Blog Entries [10 - 19]

Tuesday, August 6, 2024

Music Week

August archive (in progress).

Music: Current count 42761 [42729] rated (+32), 39 [36] unrated (+3).

I don't have much to say here, and want to move on, so let's keep this brief. Big Speaking of Which yesterday. I want to go back and edit a bit, but I'm afraid if I do it will drag on indefinitely. But if I post this now, I can go back with any revisions later (possibly including revisions here). I can also open a file for next week, which already has important stuff to report and comment on.

Only thing to note here is that this week is mostly hip-hop, and mostly underground at that. I finally added HHGA's The Best Hip Hop Albums of 2024 to my Metacritic File, and listened to about half of the unheard albums on the list. I remembered that their The Best Hip Hop Albums of 2023 produced a bonanza of finds, and hoped that this mid-year list would be half as productive. It wasn't even close, with Jay Skeese the only A-, although most of the rest were worth hearing. Of 60 albums on their 2023 list, 14 made my A-list (5 previously known to me). So far this year, it's only 2 of the 32 I've heard (1 previously known: Heems; leaving 37 still unheard).

I can't totally discount the possibility that my bad moods took a toll. And sure, one play (which is all nearly all of these got) has its limits, especially given how slow I am with words. I'll also admit that I spent a lot of time last week playing oldies. Also, the week was at least a day short, so I was surprised to find the rated count (32) as high as it is. No idea what next week will bring, other than that it's going to be hot. And we're officially in a drought now.

Hopefully I'll get to some questions this week.

New records reviewed this week:

21 Savage: American Dream (2024, Slaughter Gang/Epic): Rapper Shéyaa Bin Abraham-Joseph, born in London but raised in Atlanta, third solo album since 2017, also has three collaborations, all charted top-five in US. B+(**) [sp]

Adeem the Artist: Anniversary (2024, Four Quarters): Country singer-songwriter, from North Carolina, several albums going back to 2011, but only came to my attention with Cast Iron Pansexual in 2021, followed by White Trash Revelry, both well off the beaten path, which wasn't their only appeal. B+(**) [sp]

Apathy: Connecticut Casual: Chapter 2 (2024, Dirty Version): Connecticut rapper Chad Bromley, member of the Demigodz and Army of the Pharoahs, his own albums start in 2004, called a 2014 album Connecticut Casual, with hard beats and heavy vibes. B+(**) [sp]

Arrested Development: Bullets in the Chamber (2024, Vagabond Productions): Hip-hop group from Atlanta, had a massive debut hit in 1992, broke up after their 1994 album, regrouped in 2000 and have released albums regularly ever since, to little notice (at least to no notice by me). B+(*) [sp]

Awon & Parental: Sublime (2024, HHV): Rapper Antwan Wiggins, grew up in Virginia Beach, dozen-plus albums since 2008, working with French producer Raphaël Besikian, who favors jazzy vibes and explains that "hip-hop is the pinnacle of diversity and inclusion" and "one of the greatest blessings I've had." Ends with an instrumental version of the album, which is pleasant but unnecessary. B+(***) [sp]

Beans: Zwaard (2024, Tygr Rawwk): Rapper Robert Edward Stewart II, started out in Antipop Consortium, joined here by Finnish producer Sasu Ripatti, better known as Vladislav Delay. B+(*) [sp]

Blu & Evidence: Los Angeles (2024, Bigger Picture Music/New World Color): Rapper Johnson Barnes III, from Los Angeles, debut 2003, prolific since 2007, working here with producer Michael Perretta, who started with Dilated Peoples in the late 1990s. B+(**) [sp]

Brother Ali & unJUST: Love & Science (2024, Travelers Media): Underground rapper since 2003, has a light touch. B+(*) [sp]

Cavalier: Different Type Time (2024, Backwoodz Studioz): Rapper, from Brooklyn but based in New Orleans, couple albums since 2014. B+(**) [sp]

Common & Pete Rock: The Auditorium Vol. I (2024, Loma Vista): Big-name rapper, debut 1992 as Common Sense, when his ambitions were more modest, has done quite a bit of acting since 2002, as well as producing a steady stream of quite respectable albums. Rock (Peter Phillips) produces, goes back as far, especially for his duo with CL Smooth. B+(***) [sp]

Flo Milli: Fine Ho, Stay (2024, RCA): Rapper Tamia Carter, from Alabama, second album or third mixtape -- the distinction eludes me, all with Ho in the title. B+(**) [sp]

Future & Metro Boomin: We Don't Trust You (2024, Epic/Freebandz/Republic Boominati Worldwide): Rapper Nayvadius Cash, from Atlanta, best-selling albums since 2012, working here with producer Leland Tyler Wayne, first of two collaborative albums this year, but they go back at least to 2013. Runs 17 tracks, 59:39, and they weren't done yet. B+(**) [sp]

Future & Metro Boomin: We Still Don't Trust You (2024, Epic/Freebandz/Republic/Boominati Worldwide, 2CD): So, less than a month later, they released another 25 tracks, 88:33, the last seven overflowing to a second CD. Strikes me as maybe a tad catchier, but not sure the difference is worth quantifying. B+(**) [sp]

Gangrene: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose (2024, ALC): Hip-hop duo, Alchemist and Oh No, fourth album since 2010. B+(**) [sp]

