From smut to smash-hit

Back when I first started travelling by air, there was a section in the far rear of the book rack in the airport news stands that was obscured by white or brown paper. Succumbing to the purient curiosity of a young man, I peeked at the novels of Anaïs Nin and "The Story of O."

Fast forward 25 or so years and the number one hit best seller that everyone is talking about is, Fifty Shades of Gray. It is out front, on prominent display, in airports.

It is a dirty book like the ones once segregated to an obscured section at the back of the newstand. But the sensibilities are gone. Your right to not be offended is secondary to, well, everything it seems, when it comes to exploiting the purient curiosity of an emotionally immature populace for profit.

I don't think that's a good thing.

The Well and the Shallows

I must apologize to GK Chesterton for appropriating the title of his book, The Well and the Shallows.

My prose does him no justice by association. Nor does my topic, I suppose. But as I am in the middle of the book at the moment, the title came to mind as I considered two comments on Progressive Rock. And I'd like to think through whether prog rock occupies the well or the shallows before I sell all of my record albums.

7 Songs That Sound Deep... But Really Aren't is posted to the blog, Man in the Woods, a blog "dedicated to culture from a Catholic perspective." The author, Chapmaniac, is a Theology teacher and author. He lists a number of prog rock anthems among the seven songs that give the impression of being deep, but which lyrics, upon consideration are sometimes less than shallow. Sometimes they are gibberish. His list includes, Dust in the Wind by Kansas (I have that album), The Horse With No Name by America (I have that one too), Stairway to Heaven (I think so..), Iron Butterfly (got it), Yes (got it) and Blue Oyster Cult.

Being familiar, as I am, with the songs listed; and having enjoyed them in my youth, I chuckled in agreement.

But I also recalled reading another perspective on the genre from a usually reliable source, National Review. A quick websearch retrieved the article, which I also enjoyed: A Different Kind of Progressive, the subtitle of which is, "Prog rock preserves Western traditions." The author, Prof. Bradley J. Birzer occupies the Russell Amos Kirk Chair in American Studies, and is a professor of history, at Hillsdale College. And judging from his article, he knows far more about prog rock than I do. He is also a Catholic.

He considers prog rock lyrics to be deep. Deep enough, it seems, to preserve Western traditions.

In college, I did an English paper on the Beatle's White Album. Some reviewers praised the album for its ground-breaking originality, creativity, and deep meaning behind recordings like Revolution #9 and Yer Blues. Others suggested that the blank white album cover was for non-attribution or that the Beatles wanted to prove that people would buy any sort of rubbish they might produce. My favorite observation was that the 2-album set was one album too long. I think that's right. But I confess, I spent a fair amount of time trying to discern the meaning of Revolution #9 before I found out that it really was gibberish.


Is it just so with progressive rock?

The two men seem to be seeing the same things, but disagreeing about what it is that they see.

Both, for instance, recognize the influence or confluence or something of J.R.R Tolkien on prog rock. Prof Birzer imagines Arwen listening to her father, Elrond's Led Zep album, "While J. R. R. Tolkien probably never listened to progressive rock (though Arthur C. Clarke did), it’s hard to believe his elves in Rivendell or Lothlorien did not."

Meanwhile, Chapmaniac suspects Elrond wouldn't let his daughter listen to such silly nonsense, "Known to incorporate Lord of the Rings references into their songs, this band has a whole catalogue of lyrics that sound like they could be the soundtrack of Dungeons and Dragons. With Robert Plant's fixation on Tolkien, and Jimmy Paige's penchant for dabbling into the occult, Zeppelin was able to capture some of the mystery of Lord of the Rings without any of the content."

Chapmaniac has strict criteria for his list: "a song must have every appearance of saying something profound (meaning that the song must be well constructed and the artist must be under the impression that he is saying something sublime), while simultaneously managing to say very little at all."

That criteria excludes Lady Gaga, Bjork and, well, an awful lot, actually.


Dr. Birzer says, "As such, progressive rock is to rock music what Imagism (e.g., T. E. Hulme and T. S. Eliot) is to poetry. It takes a modern form, and it fills and animates it with a well-ordered soul, an essence commensurate with its form."

And perhaps that's it. Perhaps the best of prog rock is akin to modern poetry. At first hearing, it sounds deep. Upon closer inspection, the words look like pretentious gibberish. But if you take the energy to engage your mind, there is some depth.

Can you tell the poem from the lyric?

"What are the roots that clutch, what branches grow


Out of this stony rubbish? Son of man,

You cannot say, or guess, for you know only

A heap of broken images, where the sun beats,

And the dead tree gives no shelter, the cricket no relief,

And the dry stone no sound of water. Only

There is shadow under this red rock,

(Come in under the shadow of this red rock),

And I will show you something different from either

Your shadow at morning striding behind you

Or your shadow at evening rising to meet you;

I will show you fear in a handful of dust."




