Tom Hull

Book Alert

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:51:09 -0700

I've been collecting these book notes as I go along, and they've been piling up faster than expected. Last time I published them, I speculated that I'd have more come September. I think what I'll do from here on out is to post them whenever I get up to 40. In that case, I should have done this a week or two ago. Again, the previous ones from various posts have been collected here.

Paul Alexander: Machiavelli's Shadow: The Rise and Fall of Karl Rove (2008, Rodale Books): One advantage this book has over all other Rove books -- for some reason I haven't been collecting them in these notes -- is that it gives us a taste of fall. Still has a good ways to go -- preferably to jail.

Rick Bass: Why I Came West: A Memoir (2008, Houghton Mifflin): I read one of his first books, a novel called Oil Notes that read more like a memoir. He has a long list of short books since then. Always meant to read more.

Walter Benjamin: The Arcades Project (paperback, 2002, Belknap Press): A Marxist literary critic of great depth and sweep, this somehow assembles his unfinished, perhaps unfinishable, great project. Back when I was devoted to critical theory I was aware of this, but not as something that actually exists -- an analogy might be the Beach Boys' Smile. Haven't read Benjamin or any other Frankfurt School eminence in 30 years, but regard him as an old, dear friend.

Graydon Carter: What We've Lost: How the Bush Administration Has Curtailed Our Freedoms, Mortgaged Our Economy, Ravaged Our Environment, and Damaged Our Standing in the World (2004, Farrar Straus and Giroux): Vanity Fair editor. Seems like a fair and balanced summary.

Rodney Clapp: Johnny Cash and the Great American Contradiction: Christianity and the Battle for the Soul of a Nation (paperback, 2008, Westminster): Short book from a writer who specializes in religion -- an interesting past title is: A Peculiar People: The Church as Culture in a Post-Christian Society.

Tyler Cowen: Discover Your Inner Economist: Use Incentives to Fall in Love, Survive Your Next Meeting, and Motivate Your Dentist (paperback, 2008, Plume): I looked Cowen up after seeing Paul Krugman dis him. Easy to see why. His previous books include In Praise of Commercial Culture and Creative Destruction: How Globalization Is Changing the World's Cultures. Even the subtitle of this reductio ad absurdum economicum gives me the shivers: I don't want my dentist motivated; I want him to act like a conscientious professional, not a cash register.

Andres Duany/Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk/Jeff Speck: Suburban Nation: The Rise of Sprawl and the Decline of the American Dream (2000; paperback, 2001, North Point Press): The authors are urban designers, evidently Jane Jacobs fans, upset at what they see in most American suburbs. Just running across a bunch of books on suburbia: James Howard Kunstler: The Geography of Nowhere: The Rise and Decline of America's Man-Made Landscape, and Home From Nowhere: Remaking Our Everyday World for the 21st Century; Dolores Hayden: Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820-2000, and A Field Guide to Sprawl; Robert Bruegmann: Sprawl: A Compact History; Joel S Hirschhorn: Sprawl Kills: How Blandburbs Steal Your Time, Health and Money; Robert Burchell et al.: Sprawl Costs: Economic Impacts of Unchecked Development; Anthony Flint: This Land: The Battle Over Sprawl and the Future of America; Robert Fishman: Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia; Kenneth T Jackson: Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States; Becky Nicolaides/Andrew Wiese, eds: The Sururb Reader; Joel Garreau: Edge City: Life on the New Frontier; Jane Holtz Kay: Asphalt Nation: How the Automobile Took Over America and How We Can Take It Back; Alex Marshall: How Cities Work: Suburbs, Sprawl, and the Roads Not Taken. And that doesn't begin to scratch the literature of suburban anomie.

Barbara Ehrenreich: This Land Is Their Land: Reports From a Divided Nation (2008, Metropolitan Books): Looks like a short collection of columns from the last few years. Brilliant, I'm sure; I can't think of a deeper or more fearless thinker on the left. Only big mistake she ever made was wasting The Worst Years of Our Lives on the 1980s, not realizing that even worse could still be in the cards.

Tom Engelhardt, ed: The World According to TomDispatch: America in the New Age of Empire (paperback, 2008, Verso): 320 pages scraped from one of the best-written, best-edited web sources, consistently ahead of the learning curve on the numerous interlocking threads of the great war of our times (GWOT?).

Marc Gerstein/Michael Ellsberg: Flirting With Disaster: Why Accidents Are Rarely Accidental (2008, Union Square Press): Examples include Chernobyl and Katrina, Vioxx, the Iraq War, Arthur Andersen/Enron, the 1994 Mexican peso crisis, a half dozen more. Gerstein's a management consultant. Ellsberg's an editor who helped his father publish the Pentagon Papers -- the father adds an introduction nominating Vietnam for the list. I'm on record as saying that how we handle disasters will be the most important political issue of the next few decades -- anticipating and preventing disasters looks like too tall an order, but understanding them when they happen is essential. This looks like a good place to start.

Peter Gosselin: High Wire: The Precarious Financial Lives of American Families (2008, Basic Books): Los Angeles Times reporter tells stories about how the "great risk shift" (Jacob Hacker's term, the title of a good book) has affected dozens of ordinary families. Everyone rates the reporting here as superb, but evidently it doesn't go much into causes -- more interesting to me, since I have no trouble envisioning the problem.

Michael Heller: The Gridlock Economy: How Too Much Ownership Wrecks Markets, Stops Innovation, and Costs Lives (2008, Basic Books): Well, one way there's too much ownership is in the way we parcel out legal monopolies known as patents. That's one of Heller's examples, but it looks like he'd like to see more use of eminent domain -- e.g., he complains about the inability to build 25 new runways that would eliminate most air travel delays. You always have conflicts between private ownership and public utilities, and lately we've leaned so far toward the private side that the public has suffered.

Maggie Jackson: Distracted: The Erosion of Attention and the Coming Dark Age (2008, Prometheus): There's a growing perception that people are getting dumber, and there are a lot of theories as to why -- some of which can be taken as proof that people are getting dumber. I imagine that a case can be made for distraction (as PW puts it: "our near-religious allegiance to a constant state of motion and addiction to multitasking"). Jackson previously wrote: What's Happening to Home? Balancing Work, Life, and Refuge in the Information Age.

Antonia Juhasz: The Bu$h Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time (paperback, 2007, Harper Perennial): Hadn't mentioned this before because it looked like a fairly standard anti-globalization rant -- maybe I was just reacting to the dollar sign, because it shouldn't be hard to make the case, and there are examples that could use some press: Iraq you probably know about, but what about Haiti? She has a new book coming out, another easy mark, even timelier: The Tyranny of Oil: The World's Most Powerful Industry -- and What We Must Do to Stop It.

Baruch Kimmerling: The Invention and Decline of Israeliness: State, Society, and the Military (2001; paperback, 2005, University of California Press): Argues that Israeli identity has broken down into seven major cultures, which fits in with Richard Ben Cramer's argument that post-2000 Israeli hawkishness has been fueled by the disunity of the Israeli polity -- the repression of the Palestinians is the only thing all those Israeli factions can agree on. Like Tom Segev's Elvis in Jerusalem, written at a point when the events of the last 8 years didn't seem inevitable.

Baruch Kimmerling: Clash of Identities: Explorations in Israeli and Palestinian Societies (2008, Columbia University Press): Looks like a collection assembled over 20 years, updating arguments from Kimmerling's earlier The Invention and Decline of Israeliness: State, Society, and the Military.

Mark LeVine: Heavy Metal Islam: Rock, Resistance, and the Struggle for the Soul of Islam (paperback, 2008, Three Rivers Press): Historian, rock guitarist, political activist, sometimes gets his careers confused, although few Middle East scholars are more insightful, or interesting.

Michael Lind: The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution (1995; paperback, 1996, Free Press): I only know Lind from his 2004 book, Made in Texas: George W Bush and the Southern Takeover of American Politics -- as sharp as any book published on Bush around that time. I gather he started as a rabid anti-communist conservative, then started to distance himself from conservatism in the 1990s. This book seems to be transitional, his embrace of liberal nationalism itself a conservative impulse.