Fred Hersch: Silent, Listening (2023 [2024], ECM): Eminent pianist, more than 50 albums since 1984, mostly trios but I count 16 solo albums, including this one -- I'm not a big fan of solo piano, but 2015's Solo is an exception. This one, as the title implies, winds up a bit thin. B+(*) [sp]

The Hot Toddies Jazz Band: The Hot Toadies Jazz Band (2019-22 [2023], Prohibition Productions): New York-based trad jazz outfit, first album, considerable turnover between early and later sessions, the constants being Justin Poindexter (guitar/vocals), Gabe Terracciano (violin/vocals), and Patrick Soluri (drums), with featured singers Queen Esther (2019) and Hannah Gill (2022). B+(***) [bc]

Lupe Fiasco: Samurai (2024, 1st and 15th Too): Chicago rapper, 2006 debut was a breakout hit. Still has a pop touch. B+(**) [sp]

Roc Marciano: Marciology (2024, Marci Enterprises): Rapper Rakeem Myer, has a regular stream of albums since 2010, many plays on his alias, this being even more inscrutable than most. B+(*) [sp]

Masta Ace & Marco Polo: Richmond Hill (2024, Fat Beats): Rapper Duval Clear, from Brooklyn, started 1988 in Juice Crew, debut album 1990, more after 2000, teaming up with Canadian beatmaker/producer Marco Bruno in 2018. B+(**) [sp]

James McClaskey & the Rhythm Band: Later on Blues (2024, BigTone): From New Orleans, plays tenor guitar and sings, second album for band (has another supporting Annabelle Zakaluk), mostly blues, three originals, but also covers from Tiny Grimes (one Charlie Parker, another Art Tatum) and Coleman Hawkins. B+(**) [sp]

Midnight Sons: Money Has No Owners (2024, Chong Wizard): Philadelphia rapper Stephen Zales, aka Zilla Rocca, with Canadian DJ Chong Wizard, with most cuts featuring others (the ones I recognize are Blu, AJ Suede, and Alaska). Has a jazzy underground vibe. B+(**) [sp]

Moses Rockwell Featuring Plain Old Mike: Regular Henry Sessions (2024, Hipnott): Rapper from Rochester, has at least one previous album, don't know anything more about his partner here, but cover photos two bearded blokes, and Mike gets the producer credit, earning his "jazzy" cred. B+(***) [sp]

ShrapKnel: Nobody Planning to Leave (2024, Backwoodz Studioz): Hip-hop duo, Curly Castro and Mark Debuque, third album. Kind of patchy, sketchy too. B [sp]

Jae Skeese & Superior: Testament of the Times (2024, RRC Music/BarsOverBs): Rapper from Buffalo, fifth album since 2020, producer is Marcos Oviedo (German "with Spanish descents"), his first album 2009. Underground, smart, really nice flow. A- [sp]

Daniel Son & Futurewave: Bushman Bodega (2024, WavGodMusic): Toronto rapper Daniel Borley, Discogs credits him with 18 albums since 2017, 7 with producer Martin Budik (Futurewave). B+(*) [sp]

Kelsey Waldon: There's Always a Song (2024, Oh Boy): Deep country singer-songwriter from Kentucky, ninth album since 2010, fourth on John Prine's label. Always has that deep holler voice and vibe, but leans heavily on guests to stretch eight songs (including covers as well worn as "Hello Stranger," "Uncle Pen, and "Travelling the Highway Home") out to 27:45. B+(***) [sp]

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:

Sonny Rollins: A Night at the Village Vanguard: The Complete Masters (1957 [2024], Blue Note Tone Poet, 2CD): Long regarded as a major item in the tenor saxophonist's oeuvre, but I've never been much of a fan. The original 1958 LP (6 tracks, 44:17; one afternoon track with Donald Bailey and Pete La Roca, the rest from the evening sets with Wilbur Ware and Elvin Jones) was expanded to two CDs in 1987, picking up tracks from 1975's 2-LP More From the Vanguard (which I once owned). I've certainly underrated those CDs (in my database at B- and B, with the 1999 2-CD reissue at B+, and now this one, conceived as a 3-LP set but also available as 2-CD (130:00), adding nothing new of consequence (possibly some extra patter). I might complain of too many drum solos, but they're not bad, and the saxophone is majestic. Still, I have enough experience with really great Rollins to find this a tad overrated. B+(***) [sp]

The Louis Stewart Trio: Louis the First (1975 [2024], Livia): Irish guitarist (1944-2016), seems to have been his first album (although he had previous side-credits, including Clark Terry, Benny Goodman, and Jesus Christ Superstar). Mostly trio, with Martin Walshe (bass) and John Wadham (drums), dropping down to solo or bass duo on occasion. B+(***) [bc]

Old music:

Pat Metheny: Bright Size Life (1975 [1976], ECM): First album for the now-famous guitarist, a trio with Jaco Pastorius (bass) and Bob Moses (drums). Before he found his fusion schtick, he had a lot going on. B+(**) [sp]

Jumaane Smith: I Only Have Eyes for You (2014, self-released): Trumpet player, also sings (but not much here), first album, side credits include Rashied Ali in 2005, also Alicia Keys and Michael Bublé, the latter opening with a guest vocal here. Some nice trumpet, but song selection is odd, and the string backdrops uninspired. B- [sp]

Jumaane Smith: When You're Smiling (2020, Zinn Music): Trumpet player, plays hot, sings with some enthusiasm, picks more upbeat songs this time. I'm not finding any credits. But he hasn't totally lost the strings. Or the milquetoast guest singers? B [sp]

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

  • Patricia Brennan Septet: Breaking Stretch (Pyroclastic) [09-06]
  • Dylan Hicks & Small Screens: Modern Flora (Soft Launch) [09-06]
  • Dave Rempis/Jason Adasiewicz/Joshua Abrams/Tyler Damon: Propulsion (Aerophonic) [10-04]

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Monday, August 5, 2024

Speaking of Which

I started working on this back on Thursday, the day after I posted Music Week and minor updates to last week's massive Speaking of Which (final: 263 links, 11360 words). For a while, it looked like I might actually wrap this up on Sunday evening, but didn't make it. Probably just as well, although the imminent Harris VP pick may upset some apple carts. Even if it happens (Tuesday morning, I now hear), consider it unknown to this post.

