The Artist Who Fell to Earth

I've had to take some time to express my thoughts on the passing of David Bowie (Jan. 10).  One reason is that it came suddenly; I had heard the buzz for the song "Blackstar", which had been released a couple of weeks in anticipation of the album of the same name.  I didn't imagine that Bowie would die two days after the album's release; he clearly did, and integrated the approach of death and its occasion into his final work of art.

Blackstar:  Bowie's Self-Written Obituary
There are only seven tracks on this album, but no one should feel cheated by its length, over 40 minutes.  Along with his parting thoughts and emotions, told from several points of view, it provides something of a recapitulation of his music from the last 25 years, a period when he generally gave up on commercial acceptance and pursued his own eccentric artistic directions.  Nevertheless, "Blackstar" did the impossible and bumped Adele's "25" from the position as the top-selling album in America.   A few comments on each song:
Blackstar--This is the most experimental song, with a very odd drumbeat, a ghostly tone, and mysterious lyrics (and, if you see it, a strange and otherworldly video).  I interpret it as Bowie looking from the outside at his funeral ("Ormen" an English-accented variation on "allmen"?) and the rise of his spirit after death.  With the drum styling, the use of horns and synthesizer, and the three-part extended format, it recalls early King Crimson (which, for me, means still ahead of the curve). The recurrent line, "I am a Blackstar" (and not  "a filmstar... a popstar... a gangstar") is vague, but I think Bowie is choosing to place himself in the heritage of the stream of African-American music and its influence on modern popular music.
'Tis a Pity She Was a Whore --I presume this title is Bowie's sense of humor--he is referring to his own past (as a "she", a common practice for many gay people), and not to one of his loves, and to the things he did to try to achieve fame and money earlier in his career. The title is also a literary reference, to a 17th-century English play. Its style recalls the '90's album "Black Tie, White Noise", with a lot of orchestration, jazzy horns and drumbeat.  OK, I have no idea what the line "That was patrol" means.
Lazarus - This is a more accessible song; its tone (a mix of Joy Division and Psychedelic Furs, I'd say) is consistent with the mournful one generally throughout, and it's about his afterlife again, but it has an upbeat close--he's flying, free, like the bluebird.
Sue (Or in a Season of Crime) - This song was released two years ago, so it doesn't quite fit into the album's overall context of impending death, but its message, it seems, is a reflection about a lost love. This one has the drum 'n bass sound he picked up on and popularized in the late '90's.  And a repeated use of a vulgarism that one wouldn't normally expect from the flamboyant, flagrant, but usually polite Bowie.
Girl Loves Me -  The weirdest cut on a strange album; recalls "Outside", the chiliastic pre-millennial album about "art-crime" that freaked a lot of people out.
Dollar Days - I think this song may have the most durable appeal from the album, a pensive , passionate reflection on his life in America, that also realls his more successful ballads of the '70's and '80's. A beautiful jazz saxophone solo, also.
I Can't Give Everything Away - Again a tune which features well his flair for passionate vocals. I would opt away from the more crass interpretation, of his figuring out in public what to do with his wealth when he dies, and more towards its being a plea for understanding from the public for his desire to preserve some privacy in the latter stage of his life.

A Few Fan Notes; Bowie and "Fame"
 I was not a fan of glam; I came to Bowie rather late, in the mid-'70's, though I do have some favorites from the early days.  I became impressed with his ability to change with the times, starting with his mid-'70's funky period and continuing through the '80's, when he reached his peak of critical and popular fame, and I stayed with his sound through the slower, less fertile decades since then (though I would admit that not all of those experiments were successful; probably he would have, as well).  His talent took many forms; I was most impressed by his vocals, the variety of voices he could employ, but he could play instruments when the moment served, his acting (both on stage, and in the films in which he performed) was excellent, and his songwriting and the creativity he applied to recording technique were near to the best of his era.