Michael Lind: Up From Conservatism: Why the Right Is Wrong for America (1996; paperback, 1997, Free Press): Offhand, this one looks prescient. The target is big enough, but at the time it hadn't really sunk in how extreme the Gingrich upheaval was, let alone where it might go once someone like Bush got into the White House. Ariana Huffington's Right Is Wrong had it easy.

Michael Lind: Vietnam: The Necessary War: A Reinterpretation of America's Most Disastrous Military Conflict (1999; paperback, 2002, Free Press): Lind argues that it was necessary for the US to intervene in Vietnam -- something about global communist conspiracy -- but that the tactics chosen were all wrong, leading to the disaster. I believe that the Cold War itself was wrong, and Vietnam was just a particularly egregious case of why. Lind may have moved up from his conservatism; he still needs to grow out of liberal interventionism.

Michael Lind: The American Way of Strategy: US Foreign Policy and the American Way of Life (2006, Oxford University Press): Bad as Lind was on the Cold War, he was one of the first to identify the perils the neoconservatives posed in its aftermath. Argues that US policy abroad shouldn't undermine the American way of life at home. Seems obvious, but I can show you 60 years of presidents who didn't get it. (Doubt that Lind agrees on the whole list, but GW Bush is certainly one he has in mind.)

Tom Mast: Over a Barrel: A Simple Guide to the Oil Shortage (2005, Hayden): Short (128 page) primer, probably too basic at this point, unless you're not up on the subject.

Jane Mayer: The Dark Side: The Inside Story of How the War on Terror Turned Into a War on American Ideals (2008, Doubleday): Another book on the chic torture clique in and near the White House. I recoil a bit at the contrast to "American ideals" given the shoddy record self-appointed Real Americans have established. This has gotten some press -- Mayer writes for New Yorker, and this promises to be one of the more definitive books on the subject. She previously wrote Strange Justice: The Selling of Clarence Thomas.

Nan Mooney: (Not) Keeping Up With Our Parents: The Decline of the Professional Middle Class (2008, Beacon Press): Probably the most normal thing in the world, at least if you're American, is to think that each generation makes progress moving up the proverbial Dream ladder. Still, I know a lot of people who are old enough to take retirement seriously but are still dependent on their parents for support -- especially true with middle class professionals, who did well for themselves before many conspired to kick the ladders out that might have allowed other people to advance.

Paul Muolo/Mathew Padilla: Chain of Blame: How Wall Street Caused the Mortgage and Credit Crisis (2008, Wiley): Two journalists track down the chain of responsibility for the subprime mortgage meltdown. Looks like the leader in the race to cash in, already joined by: Edward M Gramlich: Subprime Mortgages: America's Latest Boom and Bust; Robert J Shiller: The Subprime Solution: How Today's Global Financial Crisis Happened, and What to Do About It; Mark Zandi: Financial Shock: A 360° Look at the Subprime Mortgage Implosion, and How to Avoid the Next Financial Crisis; Richard Bitner: Confessions of a Subprime Lender: An Insider's Tale of Greed, Fraud, and Ignorance. I don't think Dean Baker has a book out yet, but he's been on top of the crisis from before anyone else knew it was happening.

Kenneth Pollack: A Path Out of the Desert: A Grand Strategy for America in the Middle East (2008, Random House): As an Iraq War hawk, Pollack did much to get us into the mess he now feels so eminently qualified to get us out of. Favors a humbler, more humane, more realistic, and more cohesive set of policies. Evidently he gets paid for such profound insights.

Jules Pretty: The Earth Only Endures: On Reconnecting With Nature and Our Place in It (2007, Earthscan): Author is an expert in sustainable agriculture, which he has written several books on. Collection of essays, ranges wider.

Dani Rodrik: One Economics, Many Recipes: Globalization, Institutions, and Economic Growth (2007, Princeton University Press): Argues that there is no one single formula for development success, but all recipes that have worked are rooted in economics fundamentals, which themselves imply no single development path. Puts him in a good position to pick on everyone else's pet theory. Previously wrote: Has Globalization Gone Too Far?; The New Global Economy and Developing Countries: Making Openness Work; In Search of Prosperity: Analytic Narratives on Economic Growth.

Fernando Romero/LAR: Hyperborder: The Contemporary US-Mexico Border and Its Future (paperback, 2007, Princeton Architectural Press): Robert D Kaplan described the US-Mexico border as the starkest dividing line on the planet. This provides pictures, diagrams, details covering all aspects of cross-border interaction. Author is an architect, based in Mexico City.

Jacqueline Rose: The Question of Zion (paperback, 2007, Princeton University Press): Another in the growing list of histories and critiques of the Zionist idea. Rose has several other recent books, including The Last Resistance (on Israel) and Sexuality in the Field of Vision, both published by Verso.

Robert Scheer: Playing President: My Close Ecounters with Nixon, Carter, Bush I, Reagan, and Clinton -- and How They Did Not Prepare Me for George W Bush (paperback, 2006, Akashic Books): Scheer starts his new The Pornography of Power off with a story about Nixon that concedes that even the Madman Theorist had a clue about toning down a confrontation. The thesis here seems to be that the second Bush is flat out off the scales, and that thesis seems well-founded.

Raja Shehadeh: Palestinian Walks: Forays Into a Vanishing Landscape (paperback, 2008, Scribner): Ostensibly a travel book, a series of hikes through the occupied landscape of the Jordan's west bank. Shehadeh's memoir, Strangers in the House: Coming of Age in Occupied Palestine, is one of the few books on the subject that can really turn heads. Also wrote When the Birds Stopped Singing: Life in Ramallah Under Siege.

Rob Simpson: What We Could Have Done With the Money: 50 Ways to Spend the Trillion Dollars We've Spent on Iraq (paperback, 2008, Hyperion): Short book throws some alternatives out, ranging from the silly ("pave every highway in America with gold leaf") to serious. The underlying principle is what economists call opportunity costs: when we spend money on one thing, we forego other possible uses for that money, some of which would have turned out to be much better.

Lewis Sorley: A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of America's Last Years in Vietnam (1999; paperback, 2007, Harvest Books): Tries to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat in Vietnam, touting the modest successes of Gen. Creighton Abrams and how they were undermined by the loss of political will in Washington. This is the fount of the argument that the antiwar movement (not the warmakers themselves) lost us the war -- although it should be noted that that argument was already an article of faith on the right, no matter what happened in Vietnam.

Cass R Sunstein: Radicals in Robes: Why Extreme Right-Wing Courts Are Wrong for America (2005, Basic Books): Prolific writer, both on law and economics; strikes me as a centrist, but smart enough to tear through nonsense on the right, which makes this potentially useful. More recently wrote Worst-Case Scenarios, Republic.com 2.0, and co-wrote Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness.

Cass R Sunstein: The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution -- And Why We Need It More Than Ever (2004; paperback, 2006, Basic Books): I've been thinking lately about how quickly the US dropped two of Roosevelt's "four freedoms" and what the implications of that shuffle have been. Parts of Roosevelt's thinking did slip into the early construction of the postwar institutions, particularly the UN. A move to back them up instead of curtailing them to fight communism and restore imperialism would have profoundly changed postwar history.

John R Talbott: Obamanomics: How Bottom-Up Economic Prosperity Will Replace Trickle-Down Economics (paperback, 2008, Seven Stories Press): Former investment banker, writing for a lefty publisher, not sure how that all adds up, but Obama's take on business issues and choice of economics advisers is somewhat idiosyncratic. Talbott has a couple of previous books, like The Coming Crisis in the Housing Market: 10 Things You Can Do Now to Protect Your Most Valuable Investment, and Sell Now! The End of the Housing Bubble. Those books came out in 2003 and 2006 respectively, so you have to give him some credit there.

Jeffrey Toobin: The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court (2007, Doubleday): New Yorker writer, probably a good narrative portrait of the court and all its warts, including Roberts and Alito.

Philip C Winslow: Victory for Us Is to See You Suffer: In the West Bank with the Palestinians and the Israelis (2007, Beacon Press): Most reviews see this as an intensely personal account. Seems to me that he's found an essential, deeply troubling, truth.