PS: Harris picks Tim Walz as VP ahead of multistate tour. For now, the best link is Perry Bacon Jr.: [08-06] Tim Walz is a bold, smart choice for Harris's running mate.

Last week I stayed clear of Israel's latest round of "targeted assassinations," most significantly that of Hamas diplomat Ismail Haniyeh (conveniently in Tehran; I imagine Mossad is already shopping movie rights to that story). Last week's lead story title ended "as US officials say a ceasefire deal is close." No one's saying that this week, as Haniyeh was Hamas's lead negotiator in those talks, which Netanyahu had managed to sideline for weeks, and now simply blew up. Rather, I devoted a large chunk of last week's post to Netanyahu's speech to Congress. Some key article cited there:

While we're at it, let's also reiterate:

This reminds me of Andrew Gillum on DeSantis: "I'm not calling Mr. DeSantis a racist, I'm simply saying the racists believe he's a racist." (Gillum also noted: "he's got neo-Nazis helping him run the state.") I have at least one article below on how Trump is deciding that some Jews are "good" (love Israel, support Trump) and "bad" (oppose Trump, hate Israel), and can easily find more, e.g.:

For deeper background, see:

I also did a Google search on trump on war with iran, but it mostly revealed past deeds, not current words. E.g.:

McGeorge Bundy once explained that the difference between presidents Kennedy and Johnson was that Kennedy wanted to be seen as smart, but Johnson wanted to be seen as tough. You can use the relative importance of smart and tough as a scale for weighing most presidents. We like to think of Obama as being on the smart side, but he picked many moments to prove he could be tough (like his first order to kill Somali pirates, his numerous drone strikes, his raid on Osama Bin Laden; on the other hand, he caved in every time he ran afoul of Netanyahu, which wasn't so smart, and betrayed a deficit worse than toughness: of courage). But Trump's idea of smart doesn't extend much beyond cheating on his taxes and paying off a porn star. And while he brags about being "a very stable genius," the quality he most wants to project to the world is how very tough he is (e.g., his boasts that were he still president, Russia wouldn't have invaded Ukraine, and Hamas wouldn't have attacked Israel).

While there isn't a lot of reason to think that Trump, in his rare moments of sober reflection, wants to blunder into war, his self-image, inflated ego, his lack of analytic skills, and his incapacity for empathy all make him susceptible to the suggests of the "tough guys" he likes to surround himself with. So sure, it's quite possible that Ben-Gvir has the measure of his man. You certainly have to admit that his cunning has him playing Netanyahu like a fiddle, amplifying his power enormously.

We will, of course, continue to hold Biden and Harris responsible for own their contributions to Israel's genocide and warmongering, but we should always be clear that Trump's malice, which pervades every pore of his campaign, is much more dangerous than Biden's indifferent cowardice, despicable as it is. As for Harris, all I can hope for is that she keeps her head down until she's in a position to do something about it. Then, by all means, she must, and failure there will be catastrophic, but until she has that power, mere speculation is unlikely to be helpful. There will always be more to do later.

Top story threads:

Israel:

Israel's long-standing policy of assassinating political opponents was brought to the fore last week with the murder of Ismail Haniyeh (head of the Hamas political bureau, and chief negotiator in the "ceasefire" talks Biden has promoted and Netanyahu has sabotaged at every turn). This immediately followed Israel's major escalation of bombing in Lebanon, which included the killing of a prominent Hezbollah commander. The calculation here is pretty obvious, even though it is rarely commented on. Israel is not merely killing for the hell of it, they want to provoke reprisals, which they can use to justify further killing. They are gambling that their targets cannot hurt them, or if they do land a lucky punch -- as Hamas did on October 7 -- they can escalate to previously unimaginable levels of mass destruction.

But Israel has one weakness: it depends on American support, both to replenish its supply of munitions and to prop up an economy that has never (well, not since 1950) been so extensively mobilized for war for so long. Netanyahu knows that he cannot sustain his genocidal war without American support, so he and his allies are pulling out all the stops to keep unthinking, uncritical support flowing. You see this in the flood of propaganda, including Netanyahu's obscene speech before Congress. You see this in the astounding money that's going into purging independent thought in American politics. But the real linchpin would be if he could maneuver the US into joining the war. He achieved a partial success in getting the Houthis to fire on Red Sea shipping, with the result that the US and UK have joined Saudi Arabia in bombing Yemen. But the real prize would be getting the US to go to war against Iran. Or at least Lebanon.

