Mid-Monthly 1:7

The 2006 Elections at 22,000 miles
Maybe that’s not quite the right number--I'm thinking of the Lagrangian point in which a stationary orbit is achieved without need for braking or acceleration-- but that is what I’m aiming for. There’s still a long way until Election Day, with a lot of tactical bobs and weaves yet to come, but I’m trying to achieve a stable perspective on a strategy which can get us through this year without tears.

So, let me attempt to be clear: I would love for the Democrats to defeat the Bushite forces and gain control of one or both of the Houses of Congress. I even think we should make the effort—if it were to happen somehow, the impact would indeed be massive. I just don’t think we will succeed, so I don’t think we should build up our expectations. Gaining some seats without getting control of either House will be a good result; it probably does not justify an all-out effort in terms of emotions or resources.

I don’t buy the conventional wisdom of the moment that the House of Representatives is somehow more likely than the Senate as a target for Democratic takeover. There are different problems in each case—districting is rigged for incumbents in the House, the math is stacked in favor of the Republicans in the Senate. I think that discerning participants in our electoral charade should try to identify close races in the House in their neighbourhoods, getting behind the candidates where Dems have a chance to gain. Similarly, in the Senate, where there are lots of targets of opportunity, you may also have a good chance to support actively an anti-Bushite candidate in your state or a neighboring one who has a shot of winning.

At 23,000 miles, it’s easy to see that the Republicans will look to blunt the Democrats’ hopes for a national referendum on the Tyranny of Bushite Misrule by playing the Scare Card from their tarot deck (see, it’s not “terra”, it’s “tarot”). The real danger for the Republicans is if the electorate ever becomes focused on the legislative shortcomings of this Congressional session: phony “Gay Waving” and “Flag Marriage” amendments didn’t do the trick for anyone, even the Red Meat-eaters. This Tarot Scare Card approach has much more promise in neutralizing the Democrats’ campaign and reducing the game to locally-driven outcomes; after all, everyone should know that is how these elections get decided, anyway (even in 1994, it was so).

The stakes are not as high in the state level elections, but the probabilities of victory are much higher. The Republicans hold a 28-22 lead in governorships now, and the odds are good that the Democrats can reverse that, or do even better (even without winning California from Schwarzenegger). About ¾ of states have gubernatorial elections this year. There are a couple of solidly favored Democratic pickups, such as New York and Arkansas. About 20 races have clear favorites for re-election, or from the incumbent’s party, half of them from each party.

The key fact is that there are an incredible number of races “too close to call” (11 in the CQ analysis, 9 in the Times’), and most of those deadlocked races have Republican incumbents. These races will be determined by turnout, local issues, and tactical blunders, and so it is reasonable to expect about half of those close ones will fall each way. The numbers this way fall out with about 27-28 Democratic governors emerging from the elections.

Having a majority of governors doesn’t buy the Democrats anything directly in terms of national power, but it will have subtly positive effects. It will tend to undermine the notion that the Republicans are the natural governing party; coupled with (equally likely) parallel victory in state legislatures, it will set the stage for improvements in the next redistricting after 2010 (or at least to block attempts for gerrymandering additional seats in favor of the Republicans). Again, the recommendation here is to back local candidates who have a chance to defeat Bushites.

These judgments add up to an endorsement of Dean’s DNC strategy for 2006: build up strength in the states, don’t waste all the resources in a futile attempt to get control of Congress. In essence, give up some of that 20% chance of winning control of a house of Congress in favor of improving the odds for the Presidential race in 2008. I almost hate to say it, as I am no Deaniac, but it’s so. Yes, DNC has been on my gift list this year, but I prefer advocating direct contributions to local candidates over the centralized placement of political operatives in, say, Idaho. My feeling is that, if there are in fact any Idahoans who want a strong Democratic party organization in their state, they are the ones who should organize it.

Israel-Hezbollah Battle in the Spin Zone

The claims ring out from both sides as the ceasefire takes hold: “We won!” “No, we did!” It seems very clear to me, that if the other side is still in the field to dispute it, you have not “won” the war. So, the question is, which side has lost more?

