Skip to content

Month: August 2016

To whom are you married?

To whom are you married?

by digby

Sigh:

It reminds me of this:

In the interest of fairness #Trumpwasrightthisonetime

In the interest of fairness

by digby

Donald Trump says a lot of ridiculous things. He lies a lot. He is a white nationalist demagogue. I am glad to see the media covering him as that.  However, there was one story last week that was blatantly unfair to him and I think it’s probably not a good idea to let these things go when the media does it, even if it’s Trump. It was the crying baby story:

Donald Trump didn’t actually kick a baby out of a rally this week in Virginia, according to the eyewitness report of a journalist sitting nearby and the mother of the baby herself. 

In a widely-circulated video that spurred headlines criticizing the GOP nominee, Trump was seen saying first that he loved the baby who had begun to cry during his rally, then just a minute later saying that the mother should “get the baby out of here.” 

“I think she really believed me that I love having a baby crying while I’m speaking,” Trump said. 

But Daniel Dale, a reporter for the Toronto Star sitting behind the crying baby in question, said the mother was never asked to leave and that the entire episode was Trump’s sense of humor being blown out of proportion. 

Stay abreast of the latest developments from nation’s capital and beyond with curated News Alerts from the Washington Examiner news desk and delivered to your inbox.

The mother was already on her way out when Trump made his second statement. 

“One minute later, though, the baby began to cry again. This time, the mother quickly decided to take the baby out of the room. Trump, looking in our direction, appeared to notice that she was on her way to the exit,” Dale wrote. 

“To my eyes, it certainly was not an ejection — it was an unusually barbed endorsement of the mother’s own decision to depart,” he continued. 

He also noted that the mother and her child returned to their seats after a short time, with the baby quieted and sucking on a pacifier.

It wasn’t even a “barbed endorsement of the mother’s own decision.” He was joking sardonically. I loathe the man and I could see that and understood that he was just kidding when he made the remark.

I wouldn’t put it past him to be mean to babies and certainly it’s reasonable to think he’d be mean to the mother. But in this case, he was just innocuously joshing. The press misrepresented it.

.

What a story #phonybusinessman

What a story

by digby

It’s serious political malpractice that the GOP was unable to get this out during he primaries in a systematic way:

It was a Thursday night in late May 1990. I was a 32-year-old Wall Street Journal reporter who had written dozens of articles about Donald J. Trump’s business affairs. I was closing in on the biggest one of all — Mr. Trump was on the brink of financial ruin. He was quietly trying to unload his assets. His Atlantic City casinos were underperforming, and prices for his casino bonds were plummeting, suggesting that he would have trouble making interest payments.

“Donald Trump is driving 100 miles per hour toward a brick wall, and he has no brakes,” the banker told me. “He is meeting with all the banks right now.”

The next day, I called sources at the four banks I knew had large Trump exposures. The first three calls yielded “no comment,” but the fourth hit pay dirt, and I was invited to visit the bank late that afternoon.

Behind a large mahogany desk sat the bank’s chief lending officer. He explained that all of the banks would have to agree to a huge restructuring of Mr. Trump’s loans or Mr. Trump would have to declare personal bankruptcy. Unknown to the banks when each had lent him money, Mr. Trump ended up personally guaranteeing a staggering $830 million of loans, which was reckless of him, but even more so for the banks.

In a front-page Wall Street Journal article on June 4, 1990, I wrote: “Donald J. Trump’s cash shortage has become critical. The developer is now in intense negotiations with his main bank creditors that could force him to give up big chunks of his empire.” One banker said, “He will have to trim the fat; get rid of the boat, the mansions, the helicopter.”

Amid all the self-made myths about Donald Trump, none is more fantastic than Trump the moneymaker, the New York tycoon who has enjoyed a remarkably successful business career. In reality, Mr. Trump was a walking disaster as a businessman for much of his life. This is not just my opinion. Warren Buffett said as much this past week.

Between 1985 and 1991, working mainly for The Daily News and The Wall Street Journal, I covered Mr. Trump’s travails and interviewed him dozens of times. On several occasions he threatened to sue me, though he never did. But he didn’t hide his opinion of me. In “Trump: The Art of the Comeback,” his 1997 book, he wrote: “Of all the writers who have written about me, probably none has been more vicious than Neil Barsky of The Wall Street Journal.”