It helps here to understand that Israel doesn't actually care about Iran. The essential background here was explained by Trita Parsi in his 2007 book, Treacherous Alliance: The Secret Dealings of Israel, Iran, and the United States. The key point here is that while the US soured on Iran with the 1980 hostage crisis, Israel remained close to Iran throughout the 1980s -- you might vaguely recall that Israel was the intermediary in the Iran-Contra scandal -- but only turned against Iran in the 1990s, after Saddam Hussein ceased to be a viable foreign threat. Israel switched to Iran because the Americans already hated Iran, which made them easy to play with a ridiculously inflated story of Iran's "nuclear program." Obama's negotiations with Iran were intended to allay Israel's fears, but Netanyahu rejected them because Israel never feared Iran: they only faked it to cater to American prejudices. When Trump killed the deal, he capitulated to Israel, allowing Netanyahu to dictate America's understanding of allies, enemies, and interests.

While Trump did this for the most craven of reasons, Biden followed blindly because his long experience with the Israel lobby had taught him that no alternative course was imaginable. Still, providing "arms, money, and [freely ignored] advice" was the easy part. Committing US troops to conventional war against an unconquerable nation like Iran would be a much more daunting order. Of course, Israel isn't insisting that the US actually invade Iran, like their fiascos in Afghanistan and Iraq. They would be perfectly happy to see the US conduct an Israel-style assault, where massive bombing denies any responsibility for cleaning up the mess. Going back to WWII, the US is used to seeking definitive solutions that lead to peace, but Israel has always understood that each victory is just a prelude to the next war, which they must eternally prepare for. Peace for them is nothing but false hope and mass delusion, which is why their warrior caste breaks it at every opportunity.

Of course, America hasn't quite become a pawn in Israel's game. Biden has little appetite for war against Iran, or even against Lebanon -- although he also has little will to resist bombing Yemen and Syria, or to move aircraft carrier groups supposedly to deter attacks against Israel. Biden, in contrast to Trump, retains at least some sense of human decency, so he can't really endorse Israel's genocide, but he tries hard to not see it, either, so he readily parrots Israel's lies and clichés -- which so far is all that Netanyahu has needed.

But it would help to see the game he and his far-right allies are playing: they don't care about Iran, and they don't worry about foreign attack; they only care about the US and Europe as a meal ticket, and even there they don't care how unpopular they become, as long as those in power toe their line; what they do care about is grinding the Palestinians down to dust, to utter insignificance, not just in Gaza but everywhere they control; unlike some genociders, they are not obsessed with killing every last Palestinian, as they know that's not the only way to render them inconsequent, but they also have no qualms about killing indiscriminately, and see that as instrumental to their cause.

On some level, most Israelis must realize that they cannot keep killing and destroying indefinitely. True, no other army has the means and will power to stop them. And there's little chance that Israelis, who have grown up under a regime that has systematically inculcated the belief that Jews are eternal victims but in Israel have become invincible warriors, will develop a conscience and decide they've gone far enough (let alone too far). On the other hand, world opinion, even in the so-called western democracies that currently sustain Israel's military and economy, is turning against Israel's war, not just because most people find this killing and destruction abhorrent when done by anyone, but because we increasingly see it as rooted in inequality and hatred, in the fundamentally unjust belief that might makes right.

We see this most clearly in America, where our most reactionary political elements, including the neocons (who led us into the Israel-inspired Global War on Terror) and the Christian Zionists (with their dreams of Armageddon) are by far the most enthusiastic backers of Israeli genocide. Granted, there is still a significant rump faction of Democrats who are loyal to Israel, but their loyalty depends on misinformation and myths, not on a belief in violence. They do want to see a ceasefire and humanitarian relief, and generally accept that diversity, democracy, and equality are not just desirable but necessary. They just have trouble holding Israel to their otherwise general beliefs. But unlike the right-wingers, it should till be possible to reason with pro-Israel Democrats. One can make a strong case that Israel is harming itself by pursuing such extreme policies.

Note: The assassination of Hamas eminence Ismail Haniyeh has become a big enough story to warrant its own section, between this one (which is mostly limited to Israel's domestic politics and military operations) and the next one (which deals with US politics and support for Israel). As usual, there is another section following on Israeli propaganda and world opinion, especially around the genocide charge. The subdivisions are useful because there's so much material to cover, and it's nice to keep similar pieces together, but it's also difficult, in that many pieces lap over from one area to another. For instance, articles specifically on the US reaction to the Haniyeh assassination may be included in the US section. The assassinations and escalation in Lebanon hasn't yet mandated its own section, so pieces on that are mostly in the US section, as my view is that Israel's attacks on Lebanon (and Iran) are mostly attempts to lead US policy.

The Haniyeh assassination:

  • Fatima AbdulKarim/Mohammed R Mhawish: From Gaza to Ramallah, Haniyeh remembered as advocate of unity.

  • Nasim Ahmed: [08-01] Ismail Haniyeh: assassinated in Israel's war on peace and quest for endless occupation. Notes that "Western sources consistently portrayed Haniyeh as a moderate figure within Hamas."

    The political murder of Haniyeh fits a troubling pattern of Israeli behaviour. Political observers have long noted Israel's fear of what is often referred to as a Palestinian "peace offensive." Throughout its history as an occupation state, Israel has been accused of targeting moderate Palestinian leaders who show the potential for engaging in meaningful peace negotiations. This strategy, critics argue, is aimed at closing the door to peace and maintaining a state of perpetual conflict that serves Israel's long-term goal of establishing its illegal sovereignty over all of historic Palestine.