Hezbollah seems to believe that it can still make the claim to have “won the war, after losing every battle” (once again, “Idiot Wind”). I think it more realistic to think that they can still win the peace. Militarily, they were not wiped out; when you’re facing the Israelis, that’s certainly something. Their assets have been “degraded”, though; who knows how many fighters, but certainly a lot of their fighters’ dependents. Their ability to guarantee protection to civilians in South Lebanon, and their claim to being the force that can maintain territorial control of the region, won back from the Israelis after prolonged struggle in the ‘80’s—each of those has taken a severe hit.

The best news for Hezbollah is that they seem to have the field all to themselves in rebuilding the heavily-damaged region, with lucre from the deep, oily pockets of Iran greasing the effort. This makes little sense to me: the U.N., the French, even the Americans should be looking to get their names on some of the rebuilding projects, preferably by using rival Shiite groups: Hezbollah comes in for some heavy condemnation from those who are not their partisans, for bringing on the wrath of Israel. If one were serious about the propaganda war, now would be the time to do some undermining. If that won’t do—and I understand the USA, France, and U.N. insisting on working only through national actors, even if I don’t agree with it—then through foreign aid to the government of Lebanon. I think this post-Syria-client-state version of the country can’t be considered a “failed state” yet, as it hasn’t had enough time, nor any enthusiastic sponsorship.

Hezbollah could hold a reasonable aspiration to co-opt the military of Lebanon and exercise its thirst for power through it, but I don’t believe they will do it. It looks to me instead a lot like the old I.R.A.: basically an armed force for ethnic nationalism that will never have a clue how to govern, either leading a state or within a coalition of parties within one. And, if you know my point of view by now, you will know I have no truck with nationalism of any kind (much less the dysfunctional ethnic kind), but I do recognize that ethnic aspirations must be given their opportunity to breathe in and out their noxious gases, or something even more evil-smelling will emerge.

Now, as for Israel: the nation, its military, and the civilians of the northern part of the country have all suffered some damage, but (except for a few unlucky civilians and soldiers), nothing fatal. More like a hit to their prestige, a p.r. loss (if they were still in the battlefield on that front, which is doubtful), and a reminder of their insecurity. After all, it is correct that one lost war, even one lost battle, could spell the end for the Israeli state.

On the other hand, I think there has been a fatal blow inflicted on the hopes for sustained government behind Ehud Olmert, who sought to replace Sharon as the natural, centrist leader of Israel. The good news is that the philosophy of Sharon’s Wall has been routed: in a world in which Israel’s foes can have medium-range missiles, there is no safety behind a mere wall. Hopefully, recognition of this weakness will inspire some thinking more creative than “let’s build a wall and keep them out”.

The bad news is that the immediate benefactors of Israel’s less-than-totally-successful (i.e., failed) battlefield offensive seem to be the crowd opposed to making peace, Netanyahu and the like. They seem to feel that the fact that the Palestinians and their allies rejected the armed retreat which was Israeli unilateral withdrawal as real peacemaking should embolden their advocacy of…what? Increased settlement in the West Bank? Bushite pre-emptive strikes on Syria and Iran? Going back into Gaza? I don’t know, but it does seem that the downward spiral in Israeli political confidence is going to continue, and that means nothing good. The people in Israel seem bewildered by this new regional power alignment and are looking for a man on horseback. The forces for peace there took a double knock and look demoralized, as first they had to surrender the high ground and get behind the retaliatory offensive in Lebanon (as a practical response), and then they can’t even feel vindicated by the outcome.

Rating System for Rock ‘n Roll

I’ve been feeling the need these days to compare and rate rock bands over the decades, trying to come up with favorites, and looking for a shorthand approach to evaluation. I’ve decided to use a measurement approach that uses a four-point scale, like the standard grading system, and that looks at four dimensions of a band’s quality: the music, the lyrics, the vocals, and the production values.