"I close my eyes, only for a moment, and the moment's gone


All my dreams pass before my eyes, a curiosity

Dust in the wind

All they are is dust in the wind

Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea

All we do crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see

Dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind

Oh, ho, ho

Now, don't hang on, nothing lasts forever but the earth and sky

It slips away, and all your money won't another minute buy

Dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind

Dust in the wind"


Yeah, I'll keep the albums.

When the HuffPo turns on you...

When the Leftist Huffington Post turns on a Leftist politician, you'd think he'd lost his last friend in the world.

But for Eric Holder, he still, apparently, has one friend left: the President of the United States.

SPLC is a Hate Group

And I don't think they're very bright either.

My first question when the SPLC says something stupid in order to get into the news is usually, "What does the Southern Poverty Law Center have to do with XXXXXX totally unrelated subject (ie: Family Research Council, homosexuality or same-sex 'marriage' or what have you)?"

Well, it looks from their web site that they really aren't all that into providing legal assistance to poor southerners.

They usually make news by adding someone to their list of 'Hate Groups'. In the most recent case, the "hate group" in question is the FRC. The evidence of the FRC being filled with hate-filled bigots is that a hate-filled bigot - er, homosexual activist - tried to shoot up FRC headquarters in Washingon DC.

Now, when SPLC libels (oops, I mean labels) a group or individual as a hate-filled bigot, I usually yawn. The hate-filled bigots at SPLC are too dim to know their right from their left.

In an article entitled, "30 New Activists Heading Up the Radical Right," number 25 is Malik Zulu Shabazz. Only in the fever-addled brains of the Souther Poverty Law Center is the New Black Panther Party a part of the 'radical right.'

"Civil" Debate or Civil War?

Stephen Prothero commented on the CNN Belief Blog about the existence of Catholic politicians on both of the major party's presidential ticket: "A century and a half ago, Americans engaged in a collective conversation about the Bible and slavery that was both civil and informed. Is it too much to hope that an intelligent debate about Christianity and the economy is now in the offing? If so, we will likely have Ryan (and Romney) to thank."

A century and a half ago, "Confederate General Edmund Kirby Smith begins an invasion of Kentucky as part of a Confederate plan to draw the Yankee army of General Don Carlos Buell away from Chattanooga, Tennessee, and to raise support for the Southern cause in Kentucky."
The unspoken corollary to this is of course, that the Democrats who made the conversation uncivil in 1862 in order to defend their power over living souls will once again turn the debate uncivil in 2012 in order to defend their power over living souls.

The Stupidest Man in the World

Is not Joe Biden

High Dudgeon

I'm confused. A group of women tresspass in a Russian Orthodox cathedral, disrupt whatever might have been going on at the time and are arrested.

Or a group of political activists tresspass in a Russian Orthodox cathedral, disrupt whatever might have been going on at the time sing (I suppose) disparaging things about Vladimir Putin and are arrested.

And the entire Leftist world erupts in protest and defense of the hooligans.

But are quiet about the suppression of just about every other protest or suppression taking place elsewhere in Russia, China, the Dar Al-Salaam etc.

Are they posturing in defense of political speech from a dictatorial thug or are they supporting the desecration of a Christian holy place?

I suspect the latter.

No escaping the MiniTru

The piling-on of the media on Paul Ryan has spread further than I expected.

An on-line news site serving the US Military, DoD Buzz has gone all CNN, using biased sources in a 'news' article that reads like an Obama campaign talking point paper:

The lede almost seems relatively innocuous: "The military is so far off the radar for this presidential election that Republican nominee Mitt Romney and his vice presidential pick, Wisconsin Congressman Paul Ryan, didn’t mention Afghanistan once during their 60 Minutes interview Sunday night."

Of course, the subtle impression the article plants is that Romney and Ryan are hiding their views on the war against Islamist terror organizations. What are they hiding, we are led to wonder. Also, the two aren't thinking about National Security, the readiness of our Armed Forces or the welfare of our veterans.

Although there is nothing in the article - or in anything I've ever heard either of them say - that would support those sorts of inferences.

The most likely reason they didn't address Afghanistan?

"CBS Face the Nation anchor Bob Schieffer never even asked the Republican running mates a direct question about their thoughts on Afghanistan."

Oh. That might be it...

And the Democrat talking points continue, unquestioned and without nuance:

"Pundits have leaped over their desks talking about Ryan’s plans to cut Medicare and what it means to independent elderly voters."

Pundits have lept over their desks, screaming in unison the lyrics handed to them about the Obama's campaign false allegation that Ryan plans to cut Medicare and hurt independent elderly voters (read retired military).

So, what do Veterans groups think of Mr. Ryan? the reporter tells us:

"What veteran groups have noticed is a noticeable lack of the word “veteran” throughout Paul’s lengthy document."