  • Ramzy Baroud: [07-31] It's both criminal and desperate; that's why Israel assassinated Ismail Haniyeh. He also notes: "Israel chose the time and place for Haniyeh's murder carefully." Israel has persistently attempted to link Hamas with Iran, which has never made a lot of sense, but the opportunity to kill him in Iran will leave an indelible impression, as well as serving as a major embarrassment to and provocation of Iran.

  • Juan Cole: [08-02] Turkey's Erdogan denounces killing of Haniyeh, blocks Israel at NATO, boycotts it, and threatens intervention.

  • David Hearst: Ismail Haniyeh killing: Netanyahu's only goal is to set the region on fire.

  • Fred Kaplan: [07-31] What Israel's killing of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders could mean for war in the region.

  • Qassam Muaddi: [07-31] Israel assassinates head of Hamas political bureau amid regional escalation: "Israel assassinated Hamas politburo head Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran after a series of mounting regional tensions that included unprecedented Israeli attacks on the 'Axis of Resistance,' including airstrikes on Beirut and Yemen."

  • Ashraf Nubani: [08-05] Killing Hamas leader: an act of Israeli desperation. I understand the impulse to write something defiant like this, but I don't sense the desperation. Israel saw an opportunity and, consistent with their principles, acted on it, with little regard for future consequences, because they really aren't worried about things like that.

  • Abdaljawad Omar: [07-31] The real reason Israel is assassinating Hamas and Hezbollah leaders, and why it won't stop the resistance: "Israel's assassination of Hamas and Hezbollah leaders doesn't aim to weaken the resistance. Its real motive is to restore the image of military and intelligence superiority in the eyes of the Israeli public." I think the author is overthinking this. Once Israel's leaders decided they could get away with killing everyone even remotely associated with Hamas, with no worries about killing other Palestinians, any opportunity to hit someone on their list was automatically greenlighted. The author desperately wants to think that the resistance is a factor Israel must reckon with, but Israelis don't care. If their attacks push more people to resist, they'll just kill more. Once the telos is genocide, resistance is just positive feedback.

  • Paul R Pillar: [08-01] Trigger happy Israel and its thirst for revenge: "The cross-border assassinations reflect a national rage playing out in Gaza's carnage -- and Netanyahu's desire to keep the war going forever."

  • Reuters: [07-31] Haniyeh was the pragmatic leader of Hamas.

  • Muhammad Sahimi: [07-31] Assassination of Hamas leader in Iran puts new president in a trap: "Depending on how Pezeshkian responds, it may force the US to get directly involved in defense of Israel." No mention that the trap was solely the work of Netanyahu until six paragraphs in:

    Dialogue between Iran and the United States is, however, the last thing that Israel, and particularly Benjamin Netanyahu, wants at this stage. If anything, Netanyahu would expand the war to Lebanon in hopes that Iran will react strongly and enter the war directly. Neither Hezbollah nor Iran wants a war with Israel at this stage, but no one should be under the illusion that if Israel begins a full-scale war with Lebanon and Hezbollah, Iran will sit it out.

  • Erika Solomon: [08-04] Hamas may emerge battered, but not beaten, from Israel's latest blows: "The assassination of two Hamas leaders may be a short-term setback, analysts say, not enough to prevent the group from emerging intact -- and possibly more radicalized." I have very little faith in articles like this, where reporters have very little access to primary sources, and everyone they do have access to has their own interests to promote. The line here, hardly surprising given where it's being published, is basically what Israel wants you to believe: that yes, we're inflicting serious short-term losses on Hamas, but no matter what we do, Palestinians will rebound to attack again, so Israel just has to keep fighting forever, beating them down (you know, "mowing the lawn"). Still, this argument depends on sleight of hand, confusing the idea of Hamas with its organization (which was never as monolithic as supposed), but also assuming that the dynamic remains extremely polarized (that Israel and Hamas can do nothing but fight until one or the other dies).

    I am reasonably certain that as long as Israel acts like Goliath, many Palestinians will want to resist, and will search for leverage they can use to assert their dignity and fight back. Hamas was one of many organizations that attempted to channel Palestinian desires for justice into effective political action. I think it's fair to say that it failed, repeatedly, but most definitively on or shortly after October 7, when in an act of desperation, the organization exploded like a suicide bomber. I suppose it's possible that there is still some sort of residual organization in Gaza, more likely as isolated cells than under any sort of unified command. Emigres like Haniyeh could continue to represent themselves as Hamas for diplomacy, but that just made them targets for Israel. No doubt there are others formerly associated with Hamas, some with their militia and many more mere civil employees of the Hamas-run de facto governance (now destroyed), and those people would continue to look for opportunities to resist, but they no longer constitute an effective force. Within a week or two, Israel could simply have declared victory over Hamas, and no one would have disputed them. That they didn't is because Hamas is their idea as much as it ever was a Palestinian idea. Hamas is Israel's ticket to genocide, so as long as they want to keep killing Palestinians -- and clearly they are nowhere near satiated yet -- they have to keep the idea of Hamas alive. Which is what they've done. And will continue to do, as long as you keep buying their hasbara.

  • Syeda Fizzah Shuja: [08-01] Haniyeh's assassination unleashes a new era of political violence.

  • Robert Wright: [08-02] The Haniyeh assassination will haunt Israel. Cites David Ignatius (below), quoting: "The Israelis are still stuck in a zero-sum game. But Israelis should ask themselves how well the hard-nosed, forever-war approach has worked in practice." They'd probably answer that they're still fighting, and killing more than they are losing, so it's working out just fine.

