have since obviously (and thankfully) loosened up on the “judging by gender” front, some of the old prejudices die hard. One interviewee, composer/band leader Maria Schneider recounts one experience with an interviewer, who opened with “So, what’s it like to be a woman composer?” To which she replied “What’s it like to be a male journalist?” But there is optimism as well. As Schneider offers later in the film “I hope we get to the day soon where it’s not something people think about, and categorize.” I suppose you could say that Maria Schneider also has a dream…and it is a good dream.


(Pt. 2) Angel-headed hipsters on celluloid: Top 5 Jazz Movies


















In keeping with the spirit of jazz, I thought I would improvise a bit on tonight’s theme and offer all you hep cats and kittens my righteous picks for the Top 5 jazz movies. Dig:


All Night Long– Directed by Basil Deardon (The League of Gentlemen, The Assassination Bureau) this 1962 UK film stars Patrick McGoohan (still a couple years shy of achieving international fame as TV’s Secret Agent Man) chewing all the available scenery as an ambitious, conniving jazz drummer. Nel King and Paul Jarrico based their screenplay on Shakespeare’s Othello, with the action taking place in an upscale London jazz club over the course of one evening. While it’s quite entertaining on its own merits, the film’s rep is bolstered by the then-contemporary jazz heavyweights who appear onscreen (most notably, Dave Brubeck and Charles Mingus). Richard Attenborough and Betsy Blair are also on board, and McGoohan proves that he isn’t half bad on the skins!

Jazz on a Summer’s Day– Bert Stern’s groundbreaking documentary about the 1958 Newport Jazz Festival is not so much a “concert film” as it is a pristine, richly colorful time capsule of late 50s American life. Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of gorgeously filmed numbers spotlighting the formidable chops of Thelonius Monk, Anita O’Day, Dinah Washington, Louis Armstrong, etc., but the film is equally captivating whenever cameras turn away from the artists and casually linger on the audience or the environs (like showing sailboats lazily puffing past the festival grounds), while the music continues in the background. The effect truly is like “being there” in 1958 Newport on a languid summer’s day, because if you’ve ever attended an outdoor music festival, half the fun is people-watching; rarely do you affix your gaze on the stage the entire time. In fact, Stern is breaking with filmmaking conventions of the era; you are witnessing the genesis of the cinema verite music documentary, which wouldn’t flower until nearly a decade later with films like Don’t Look Back , Monterey Pop , Woodstock and Gimme Shelter.

Let’s Get Lost– The life of horn player/vocalist Chet Baker is a tragedian’s dream; a classic tale of a talented artist who peaked early, then promptly set about self-destructing. Sort of the Montgomery Clift of jazz, he was graced by the gods with an otherworldly physical beauty and a gift for expressing his art. By age 24 he had already gigged with Stan Getz, Charlie Parker and Gerry Mulligan. He began chasing the dragon in the 1950s, leading to jail time and a career slide. There are conflicting versions of the circumstances that led to a brutal beating in 1968, but the resultant injuries to his mouth impaired his playing abilities. While he never kicked the substance abuse, he eventually got his mojo back, and enjoyed a resurgence of his career in his final decade (he was only 58 when he died). The nodded-out Chet Baker we see in Bruce Weber’s extraordinary warts-and-all 1988 documentary (beautifully shot in B&W) is a man who appears several decades older than his chronological age (and sadly, as it turned out, has about a year left to live). Still, there are amazing (if fleeting) moments of clarity, where we get a glimpse of the genius that still burned within this tortured soul. One scene in particular, where Weber holds a close up of Baker’s ravaged road map of a face while he croons a plaintive rendition of Elvis Costello’s “Almost Blue”, has to be one of the most naked, heartbreaking vocal  performances  ever captured on film. Haunting and one-of-a-kind, this is a must-see doc.

‘Round Midnight– Legendary sax player Dexter Gordon gives a knockout performance in Bertrand Tavernier’s 1986 drama (set in the late 1950s) about an American jazz musician who is invited to Paris for an extended engagement. Gordon’s character, Dale Turner, has been fighting a losing battle with the bottle, which has led to a dearth of gigs stateside. Turner is initially taken aback, but soon bolstered by his apparent cachet amongst the French (it’s no secret that African-American musicians were held in higher regard and treated with more respect abroad in those days that they were back home). Still, every day is a struggle for an addict, and as they say, “Wherever you go-there you are.” Excellent performances and magnificent playing from Gordon make this film a winner.

The Warped Ones– The protagonist in this New Wave-influenced offering from director Koreyoshi Kurahara may not be a musician, but the film itself is permeated by an energetic jazz soundtrack, and assaults the senses like the atonal screeches in an improvisational sax solo. Tamio Kawachi gives a surly and unpredictable turn as Akira, a jazz-obsessed young hood who bilks tourists at the seedy jazz club he hangs out at every night with his hooker girlfriend (Noriko Matsumoto). A nosy reporter narks him out and he does a stint in jail. After Akira gets out, he and his girlfriend are tooling around one of their favorite beach haunts in a stolen car when they happen upon said reporter, strolling with his fiancée. On the spur of the moment, Akira runs the reporter down and kidnaps his fiancée; launching a spree of uninhibitedly narcissistic and decidedly anti-social behavior by this rebel without a cause. Not for all tastes (the film truly lives up to its title) but a prime sample of Japan’s unique take on the late 50s/early 60s youth rebellion genre.

…and here’s the “next five” that I’d recommend for your queue: Bird, The Gene Krupa Story, A Man Called Adam, Pete Kelly’s Blues, Sweet and Lowdown.