At the time, he was a glamorous New York City personality and an Olympic-level self-promoter who had persuaded banks and bondholders to extend him billions of dollars of credit to buy everything from a yacht to the Plaza Hotel to the Eastern Air Lines Shuttle.

He was also a skilled negotiator with an almost supernatural ability to pinpoint and attack his adversaries’ vulnerabilities, as several of his Republican primary opponents discovered. Since his financial emergency in the 1990s, he appears to have sworn off taking on large amounts of debt, and instead has used his brand to collect fees on real estate and other projects. This has greatly limited his downside risk, but has also capped the amount he can earn, since he often does not own the underlying equity on the projects that bear his name.

Since leaving journalism in 1993, I have been a Wall Street real estate analyst and a hedge fund manager. I have studied how businesses thrive and why they fail. Mr. Trump’s political rise has been maddening for me to watch, and I sometimes feel like the character played by Kevin Bacon in the movie “Diner” who screams the right answers to a TV quiz show as the contestants get them wrong.

“The issue isn’t that he’s crass,” I want to shout. “It’s that he’s a bad businessman!”

I urge you to read the whole thing. It gets even more interesting.

Trump’s a phony, through and through. Since the 90s Trump and his family have been selling their “brand” in exactly the same way some minor celebrity bring out a perfume or a line of handbags. All it takes to do that is to be famous. It doesn’t take any particular business talent or negotiating skill. All it takes is the willingness to pimp your name. That’s all he’s got. We might as well be asked to vote for Britney Spears for president. She’s a “brand” too.

.

People are taking a second look at late term abortion #Zika

People are taking a second look at late term abortion

by digby

From Think Progress:

As the threat of homegrown Zika spreads, Americans are getting more realistic about abortion regulations.

A poll conducted by the Harvard School of Public Health and STAT last month found that while 61 percent of Americans oppose abortions after 24 weeks, a majority would actually support late-term abortions in the case of microcephaly — a condition in which a baby is born with a underdeveloped brain and skull. Microcephaly, found in infants whose mothers have been infected by Zika, is only detectable after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

I’m glad to see that most people have some common sense about this. But the stories of late term abortion are almost always painful stories of fetal anomalies. And thanks to the cynical anti-abortion movement, women and their families are forced to endure hellish, emotionally painful pregnancies and are forced into childbirth in these cases seemingly to punish the mother and consign the fetus to an often painful and cruel short existence.

They always skipped that part in the lurid discussions of late term abortion, many of which are necessary because you often cannot diagnose these extreme cases until well into the pregnancy.
It shouldn’t take tragedies like Zika to open people’s eyes.

Oh, and by the way, abortion after 24 weeks is illegal in 22 states and many are trying to lower it to 20 weeks which would make even more women have to carry these pregnancies to term:

And just this March, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence (now Republican candidate for Vice President) signed a bill entirely blocking women from seeking an abortion “solely” because the fetus had a fetal abnormality — like microcephaly or Down syndrome.

“The data are clear that although people aren’t in favor of late-term abortion in general they are sympathetic to women when their pregnancies can be affected by Zika virus,” Gillian SteelFisher, deputy director of the Harvard Opinion Research program, told STAT.

This data adds to the growing number of studies that have found context to be crucial in correctly assessing a person’s stance on abortion. A 2013 poll commissioned by Planned Parenthood found that when given circumstantial details about a woman’s need for a late-term abortion, Americans are much more open to the idea.

The last thing the zealots want to do is give context. That humanizes a pregnant woman in a way that makes the issue more complicated than their propaganda that selfish witches are wantonly killing babies. That would ruin everything.

.

Aw, sweet. Trump hires a 5th grader to do his first ad

Aw, sweet. Trump hires a 5th grader to do his first ad



by digby

Good lord that’s pathetic…

The reasoning behind this isn’t so much to portray her as a robot (as they did Rubio in the primaries after he repeated himself … robotically.) It’s all about this meme which is all over the internet in which Clinton is portrayed as a doddering, infirm old woman who is on her deathbed:

Hillary Clinton recently had a breakdown on TV. The media is of course covering this up rather than having an expert medical panel on to discuss her health. Yet what happened to Hillary was obviously a sign of a head injury and stroke. 