David S Wyman: The Abandonment of the Jews: America and the Holocaust, 1941-1945 (paperback, 2007, New Press): Looks at what the Roosevelt administration actually knew about Hitler's "final solution" and what little the US did about it. Several other books on this general topic: Robert Beir: Roosevelt and the Holocaust; Arthur D Morse: While Six Million Died: A Chronicle of American Apathy; Robert N Rosen: Saving the Jews: Franklin D Roosevelt and the Holocaust; Henry L Feingold: Bearing Witness: How America and Its Jews Responded to the Holocaust; also, William D Rubinstein: The Myth of Rescue: Why the Democracies Could Not Have Saved More Jews From the Nazis.

Browse Alert: Obama Abroad

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:04:43 -0700

Matthew Yglesias: Maliki's Walk Forward. Many Iraqi politicians, including Prime Minister Maliki, have been saying in vague terms how they want US military forces to quit Iraq. Polls indicate that most Iraqis are even more adamant on the point. Maliki crossed a line last week when he more/less endorsed Obama's 16-month pullout proposal, much to the chagrin of McCain (with his 100 year plan) and the Bush administration. Yglesias walks through this whole incident, including the denial that wasn't. Quote:

Conservatives like Bush and McCain used to acknowledge that if Iraq's leaders want us to leave, we have to leave. More recently, McCain's been singing a new tune, claiming to know what Maliki really wants irrespective of what he says, and suggesting that the only thing that really matters is what Gen. David Petraeus says.

This does a nice job of highlighting one of the most important unreported stories of the Iraq War: how the Bush administration has managed to prolong the war by dissuading Iraqi politicians from calling for a pullout. This has been done in lots of ways, like the scheme to arm Sunni tribal leaders, whom the Americans are able to keep in check. All this changes with Obama, who has no reason or desire to continue the subterfuge.

Meanwhile, back in the deep red plains states, this is Wichita Eagle editorial cartoonist Richard Crowson's take on the Maliki timetable affair:

I've continued to watch FiveThirtyEight almost obsessively, an activity not far removed from watching paint dry. Over the last couple of weeks, I've seen Obama's 3-point popular vote lead decline to 1.5 points, a slip that cost him slim edges in Indiana and Virginia. Presumably the big world tour will give him a bit of a boost, and indeed the margin inched up today to 1.8 points. In the electoral count, Obama is consistently running four states better than Kerry: Iowa, Ohio, Colorado, and New Mexico. This seems much closer than it should be, but there's a long time to go, and there's a good chance lots of people are enjoying the relative quiet between the primaries and the conventions. A lot of money is riding on the election, which will become painfully obvious soon enough.

My interest in grimey details of electoral politics predates my late-1960s-vintage embrace of the new left. I've colored in county-by-county vote results going back to the Civil War (much as Kevin Phillips did), so I have a lot of framework I can hook these new numbers onto, and enjoy using it. Obama is locked in right now as the officially designated lesser evil, but from a practical standpoint he also provides a measure of where the country is: if he can't win a majority, it's very unlikely that someone much better can. So tracking how he's doing has some relevance to tracking where we're at.

Jazz Prospecting (CG #17, Part 12)

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 09:00:59 -0700

Should have finished a Jazz Consumer Guide by this point in the cycle, but the last two weeks were wiped out by the funeral trip to Detroit. Got back late Thursday, and resumed jazz prospecting on Friday, starting with unpacking my travel cases. Most of the records below I've played several times during the trip -- some of the Nik Bärtsch records I repeated many times, not least because they kept my mood in tone. Still have a lot of unprospected records at this point, including some fairly major prospects, but sometime in the next week I expect to switch mode and try to close out this Jazz CG. Fact is, I already have words enough to fill my page. I also have several good ideas for pick hits. Given the current format, I'm not going to lose any sleep if I don't have enough duds. Could be time to give last year's Maria Schneider one more spin and see if it still fails to impress.

Nik Bärtsch's Mobile: Ritual Groove Music (2000-01 [2006], Ronin Rhythm): After A-listing Bärtsch's two ECM albums, I asked for some history and got a big package of self-released CDs. I then put them off, needing to concentrate on new releases clamoring for my attention. But I wound up playing more Bärtsch than anything else the last two weeks, so figured I should start with them as I try to get Jazz Prospecting going again. Mobile is the precursor to Ronin, but basically the same group, with the leader's piano augmenting the drums and percussion, and Don Li's bass clarinet/alto sax available for backdrop. All pieces are titled "Modul" and numbered, with two offered in a second take. Most are based on small, repeated rhythmic figures -- most attractive when there is some velocity and/or volume, although sometimes he used quiet to set up a ringing bell or the blast of marimba that startlingly launches one piece. B+(***)

Nik Bärtsch's Ronin: Randori (2001 [2006], Ronin Rhythm): Despite the name change from Mobile to Ronin, still a quartet, trading the bass clarinet/sax and marimba in for bass and shakers. That narrows it down a bit, and the pieces -- especially the three part "Modul 8,9" -- stretch out in repetitiveness. Nothing much wrong with that, least of all when something comes along to rock the boat. B+(**)

Nik Bärtsch: Piano Solo (2002 [2006], Ronin Rhythm): Subtitled Ritual Groove Music 3. I usually regard solo piano as underdressed, and didn't expect much from a pianist whose calling card is rhythm, but the album is a revelation. First thing is that the "no overdubs, no loops, all sounds are purely acoustic" motto on the first two Ritual Groove Music albums is gone here. Bärtsch dubs percussion onto his piano, and a lot of it sounds bass-like, wherever that may be coming from. Most pieces are repeated from the first two albums. They hang together and maybe even grow a bit with the simpler arrangements. The new one is called "Modul TM" -- based on Lennie Tristano's "Turkish Mambo." A-

Nik Bärtsch's Ronin: Live (2002 [2006], Ronin Rhythm): Volume 4 of Ritual Groove Music, with the same Ronin quartet lineup as Vol. 2 (Randori): Bärtsch on piano, Fender Rhodes, and DX-7; Björn Meyer on bass; Kaspar Rast on drums; Andi Pupato on percussion. No overdubs, no loops, of course. Six "Modul" pieces, the shortest clocking in at 9:17, the longest at 15:50. The live context liberates them to expand on the minimal frameworks, and the experience pays off. The quartet meshes but not mechanically so much as chemically. A-

Nik Bärtsch's Ronin: Rea (2003 [2006], Ronin Rhythm): Back to the laboratory, with the bass/drums/percussion group. The five "Modul" pieces are new, with numbers in the 18-26 range. Again: simple, seductive rhythmic features, fleshed out with bass groove, with a hint that the piano is more improvisatory. Nothing flashy or startling, but this 5th volume of Ritual Groove Music settles comfortably into a new plateau. At this plateau, it's hard to make value judgments on Bärtsch's albums: it's all moderately wonderful, and moderation seems to be as much a defining trait as anything else. This gets a slight edge because it is so near perfect -- among other things it starts out modestly and sneaks up on you until the final piece pulls it all together. I'd hestitate to conclude that this slight perfection makes it a better record than the later ECMs (Stoa and Holon) that I rated lower -- and may ultimately have to bump up now that I'm getting over seeing Bärtsch's limits as limits. A

Nik Bärtsch's Mobile: Aer (2003 [2006], Ronin Rhythm): This makes Ritual Groove Music 6, a return to the group lineup from the first album, with Mats Eser on marimba/percussion and Sha (aka Stefan Haslebacher) replacing Don Li on bass clarinet/alto sax. The lineup adds some zip and color, but otherwise the same sort of beatwise pieces, ending a shade down where Rea ended a step up. A-