Previous posts with related themes:
Venus in Furs

Saturday Night at the Movies review archive

Protecting the tooties from un-smooth roads

Protecting the tooties from un-smooth roads

by digby

I was going to write a snarky little post about Peggy Noonan’s latest, an admonition to all of us to stop being so impressed with the personalities of presidents and pay attention to the policies, but I see TPM got there first. They went through her lugubrious Reagan memoir What I Saw at the Revolution and pulled out these tasty morsels:

Reagan, whom I adored…. He was to popular politics what Henry James was to American literature: He was the master. … He was probably the sweetest, most innocent man ever to serve in the Oval Office. … He was never dark, never mean…. This sunny man touched so many Americans. … Ego ties us all in knots, but not him. … “No great men are good men,” said Lord Acton, who was right, until Reagan.

But TPM left out the most famous passage from that book. The one where Noonan extols the “virtues” of Reagan’s … foot:

I FIRST SAW HIM AS A FOOT, a highly polished brown cordovan wagging merrily on a hassock. I spied it through the door. It was a beautiful foot, sleek, perfectly shaped. Such casual elegance and clean lines! But not a big foot, not formidable, maybe even a little . . . frail. I imagined cradling it in my arms, protecting it from un-smooth roads.

That same person wrote this just this week:

[T]he Blair papers remind us that in the past quarter-century the office of the presidency has become everyone’s psychotherapy. There is an emphasis on the personality, nature, character and charisma of the president. He gets into dramas. He survives them. He is working out his issues. He is avenging childhood feelings of powerlessness. He is working through his ambivalence at certain power dynamics. He will show dad.

History becomes the therapist The taxpayer winds up paying the therapist’s bill.

This wouldn’t be so bad—it would actually be entertaining!—if the presidency were not such a consequential role. People can lose lives when presidents work through their issues. This Endless Drama of the Charismatic President is getting old. And dangerous.

I think that’s as close to an apology as we’re ever likely to get.

.

Preaching Edjamacation

Preaching Edjamacation

by digby

The latest in plutocratic blubbering:

Billionaire Wilbur Ross on Tuesday declared that “the 1 percent is being picked on for political reasons” and that poor people should stop their gripin’ and get themselves an education if they ever want to stop being part of the 99 percent.

“Education is the way that people get out of the ghetto and into, if not the 1 percent, something close to it,” Ross explained in an interview with Bloomberg TV.

Actually, not really:

In 1979, 57.5% of workers who earned the minimum wage completed high school. That number swelled to about 72% in 2008.

This growth in education levels for minimum wage workers suggests that the minimum wage is failing to keep pace with workers’ capacity to produce goods and services. Higher productivity — the capacity to produce more per hour worked — should allow these workers to earn higher wages. In fact, we see the opposite.

That’s quite a success story, particularly since the minimum wage today would be worth  $21.72 an hour if it kept up with increases in worker productivity.  Also too, young people having to sell themselves into indentured servitude for decades in order to pay for college. But that’s a feature, not a bug.

.

Born out of cronyism

Born out of cronyism

by digby

It’s a fraud:

Executive pay has gotten so out of hand, former AT&T Broadband CEO Leo Hindery told HuffPost Live on Thursday, that it has caused a “structural breakdown of the meritocracy of our nation.”

Hindery pointed out that, even as CEO pay has skyrocketed in recent decades, it has not “trickled down” to workers, who must increasingly borrow money to finance their spending. That dynamic helped set the stage for the most recent recession and helps explain today’s sluggish recovery.

Fortune 500 CEOs now make more than 200 times what their average workers make, according to Bloomberg data. That ratio has increased by 1,000 percent since 1950. As CEO pay has exploded, worker pay has stagnated: Workers have not had a real cost-of-living increase since the 1960s, Hindery argued.

And these CEOs are not exactly earning their exorbitant pay, said Hindery.

To hear them tell it, they’re working harder than anyone else in the world, barely sleeping, totally exhausted with all the job creating trickling down a torrent of wealth on all the rest of us with nary a moment to themselves.

Of course it’s rally all about who you know and who you blow:

“It’s a fraud,” the former executive said. “It’s born out of cronyism.”

That cronyism is demonstrated in a new Huffington Post analysis of executive-pay data showing the compliance of corporate boards in approving CEO pay, regardless of corporate performance. Those directors are themselves well-paid for their vigorous rubber-stamping.

The problem, Hindery said, isn’t just that the rich are getting richer. The tragedy, he said, is the rise of the low-wage workforce. Half of the jobs created in the past three years have been low-paying while the wealthiest Americans continue to capture record earnings.

The federal minimum wage, which stands at $7.25, is worth much less today than was in 1968. And all recent efforts to raise it have been stalled by Congress.

This works across the elite spectrum, not just among the CEOs. But the CEOs and the Masters of the Universe keep ultimate score with money more than prestige or power, the other elite currencies. And they seem to feel they deserve to have it all, every last penny.

.

Don’t forget the separate water fountains

Don’t forget the separate water fountains

by digby

In 2014, this is happening:

Kansas lawmakers passed a bill Tuesday that would permit businesses and government employees to deny service to same-sex couples on the basis of their religious principles. The measure passed an initial vote in the house by a significant margin, 72 votes to 42 votes. In a final vote on Wednesday, the bill succeeded 72 votes to 49 votes and will now be considered by the Republican-controlled state senate.

State lawmakers engaged in heated debate over House Bill 2453, which would allow hotels, restaurants and stores in the state to refuse to serve gay couples if “it would be contrary to their sincerely held religious beliefs.” The bill would also allow government clerks to refuse to sign same-sex marriage licenses without threat of a lawsuit.

I lived in Kansas as a kid for a while. It’s filled with many good people. It’s time for them to stand up and put a stop to the cretinous nonsense their political leaders keep proposing. Trying to impose Jim Crow in this day and age is almost unbelievable.

.