  • Middle East Monitor: [08-04] Massive rally in Istanbul to mourn Hamas leader Haniyeh, support Palestinians in Gaza.

America's Israel (and Israel's America):

Israel vs. world opinion:

  • Yousef Aljamal: [08-02] Israel is using starvation as a weapon of war. Where is the outrage? That's not the question I would ask. People who know about this are plenty outraged -- probably more than is good for their own health. The bigger problem is who doesn't know? And who doesn't care? The question of starvation was raised almost instantly, with the blockade of food imports and a bombing campaign directed at agricultural resources (especially greenhouses). Since then, we've seen some deaths reported, but it's not clear how they're being counted -- or if they're being counted. The broader issues of malnutriton are hard to quantify, let alone report.

  • Kribsoo Diallo: [08-03] African attitudes to, and solidarity with, Palestine: From the 1940s to Israel's genocide in Gaza: "Kribsoo Diallo reviews African perspectives on Israel's genocidal war on Gaza, the rise and fall of Zionist influence in Africa, and the state of African grassroots solidarity with Palestine."

  • Faris Giacaman: [07-30] Netanyahu's willing executioners: how ordinary Israelis became mass murderers: "After ten months of relentless genocidal war, it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that both the Israeli state and society are partners in the genocide. The picture that emerges is a genocide from above and below." Obvious reference here to Daniel Jonah Goldhagen's 1996 book, Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust, which argued that the Nazi Judeocide was a reflection of widespread vitriolic anti-semitism among ordinary Germans, as opposed to the view that it was an aberration driven by fanatical Nazis, often operating in secret. I haven't read that book, but I've always been suspicious of its thesis, which just doesn't strike me as the way things work. Still, this seems like a fair question to ask of Israelis right now. I can't really tell: there is a lot of personal dislike of Netanyahu in Israel, but there doesn't seem to be much serious opposition to his war policy (which some would argue is a personal stay-out-of-jail strategy). While I recognize his war as flagrantly genocidal, Israeli propaganda takes great pains to deny and deflect, and therefore to shelter supporters from having to acknowledge the consequences of Israel's actions. If they knew better, would they care?

    But I will note that there are several reasons to think that Israelis are more popularly aligned with their government's genocidal policies than Germans were in the early 1940s: Israel is a much more open democracy, so those (except Palestinians) who oppose government policy can (generally) speak out and assemble to protest without fear of jail and torture; while the press in Israel has been fairly tightly controlled, there is still much more information available about the atrocities than was publically available in Germany; the Holocaust took place under cover of total war, toward the end of a long era of European imperialism, where racism was casually accepted and rarely challenged, whereas today most of us know better; in particular, we know much about the Nazi example, and about many other examples of systematically racist behavior, some also amounting to genocide. For an Israeli (and even more so if you're simply an ally of Israel) today, it's much harder to pretend you don't know what's going on, and/or that there's nothing you can do about it.

    By the way, some old pieces on Goldhagen's book:

  • Robert Kuttner: [08-02] Bibi's death wish:

    Is Netanyahu deliberately provoking a regional war that will be disastrous for Israel? Unless he is certifiably insane, his motive has to be to drag in the U.S., not as mediator but as more explicit military protector. And the strategy is working. . . .

    But Israel is certainly guilty of the most barbarous sort of ethnic cleansing in the West Bank. And Israel's reckless killing of civilians in Gaza violates international law as well as human decency, whether or not it meets some legal test of genocide.

    If you need a primer on the daily humiliations inflicted on the Palestinian population, you owe it to yourself to read Nathan Thrall's book, A Day in the Life of Abed Salama. Israel's actions in the occupied West Bank meet any test of apartheid, and Israel is behaving precisely like a colonial power.

    In some respects, the South African apartheid regime was more benign. They didn't kill Nelson Mandela, and in the end they released him in full recognition that he would be the country's next president. If only F.W. de Klerk, the last president under apartheid, who recognized the inevitability of Mandela and the end of white rule, were a role model for Netanyahu.

    This example is a reminder that if you want peace, you need strong and credible leadership on the other side, to sell the deal to people who have little if any reason to trust you. Israel could have done that with Arafat in 1993, but instead they undercut and marginalized him, even bolstering Hamas to weaken Fatah. They could have done that with Hamas when it won elections in 2007, but they rejected the results. Israelis like to complain that they've never had a "partner for peace," but the more serious problem is that Palestinians have never been allowed to choose their own leaders. It was the British who selected Hajj Amin Ali Husseini and his successors. Israel arranged for Jordan to rule the West Bank from 1948 until they were ready to take it over in 1967, and even later made sure it was Jordan and not the Palestinians running the Waqf. Israel brought in Arafat rather than deal with the Intifada leaders.

  • Craig Murray: [08-02] The Israeli nihilist state: "The apartheid state appears to have no objective other than violence and an urge for desolation."

  • Joseph Massad: [07-29] Why the West created a new dictionary for Israel and Palestine: "Seeking ideological uniformity on the issue, western officials and their media accomplices have long recognised the centrality of language to their political indoctrination project."

  • Nylah Iqbal Muhammad: [08-03] Understanding the connections between the Congo and Palestine genocides: "Friends of the Congo Executive Director Maurice Carney and Professor Eman Abdelhadi discuss the intersections between the genocides in the Congo and Palestine."