Sha's Banryu: Chessboxing Volume One (2007 [2008], Ronin Rhythm): Namewise, Sha sounds like Switzerland's answer to Skerik. Both play reeds in fusion-like settings, but that's about as far as the comparison goes. Skerik plays tenor sax and likes to honk; Sha plays alto and a lot of bass clarinet, and tends to fill in background vamps -- more so on Nik Bärtsch's records, of course, but even here. Born 1983; given name Stefan Haslebacher; has played with Bärtsch since 2004, first in Mobile then in Ronin. Banryu is, like Ronin, another Japanese reference, described as: "the dragon ready for jumping, lets everything come up and roll by, while not loosing its tension and posture at any moment and ready to strike anytime." Sha's songs all have three-digit zero-filled titles, like "012" and "031." The title suggests he intends to work inside the box, but that the box isn't going to be overly simple or ultimately all that constraining. Pianist Mik Keusen enforces strong similiarity to Bärtsch's records -- if anything, the piano is more prominent here. Bassist Thomas Tavano and drummer Julian Sartorius are role players, but the fifth group member, vocalist Isa Wiss, is a change. She comes out singing on the opening "012," but later on tends to merge her scat into the groove. The latter rarely works, but is mostly seamless here. B+(***)

Frank Catalano: Bang! (2008, Savoy Jazz): Tenor saxophonist, from Chicago, born circa 1980; cut a couple of previous albums for Delmark, at least one as a teenager. Has a patent on a sampling keyboard gadget that attaches to a saxophone. Has a loud, boisterous sound, reminiscent of the 1950s honkers. Upbeat songs wear funk on their sleeves, with titles like "Bang!," "Soul Burner," "Shakin'," "Damn Right," "Funky Dunky," "Night Moves." B+(**)

Michael Jefry Stevens Quartet: For the Children (1995 [2008], Cadence Jazz): Pianist. Born 1951 in New York; moved to Florida at age 8, back to New York at 20, to Memphis some time after 1995. Discography gets going around 1990 with groups led by Mark Whitecage and Dave Douglas (The Mosaic Sextet). Not sure how many -- his steadiest gig has been the Fonda/Stevens Group, which gets filed under bassist Joe Fonda. This is part of "The Cadence Historical Series": previously unreleased tapes of some historical significance. The quartet is fronted by saxophonist David Schnitter, with Dominic Duval (bass) and Jay Rosen (drums). The pieces are a mix of avant and familiar, including blues and a waltz. Stevens slips in and out without leaving a firm impression. Sound is less than perfect. B+(**)

Wally Rose: Whippin' the Keys (1968-71 [2008], Delmark): Pianist, born 1913 in Oakland, CA, died 1997; played in Lu Watters Yerba Buena Jazz Band during the 1940s, later with alumni bands led by Bob Scobey and Turk Murphy. During the 1950s Rose developed (reverted?) into a ragtime specialist, with a 1958 Good Time Jazz record of Rag Time Classics the centerpiece in his discography. This reissues two later albums, Rose on Piano from 1968 and Whippin' the Keys from 1971. More than half of the songs have "rag" in the title. The others are nearly as old-timey -- "St. Louis Tickle," "The Kangaroo Hop," "Elite Syncopations," "Pickles & Peppers." B+(*)

Willie "The Lion" Smith & Don Ewell: Stride Piano Duets: Live in Toronto, 1966 (1966 [2008], Delmark): Ewell was a stride pianist, 1916-1983, born Baltimore, lived much of his adult life in Florida. Recorded several well-regarded records, especially for Good Time Jazz in the late 1950s, but more often accompanied other leaders: Bunk Johnson in the 1940s, Jack Teagarden 1956-62. He's a valuable, underrated player -- a precursor to Ralph Sutton and Dick Hyman. Smith, of course, was one of the originators of the stride piano style. He was born in 1893 or 1897 (accounts differ), and died in 1973. Full name is worth repeating: William Henry Joseph Bonaparte Bertholoff Smith -- Bertholoff was his father's name, Smith his stepfather's. I've always assumed that "The Lion" became part of his canonical name to distinguish him from the brilliant (but these days mostly forgotten) alto saxophonist Willie Smith. I can't figure out who plays what, and don't much care -- any weakness you might be tempted to attribute to the elder is readily compensated for by his understudy. Smith tries singing twice; he can't, but he's such a charming rogue you won't mind. B+(**)

Cy Touff & Sandy Mosse: Tickle Toe (1981 [2008], Delmark): Tough (1927-2003) played bass trumpet. He grew up in the Chicago neighborhood that produced Lee Konitz and Lou Levy, which may have given him a "west coast" jazz connection even though he lived his whole life in Chicago. Mosse (1929-1983) played tenor sax, taking Lester Young as his model. He was born in Detroit; moved to Chicago in 1955, and on to Amsterdam in the 1970s. An easy-going swing/bop session, something for the curious to remember them by. B+(**)

Yoon Sun Choi/Jacob Sacks: Imagination: The Music of Joe Raposo (2008, Yeah-Yeah): Singer, originally from Toronto, now based in New York. Second duo album with pianist Sacks. Raposo was a songwriter, did a lot of TV work, a lot of offbeat stuff -- Spike Jones was an influence -- died in 1989 at age 51. The notes cite his "unique blend of depth and playfulness," but the music doesn't bear that out. The piano accompaniment is short and arch, the vocals arch and arty. B-

The Joel Futterman/Alvin Fielder/Ike Levin Trio: Traveling Through Now (2007 [2008], Charles Lester Music): Avant-garde group, likes to bring the noise, and does so a little too often and too loud for my taste. Fielder is a drummer who goes back to the early Chicago AACM. Futterman is a pianist who takes Cecil Taylor seriously. Levin is a saxophonist who can play along in this crowd: mostly tenor here, but his bass clarinet may be more interesting because it dampens the tendency to squawk. I've heard three albums by this trio. That I've rated them with declining grades may have more to do with my patience than the music. At best, an exciting, vibrant group that can knock you out of your expectations. B+(*)

Ben Wolfe: No Strangers Here (2007 [2008], MaxJazz): Bassist, born in Baltimore MD, raised in Portland OR; worked with Harry Connick Jr. from 1989, Wynton Marsalis from 1994, Diana Krall from 1998 -- side credits favor singers about 2-to-1. Composes and arranges, with five albums under his own name since 1997. Says this is the one he always wanted to do, which you can believe because there's so much kitchen sink in here. He has Greg Hutchinson on drums, but still brings in Tain Watts for a cut; he has Marcus Strickland on tenor/soprano sax, but still taps Branford Marsalis twice. Terrell Stafford drops in for a couple of tracks on trumpet. At least he has the good sense to stick with pianist Luis Perdomo. Also has a string quartet which seeps out of the mix when the horns don't scare them off. Chalk it up to postbop excess. But as Mingus showed so often, nothing is really excessive so long as you can key on the bassist. B+(**)

No final grades/notes this week on records put back for further listening the first time around.

For this cycle's collected Jazz Prospecting notes, look here.

Loops of Oops

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Mon, 21 Jul 2008 08:59:13 -0700

Two short pieces on the news page of the Wichita Eagle this morning are noteworthy follow-ups to my recent Afghanistan post. They show once again how the US cannot fight "terrorism" without screwing up worse. First, from Afghanistan:

Nine Afghan police killed by mistake

KABUL, Afghanistan -- U.S.-led troops and Afghan forces killed nine Afghan poice Sunday, calling in airstrikes and fighting on the ground for four hours after each side mistook the other for militants, Afghan officials said.

In a separate incident, NATO said it accidentally killed at least four Afghan civilians Saturday night. A NATO soldier also was killed in the east.

Then, from Iraq:

U.S. forces kill son, nephew of Iraqi governor

BAGHDAD -- American Special Operations forces shot to death the son and nephew of the governor of Salahuddin province on Sunday during a raid in the northern city of Bayji.

The governor, Hamed al-Qaisi, threatened to resign in protest and said he would suspend cooperation with U.S. officials.

Iraqi and U.S. officials offered sharply different accounts of the attack, though the deputy provincial governor said U.S. officials had already apologized.

The governor's son and nephew appeared not to have been the targets of the raid. Instead, the U.S. military command in Baghdad said the house had been raided to capture a "suspected al-Qaida in Iraq operative."

Not sure whether to put any special weight in the fact that these stories managed to get reported at all. Most such stories don't get reported, and even when they do they come slathered with spin. Nobody questions the appropriateness of calling airstrikes against "militants" or "suspected al-Qaida in Iraq operatives," but such airstrikes almost invariably add to the collateral damage, undermining US political credibility (if such a thing even exists).