When a protester appears, Hillary freezes. In psychology you learn that the flight-or-fight response is a myth. A stressful situation trigger a fight, flight, or freeze response. 

“Freeze” is what we mean by saying someone has a “deer in the head lights look.” A prey animal freezes when it senses danger it cannot overcome and thus does not risk running away from. By freezing the deer hopes to not be seen. 

Yet freezing is an instinctual response, as anyone who has driven a car through deer land knows. When you drive, your headlights hit a deer, it stops. Your choice is to keep driving or to swerve away, risking your own life. 

Hillary’s health problems are well-known among the Secret Service.
While still FROZEN, Hillary is rescued by a male Secret Service agent, who reassures her, “You’ll be OK.”… 

…Hillary has suffered a brain injury during a fall. She either had a stroke, causing her to fall, or the fall caused her stroke. (Doctors were unsure whether the fall was the cause or effect of the stroke.) 

Hillary still suffers seizures.

Hillary didn’t “freeze” by the way. She kept her cool, a very different thing.

Unlike this guy:

.

‘Who do you protect? Who do you serve?’ by @BloggersRUs

‘Who do you protect? Who do you serve?’
by Tom Sullivan


Former Henredon Furniture factory, Morganton, NC.

You’re gonna love it. Believe me.

No, Donald Trump did not say that about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). But that is essentially the message the public hears at coming-out parties for big trade deals. This is necessary. It will open up trade. It will create jobs. It will lower prices. On and on.

Nearly 100 miles of dead factories strung out along I-40 between here and Hickory, North Carolina say otherwise. Most of them used to make furniture. Some, textiles. We hear about tent cities for the homeless in Seattle or Sacramento or Washington, D.C. Hickory’s barely made local news.

Now, Gaius Publius and Dave Johnson are far more versed in the particulars of TPP, so I’ll get to why I even mention TPP in a minute.

One thing critics keep bringing up is how TPP is not really a “free trade” deal. Paul Krugman wrote:

One thing that should be totally obvious, however, is that it’s off-point and insulting to offer an off-the-shelf lecture on how trade is good because of comparative advantage, and protectionists are dumb. For this is not a trade agreement. It’s about intellectual property and dispute settlement; the big beneficiaries are likely to be pharma companies and firms that want to sue governments.

In one critique of the TPP, Johnson wrote:

Corporations get a special channel of their own for enforcement of rules written by their representatives at the negotiating table. Labor, environment and other stakeholders don’t get that in TPP. This is how TPP will increase corporate power over governments and working people.

Something I read somewhere the other day highlighted that in a way that stuck with me. Essentially, these are deals written solely from the perspective of corporations. They are treaties of, by, and for corporations. The needs, concerns, and fate of the average citizen in the global economy are not even an afterthought. Politicians and business magnates sell the deals to voters simmering like frogs in increasingly weakened democracies as a kind of transnational trickle-down. In the long run, this deal will be great for you. Trust us. “You’re gonna love it. Believe me.”

This raises a challenge usually heard at anti-police violence rallies: ‘Who do you protect? Who do you serve?’

Perhaps that should replace the tiresome “Hey, hey, ho, ho” as the standard the rallying cry outside the White House and on Capitol Hill.

The transpartisan anger sweeping America is about a lot of things. But one component underlying it all is a sense in the collective unconscious that We, the People are no longer in control, that the post-war world of a strong, secure middle class is eroding, regressing towards something at once more medieval and more dystopian in the Blade Runner sense. Leading to, as Firesign Theater once quipped, “the complete and total degradation of… who? [*wine bottle opened] You – the little guy.”

A rare victory for the little guy is why the topic comes up this morning:

A piano tuner in Atlantic City has scored a rare victory turning back casino-industry forces far bigger than him to thwart their efforts to seize and demolish his home by eminent domain.

A court ruling saying he can keep the house with no fear of the bulldozers and the wrecking ball has marked the end of a four-year nightmare for 69-year-old Charlie Birnbaum, who in his time has tuned pianos in local casinos for Frank Sinatra, Tony Bennett and others.

But Birnbaum’s three-story house sits on Oriental Avenue and Mr. Moneybags wants to build hotels on it. The ground floor is his piano tuning business and Birnbaum rents out the upper floors to tenants. Birnbaum and his wife live a few miles inland:

His attorney, Robert McNamara, called Friday’s ruling a victory for common sense.