Which Veterans groups?

" Jon Soltz, head of VoteVets​.org was not impressed with Romney’s selection, according to a Politico report.

“In his first presidential-level decision, Mitt Romney picks a guy who would slash veterans care by tens of billions and whose budget didn’t even use the word ‘veteran?’ Paul Ryan sees veterans as numbers, not as people,” Soltz told Politico."

Well, DoD Buzz went to a secondary source for their selected Veterans group. That's investigative journalism!

So, you ask, which one is it? VFW, American Legion? VVA? Nah, too obvious. Maybe they're just passing on Politico's biased sources, but the way they wrote the story leads to the conclusion that 'Veterans groups" including those major ones, have problems with Ryan.

And they have the quote to prove it!

So, is VoteVets and Jon Soltz a good representation of Military personnel and Veterans?

No. And it isn't any secret to the readers of DoD Buzz, judging from the comment thread:

"DoDBuzz should commit an act of journalism here instead of serving as a conduit for Jon Solz's White-House issued talking points and rehashing the old Ryan-Dempsey joust (which I'd chalk up to Ryan, incidentally). VFW Exec Director Bob Wallace's quote provides the requisite fig leaf for balance. Veteran voters can see right through this cheap "Chickenhawk" smear job. "

"Equating VoteVets with the VFW is a canard. Vote Vets is a liberal hack job. 90% of their board of advisors are left leaning registered democrats. Rep Gary Peters MI-D called VoteVets, "The largest progressive group of veterans in America, VoteVets.org PAC, with over 220,000 supporters" http://votevets.org/news/releases?id=0501 The VFW is apolitical and has 2.1 MILLION members. Why even mention VoteVets? "

And they said it better than I ever could.

And they are right. Here is a bit from Jon Solz' wiki page: Soltz volunteered for the John Kerry presidential campaign in 2004. ...He has been a frequent contributor to numerous shows, including Countdown with Keith Olbermann[1] and the Dylan Ratigan Show on MSNBC. He has been interviewed by the Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Time magazine, Newsweek.[1] He has appeared on NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News Channel, ABC News, Nightline, Air America Radio, The Ed Schultz Show, and The Bill Press Show.[1]


And here are the top recipients of votevets PAC money according to OpenSecrets.org:
•VoteVets.org to Chris Carney (D) in 2010


•VoteVets.org to John A. Boccieri (D) in 2010

•VoteVets.org to Joseph A. Sestak, Jr (D) in 2010

•VoteVets.org to Patrick J. Murphy (D) in 2010

•VoteVets.org to Timothy J. Walz (D) in 2010

Open Secrets' profile of VoteVet is only surprising, apparently, to DoD Buzz:
"VoteVets.org is a liberal-leaning PAC which contains several affiliated VoteVet.org organzations. The group has raised money primarily in support of Democratic candidates and against Republican candidates."

Maureen Dowd: Co-Dependent

Maureen Dowd writhes[sic] in the NYT: "Obama smashed through all the barriers and dysfunction in his life to become a self-made, self-narrating president."

Well, I'll grant the 'dysfunction in his life.' 'Self-made'? not likely. 'self-narrating'? How is that a positive attribute?

Dowd notes, "Stories abound of big donors who stopped giving as much or working as hard because Obama never reached out, either with a Clinton-esque warm bath of attention or Romney-esque weekend love fests and Israeli-style jaunts; of celebrities who gave concerts for his campaigns and never received thank-you notes or even his full attention during the performance; of public servants upset because they knocked themselves out at the president’s request and never got a pat on the back; of V.I.P.’s disappointed to get pictures of themselves with the president with the customary signature withheld; of politicians disaffected by the president’s penchant for not letting members of Congress or local pols stand on stage with him when he’s speaking in their state (they often watch from the audience and sometimes have to lobby just to get a shout-out); of power brokers, local and national, who felt that the president insulted them by never seeking their advice or asking them to come to the White House or ride along in the limo for a schmooze."

Dowd surmises, "Obama wants to be a policy maker, not a glad-handing pol."

Or it could be that he's just a stuck-up A-hole.

Voter ID Duplicity Part 2

The Financial Times weighs in on the validity of US elections:

Voter ID laws could sway US elections

"Millions of US voters could be turned away at the ballot box in this November’s presidential election as new rules impose tough requirements for identification that observers say could lead to minorities and young people – traditionally more likely to vote Democrat – being excluded."

Of course, on the other hand, millions of ineligible voters - traditionally more likely to vote Democrat - may vote in this November's presidential election as new rules designed to ensure the integrity of US elections are challenged in court and overturned or stayed by political judges.

How many? Millions? How does Anna Fifield know its millions?

She was told - just like Harry Reid was told that Mitt Romney didn't pay taxes for 10 years - by a reliable source.