Big story on the page was "Most food aid not reaching Haitians": only 2 percent of 16,000 tons of aid food reaching Haiti's harbors have been distributed to the people who need it. Article doesn't explain why.

Browse Alert: Afghanistan

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Sun, 20 Jul 2008 17:36:20 -0700

Rory Stewart: How to Save Afghanistan. Stewart wrote a pretty good book, The Places In Between, about walking across Afghanistan from Herat to Kabul in 2002. He later spent a year in the British government in Iraq, wrote a book about that, and returned to Kabul to found a NGO. He provides a succinct list of what the US/NATO/etc. have done right and what's gone wrong, and seems to be personally committed to keep doing his part. But he starts off criticizing both McCain and Obama for their campaign planks to put more troops and money into Afghanistan. He argues for fewer troops and less money, albeit some of each, much more intelligently used. Don't know whether he's right, but he's certainly less wrong than McCain and Obama (let alone Bush, who's escalated bombings to new record levels). Final line is one I do agree with: "We do not have a moral obligation to do what we cannot do." From the beginning, there were two big reasons to reject America's Afghanistan war: one is that we would, by the very nature of who we are and how we think and act, do far more damage than we could ever possibly repair; the other is that in doing so we would make ourselves even worse. We've seen both happen, but we keep falling for the argument that we have to hang in there until we succeed. To some extent Stewart's still making that argument, but at least he's hedging it in the right direction.

Barnett Rubin: Afghan Government Charges on Killing Afghans -- U.S. 47, Terrorists 41. Rubin's another western Afghanistan expert who wants to help but is generally appalled by everything that's happening there. That makes him a particularly good source for information on Afghanistan. This is just one example of his posts at Juan Cole's "Informed Comment: Global Affairs" blog, worth following mostly for Rubin's posts. But it is a good example to follow up on Stewart's assertion that the US is doing more harm than good. And not just by a 47-41 margin: the 41 killed in the terrorist bombing were 41 the US strategy failed to stop.

Meanwhile, Air Force Times reports that the US dropped a record number of bombs on Afghanistan for the first six months of 2008. Also, Obama started his world tour in Afghanistan, where he argued for an additional 7,000 troops, while looking grimacingly at the Pakistani border. One might hope that he'll develop a sense of reality once he actually has to face it, but running for office in the US isn't conducive to that. On the other hand, once he has to face reality one reality he'll have to face is the established biases of the military-security state he'll inherit, and they're still pretty much the same as the ones who pushed/followed Bush into disaster after disaster. Obama may be different, but so was Jimmy Carter in 1976 and John Kennedy in 1960, and they still got swept along with the tide, sometimes catastrophically.

Right now, Obama doesn't seem to be any closer to calling a halt to the War on Terrorism than Carter was to ending the Cold War in 1976 (or to falling the logic of his human rights stance toward a clean break with the Shah of Iran). This despite the fact that the War on Terrorism is a bogus charade, a pretense at doing the impossible, showing the world we're boss when we only have the vaguest clue how our own country is working.

Moral Hazard

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Sat, 19 Jul 2008 15:03:59 -0700

I saw a segment on the PBS news hour that tried to blame the troubles with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac on moral hazard. This is, of course, nonsense. Moreover, it's a pretty good rule of thumb to recognize that any time anyone argues anything on the need to avoid moral hazard they're up to no good and trying to pull a fast one on you. Most commonly this boils down to the argument that the government shouldn't insure anyone against any risks because doing so lets people be less vigilant against those risks. You can only say that if you believe that all risks are volitional, or if you're rich enough to self-insure and don't give a hoot about anyone who isn't.

Moral hazard is a hypothetical state that serves as a practical limit in the writing of insurance. It occurs when the insured value exceeds actual value by so much that the beneficiary is tempted to cash in by destroying the asset. For instance, if you have a house insured for $800,000, but the house is termite food and water damaged and home to a family of skunks, it might occur to you that you'd be better off if the house mysteriously burned down so you could collect the insurance. In other words, the deal is set up in such a way that it gives you an incentive to drop your moral sense.

That sort of thing makes sense in theory, which is why it often makes an effective argument, but in practice it's pretty easy to avoid such situations. For starters, almost everything that you can buy insurance for errs on the side of leaving you underinsured: the insurance reduces your pain, but it doesn't eliminate it, let alone reward it. Secondly, most of what you can deliberately do to trigger a claim is illegal, including the wide range of deceptions known as fraud. (The example above is at least fraudulent, even if the house burns down due to negligence and not arson.) Insurance companies can also limit their exposure by inspecting and regulating their risks, either directly or through other agencies (e.g., airline insurers can assume that the FAA is inspecting and regulating airliners).

The point here is that moral hazard isn't something that undermines the whole insurance industry. It is an easily managed technical issue. Moral hazard can only appear as a plausible explanation in cases where insurer discipline has broken down. The Savings and Loan crisis in the late 1980s is commonly given as an example, but that was really a case where deregulation and lack of oversight and exposure enabled bankers to assume more risk than was prudent -- especially given that their willingness to trade paper profits for risk was so prone to fraud. Still, it's hard to credit that deposit insurance made bankers any more likely to make risky loans. Bankers are always more concerned with their assets and profits, which is what they gambled with and lost on, than with their deposits.

Even after the PBS report I can't tell you what moral hazard might have had to do with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The story there is that Congress, back when privatization was coming into vogue, took a couple of perfectly functional government agencies and turned them into Government Sponsored Enterprises. In a nutshell, that meant that investors and management could scam them for profits while liabilities would still fall back onto the government. As government agencies all they had to do was to provide the public with services as efficiently as possible. As private companies, their management's mission changed: now it was to extract profits for their investors (who in turn lavishly rewarded management). The result was the predictable hollowing out of business that has been occurring in virtually every sector of the US economy since the 1970s when we started shifting our focus from goods and services to finance. (Kevin Phillips has a lot to say about this.) Basically, they got away with it as long as real estate appreciated, and got caught up short when the real estate bubble burst. (Same event sequence as the S&L's.)

Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac won't be a disaster because the government is there to pick up the pieces and keep mortgage finance running. But the one thing this shows is that the privatization vogue didn't amount to anything useful. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac could have functioned at least as well, with a lot less scandal, as government agencies. One interesting thing that's coming out of the current financial meltdown is how much space is opening up between the conservative ideologues of pundit-world and that the conservative bankers who are running the system. You don't hear the latter talking about moral hazard and how the markets will correct themselves if only you allow them to fail when the time comes. Rather, they are straining to hold the system together and save us from even worse collapse, and mostly making prudent and reasonable moves along the way. I'm not prepared to go so far as to argue that the Bush administration has switched over to the side of sanity, but there is at least some of that going on now, and it makes the far-right punditocracy look even dumber than ever. (Cf. John Bolton on Iran for an unrelated case in point.)

Browse Alert: Down and Out

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 23:09:54 -0700

Paul Krugman: L-ish Economic Prospects. Argues that the last two recessions -- officially, starting in 1990 and in 2001 -- are different from previous recessions. The older ones were often instigated by the Fed as a way of controlling inflation, so they were able to recover relatively quickly once the Fed returned to normal interest rates. On a graph the earlier recessions would look like a V. The 1990 and 2001 recessions were different, in that they were caused by the collapse of asset bubbles -- the former real estate, the latter stock market. When the bubbles burst, the economy shrunk. But when the shrinkage stopped, there was no rebound: growth remained sluggish for several years, so most people didn't sense any real recovery from the recession. These plot out more like an L -- a sharp fall then a flat recovery. The recession we are either in or rapidly approaching is like that, with real estate and other financial bubbles deflating while oil prices make it all the worse. Krugman points out that this makes it more likely that Obama will win in November, but also likely that he won't be able to pull much in the way of quick fixes. I'm even more pessimistic: I think the magnitude of the problem has been much understated, and I also think that the right things to do will in many cases look wrong in the politically critical short term. On the other hand, Obama didn't get to run on a "change" platform because it's a clever marketing take; he's running on change because it's needed.