The approach I’m advocating is a music consumer’s one, not one that would be used by professional musicians, or even by the critics who’ve been on their own little trip for about 20 years now. So, you won’t hear me talking about the “chops”, “hooks,” or “riffs”—these are insider terms that distance one from the experience of the music itself

The rating levels are pretty versatile; the general approach would be to look at the consistency and quality of the work of the rock entity (the band, along with the producers, or the soloist, with their backup band and producers) as a whole. For some long-lived groups, like Dylan, the Beatles,* the Stones, or U2, though, it would make more sense to talk about their work over a period of a few years. It could also make sense to rate an individual release—an album, or even a single song.

The rating system, clearly, wouldn’t apply to something like classical music, or even to jazz unless there are vocals. I think of rock without vocals as basically a novelty tune or act—it’s not the full deal and wouldn’t rate so highly, justifiably. It could be applied to something like country music, or blues.

So, the ratings and how I’d interpret them:
4.0 (A+)-- Consistently outstanding
3.7 (A)—Consistently strong, or strong and occasionally outstanding.
3.3 (A-)—Strong
3.0 (B+)—Very good
2.7 (B)—Good, and occasionally better than just good
2.3 (B-)—Just good enough
2.0 (C+)—Adequate, or sometimes good and sometimes awful
1.7 (C)—Not really good enough
1.0 (D+)—Bad
0.5 (F)—Varies between bad and truly disgusting
0.0 (F-)—Consistently disgusting

My tastes in lyrics are for some verbal wit, some punching power, and I look for effectiveness in overall effect. All things being equal, I prefer there to be some meaning of social import, rather than just expressing an emotion or telling a story. This may sound like a preference for that critically-disdained qualities, being “didactic,” or “preachy”, but I think we’ve got a lot to learn, and if the only way we can learn is through our art (i.e., if we can’t think on our own, or read and learn from it, or even absorb something from the TV or computer screen), then there has to be something in our art worth learning.

When it comes to the vocals, I like a combination of some musical quality and range, mixed with some less-pure emotional quality in the delivery. Gut-bucket without any melody doesn’t do it for me; neither does the sterile operatic. Harmony is good but not required. As you can see, I give great weight to the words and how they are delivered, and I’m not a fan of “disposability” in my popular music: I’m looking for meaning that sticks with you, that improves rather than dissipates over time.

I’m on shaky ground, no doubt, by reducing musical quality to a single category, but I also find that it’s the only way to cover the tremendous diversity of non-vocal musical sound. For example, some would place a premium on “danceability” and would elevate “the beat” to a full-fledged dimension. I feel this does an injustice both to that music which doesn’t seek to just bang out a rhythm and that music which does; in other words, the “slow songs” which de-emphasize rhythm are legit for some purposes, and even something like hip-hop should be rated on how it takes the core rhythmic sound and augments it with other tones (being penalized if there’s nothing there but a beat).

My preference in musical sound is polyphonic, and that’s what I look for in production values, too: layers of sound that can be identified and enjoyed. I’m not one of those who believes that “less is more”, but I expect the additional layers to add something besides schmaltz. The muddy sound production of many garage bands is, for me, just adequate (2.0); I give it a passing mark because it does suit the music and vocals. OK, better production values might accentuate the weak vocal or musical qualities more, so they’re in a no-win situation; the solution is to have better music, lyrics, vocals, and production.

The final score is the sum of the quantities (5 minus the individual dimension rating) squared. This “Pythagorean” method, as opposed to just summing the values, gives greater emphasis on the dimensions which are seriously deficient, which I think is appropriate. The lower the score, the better: A perfect score would be four, which I’ll try to avoid giving out, as I would a disease. Anything below 10 is very high quality; three stars plus. Half A’s and half C’s would be about 25. Anything above 40 is lousy, the equivalent of one star (or none).

To put the method into effect, I’ll take a stab at one band from each of the decades from the ‘60’s through the current one. We will probably return to this method in the discussion and comparison of bands, albums, and individual songs in the future.

‘60’s—The Supremes: Vocals 4.0; Lyrics 2.5; Music 2.5; Production 3.3. Total: 16.4The ratings, and my judgment of the group, should be pretty self-explanatory. Sweet music, but shallow. “Love Child” is the only song of theirs I can think of that actually had something to say.