  • Zainab Nasser: [08-04] Living remotely: a Palestinian expatriate's struggle from Gaza to Beirut: "The sun rises over Beirut and the city stirs to life. For many, it's a new day filled with promise and potential, maybe hope or pain. But for me, a Gaza-born expatriate who spent 25 years in Gaza, each dawn brings a blend of hope and dread."

  • Corey Robin: [08-03] Two paths for Jewish politics: "In America, Jews pioneered a way of life that didn't rely on the whims of the powerful. Now it's under threat." Starts with a personal story:

    Having never thought that it wasn't, I flashed a puzzled smile and recalled an observation of the German writer Ludwig Börne: "Some reproach me with being a Jew, others pardon me, still others praise me for it. But all are thinking about it."

    Thirty-one years later, everyone's thinking about the Jews. Poll after poll asks them if they feel safe. Donald Trump and Kamala Harris lob insults about who's the greater antisemite. Congressional Republicans, who have all of two Jews in their caucus, deliver lectures on Jewish history to university leaders. . . . But as I learned that summer in Tennessee, and as we're seeing today, concern can be as revealing as contempt. Often the two go hand in hand.

    Consider the Antisemitism Awareness Act, which the House of Representatives recently passed by a vote of 320-91. The act purports to be a response to rising antisemitism in the United States. Yet the murder of Jews, synagogue shootings, and cries of "Jews will not replace us" are clearly not what the bill is designed to address. Nearly half of Republicans believe in the "great replacement theory," after all, and their leader draws from the same well.

    The bill will instead outfit the federal government with a new definition of antisemitism that would shield Israel from criticism and turn campus activism on behalf of Palestinians into acts of illegal discrimination. (Seven of the definition's eleven examples of antisemitism involve opposition to the State of Israel.) Right-wingers who vocally oppose the bill -- Marjorie Taylor Greene, Matt Gaetz, Tucker Carlson, and Charlie Kirk -- have little problem with its Zionist agenda. They just worry that it will implicate those who believe the Jews are Christ killers.

  • Ilan Pappé: [08-01] To stop the century-long genocide in Palestine, uproot the source of all violence: Zionism. This led me to another historical piece worth perusing:

  • Rick Staggenborg: [07-31] Why do good people support genocide? "I met with a Zionist to discuss whether it was a 'plausible' case that Israel's tactics constituted genocide."

    At her request, I supplied links to the sources of my claims, including Israeli newspapers and mainstream press articles citing Israeli sources. She said little about the information I shared. Instead, she raised new arguments each time we met for why Israel had "no choice" but to continue its wholesale slaughter of the population of Gaza.

    I eventually realized that she was able to support the destruction of an entire people because she didn't want to confront the facts. I think she suspected that knowing the whole truth might undermine her deeply held beliefs about Israel and perhaps Zionism itself.

  • Kathleen Wallace: [08-02] How will our great grandchildren look back on this chapter? "What is going on in Palestine is, as they say, simply a laboratory for the rest of the world. To not take a stance on such horror is to sign your own death warrant." Not too far back, the author also wrote:

    • [06-07] Does America have narcissistic personality disorder? "As a way of feeling powerful, the worst narcissistic traits are often emulated, and I think this is what we are seeing in the MAGA movement." The author notes "nine basic criteria to diagnose the personality disorder," and finds the US "currently meets all of them."

      1. A grandiose sense of importance.
      2. A preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited success and power.
      3. A belief that they are special in such a way that only other high-status peoples or institutions can understand them.
      4. A need for excessive admiration.
      5. A sense of entitlement.
      6. Interpersonally exploitative behavior.
      7. A lack of empathy.
      8. An envy of others or a belief that others are envious of him or her."
      9. Arrogant and haughty behaviors or attitudes.

    • 05-03] More than just protests for Palestine: existential hope for the world: "Americans have been told that Israel is their only true ally in that region of the world. But nobody wants to know how that situation came to be."

  • Robert Zaretsky: [08-05] Israel's use of torture is a travesty -- just like it was for the French in Algeria 70 years ago.

Election notes:

  • Karen Greenberg: [08-04] Will election 2024 traumatize us? Drawing on her experience with the Guantanamo prison program, the author asks the question, is our political system designed to resign us to a state of "learned helplessness," where we give up all hope?

    The goal was simple: to reduce that prisoner to a profound state of complete paralysis and disempowerment in which, having no hope of relief or escape, he would do whatever his captors wanted. Detainees would see that there was no way out but to answer their captors' questions, which, it turned out, often led them, in desperation and a state of learned helplessness, to confess to things they hadn't done, to confess to whatever their captors wanted to hear.

    Having studied and written about the nightmare of those prisoners and Guantánamo for so many years now, it's been supremely jarring to see the term "learned helplessness" re-emerge in connection to the current unnerving state of American politics and the 2024 presidential election. Yet, in many ways, it seems a strangely appropriate lens through which to view the world of Donald Trump and the rest of us. It was true, as many commented, that a sense of learned helplessness indisputably crept into the mindset of so many of us in this country -- at least prior to Joe Biden's decision not to pursue a second term as president.

    But with Biden's exit, the election feels far less gloomy right now. No matter how improbable election of Kamala Harris may have seemed before Biden dropped out, it now feels like we finally have a fighting chance, and with that comes a sense of euophria that has been sadly lacking from our lives since, well, practically forever.