Notes on some of my favorite Bowie songs might illustrate my point of view better than generalizations:

• "Panic in Detroit" (Aladdin Sane) - Bowie had great collaborations through the years, particularly in locating hot lead guitarists.  It's Mick Ronson here, great reverb guitar sound. This one refers vaguely to crazy events going on in the US at the time, such as the Patty Hearst kidnapping by the Symbionese Liberation Army.  Remember that one? 
• "TVC15" (Station to Station)  -- Pretty much indecipherable in terms of meaning (TVC should be a TV station, I suppose), but an irresistible swing and chorus. 
• "Five Years" (Ziggy Stardust) -- Bowie's passion, expressed for a fictional death-of-humanity situation on how people would react to it. 
• "Cat People (Putting Out Fires with Gasoline)" (Let's Dance EP) - A peak in the popularity of Bowie's career, as he concedes space to disco, but does it his way.  One of the best guitar solos ever, courtesy of Stevie Ray Vaughan. 
• "Fascination" (Young Americans) -- The phenomenon of sexual attraction, and what it does to one.  Came out at a time that I was particularly susceptible to second that emotion. 

Finally, I mention "Hallo Spaceboy", from "Outside".  It was a go-to song for much of his later career, when he made occasional guest performances (his touring days were pretty much over by 1990).  "Outside" was a controversial album, but "Spaceboy" was an infectious but somewhat creepy hit-single-type song (the album, even more creepy), except for the line "Do you like altar boys?" showing that scandalous behavior in the religious context was observed well before the events of "Spotlight".  

The references to space travel and to aliens are frequent throughout Bowie's career, from "Space Oddity" to "Earthling" and also in "Blackstar"; of course, there is his starring role in the movie, "The Man Who Fell to Earth".   His recurring role as some sort of space-going humanoid both recognized the fact that his generation was the one that first lived with real travel through space, and provided a vehicle to deflect his "unusual" tendencies.  I note that another artist who utilized space-as-metaphor was Elton John, who, with Bowie, were the two major rock stars who came out as gay or bisexual during the era.  Both had huge success, but the arc of their careers differed enormously, to the credit more of Bowie than of Sir Elton. 

Bowie's relation with celebrity was a love-hate one.  He needed and lusted after fame in the early years and, as the current song above notes, was willing to stoop greatly for it, but he literally wrote its number long ago ("Fame", on "Young Americans").   He claimed to "reject it first", but it was "far too cool to fool".  Later, he made his peace with Fame and found the artistic space to work within it, then ultimately found a way to hide from it, except when he chose to return, briefly, to the spotlight.   His final act was a brilliant bit of stage management, planned, Bowie-style, to the greatest detail. 

More Briefly Noted

Paul Kantner - (Jan. 28) - One of the founding members of San Francisco's psychedelic-era band Jefferson Airplane, who stayed on for most of its fractious duration, and then returned for Jefferson Starship.  He was not particularly noted as either vocalist or instrumental soloist, but played rhythm and helped write many songs, particularly the ones with vocal harmonies or strong political viewpoints.  

More grounded than his beatnik/hippie bandmates, his politics were evident and radical. He wrote most of the songs on "Bathing at Baxter's", probably their second-most appreciated album, and shared song credit on a couple of Woodstock classics:  "Wooden Ships", with David Crosby and Graham Nash, who performed the song there with Stephen Stills; and "Volunteers", the JA song he co-wrote with Marty Balin.  Also written by Kantner, and notable:  "Crown of Creation", "We Can Be Together", "The Ballad of You and Me and Pooneil", and "Won't You Try/Saturday Afternoon". He was 74. 

Glenn Frey (Jan. 18) - A founding member of the Eagles, the largest-selling US rock band ever.  Frey was with the band for over 25 years, and wrote many of their most successful songs--the more country-flavored ones, I would say.  The Eagles' initial claim to fame was in developing the country-rock genre, for which Frey's contribution was central. 

I give him credit for going along with the band's change in direction to more standard American-style rock, which was critical for the continued success of the band, and in particular, for adding guitarist Joe Walsh, someone with a very different personal style to Frey's, who added a lot to their stage presence.  Frey and drummer Don Henley wrote the lyrics to their most famous song, "Hotel California" (guitarist Don Welder, who later had a nasty split with Frey and Henley, wrote the music and performed the legendary lead guitar interplay with Walsh).  Frey was 67. 

(Somewhat) Current Events

The "Alien vs. Predator"  Kind
What to do when both choices are bad ones?  Let's examine a few recent cases, looking for strategies, winners and losers.