“The CRDA’s position was that they could take Charlie’s property for any reason or for no reason, just because they wanted it,” McNamara said in a statement. “Today’s ruling emphatically says otherwise.”

At least for the time being, so long as the city’s financial crisis and surrounding failed projects diminish the clout of the financiers who inspired Monopoly. One wonders if abdicating even more of U.S. citizens’ constitutional protections and sovereignty to treaties such as the TPP won’t soon and finally trump the Charlie Birnbaums because, you know, the Market wants.

The superior court judge in the case ruled that the attempt by the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority to condemn Birnbaum’s house is an abuse of eminent domain power. The Authority had wanted to raze the structure to make way for mixed housing and retail development. The structure sits one block back from the beach “in the shadow of the shimmering but currently defunct Revel Casino.” The $2.4 billion casino complex declared declared bankruptcy in 2014.

Revel was “the third of four Atlantic City casinos to close in 2014.” To be sure, the developers of the Revel Casino told their investors and the community going in, “You’re gonna love it. Believe me.”

Of the beginning: On Revolver at 50 by Dennis Hartley

Of the beginning: On Revolver at 50



By Dennis Hartley












The Beatles were beside themselves with glee. Stoned – which they were most of the time in the studio – the experiments became part prank, part innovation. In that kind of dreamy, altered, impractical state, the possibilities were limitless. Recording became no longer just another way of putting out songs, but a new way of creating them.

from Bob Spitz’s 2005 biography The Beatles, regarding the sessions for Revolver

On August 5, 1966, The Beatles released an LP that not only represents the pinnacle of their oeuvre, but remains one of the best pop albums of all time. Yes, as painful as it may be for some of us of “a certain age” to process, Revolver turns 50 years old this week (!).

It’s even more mind-blowing that Revolver arrived just 8 months after Rubber Soul, an album that in and of itself reflected a quantum leap in musical and lyrical sophistication for the band. And whereas Rubber Soul demonstrated an earnest embrace of eclecticism (incorporating everything from rock, pop, and R&B to country, folk, and chanson), Revolver ups the ante further. As Tim Riley nicely summates in his book, Tell Me Why:

Rubber Soul has a romantic astonishment, the echoing realization that teenage quandaries don’t dissipate with age; they dilate. Starker realities intrude on Revolver: embracing life also means accepting death.

That’s a heavy observation; but lest you begin contemplating opening your veins, keep in mind that while “Tomorrow Never Knows” suggests you surrender to the void, and “She Said, She Said” insists I know what it’s like to be dead…this is the same album that gifted us the loopy singalong of “Yellow Submarine” and upbeat pop of “Good Day Sunshine”.

Yet Revolver works as a whole; 14 cuts of pure pop nirvana, with no filler. As someone once astutely observed, “They were probably the most avant-garde group in Britain [in the 1960s], but also the most commercial.” Therein lies the genius of the Beatles; their ability to transcend that dichotomy with sheer talent and craftsmanship. It is significant to note that when recording sessions for Revolver began in April of 1966, the Beatles were nearing the end of their touring days. It’s no coincidence that the less time they spent on the road, the more exponentially they progressed as creative artists and studio innovators.

How quickly were they evolving? Consider this, from a 1966 UK newspaper article:

LONDON – They’re calling it the end of an era, the Beatles’ era.  […]

Last Sunday night, about 200 [fans] picketed the London home of Beatles manager Brian Epstein, demanding to see more of their idols. The foursome has not toured Britain this year and there are no plans for personal appearances […]

The obvious conclusion, supported by their words and actions in the past months, is that they are bored with being the Beatles. […]

With their success, they have gained a certain sophistication. Their last album, Revolver, was musically far ahead of their efforts at the height of their popularity and they are well aware of the fact.

“Songs like ‘Eight Days a Week’ and ‘She Loves You’ sound like right drags to me now,” John told an interviewer recently. “I turn the radio off if they’re on.” *

(*Source: Things We Said Today: Conversations with the Beatles, by Geoffrey and Vrnda Giuliano)

It’s very telling that Lennon distances himself from “Eight Days a Week” and delegates it to a bygone era, even though it was released just the year before (in February of 1965). You just don’t see that kind of accelerated artistic growth nowadays (Has Taylor Swift’s music “progressed” since last year? Sounds like the same over-compressed, auto-tuned corporate Pablum to me…but let’s throw her another Grammy, cuz she’s so awesome!).