David Warsh: Getting On With It. Starts with a line that could benefit from more elaboration than the mere mention of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: "It is becoming clear that the US is indeed facing its most serious economic crisis since 1932." Then this turns into a book review, principally of Peter Gosselin's High Wire: The Precarious Financial Lives of American Families, even though Warsh's interest is as much in the decline of newspapers -- Gosselin works for the Los Angeles Times. The book sounds like a reporter's version of academic Jacob Hacker's The Great Risk Shift: The New Economic Insecurity and the Decline of the American Dream.

There is relatively little in his book about the forces that have brought about the new volatility, increasing global competition and trade. He recognizes that for a quarter of a century, growth-oriented policies of deregulation, restructuring and openness have legitimately gained ground because most people have preferred being richer to being more fair. He is concerned mainly with rendering a clear accounting of the costs. It is as if he were to say of the war in Iraq, I know it was undertaken because they thought it would make everyone better off; but here is how many dead there may have been, and how they died, soldiers and civilians alike. High Wire is a remarkable act of witness.

Gosselin documents, persuasively, that life's "beta" has increased in these United States during the latest binge of globalization, an argument first advanced nearly fifteen years ago by Peter Gottschalk, of Boston College, and Robert Moffitt, of the Johns Hopkins University. The frequency has nearly doubled in which reversals of fortune turn catastrophic for everyday folk -- a lost job, a divorce, a traumatic injury, a serious illness, the death of a spouse -- thanks mainly to the erosion of the insurance principle. After more than a quarter century of globalization, there is plenty of damage to report, and it is impossible not to be moved by Gosselin's careful and mellifluous reporting. His purpose is to persuade us "to reset the balance point between what's acceptable as good for the individual and what must be recognized as good for the many."

The term "beta" seems rather spurious here: fairly clear what he means, but not why he calls it that. The less insurance people have against catastrophes and mishaps, the more important it becomes for one to save money -- in effect, to self-insure. Hence, the more important it becomes to make more and more money -- the need can be infinite because one never knows all of life's future risks. All this money-making and saving can be politically justified as a personal virtue, but spread across the entire population it becomes impossible -- as should be obvious from what's happened in the US over the last 20-30 years.

We all know that inequality has increased over the last 30-40 years, but we systematically underestimate how much because we tend to just look at tangibles like income or wealth and don't adequately factor in the costs of increased risk. Moreover, this oversight has been essential to the rise of the conservatives, who not only refuse to acknowledge it but go further -- e.g., through their gospel of personal responsibility -- in trying to make think that the inevitable victims of these risks bear some fault in their misfortune.

In a world of infinite growth people might conceivably make enough progress to, if not catch up in terms of equality, at least become sufficiently well-to-do to have little to complain about. However, we're becoming increasingly aware that we live in no such world: essential resources like oil are fixed and becoming increasingly exhausted and expensive; the carrying capacity of the earth is also limited; and in many regards our lifestyles would be richer and saner if we developed a limited set of widely attainable needs instead of dog-eat-dog struggle of capitalism. Given these limits, we're actually better off increasing social insurance: it's more efficient economically and more fair politically.

Back in Cowtown

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Thu, 17 Jul 2008 23:01:03 -0700

Made it back to Wichita late today: 995.8 miles house to house from Oak Park, Michigan. First time I measured the drive it came out very close to 1000, so I figure anything shorter is a testament to efficient driving. Left about 2:30 PM yesterday and got as far as Terre Haute, IN: almost 400 miles. Corn is more mature than two weeks ago, with golden tassels providing contrast to the green stalks. Not sure when it ripens, but I saw none of the gold on the way out. Good weather. Moderate traffic. (Saw a used car lot in Terre Haute that was almost all SUVs and monster pickups. Still a lot of trucks on the road.) A couple of construction delays. Saw a hideous backup the other direction, where a jacknifed semi on I-70 in Indiana stopped about 20 miles of late-night traffic -- at least two-thirds trucks.

This has been a difficult, tiring trip. I did no jazz prospecting while I was away, and no Jazz CG writing. Also nothing on the book, and not much on the blog. I went to one record store. Got there ten minutes before closing, and came away empty-handed. Spent very little time in bookstores. Read a couple of books -- far less than I took with. None of which is surprising under the circumstances, but past trips allowed me more latitude. Should start to get back to normal now, but it may take a while.

On the Road Again

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Wed, 16 Jul 2008 09:22:10 -0700

Clearing out of Detroit today, headed back on the road again. Drove downtown this morning to clear up a legal snafu -- advice: never do business with National City Bank. (It took us the intervention of an expensive lawyer to close out an account there.) A lot of corn between here and Wichita.

Browse Alert: War and Obama

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:49:54 -0700

Tom Engelhardt: Collateral Ceremonial Damage. A report on five or six weddings Bush was involved in, all but one ending badly as US air power rained death on unfortunate parties.

We Americans have only had one experience of death delivered from the air since World War II -- the attacks of September 11, 2001. As no one is likely to forget, they shocked us to our core. And you know how those deaths were covered, right down to the special pages filled with bios of civilians who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and the repeated invocations of the barbarism of al-Qaeda's killers (and barbarism it truly was).

These wedding parties, however, get no such treatment. Initially, they are automatically assumed to be malevolent -- until the reports begin to filter in from the hospitals, the ruined villages, and the graveyards, and, by then, it's usually too late for much press attention. When that does happen, their deaths are chalked up to an "errant bomb," or that celebratory gunfire, or no explanation is even offered.

Juan Cole: Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan: A Friendly Critique. On Obama's recent posturing, Cole offers a "quibble" -- that keeping a small force in Iraq to fight Al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia wouldn't be effective, let alone prudent -- and a bigger complaint. The latter concerns Obama's proposal to build up US forces in Afghanistan: an extra 10,000 troops over current levels that only seem to be making matters worse. The most obvious problem is that the US (or NATO, if you prefer) is no longer fighting the war they started: instead of chasing Al-Qaeda, which has largely vanished, they're fighting an indigenous group of people (whose links to the vanquished Taliban are uncertain at best) just to show who's the real power, and mostly failing at that. Cole sees this as even more unwinnable than Iraq, and asks:

When was the last time that an al-Qaeda operative was captured in Afghanistan by US forces? Is that really what US troops are doing there, looking for al-Qaeda? Wouldn't we hear more about it if they were having successes in that regard? I mean, what is reported in the press is that they are fighting with "Taliban". But I'm not so sure these Pushtun rural guerrillas are even properly speaking Taliban (which means 'seminary student.') The original Taliban had mostly been displaced as refugees into Pakistan. These 'neo-Taliban' don't seem mostly to have that background. A lot of them seem to be just disgruntled Pushtun villagers in places like Uruzgan.

Many Democrats still entertain the vogueish idea that Afghanistan is the good war and Iraq the bad war -- that if we hadn't gone into Iraq we could have focused and won in Afghanistan, which because of the centrality of 9/11 and Al-Qaeda was the struggle that mattered. Obama's playing into that sentiment. The problem is that regardless of how foolish the Iraq misadventure was, the Afghanistan war was the original US blunder: the US couldn't attack Afghanistan, at least with its cherished military power, without assuming imperialist robes, and imperial subjugation is just something that isn't possible any more, least of all in Afghanistan.

Helena Cobban: Obama's Plan for Iraq: Strengths and Weaknesses. Another analysis of Obama's op-ed -- similar conclusions, more details.

TalkingPointsMemo cites a post-op-ed speech by Obama where he leads: "I Strongly Stand By My Plan to End This War."

Mark Benjamin: McCain, Obama find common ground on Afghanistan. After noting a New York Times headline "Obama and McCain Duel Over Iraq," Benjamin lines up quotes from both showing very little space between the two on Afghanistan. As Iraqis take Iraq off US hands -- the difference between the two candidates there is that Obama should welcome the reprieve -- Afghanistan becomes the more important war. At one inspirational moment Obama promised to change the way we think about war -- note that Helena Cobban has lately dropped the Obama quote she featured on her blog -- but he keeps falling back on the old nostrums himself.

Meanwhile, note that the Green Party nominated Cynthia McKinney to run against Obama, McCain, and fellow Georgian Bob Barr. The left will probably cut Obama a lot of slack this time around, but there are essential issues (and not just Israel) where McKinney would be a much better choice. (Hell, even Barr beats Obama on civil liberty issues, starting with FISA.)