As an intro, "Alien vs. Predator" is a classic action picture concept in which the humans' best strategy is as a bystander, letting the two types of evil extraterrestrials destroy each other. Another type from popular culture is the "Kobayashi Maru", from the Star Trek series, in which any strategy you choose is a loser (Captain Kirk beat it by hacking the simulator and changing the rules)--it was designed to measure the type of response rather than the outcome.  Some religious folks have suggested that is how our God works, when asked to explain his mysterious behavior.  "Morton's Fork" is the term used to describe the situation in which, whatever your choice, the outcome is the same.

Then there are those which only seem to be lose-lose choices, but are really not. For example, Bush v. Gore, from the Naderites' point of view; Sanders vs. Clinton (which kind of win do you prefer?);  the Ukraine government vs. the Putinite rebels (false equivalence), and then, that ridiculous notion for a movie, "Superman vs. Batman" (you know they will work it out in the end).

Now we can examine some true lose-lose cases. "Between a rock and a hard place" was the classic American cliche for this situation, but the bad choices involving "Iraq" have made that a bad journalistic staple, though I really haven't heard ISIS' dilemma--of being "between Iraq and Assad"--described in those precise terms, attractive and alliterative as that seems.  Let's shift our geography just slightly: 

Iran vs. Saudi Arabia - As if things in the Middle East were not going badly enough, the rivalry between the the central nations of the Shiite world and the Sunni world heated up in recent days. Already proxy forces from the two battle for control of Yemen and in Syria (the Saudis providing various support to any Sunni forces fighting the Assad regime, while the Iranians back Assad); there were hard feelings in Iran when a crowd stampede during the haj in Mecca ended up with a disproportioate share of Iranians among the casualties.

A recent political escalation was caused by a more intentional provocation from Saudi Arabia.  Among a group of convicted criminals and terrorists executed together was a dissident Shiite Saudi priest, Sheikh al Nimr.  His crimies were political ones--wishing ill for the the Saudi monarchy, advocating resistance--thoughfrom what I have read, apparently not actively advocating violence. A riot ensued in Tehran, and the Saudi embassy in the Iranian capital was set ablaze.  Unlike 1979, though, the Iranian leaders did not endorse the violation of diplomatic norms.The US wisely is urging restraint on both sides; we don’t need to get choose sides there, or in Yemen, and open conflict between the two would be unhelpful.  A distraction that came up since then was a small US Navy’s ship that accidentally drifted into Iranian waters.  Iran captured them, then released them the next day.  Our improved relations with Iran, stemming from the agreement on Iran’s nuclear program, no doubt contributed to the moderate forces there having the upper hand and this remaining a minor incident.

Trump vs. Cruz - None of the current Republican state polls have anyone besides these two in the lead, which suggests that, as things stand, they may be able to emerge quickly as the only possible choices for the nomination.  I don’t have much of a dog in this hunt, but there are several candidates running on the Republican side who would be far preferable to either of them, so I just urge those others, who are firmly opposed to those two, and not just because they want to win themselves, to figure out a path toward uniting behind an alternative, and soon.  Otherwise, recall Paul Simon's words in "Mrs. Robinson":  "Going to the candidates' debate/ Laugh about it  shout about it/ When you've got to choose/ Anyway you look at it you lose."

Assad vs. Daesh+ - Syria is being destroyed, city by city, province by province.  Those areas which seem safe now will not be safe in the future.  The autocratic minority regime of Assad suppressed dissent during the Arab Spring with violence, thus starting the civil war there.  Daesh rose from rejection of Assad, and from Shiite government repression of Sunnis in Iraq, and advanced through filling a vacuum of legitimate control in areas in those countries and imposed its own local rule.   Though it may trace its rise from legitimate offenses, Daesh’s barbarism rivals Assad’s.  Unfortunately, the track record in this civil war of third forces in the country is generally unsuccessful.  It seems that anything that we can do to weaken Daesh will help Assad, and removing Assad would only increase the level of anarchy.  

A difficult problem, and one the US can not solve by itself.  The strategy of containing Daesh, systematically defeating it with a coalition of forces is slow but will be effective—unlike some other terroristic forces, the fact their strategy relies on holding territory makes them more identifiable targets.  At the same time, though, Assad’s regime can not be allowed back into liberated areas, and the US can lead diplomatic efforts to remove international support for the Assad regime, currently being propped up by Russian, Iranian, and Hezbollah forces, Without that support, it will fall. 

