Auld Lang Syne

bottled up together
with you, minding
my business,

the cool
fall turning
into winter,

for the first time.
a deep long summer has lead
to exhaustion,

a turning, a new place:

where I can't explain
why I ever
felt the way I did before.
 

Wires

Workers

Construction, 8th and Pine

as california burns...

...our homes burn

and President Bush asks for more money for his pet pit project

but I suppose he's tangentially involved....

If this was Florida, if this was a hurricane, he'd land in there on a fire truck the size of an aircraft carrier and beat his chest

for votes.

When will we have a humane government?

In Rainbows

From Times Online
October 10, 2007
Radiohead: In Rainbows
Pete Paphides

Had there been a nationwide power cut last Monday, you could have lit a town the size of St Albans with the envy that Radiohead instantly elicited among their peers. Take away the glamour of a pop star’s job and that fact is that most of the currently extant names in your record collection are slogging through severe record deals for percentage points that Radiohead left behind a long time ago. And yet, among all the excitement, it’s worth pondering a small but important question. If the music industry collapsed tomorrow, what would most of those bands do with their new-found autonomy? In a world without A&R men and people who are paid to tell you the truth about whether your new stuff sucks, how many musicians would ultimately resist the gravitational pull of their own rectums?

Ever since OK Computer made them big enough to ignore the advice of those around them, Radiohead have somehow beaten down a path between the expectations of their fans and the abyss of absolute freedom. That they’ve done it again with In Rainbows isn’t entirely clear from the first few bars. Even before he sings the lines, “One by one/Comes to us all,” the hand of Thom Yorke, the incorrigible contrarian, is evident in the jackhammering machine beat that kicks off 15 Step. Once you’ve effectively been told to sit up straight and listen, everything is played out around rhythm that resembles a sectioned patient trying to escape their straitjacket and Jonny Greenwood and Ed O’Brien’s simple, pretty guitar playing. Occasional bursts of shouting children do little to dissipate the presiding air of strangeness. Welcome then, to Radiohead’s favourite default setting in 2007.

At various times, they’ve sounded like a great live band and like hermetic musos prodding around on laptops in the hope that the next noise might offer a new direction. Weird Fishes/Arpeggi is, strangely, neither. Its airless, bunker-bound anti-ambience recalls Kid A and Amnesiac, but the band themselves sound thrillingly alive, thrashing out a melody replicates on “real” instruments the gorgeous Cornish digi-folk of Aphex Twin’s Richard D. James – an album for which Radiohead have all been vocal in their affection.

Much to the ongoing chagrin of a minority who want them to repeat 1995’s The Bends, doggedly experimental rock is just what Radiohead do these days, finding common ground between hitherto incongruent parts. Hence a song like Bodysnatchers. On it, Greenwood and O’Brien feed a chugging, elementary riff through an amp that barely sounds like it can take it, while Thom Yorke’s mostly indistinct vocals compete to be heard over the hyperactive raga-rock being played out around him.

Their attitude to the medium might be one of uncompromising modernity, but Radiohead’s almost quaint belief in the album as an art form is borne out by their dispute with Apple (the absence of their music on iTunes is down to their refusal to allow the sale of individual tracks). In Rainbows compounds their stance. In time you’ll scoot to your favourites on In Rainbows – in particular, the baroque fever-folk of Faust Arp is just, when it all comes down, an endlessly repeatable treat – but taken as a whole, In Rainbows adheres to a loose musical narrative of its own.

The herky-jerky clatter of earlier songs gives way to acoustic guitars, bigger melodies and a musical sense of resolution. Finally, Thom Yorke even finds himself slipping into the vernacular of the pop songs we thought he never even listened to, let alone sang. That’s him on House Of Cards, singing “I don’t wanna be your friend/I just wanna be your lover” like Prince’s shy baby brother, amid swirling strings that simulate the postcoital fug of a Sunday morning. Lest we imagine him guesting on the next Sugababes album, it’s worth pointing out that the next verse begins “Infrastructure will collapse”, but no matter. It’s one of their very best songs.

Ditto, All I Need, which lobs another relatively direct Yorke lyric into sonic waters that appear to meander by the Get Carter soundtrack. Listen once and you’re unsure. Listen twice, knowing that, three minutes in, a plangent pounding piano leads you out into a snowblind crescendo of melodic light and, you’re excited before you even get there. Quite how it all ranks alongside other Radiohead albums – well, let’s be honest. It’s far too early to tell. In time, the excitement of waiting for a new release by one of your favourite bands to land in your inbox will separate from the role it will go on to play in your life.

For what it’s worth, In Rainbows was sent to me at 6.30am. Three hours later, this insidious index of sonic surprises is stacking up in my mind, like planes waiting to land. The trick, I guess, is to give your fans what they didn’t know they wanted. Radiohead, old hands at this, have been doing it for over a decade now. With In Rainbows, they appear to have done it again.