‘70’s—The Doors: Vocals 4.0; Lyrics 2.7; Music 3.5; Production 2.7. Total: 13.8I penalize them a bit for inconsistency in the quality of lyrics: there are some truly great ones (and some howlers), and for mediocrity in production.

‘80’s—Talking Heads (going for the later version here, Speaking in Tongues and thereafter): Vocals 3.5; Lyrics 3.0; Music 4.0; Production 3.7. Total: 8.9The question here is how much to hit them for the generally-indiscernible meaning of their lyrics. I do a bit here, but also feel that the lyrics do contribute to the overall effect, which I would describe as “energetic, optimistic, a bit naïve”.

‘90’s—Beck (Odelay/Mutations): Vocals 3.5; Lyrics 2.5; Music 3.7; Production 4.0. Total: 11.2Much like THeads, but I hit him harder for intentional obscurity in his lyrics; Beck seems often to be picking out his words just for their sounds; the effect is all over the place, and I’d say it’s pretty much hit-or-miss. Still, there are plenty good sounds; it’s fun.

‘00’s—Bright Eyes: Vocals 3.0; Lyrics 4.0; Music 3.5; Production 3.5. Total 9.5. I picked Oberst—and here I’m thinking clearly of “I’m Wide Awake: It’s Morning”, as opposed to the lesser (and non-vocal) “Ashes from a Digital Urn”, as representing a new trend, very difficult for me to evaluate. Some of the current artists—and I’m thinking also of Modest Mouse, Dresden Dolls—sound just awful the first time, but with repeated listenings, the quality emerges. Actually, I like that.

I saw that Dylan was quoted recently saying that production quality in the last 20 years has declined, and that he hasn’t heard anything good lately in that regard. I think he’s about one-third right; in my view, the quality from the major labels these days is consistently high (would be considered outstanding by the standards of the ‘60’s and ‘70’s), but not innovative. Perhaps he is only indirectly pointing out how great was the production quality on his recent albums with Daniel Lanois; we’re waiting to see about Dylan’s new one.

* With the Beatles, it will probably make most sense to consider separately the rating of the Lennon songs, the McCartney songs, and Anything Else. Only the production values would be the same, e.g. George Martin=top rating.

Common-sense Consumerism: Bathing
We address here the simple, but perennial question: shower vs. bath? The subjective rationalistic approach starts by thinking of the origin of these two modern contrivances. Naturalistically, the shower comes from bathing at a waterfall, whereas a bath comes from the experience of bathing in a warm spring pool. Both of these natural experiences are highly touted, for good reason. The question before us is partly which of the artificial versions gives a better imitation of the original, partly which of the original experiences is better, from the points of view of being invigorating and a good cleansing.

The drawback of most waterfalls is that the temperature is not optimal (warm water being better for cleansing); the drawback of a bathtub is that there is no continual refreshing of the pool of water (such as you may get in a natural pool with decent drainage).

The basic bathtub also lacks that refreshing feeling of a water massage that you can get from a shower or waterfall. So, the Jacuzzi innovation with its water jets is still a clear improvement (with the limitation of poor water replacement, which means you have to continue to bathe in the water that has just washed off your dirt, still remaining).

I haven't the data, but I'd have to think there is a clear conservation preference for the bath over the shower in terms of water consumption; the obverse side of not having to bathe in your own dirty water.

I think the 21st-century improvement in each will be the development of improved filtering systems which will allow shower water to be re-used (perhaps not for a shower, but for something else in the home), and which will allow Jacuzzi bath water to be recycled, cleaner, back into the tub.

We Existential Lottery Winners should marvel at how much better we have it than the olden days (when the spouse, or loyal servant, would dump the bucket of hot water into the tub every so often). Similarly, the low-flow shower head has combined with the shower massage attachment to improve greatly the shower experience--in terms of cleansing, invigoration, and water consumption.

I deliberately have not introduced the time factor into the equation, in the sense that a proper bath requires more time than a proper shower. The shower thus fits more practically into most people's daily lives, and this suggests there may be an opening for the development of the "Power Bath", which seems oxymoronic to us, but with the right apparatus could be a standard of excellence in the future.