No Jazz Prospecting

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Mon, 14 Jul 2008 09:49:26 -0700

Still in Detroit, working on cleaning things up following the funeral of my father-in-law, Kalman Tillem. Have scarcely managed to listen to any music, much less write about it. Doubt that I will until we get back to Wichita, hopefully by the end of this week.

In the meantime, I thought this would be a good time to dump out my ongoing file of short review notes based on listening to Rhapsody streams. This has lately become the main way I keep track of new non-jazz. They are based on one or two plays, with no consideration of the packaging, and little background research, so take them with more than the usual grain of salt.

Kelley Polar: I Need You to Hold on While the Sky Is Falling (2008, Environ): Original name, Mike Kelley, suggests this should be sorted under K. Worked with Morgan Geist, whose Metro Area has made some very attractive disco revival records. Plays viola, of no particular importance here. Songs, mostly, the best with sweeping themes like "We Live in an Expanding Universe" and "Sea of Sine Waves," some barely emerging from the ambient. B+(*)

Gnarls Barkley: The Odd Couple (2008, Atlantic): Not sure that Cee-Lo and Danger Mouse are really good for each other. There's a fractal brittleness to DM's beats that shines like ice on their own but is likely to get smothered with gravy when CL chimes in. Similarly, CL seems a little undernourished here -- man needs some greens, some fatback too. He does pull off a couple of memorable songs, especially "Who's Gonna Save My Soul." Don't hear anything like "Crazy" here, but I didn't hear it last time either. B+(**)

Mike Doughty: Golden Delicious (2008, ATO): Former front man in Soul Coughing, an alt-rock group with a couple of good records in the 1990s. This is slimmed down to solo act size, although he picks up backup singers and spare musicians when he feels like it. Songs well crafted, varied, etc. None sounds like a hit. B+(*)

James McMurtry: Just Us Kids (2008, Lightning Rod): Songs like "Ruins of the Realm" and "Cheney's Toy" pull no punches, least of all in the hard edged music. The spare but emphatic music also drives home the detailed everyday portraits -- the man was born to literature as well as country, and learned to rock when he finally had too much rage to vent any other way. A-

Robyn (2007 [2008], Konichiwa/Cherry Tree/Interscope): Swedish answer to . . . well, more like Britney than Madonna, but I'm not sure if even that holds up. Beats seem hollow, a little straight-laced. Songs have some sass to them, but that's all she's got, and she may just be confused by the language. B

The B-52s: Funplex (2008, Astralwerks): Way past their prime -- 1983's Whammy! was the last time they really pulled a first rate record together, not that they've been trying very hard. The new label must have nudged them back into their old sound, for they go fishing for "Rock Lobster" three or five or seven times and come up with everything from sea urchins to the narwahl. As one who remembers seeing them at Max's before their first album dropped, that would score nostalgia points if it didn't dredge up so much fun. A-

Robert Forster: The Evangelist (2008, Yep Roc): With Grant McLennan dead, the surviving author of the Go-Betweens. I never made a point of sorting out who did what, partly because I was so much less conscious of Forster -- McLennan's solo albums seemed to capture the whole sound, while I missed Forster's four completely. This is his fifth, spiked by a couple of joint songs that would have been solid on a group album. Meanwhile, he has the detailed sense of wordplay that made the group delight, and enough of the songsmithing to keep it going. A-

Santogold (2008, Downtown): Not sure whether Santogold is an alias for singer Santi White or something more like a group, with Joseph Hill (of ska-punk band Stiffed) the main collaborator. Eponymous debut album, following the angular single "Creator" -- reprised here. Good beat, a bit on the foursquare side. B+(**)

No Age: Nouns (2008, Sub Pop): A Los Angeles lo-fi drum/guitar duo, more new wave than punk -- although the latter is better remembered -- with a little Jesus and Mary Chain fuzz but a lot more intricate structure. Last year's UK-released debut sounded promising in two plays. Two plays of this one sound like an advance, although this is the sort of thing that could take many plays to really flesh out. A-

Tokyo Police Club: Elephant Shell (2008, Saddle Creek): Montreal group, had a well-regarded EP a couple of years ago, which I didn't bother with because EPs don't strike me as substantial enough for the paperwork -- the contrary point is that brevity is a virtue we encounter less and less these days. In any case, their debut has a straightforward alt-rock beat, a singer who's just appealing enough to keep you with him, and songs that are just enigmatic enough to keep one thinking they might pan out. A-

Al Green: Lay It Down (2008, Blue Note): I remember two occasions when I first heard a new record playing while loitering in EJ Korvettes (Herald Square, NYC), recognized that the record wasn't up to the artist's usual standards, knew I'd rarely if ever play it again, but couldn't go home without it. One was Van Morrison's A Period of Transition; the other was an Al Green album, probably Have a Good Time, maybe Full of Fire. Only God broke me of the habit of buying Al Green records, and even that didn't come easy: I have 4-5 of his 1980-94 gospel records, like some, might even like more. The first of Green's Blue Note albums was a return to his secular form, even if it wasn't much better than Full of Fire, and ultimately due to languish on the shelf -- I get around to Green so rarely these days that I go straight to the 1972-73 classics, or 1977's Belle Album, or the faultness Greatest Hits. The new one reminds me of Korvettes because the sensation is the same: he still operates on his own unique level, an amazing singer, backed here with a very studious band, but compared to his oeuvre this isn't especially distinguished. Kind of like this year's Van Morrison album, which I have slotted a bit further down my list of near misses. I don't shop as impulsively as I did in 1977, but I still wouldn't mind having both albums on my shelf. I imagine that's because the sense of wonder is still evident even when it's faint. B+(***)

Emmylou Harris: All I Intended to Be (2005-08 [2008], Nonesuch): Midway through she does one of Billy Joe Shaver's almost too good to be true songs, "Old Five and Dimers Like Me." This reminds me that she's got good taste, but errs cautiously on the obvious side. She does it as a duet -- not sure who with -- but that just reminds me she's the world's finest backup singer. She also tackles Merle Haggard's "Kern River" and Rodney Crowley's "Beyond the Great Divide" to similar effect, except the songs are a bit less obvious and suit her better -- the latter is a choice cut. She sneaks some originals in, collaborating with the McGarrigles on a couple -- that's where she really shows her good taste. B+(***)

John Hiatt: Same Old Man (2008, New West): I never wrote about Hiatt; no doubt I was meant to. (John Piccarella did but fate dealt him Hiatt's worst album to date -- possibly worst ever.) Shortly after I started writing for the Voice, Christgau sent me Hiatt's first two LPs, figuring Midwestern weirdos are meant for each other. A couple of years later I had a uniquely serendipitous experience: I caught Hiatt performing solo at a bar on the north side of Indianapolis -- just happened to be passing through and stopped to see an old college chum who had moved back home and was hip enough to be able to add it all up. The first two albums had great off-the-wall songs like "I Killed an Ant With My Guitar" and "Motorboat to Heaven"; two later albums rocked more consistently (Slug Line and Riding With the King) without losing much of his surrealism. Then I lost track of him, catching few of his evidently successful A&M albums, none until now of his 3-4 on New West. His voice has gotten odder -- he's always had this bass-type voice pinched into a soprano, which was always weird enough, so maybe he's just gotten more comfortable singing in it. Songs jump out less, but they always took a little time to sink in (when they did, that is) -- one line about being a young man just interested in food registered. Title track is memorable. B+(**)

Old 97's: Blame It on Gravity (2008, New West): Blame what? The songs are hard to fault, and they lift off so effortlessly you wonder how they managed to suspend gravity. A-

That Devilin' Tune

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Sun, 13 Jul 2008 21:07:51 -0700

Allen Lowe: That Devilin' Tune: A Jazz History, 1900-1950 (paperback, 1999, Music and Arts Program of America)

A saxophonist of some note, Lowe now has two books of American music history tied to extensive CD sets, or vice versa. His first effort was American Pop: From Minstrel to Mojo: On Record 1893-1956 (1997, Cadence Jazz Books), which turned into a slightly more limited (cutoff date 1946) 9-CD box set, which interleaves jazz, country, folk, blues, and pop in no special order, the juxtapositions the raw stuff of history. In a gross case of Second System Complex he soon followed that up with a 36-CD history of jazz, again somewhat broadly considered. The book itself came out in 1999, but the CDs (4 boxes of 9 each, each box with a quarter of the book text reset in tiny type) didn't appear until 2007.