Why Do I Bother?

I go out of my way to make sure that the rejections Perigee sends out are diplomatic and kind. I have received enough rejections (numbering in the hundreds) to know that they can be disheartening. The fact is, almost across the board, publications send out form rejection letters. It simply isn't practical to respond on a personal basis to every rejected piece--it would take weeks and weeks and weeks. And why would it be necessary? The people receiving the rejections, like it or not, will not be part of the upcoming issue. Why then should an editor waste valuable time on them?

Yet every issue, almost without fail, I receive some kind of angry response to a rejection letter. Perhaps it has something to do with the entitlement people (dare I say Americans?) feel these days. It is a very toxic combination of egoism (dare I say conceit?) and the coddled belief in an external locus of control--that the external world is responsible for all of your failures and problems, not you. We teach this to our children and it is confirmed every time someone sues McDonald's for their weight gain or because they spilled coffee on themselves.

Specifically, our rejection e-mail this time around reads:

"Dear XXXXXX,

Thank you again for submitting to Perigee, and for your patience as we considered your work for our 18th issue. On the whole, we were extremely impressed with the work sent our way for the fall issue. This made an already meticulous and difficult process even more challenging. It was also a thrill to read so many quality pieces and to be able to consider them for our readership.

Although we enjoyed considering your writing, we have decided to decline publishing it at this time. You should know that there were many pieces submitted to us which resonated with one or another editor, but did not make the final cut.

Often times these decisions come down to taste, and we hope you will not be discouraged by our decision. In fact, we hope you continue to write and submit work—and that you will consider Perigee when marketing your writing in the future.

With Thanks,"

Ask any experienced and reasonably minded writer and he or she will tell you this is an unusually sensitive rejection letter. Yet I received the following curt e-mail in response to that same rejection letter:

"I find this a particularly egregious form of form rejection.

S----- K-----"

Because I love words (and because I am slightly baffled by SK's e-mail), I confirm my understanding of "egregious," consulting Webster. Egregious: extraordinary in some bad way; glaring; flagrant.

Egregious?!

I write this ...

"Dear S-----,

I was distressed and disappointed to receive this note from you. We go out of our way to be diplomatic and kind. All of us have gone through the rigors of submitting work and receiving rejections.

In addition, it is simply not practical--nor is it necessary--to reply to every rejected piece with a personal note. What more can be said? It wasn't the right fit for us. Our behavior more than conforms to industry standards and our "form rejection," as you call it, is far more personal and elaborative than most.

Perigee wishes you the best of luck in the future with your work. You would do well not to take rejections so personally, or it might be a long hard road.

Kindest,"

... but never send it.

And one more self-centered, entitled member of the human race goes merrily along her way. And I wonder why I bother.
 

Bush, Oil--and Moral Bankruptcy

By Ray McGovern
Consortium News

Thursday 27 September 2007

It is an exceedingly dangerous time. Vice President Dick Cheney and his hard-core "neo-conservative" protégés in the administration and Congress are pushing harder and harder for President George W. Bush, isolated from reality, to honor the promise he made to Israel to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon.

On Sept. 23, former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski warned pointedly:

"If we escalate tensions, if we succumb to hysteria, if we start making threats, we are likely to stampede ourselves into a war [with Iran], which most reasonable people agree would be a disaster for us...I think the administration, the president and the vice president particularly, are trying to hype the atmosphere, and that is reminiscent of what preceded the war in Iraq."

So why the pressure for a wider war in which any victory will be Pyrrhic - for Israel and for the U.S.? The short answer is arrogant stupidity; the longer answer - what the Chinese used to call "great power chauvinism" - and oil.

The truth can slip out when erstwhile functionaries write their memoirs (the dense pages of George Tenet's tome being the exception). Kudos to the still functioning reportorial side of the Washington Post, which on Sept. 15, was the first to ferret out the gem in former Fed chairman, Alan Greenspan's book that the Iraq war was "largely about oil."

But that's okay, said the Post's editorial side (which has done yeoman service as the White House's Pravda) the very next day. Dominating the op-ed page was a turgid piece by Henry Kissinger, serving chiefly as a reminder that there is an excellent case to be made for retiring when one reaches the age of statutory senility.

Dr. Kissinger described as a "truism" the notion that "the industrial nations cannot accept radical forces dominating a region on which their economies depend." (Curious. That same truism was considered a bad thing, when an integral part of the "Brezhnev Doctrine" applied to Eastern Europe.)

What is important here is that Kissinger was speaking of Iran, which - in a classic example of pot calling kettle black - he accuses of "seeking regional hegemony."

What's going on here seems to be a concerted effort to get us accustomed to the prospect of a long, and possibly expanded war.