At any rate, in celebration of Revolver hitting the half-century mark (with very little sign of aging), I thought it would be fun to revisit it, track-by-track, and see why it stands the test of time. In addition to giving a nod to the original UK 14-track sequence, I am prefacing with the double-sided 45 RPM release of “Paperback Writer” and “Rain” – as they were recorded during the same sessions and shore up this truly amazing song cycle.











(All “authorship” notations below sourced from Beatlesongs, by William J. Dowlding)

Paperback WriterAuthorship: McCartney (.8) Lennon (.2)

One of the classic riff songs (it may have “inspired” the suspiciously similar hook for the Monkees’ “Pleasant Valley Sunday”), featuring proto-metal guitar tone from George and a sonic Rickenbacker bass line from Paul. In a Ray Davies-styled turn, Paul assumes the character of a cynical pulp writer, drafting a letter of introduction that he hopes to be his entre to fame and fortune: Please Sir or Madam, will you read my book? It took me years to write, will you take a look? Later in the song, he synopsizes it as a dirty story of a dirty man…and his clinging wife doesn’t understand. He’s flexible: I can make it longer if you like the style. Listen for George and John’s “Frere Jacques” quote in the backing vocals.

RainAuthorship: Lennon (1.00)

This is a Lennon song all the way; and generally regarded as the birth of psychedelia (the latter by virtue of actual release date, as it was preceded in the sessions by the equally trippy “Tomorrow Never Knows” the week before). The tune’s signature backward tape-looping was an innovative trick accidently “discovered” by a very stoned John, who put the reels on upside down while listening back to a demo at home. The harmony vocals are very “raga-rock”. It’s a great track, with excellent drumming by Ringo (who concurs, stating once in an interview “I think it’s the best out of all the records I’ve ever made.”).








TaxmanAuthorship: Harrison (.9) Lennon (.1)

Back in the old days, before “shuffle play” was a gleam in a code writer’s eye (or “mix tapes” were a thing) Side 1, Cut 1 held import; it really meant something. Sequencing an album was a science; as that opening cut set the tone for the next 30 minutes of your life (slightly longer in the UK). This funky number, the first of 3 Harrison contributions to Revolver, is a perfect kickoff. It sports a catchy riff (I’m pretty sure Paul Weller had it stuck in his head when he wrote the Jam song “Start”), and strident (almost punky) bursts of lead lines from Paul. To my knowledge, this is the Beatles’ first foray into agitprop, with a stinging lyric that namechecks politicians, and advises Inland Revenue to fuck off.

Eleanor RigbyAuthorship: McCartney (.8) Lennon (.2)

This is one of “those” songs that anyone who has ever sat down and attempted to compose a piece of music would gladly sell their soul to have written. Paul’s original working version was the sad tale of a “Miss Daisy Hawkins”, but eventually morphed into the sad tale of an “Eleanor” (after actress Eleanor Bron, who co-starred in the Beatles’ 1965 film, Help) “Rigby” (the name of a shop, according to Paul). It was a masterstroke to add the string backing (Paul’s idea, but producer George Martin’s arrangement), which makes this melancholic, yet hauntingly beautiful song even more so.

I’m Only SleepingAuthorship: Lennon (1.00)

Lennon really ran with that backward looping thing during these sessions; the resultant “yawning” guitar effect gives this lovely, hypnotic number an appropriately “drowsy” vibe, lulling the listener into an agreeable alpha state for 3 minutes. My favorite quote regarding the song is by Lennon’s BFF Pete Shotten, who observed that it “…brilliantly evokes the state of chemically induced lethargy into which John had…drifted.” Ouch. If you want to hear an unapologetic lift, check out the song “Sweet Dreams” by The Knack.