"“There is certainly the potential for very serious outcomes,” said Keesha Gaskins of New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, which estimates as many as 5m voters across the country might be affected by the rules. "

Hans A. von Spakovsky comments in National Review Online regarding a related article for Politico:
"Among the many poorly researched articles that have written about voter-ID laws, one piece that appeared recently in Politico holds a special place.
"Reporter Emily Schultheis opens with the claim that “at least 5 million voters, predominantly young and from minority groups sympathetic to President Barack Obama, could be affected by an unprecedented flurry of new legislation by Republican governors and GOP-led legislatures to change or restrict voting rights by Election Day 2012.”

"Schultheis doesn’t say where she got the estimate of 5 million until well into the article — it’s from a Brennan Center report. And she fails to disclose the radical, left-wing nature of the Brennan Center or the fact that it is an advocacy organization that is litigating against voter ID.


"As I have pointed out previously, that 5 million figure is completely speculative and not based on any substantive evidence. In fact, the experience of states such as Georgia and Indiana, whose voter-ID laws have been in place for years, as well as reputable surveys conducted by academic institutions such as American University, consistently show that the share of registered voters who don’t have a photo ID is less than 1 percent. This is a far cry from the high numbers the Brennan Center has been claiming since 2006."

"Thus, there is no evidence to support the claim, as expressed in the title of the article, that “Voter ID Laws Could Swing States” — unless what is meant is that these laws could prevent the casting of fraudulent votes that could steal an election. Voter ID is a commonsense reform intended to protect the integrity of the election process for all candidates, whether they are Democrats, Republicans, or members of third parties."


Here's one of my favorites from the FT article: "Pennsylvania’s new rules are being challenged by three elderly women – including one who first voted for Franklin D Roosevelt in the 1940s – who say they will not be able to vote in November under the changes."
1. How are these poor old ladies going to get into the court building for their own hearing - without picture ID?
2. It seems they are elderly enough to draw Social Security - which at least one of them voted for, back in the day - they had to show ID, I'm guessing, to sign up for benefits and to open the checking account into which their benefits are deposited.



Photo: USAID/Julie Fossler
An elections worker checks a voter's ID card during Afghanistan's 2009 presidential and provincial council elections.



That's my absolute favorite. While one arm of the Leviathan - the (in)Justice Department - claims it is an unreasonable burden for Americans to show ID to vote, another arm (or should I say tentacle) brags on its web site that citizens of that advanced democracy, Afghanistan, are required to show picture ID in order to vote.

Detroit, apparently, is less able to provide for verification of its citzens than Kandahar...

Voter ID Duplicity

Drudge bounced me to an article in the American Prospect entitled: You Can't Beat Voter ID with Facts

Jamelle Bouie (who probably needed photo ID to get into his place of employment, to obtain a driver's license to get to his place of employment and....well, you get the idea) opines that "Liberals tend to offer evidence for their policy positions, but what they need is a competing vision."

He fails to realize that, in the instance of merely wanting to limit voting to those actually eligible, Liberals have neither facts nor vision.

He posits: "So far, liberals have devoted their time to showing the rarity of in-person voter fraud—the kind ostensibly prevented by voter ID"

It seems the American Prospect is unaware of the Acorn scandal of a few years ago. Perhaps the editorial staff was busy at the time filling out voter registration forms in the name of dead people, cartoon characters and irregularized residents.

UPDATE: Liberals can devote their time to something else. They cannot show the rarity of voter fraud, because it isn't rare. Now, to be fair. Jamelle's attack on voter ID hinges above on the alledged rarity of 'in-person voter fraud'. The 31 ballots in question in the Miami case were absentee ballots. So, what he's saying is, there's no sense in trying to stop one type of voter fraud because there is an easier and more popular one that you aren't trying to stop.

He goes on, "Conservatives benefit from the the fact that their position sounds reasonable—if identification is required to buy beer and drive cars, then why isn’t it required for elections? Everyone agrees that voting is one of the most important things you can do as an ordinary citizen, and the conservative argument is that we should make it more secure from fraud." Of course the position sounds reasonable is because it is, in fact, reasonable.   He continues, "Debunking the myth of voter fraud doesn't address the normative point that we ought to protect the integrity of the vote, regardless of whether fraud is likely."   Of course, failing to debunk the possibility, let alone the reality, of voter fraud doesn't help the Liberal argument either.   Here's the crux of his argument (such that it is): "Simply put, voter-ID laws limit the number of voters who are able to vote.  Unless you have loose laws for identification, there will be some people who won’t have the paperwork or resources to prove their identity at the ballot box (registration is no longer adequate).  If you see voting as an important act of citizenship, then this is unacceptable; we should be more concerned with maximizing the franchise, not restricting it.     "Even more so when you consider that many Americans struggled and died to expand and protect voting rights."