Don't you remember? Those terrorists, or Iraqis, or Iranians, or jihadists...whoever...are trying to destroy our way of life.

The White House spin machine is determined to justify the war in ways they think will draw popular support from folks like the well-heeled man who asked me querulously before a large audience, "Don't you agree that several GIs killed each week is a small price to pay for the oil we need?"

Consistency in US Policy?

The Bush policy toward the Middle East is at the same time consistent with, and a marked departure from, the U.S. approach since the end of World War II.

Given ever-growing U.S. dependence on imported oil, priority has always been given to ensuring the uninterrupted supply of oil, as well as securing the state of Israel. The U.S. was, by and large, successful in achieving these goals through traditional diplomacy and commerce.

Granted, it would overthrow duly elected governments, when it felt it necessary - as in Iran in 1953, after its president nationalized the oil. But the George W. Bush administration is the first to start a major war to implement U.S. policy in the region.

Just before the March 2003 attack, Chas Freeman, U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia for President George H.W. Bush, explained that the new policy was to maintain a lock on the world"s energy lifeline and be able to deny access to global competitors.

Freeman said the new Bush administration "believes you have to control resources in order to have access to them" and that, with the end of the Cold War, the U.S. is uniquely able to shape global events - and would be remiss if it did not do so.

This could not be attempted in a world of two superpowers, but has been a longstanding goal of the people closest to George W. Bush.

In 1975 in Harpers, then-Secretary of State Henry Kissinger authored under a pseudonym an article, "Seizing Arab Oil."

Blissfully unaware that the author was his boss, the highly respected career ambassador to Saudi Arabia, James Akins, committed the mother of all faux pas when he told a TV audience that whoever wrote that article had to be a "madman." Akins was right; he was also fired.

In those days, cooler heads prevailed, thanks largely to the deterrent effect of a then-powerful Soviet Union. Nevertheless, in proof of the axiom that bad ideas never die, 26 years later Kissinger rose Phoenix-like to urge a spanking new president to stoke and exploit the fears engendered by 9/11, associate Iraq with that catastrophe, and seize the moment to attack Iraq.

It was well known that Iraq's armed forces were no match for ours, and the Soviet Union had imploded.

Some, I suppose, would call that Realpolitik. Akins saw it as folly; his handicap was that he was steeped in the history, politics, and culture of the Middle East after serving in Syria, Lebanon, Kuwait, Iraq, as well as Saudi Arabia - and knew better.

The renaissance of Kissinger's influence in 2001 on an impressionable young president, together with faith-based analysis by untutored ideologues cherry picked by Cheney explain what happened next - an unnecessary, counterproductive war, in which over 3,800 U. S. troops have already been killed - leaving Iraq prostrate and exhausted.

A-plus in Chutzpah, F in Ethics

In an International Herald Tribune op-ed on Feb. 25, 2007, Kissinger focused on threats in the Middle East to "global oil supplies" and the need for a "diplomatic phase," since the war had long since turned sour. Acknowledging that he had supported the use of force against Iraq, he proceeded to boost chutzpah to unprecedented heights.

Kissinger referred piously to the Thirty Years' War (1618-48), which left the European continent "prostrate and exhausted." What he failed to point out is that the significance of that prolonged carnage lies precisely in how it finally brought Europeans to their senses; that is, in how it ended.

The Treaty of Westphalia brought the mutual slaughter to an end, and for centuries prevented many a new attack by the strong on the weak - like the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2003.

It was, it is about oil - unabashedly and shamefully. Even to those lacking experience with U.S. policy in the Middle East, it should have been obvious early on, when every one of Bush's senior national security officials spoke verbatim from the talking-point sheet, "It's not about oil."

Thanks to Greenspan and Kissinger, the truth is now "largely" available to those who do not seek refuge in denial.

The implications for the future are clear - for Iraq and Iran. As far as this administration is concerned (and as Kissinger himself has written), "Withdrawal [from Iraq] is not an option." Westphalia? U.N. Charter? Geneva Conventions? Hey, we're talking superpower!

Thus, Greenspan last Monday with Amy Goodman on Democracy Now:

"Getting him [Saddam Hussein] out of the control position...was essential. And whether that be done by one means or another was not as important. But it"s clear to me that, were there not the oil resources in Iraq, the whole picture...would have been different."

Can we handle the truth?

"All truth passes through three stages.
"First, it is ridiculed.
"Second, it is violently opposed.
"Third, it is accepted as being self-evident."
-Schopenhauer

When the truth about our country's policy becomes clear, can we summon the courage to address it from a moral perspective? The Germans left it up to the churches; the churches collaborated.

"There is only us; there never has been any other."
-Annie Dillard

----------

Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, the publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in Washington, DC. He was an analyst with the CIA for 27 years and is now on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).