Love You ToAuthorship: Harrison (1.00)

While George had already introduced Beatle fans to the exotic eastern twang of the sitar on Rubber Soul, he would later insist that the iconic 13-note run that repeats throughout “Norwegian Wood” was “accidental” (he was ever the wry one). There is nothing “accidental” about the Indian influences on this proto-Worldbeat song, which features Anil Bhagwat on tabla, as well as “session musicians”. Interestingly, George (sitar and vocals) is the sole Beatle on the track; if I’m not mistaken, the only precedent at that time would have been “Yesterday” (essentially Paul, and session players). Akin to “Taxman”, its couplets wax acerbic: There’s people standing round / who’ll screw you in the ground.

Here, There, and EverywhereAuthorship: McCartney (1.00)

Paul has made it no secret over the years that he was really taken by the Beach Boys’ Pet Sounds album, so much so that he developed an acute case of Brian Wilson Envy and lobbied his bandmates to “go to 11” with Revolver to blow Wilson’s irksome masterpiece out of the water. Funnily enough, Brian Wilson would later claim that Sgt. Pepper’s had a likewise effect on him! At any rate, this achingly beautiful love ballad was allegedly Paul’s self-conscious attempt to specifically one-up “God Only Knows”. He gets close.

Yellow SubmarineAuthorship: McCartney (.8) Lennon (.2)

It’s a novelty tune. But as far as novelty tunes go, it’s a bonafide classic. This was Ringo’s “one song” for this album (OK, occasionally they would let him sing two, but not as a rule). While it has been interpreted by some as a song about drugs, or about war, Paul and Ringo insist that was designed to be exactly what it sounds like…a kid’s song (sometimes, a yellow submarine is just a yellow submarine). It sounds like they had fun making it, which apparently they did. George Martin says they “all had a giggle”. He even pitched in on the fadeout chorus, which included Patti Harrison and studio staffers.

She Said She SaidAuthorship: Lennon (1.00)

Another psychedelic gem written by John, which in this case was literally inspired by psychedelics, because he came up with the idea for the song in the aftermath of an acid trip he took in 1965, while partying with The Byrds in L.A. (and you know that those motherfuckers had the good shit, probably Sandoz). At any rate, the story goes that John encountered a freaked-out Peter Fonda, who kept cornering him and whispering in his ear: “I know what it’s like to be dead.” Obviously, this mantra stayed with Lennon, who modified the final lyric, so that it became “she” said…I know what it’s like to be dead

(I’ll give you a moment to flip the record over.)

Good Day SunshineAuthorship: McCartney (1.00)

The kickoff to Side 2 is Paul in full cockeyed optimist mode. Everything about it is “happy”, from the lyrics (I feel good, in a special way / I’m in love and it’s a sunny day) and the bright harmonies, to George Martin’s jaunty ragtime piano solo. Paul has said that he was inspired by the Lovin’ Spoonful; and indeed the song does have that “Do You Believe in Magic?” / “Rain on the Roof” / “Daydream” kind of vibe to it. So lighten up!

And Your Bird Can SingAuthorship: Lennon (1.00)

It’s always fascinating to me how artists view their own work, as opposed to their audience’s perceptions. This song is a perfect example. In interviews over the years, John dismissed it as “Another horror.” (Hit Parader, 1972) and “Another of my throwaways.” (Playboy, 1980). But as far as I’m concerned, he was wrong. This easily places in my top 5 Beatle favorites; a perfect 2 minute slab of power pop goodness, replete with chiming open chords for the verses and Lennon’s patented chromatically descending bass lines on the bridge. And for a “throwaway”, its double-tracked harmony guitar parts sound pretty sophisticated to my ears (to this day, I can’t figure out how to reproduce those note runs).

For No OneMcCartney (1.00)

Another unmistakably “McCartney-esque” ballad; this one a melancholic lament about a relationship gone sour. It features one of Paul’s most beautiful melodies (this guy tosses them off in his sleep-it’s a genuine gift) and sophisticated lyrics. The narrative is the aural equivalent of a “split-screen” view, observing two ex-lovers as they go about their daily routines; one still pines, the other has moved on (typical!). Alan Civil’s transcendent horn solo rips your heart out. Lennon once named this as one of his favorite McCartney tunes.