Bengals vs. Steelers –Not the same level of significance, by any means, but the wild-card game illustrated some of the big problems with our nation’s favorite sport. As the game built toward its climax, one could see the frustrations mounting on both sides, with rules interpretations that allowed blind hits and gang-tackles that allow “fumbles’ to be created by ripping the ball from defenseless players. Unfortunately, players ready to explode remained on the field, and coaches got involved, too. It was an ugly game, a plague on both their houses, though in the end there was a winner—who should not have won—and a loser—who deserved to lose.


North Korea's New Nuke
On January 5, North Korea announced that it had detonated a thermonuclear weapon.  It was an announcement and action that probably were predictable, as their policy is, when they are not being noticed sufficiently, to do something dangerous to remind everyone how bad they are.  Also, it was apparently the birthday of their young, erratic President.

On the online odds site in which I participate, the market had been posed whether North Korea would detonate a thermonuclear device by the end of 2016.  The price of this market shot up overnight from about 10-15 cents (on 100) to the 60's and 70's, as it seemed like the answer to that question had been answered affirmatively.  However, the questions arose very quickly, because the rules of the market specify that the "thermonuclear" nature of the device need be confirmed by the Comprehensive Test Ban monitoring organization.  The seismic readings for the shock wave of the detonation--which did occur--were too low for the standard of most hydrogen bombs.  So, the value of the market did not go to maximum, but remained open and returned toward the same low level in the days following. 

What is the moral of the story?  North Korea will remain a dangerous nuisance, even a menace.  We can not expect China to restrain them effectively; only the deterrent that the US presents can prevent nations like Japan and South Korea from needing to develop their own nuclear weapons.  The Middle East may be a total calamity, but the threat to world peace presented by this regime is unsurpassed anywhere.  And that is what they wanted to remind us.

The Malheur National Wildlife Refugees
Leaving aside the question of the lawlessness of the Bundy family and their followers, the armed libertarian types occupying a rural Federal property in Oregon--a wildlife refuge building--are wrong on the fundamental question.  They seem to believe that the Federal government, which has legal title to the land, is unfair in charging ranchers for permits to graze on the land.  The fact is that Federal policy has subsidized this "free range" grazing for decades.

The correct strategy is to besiege the protest without creating a violent confrontation--at some point, no one should be allowed in or out (especially journalists providing the group with free publicity). Eventually they will give up.

El Corrido del Chapo Guzman
The capture of the leader of the Sinaloa Mexican drug cartel could eclipse Cosby as the 24/7 criminal justice story of the year.  Guzman will have the best lawyers fighting extradition to the US; it is a proven fact that he can corrupt the Mexican prison system and they can not hold him or disrupt his activity while under their roof.  So, I think it makes sense for the Mexican government to do its part to send him to the US, as it has indicated it will do, and for the US to pursue it.

I don't think the Sean Penn interview had anything to do with his capture; and his story was upstaged by it.  It may be that Guzman wanted to codify his status as a folk legend, as there are reports he had begun discussions about making a movie, and that the interception of those gave the Mexican authoritites clues as to his whereabouts after his last, audacious escape from prison.

+I'm switching over from calling the terror would-be state "ISIS"--which I liked because it is also the name of a pagan (Egyption/Babylonian) god--to "Daesh", which comes from the initials in Arabic of the group.  For some reason this bothers them even more, so I will adopt it until I hear otherwise.

Political Drama Act II, Scene 2

The curtain rises to reveal the stage split in two parts:  on the left, the fields and grain elevators of Iowa (under snow); on the right, woods and a church steeple (also snow) typical of New England: New Hampshire.  Both sides feature giant screens on which TV ads for the various candidates are projected continuously. 

Early Primary Preview
We can expect some genuine early drama out of the first two in the schedule, the Iowa caucuses on February 1 and the New Hampshire primary on February 9.   There is uncertainty on the outcome of both, and in both parties, and it is unlikely that uncertainty about any of the four will be resolved before the actual events.  There will be plenty of polls, and the polls will suggest outcomes that are likely or probable, but any number of polls (apart from the unreliability these days of these small-sample, single-state polls, which is a separate question) can not answer critical unknowns.  In Iowa, it is about the ability of candidates' organizations to generate the turnout and loyalty of supporters in the local caucus, supporters ready to spend a whole evening and advocate to others for their candidate. Then there's New Hampshire, which takes pride in the indpendence of its decisions from those in Iowa, and the track record that suggests voters there may consciously seek to go in a different direction.