Not an easy book to find. I got my copy from Cadence/NMDS. Had to make my own scan of the cover.

Continue reading "That Devilin' Tune"

The Purpose of the Past

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 21:11:42 -0700

Gordon S Wood: The Purpose of the Past: Reflections on the Uses of History (2008, Penguin Press)

Wood is possibly the most eminent historian of the period of the American Revolution, at least since Bernard Bailyn, to whom this book is dedicated. He burst onto the scene in 1969 with his magisterial The Creation of the American Republic, 1776-1787, promptly winning a Bancroft Prize. His second book, The Radicalism of the American Revolution (1991), had to settle for a Pulitzer Prize. Since 2000 he's been publishing more regularly, partly because the books have become narrower or at least easier. The American Revolution: A History is a short primer on the period. Revolutionary Characters is a collection of character studies, mostly gleaned from his numerous book reviews. This new book is also a collection of book reviews, these ones selected for lessons in historiograpy. I discovered rather early on that the fastest way to learn about history was not to tackle huge piles of grand books but to read around them: to scour through the acknowledgments and footnotes for hints about how working historians view each other, and where possible picking up reviews and interviews. I probably learned more about American history from John A. Garraty's Interpreting American History: Conversations with Historians than any other single book. David Hackett Fischer's Historians' Fallacies was pure candy to me. Wood's new collection is another chance to get two-for-one: capsule summaries of more than a dozen books, plus the mediating framework of putting them into the context of contemporary historiography. Quite a deal.

In what follows, the chapter titles are in bold, followed by the reviewed books. The review dates are in brackets. A couple of reviews are followed by correspondence -- critiques of the reviews followed by Wood's replies. Each review is followed by a short afterword -- the latter all noted as [2008].

Continue reading "The Purpose of the Past"

Browse Alert: War Presidents

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 21:09:18 -0700

Fareed Zakaria: True or False: We Need a Wartime President. There are two key things to this argument. The first is:

It is by now overwhelmingly clear that Al Qaeda and its philosophy are not the worldwide leviathan that they were once portrayed to be. Both have been losing support over the last seven years. The terrorist organization's ability to plan large-scale operations has crumbled, their funding streams are smaller and more closely tracked. Of course, small groups of people can still cause great havoc, but is this movement an "existential threat" to the United States or the Western world? No, because it is fundamentally weak. Al Qaeda and its ilk comprise a few thousand jihadists, with no country as a base, almost no territory and limited funds. Most crucially, they lack an ideology that has mass appeal. They are fighting not just America but the vast majority of the Muslim world. In fact, they are fighting modernity itself.

You can argue that WWII was a genuine existential threat, although you'd probably be wrong even there. You can argue that Korea and/or Vietnam were genuine threats, if not directly to us, at least to the world's hopes to share our way of life; even there, you'd certainly be wrong. But once you realize that Al Qaeda represents at most a very tiny sliver of Islam, you should understand that all attacking them does is flattery.

The other key thing is what does having a "war president" do to us? Nothing good. One lesson we should have learned from self-perpetuating Cold War was that it undermines the left and bolsters the right, leading to a militarization of society and industry, a vast degree of economic waste and corruption, and other debilitating policies. Zakaria could develop that further, but at least he ends:

In fact, America is an extremely powerful country, with a unique and extraordinary set of strengths. The only way that position can truly be eroded is by its own actions and overreactions -- by unwise and imprudent leadership. A good way to start correcting the errors of the past would be to recognize that we are not at war.

And therefore we have no use for a war president.

Tom Engelhardt: Why Cheney Won't Take Down Iran. As the last days of the Bush-Cheney junta wind down, Iran remains their last best chance to launch one more really catastrophic war. The nominal excuse for such a war remains Iran's potential to develop nuclear bombs -- an argument both more realistic than the one proferred for invading Iraq but still poorly grounded in reality or realpolitik, and widely recognized as such (admittedly, less in the decisive world of political discourse, still easily swayed by demagoguery, especially propagated by Israel, than in the overstretched and oft-fooled military-security establishment, where such acts are most certain to blow back). Still, Engelhardt's argument is based on more elementary grounds: the pocketbook effect of an oil crisis that any attack on Iran would trigger. Simply stated, the higher the price of oil, the less the world can afford to fuck with the supply chain -- especially given that we're not just talking about taking Iran's oil off the market. Iran could conceivably take the whole Persian Gulf down with it.

The list of things Iran could do in response to an American and/or Israeli attack has been kicked around for several years now. Some, such as a flare-up against Israel by their buddies in Hamas and (especially) Hezbollah don't seem likely to get much respect. Indirect threats in Iraq and direct threats in the Straits of Hormuz are another story. But one thing that's never mentioned is: what if Iran, before striking back, takes its case to the UN, demanding censure and sanctions against the aggressors? Technically, the US can block such a move, but only by making a mockery of the whole UN.

Michael Massing: Embedded in Iraq. A field report as the New York Review's media correspondent goes undercover to see what little can be seen in post-surge Iraq. He sees some "progress," aggressively sold by the Pentagon's PR staff. He also sees the frustration and ineptness in his guardians. The resulting cascade of negatives suggests we've fallen into a black hole of non-reporting from Iraq. Things are getting better but we can't see the results because better is still too bad to permit any form of monitoring.

Gareth Porter: Pull-out Demand Signals Final Bush Defeat in Iraq. The current UN sanction for the US occupation of Iraq expires at the end of 2008. Bush has tried to legitimize further occupation past that date by negotiating a SOFA (Status of Forces Agreement) with the al-Maliki Iraqi government by that time, which would have the extra effect of saddling the next administration with commitments to keep up the fight. However, al-Maliki appears to have other ideas, leading toward sending US troops packing. This should have happened several years ago, and might have except for the deviousness the US exercised in playing each group off against the other. While Porter may be right that this spells Bush's ultimate defeat, the key thing for Bush has always been that it didn't happen on his watch.

For some time now it's looked like the al-Maliki government might be able to control and stabilize the country without the support of US troops -- US arms, of course, will still be welcome, although Iran is readily available as a fallback. This would be a change from the pattern set in Vietnam and Afghanistan, where rump governments held on for a few years before falling. But it still seems that it would require more power-sharing than al-Maliki has been willing to commit to, or the US has been willing to permit. The latter, at least, is likely to change in January 2009. Obama doesn't need to want to withdraw so much as he needs to just go along with the flow, unlike Bush, who fought tooth and nail to protract the war in every way.

Fred Kaplan: Obama Gets Help From Iraq's Prime Minister. This is another way of looking at the Iran and Iraq stories. That both countries are even stories is mostly due to the dilligent work of the Bush administration stirring up conflicts where there is little reason for them. Obama's desire to extricate us from those conflicts, as opposed to Bush's (or McCain's) eagerness to crank them up, may be all the tilt it takes to make change. Especially when indications from the other side look favorable.

The Bridge at the Edge of the World

webmaster@tomhull.com (Tom Hull) — Fri, 11 Jul 2008 10:12:03 -0700

James Gustave Speth: The Bridge at the Edge of the World: Capitalism, the Environment, and Crossing From Crisis to Sustainability (2008, Yale University Press)

Speth was Chairman of the President's Council on Environmental Quality (the president was Carter), and founder of the Natural Resources Defense Council and the World Resources Institute -- unusually establishmentarian credentials for one who has come to see today's "pragmatic and incrementalist" environment movement as inadequate, who is willing to go so far as to cite capitalism itself as the problem that prevents us from moving towards any sort of sustainable economics. He could, of course, go further, but he is certainly on to something. We've seen that the class struggle between labor and capital can be mitigated by a more equitable political division of the pie. However, sustainability cuts far deeper into the essence of capitalism. A sustainable economy may retain aspects of private property and markets, but losing the prospect of endless growth certainly changes its nature.

Continue reading "The Bridge at the Edge of the World"