Dr. RobertAuthorship: Lennon (.75) McCartney (.25)

Prince had “Dr. Michael”, Michael Jackson had “Dr. Conrad”, Elvis had “Dr. Nick”, but the (more often than not) dubiously titled “personal physician” is no stranger to show biz (or professional sports…or to the rich and famous in general). Back in the 1960s, NYC-based Dr. Charles Roberts became popular with Andy Warhol and the Factory crowd for his, shall we say, open-mindedness when it came to administering “medicine” (mostly in the form of injections; vitamins, speed and even LSD). This was John’s in-jokey homage.

I Want to Tell YouAuthorship: Harrison (1.00)

This superb cut from George is one his best tunes, with a memorable riff. A musician I work with at my day job, more versed in music theory than I (I’m largely self-taught) has been kind enough to occasionally enlighten an old dog on some new scales and chord theory and such (it’s never too late to start). Recently, I asked him to deconstruct this particular song for me, because I’ve always wanted someone to explain to me why that purposely dissonant piano figure that Paul pounds out at the end of each verse “works” so well. Naturally, it went in one ear and out the other, but it made sense to me at the time!

Got to Get You into My LifeAuthorship: McCartney (1.00)

Paul’s self-proclaimed Motown homage (and possible nod to the Northern Soul movement that flourished in the U.K. at that time) was also one of his most self-consciously “radio-friendly” compositions to date (witness its belated official release as a “single” in 1976, when it managed to climb up to #7 on the charts…six years after the Beatles disbanded). Of course, Paul’s little in-joke may be embedded in the lyrics, which he later confessed to be an ode to the joys of weed (a predilection that once landed him a night in jail while touring Japan, as you may recall). At any rate, it’s a fab song, no matter how you interpret it, with a fully funkified soul/R&B flavored horn chart (a Beatle first).

Tomorrow Never Knows Authorship: Lennon (1.00)

Just when you think the Fabs couldn’t possibly top the creative juggernaut of the previous 13 cuts, they save the best for last (ironically, the very first number they had worked on for these sessions, which lends the whole song cycle a certain poetic symmetry of its own, especially considering TNK’s refrain: So play the game “Existence” to the end / Of the beginning…of the beginning…). In a 1980 Playboy interview, John explained, “That’s me in my ‘Tibetan Book of the Dead’ period. I took one of Ringo’s malapropisms as the title, to sort of take the edge off the heavy philosophical lyrics.” It’s heavy, all right-and doesn’t sound like anything in Western pop music up to that time; a truly innovative piece of music. It’s basically a drone in “C”, with John’s vocals recorded through a loudspeaker, which George Martin simply turned to the side of the studio microphone. This gave John the sound of a “Dalai Lama singing on a hilltop” (as he had requested). Backward tape loops add to the eerily mesmerizing vibe, and Ringo lays down a thunderous, primal beat that drives the tune quite powerfully. Which brings us to the end.

Of the beginning…

Previous posts with related themes:



More reviews at Den of Cinema

Dennis Hartley

The multi-millionaire celebrity regular Joe

The multi-millionaire celebrity regular Joe

by digby

Oh please:

Sean Hannity today in answer to a caller who said that people couldn’t relate to Mitt Romney because he’d never gone to bed hungry:

I don’t believe people are going to bed hungry. Do you know how much, do you ever go shopping? I go sometimes but I hate it. Do you ever go? … you can get, for instance I have friends of mine who eat rice and beans all the time. Beans protein, rice. Inexpensive. You can make a big pot of this for a week for negligible amounts of money and you can feed your whole family.

Look, you should have vegetables and fruit in there as well, but if you need to survive you can survive off it. It’s not ideal but you could get some cheap meat and throw in there as well for protein. There are ways to live really, really cheaply.



Yes, I’ll bet he goes to the grocery store often and has a ton of friends who live on rice and beans and maybe a pigs foot once in a while:

Deadline.com reported last week that Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, the crown jewels of Fox News, are close to signing new deals that could take them both at least into 2016.

The New York Times said both currently make around $10 million a year, comparable to broadcast anchors. O’Reilly has been a top rated show on Fox News for much of his run, with Hannity a solid No. 2. It’s unknown how much they’ll be making this go around though a renewal deal is likely to be wrapped up soon.



I’m guessing that if Sean’s poor “friends” actually exist they’re his servants. People who make 10 million dollars a year don’t often socialize with people who live on rice and beans.


I guess rice and beans are probably more filling than cake, though, so that’s good. 

.