In Iowa, current polls have Ted Cruz with a small lead over Donald Trump, and Hillary Clinton with a somewhat larger lead over Bernie Sanders.  The question that is out there for Clinton is whether her strong support among the state's politicians will prove a stronger draw on the night than Sanders' enthusiastic backers will doubtlessly provide.  As for the Republican contest,  one might expect that Cruz' Iowa support, concentrated particularly among the evangelicals, would be solid, with a strong likelihood to turn out; however, much of his support seems to have come at the expense of Ben Carson in this campaign, and from past supporters of previous Iowa winners Mike Huckabee and Rick Santorum.  All three are still in the race, and Carson has funds, a newly-rebuilt campaign staff, and one should expect all three of them to go after those who (in polls) now support Cruz.  And as for Trump, who can know?  He has plenty of support, the profile of his supporters tends toward groups with low historical turnout, but it is possible that they were just waiting for the right candidate.

In New Hampshire, the uncertainties multiply. In addition to possible reaction to the as-yet-unknown Iowa results, the polls in the Democratic race are very close, and in the Republican race's polls, while Trump has a significant lead, there is something like a four-way tie for second place (Cruz, Marco Rubio, Chris Christie, and John Kasich),  Finally, we should not be suprised if onetime leader Jeb Bush's PAC supporters spend hugely in both states to try to salvage his faltering campaign's chances.

Then, before the broader canvass of March 1, with 13 states having primaries or caucuses, several of which from the Southeast, come #3 and #4, Nevada and South Carolina (though the Democratic and Republican soundings are not the same day there).  March 15 brings the first winner-take-all primaries, with the one in Florida shaping up as one which can make or break the candidacies of Florida residents Rubio, Bush, and which could define either Trump or Cruz as a clear front-runner.

With all of the minor news stories of the 24/7 coverage we should expect of the nomination races, we should keep in mind a few central questions which will be answered in the next 60 days:

1)  Will Trump's support materialize, in anything like his polled level, at the election booths and caucuses? 

2) Will any third candidate break through the current leadership of Trump and Cruz in any of the earliest four states?  If not, will it then be too late to consolidate the opposition to those two and block the race coming down to a choice between two candidates totally unacceptable to most of the Republican establishment?

3) On the Democratic side, can Clinton's major advantage be derailed by Sanders winning one or both of the first two contests?

Caution would suggest that, with so many unknowns, the wise pundit would eschew prediction at this point.  Clearly I am not one of those.  I will provide my answers to those three, as follows:  1) Yes; 2) Yes; 3) No.   My predictions for the first two primaries:  Cruz narrowly over Trump in IA, but Cruz finishing 4th in NH (behind Trump, Rubio, and Kasich); Clinton narrowly over Sanders in IA, Sanders with a narrow win in NH (that will not seriously disturb the Clinton campaign's path toward nomination).

Online Market Odds on 2016 Outcomes
I have to say, my predictions do not quite equate with my betting strategies in the online market.   In particular, because the odds have shifted so strongly toward Ted Cruz in Iowa (70% or so), I am taking the contrarian view, with a small amount in favor of Trump's chances (around 30%) and against Cruz'.  To be honest, I haven't a clue how New Hampshire would then break if Trump pulled the upset in Iowa, but I don't feel the reaction would favor Cruz.

The most interesting markets--with multiple options and dynamic odds--in the online market at predictit.org in which I spend some time (much more than my investment dollar justifies) are:

• second place in GOP for New Hampshire (I have positive positions on Rubio at 28%, Christie at 16%, Kasich at 6% and Jeb at 7%, negative on Trump--who I expect to win--at 76% and Cruz at 80%);  
• a 50-50 proposition on whether Rubio will break 12% in the poll average (realclearpolitics) at the end of the month (right now, I'm tentatively on the No side); 
• the Republican VP nominee pool (a recent strong move in favor of Nikki Haley; I'm positive on that notion, along with Cruz--in the scenario as running mate for Trump--Kasich, and Rubio:  there are no strong favorites, nor are there for the Democratic VP nod); 
• and, on the international side, whether Brazil President Dilma Roussef will survive in the job through 2016 (I'm buying No, when the odds are favorable); and, of course
• the name of the next Prime Minister of Spain (see previous discussion).  I'm going against the favorite, Rajoy, whose odds are bouncing up and down daily, and in favor of "None of the Above". The site has announced that new elections will not close the market--they will keep it open until a Prime Minister is confirmed. 

The odds on some of the bigger items, like who will get the Presidential nominations and who will be elected President, are more settled for the time being (though Cruz and Trump are rising slowly for the GOP nom, and Rubio sinking).  Hillary is holding at about 58% for the White House.  The market for individual Senate races and for control of Congress haven't heated up as yet.

What Hillary Needs to Do
I am not yet ready to endorse Hillary Clinton's bid for the Presidency, though I expect I may do so before long.  What she needs to do to ensure my support is simply to establish herself as the candidate who will win a decisive victory this November.  Namely, convince those who are not beyond convincing (e.g., Democrats supporting Sanders, independents not irrevocably opposed to Democrats) that she is not some sort of lying, corrupted, evil, power-mad b-word.  This is not just a matter of seeming nice, speaking pleasantly, smiling, talking with average people--I think she's really doing fine with all that, though she needs to continue.

It's more about establishing trust with a broader segment of the population--not the haters, who are beyond reason.  There are a number of people who suspect her motives, about things like her emails as Secretary of State or her accepting contributions from the fat cats.  These are my suggestions:

Come clean on the emails.  My guess is that she used the private server because she wanted to have some privacy in her dialogues with colleagues and friends.  For a globe-trotting emissary, that can be hard to arrange on secure communications devices issued by a big institution.  At the end of the day, she failed to achieve that objective very well.  It's really not a big deal, in the national security sense: no harm, no foul.

Do more than pay lip service to overturning Citizens United.  As I recall, the original C.U. case was brought by supporters of her candidacy in 2008 during the long battle against Sen. Obama for the nomination.   If this is affecting her position, she should discard that, as it's not about the original group, it is about the unlimited spending on campaigns going on and its deleterious effects.  Obama opposed the decision but never did anything about it, and he rejected public financing for his general election campaign, with the argument that he should not financially disarm unilaterally.  Clinton should not use this argument.  Its validity is unchanged, but she will not need or want the big money for the general election.  On this issue, she needs to emulate more the positions of Bernie Sanders--yes, and Donald Trump.  Besides, her PAC, over which "she has no control" will still be out there with tons of money if needed.

Make clearer what she is about in running for President.  This she can do over some months--there is no need to reveal her hand in detail before the convention.  I still recommend that she couch her policy proposals--the ones now, and the ones she will gradually bring out--all as things that can be achieved in the first term, with a sufficiently smashing defeat of the Republicans in the national election.  If she is going to raise a boatload of cash, she should do it supporting the DNC, the DCCC, and, if they aren't backing too many Blue Dogs, the DSCC.  The theme:  "Vision 20/20"!  Of course, if things get too sticky and she can't accomplish her objectives, she can change her mind and run for re-election, but frankly, if she does it right, there should not be the need.  She should choose a VP nominee that will be someone who can take over leadership of the party and the nation in four years.+
Soften the hawkish tone, when the opportunity presents itself.  The two biggest reservations good Democrats have to her candidacy are her Iraq vote to authorize force for the Bushite administration (regretted now many times) and her Wall Street connections.  Leftists tend to conflate the two, and focus on the campaign finance deficiency.  If she takes care of that, and if she clearly points out she will not write checks for unlimited military adventure (anymore), she can unify the party behind her. And this she must do.


+This goes against my betting in the Predictit.org on the VP nominee--I'm going for a longshot choice, former Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana.  Popular centrist, and a white male--that's where she needs to make up ground, and making Indiana competitive, as Obama did, helps stretch the Republicans and weaken them.  There will also be a Senate race, and a governor race there, and picking up one or both would be very big.  There are plenty of other ways to go, and plenty of time to focus group-test names.  I'm sure she will.