  • Rebecca Jennings: [08-02] An influencer is running for Senate. Is she just the first of many? "Caroline Gleich's Utah Senate campaign is a sign of the blurring lines between digital creators and politicians." This doesn't strike me as so weird. She sounds like a good candidate.

  • Ed Kilgore: [07-31] What ever happened to RFK Jr.?

Trump:

Vance:

And other Republicans:

Harris:

Biden:

And other Democrats:

Legal matters and other crimes:

Climate and environment:

Economic matters:

Ukraine War and Russia:

America's empire and the world:

Other stories:

Obituaries

Books

  • Usman Butt: [2023-07-09] Avi Shlaim's memoir Three Worlds: Mossad, Mizrahim, and the loss of Iraqi Jewry: "Avi Shlaim's memoir is an elucidating account of split worlds under duress. Deeply researched, Shlaim reveals the factors behind his leaving Iraq for Israel, and how the Israeli secret services stoked tensions to facilitate this exodus."

  • Louis Menand: [07-22] When yuppies ruled: "Defining a social type is a way of defining an era. What can the time of the young urban professionjal tell us about our own?" Refers to Tom McGrath: Triumph of the Yuppies: American the Eighties, and the Creation of an Unequal Nation.

  • Jordan Michael Smith: [08-02] The foreign policy mistake the US keeps repeating in the Middle East: "In 2024, the US faces some of the same challenges in the region that it did in 1954." Review of Fawaz A Gerges: What Really Went Wrong: The West and the Failure of Democracy in the Middle East, a title which alludes to Bernard Lewis's 2002 book, What Went Wrong? Western Impact and Middle Eastern Response. I read the latter back when I was desperate to read anything on the Middle East, but it mostly just showed me how idiotic western orientalists can be. I haven't read any of Gerges's many books -- most appear to be primers on jihadism for his UK readers -- but he's been working long enough for the imperialist ardor to wear thin. So expect some insights, but also some aggravation. For instance, consider this pull quote:

    The real lesson of America's Cold War policies is that interfering in other countries should only be done when our most vital interests are at stake, we have competent leaders, and we can do more good than ill.

    On the surface, that seems sensible, but every clause melts into goop the moment you reflect on it. Rather than dissect it, let me suggest instead:

    1. Never interfere in other countries. If they are friendly, be friendly. If they are hostile, be wary. If they stink, take your business elsewhere. But don't think that you can or should change them. Ever.
    2. Only domestic interests are vital. Governments are responsible for taking care of their own people, within their own territory, and nothing more. Anyone who thinks "we" have an interest outside the country is wrong, and up to no good.
    3. It's ok to conduct international relations, as long as it's done in a fair and open manner, with mutual respect, not clouded by the projection of power or avarice.
    4. Competent leaders are good. I wish we had some. But no one can judge the competency or fitness of other people's leaders. So don't.
    5. It's impossible to calculate the balance of good and ill: the terms are poorly defined, hard to quantify, and especially hard to anticipate well into the future. The best one can do is to avoid ill at every opportunity. That should leave room for good.

    From WWII on, US interaction with the Middle East has produced one blunder after another, each couched in the notion that we have material interests in the region that need to be advanced or at least defended through alliances with groups that had their own independent and sometimes conflicting interests, and deveoped through ideologies that have only served to further muddy the picture, and to totally befuddle the minds in Washington who think they are in charge. It wasn't always like that. Pre-WWII US interaction was relatively benign: American missionaries established great universities in Beirut and Cairo, tactfully enough that they didn't get tagged as Crusaders; the US refused to join the Great War against the Ottoman Empire, and refused a mandate over post-war Turkey.

    Things started to change in the 1930s when American oil companies came to Saudi Arabia, but even there they made much more equitable arrangements with Aramco than the British did with their Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The Eisenhower policies Gerges is so critical of were still rooted in past good will, even as it was rapidly being squandered to backstop British imperialism and the global oil monopoly, and ultimately to gratify Israel's every whim. One can imagine ways to unwind some of the worst effects, but there's little chance of that happening until you first realize that the entire project was rotten from the start.

  • Alexander Sorondo: [07-31] The short shelf-life of the White House tell-all: "Fly-on-the-wall West Wing books age like milk. Why do journalists and publishers bother?" Maybe they like milk? So few books stand the tes to time, it's almost silly to think that they should. One may question the value of "insider" stories, as compared to broader-based studies and deeper histories, but there's no reason they can't contribute something.

    Franklin Foer's book on Biden, The Last Politician, gets a mention, especially because something very significant (October 7) happened just a month after it came out. I'll admit I bought a copy, then didn't read it in a timely fashion, and at this point probably never will. But when I bought it, I thought there was a deficit of information on how Biden was operating around lots of issues -- especially on the Afghanistan retreat, which I thought he got a bum rap for, but with Biden it's hard to tell what's art and what's just klutziness.

    While it's always possible to publish too soon, books do take long enough to write that authors can get beyond first impressions and instincts. I rather doubt that Thomas Ricks meant to call his Iraq War book Fiasco, but by the time he finished, the title was obvious. Similarly, I thought Rajiv Chandrasekaran's reporting from Iraq was really shallow, but by the time he turned it into a book (Imperial Life in the Emerald City) he had a real story. The author here seems to prefer memoirs over journalism, but his examples (Bill Barr, James Comey, Anthony Scaramucci) aren't very persuasive.

Music (and other arts?)

Chatter

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): music.

Original count: 254 links, 12958 words (17123 total)

Current count: 256 links, 12995 words (17190 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Wednesday, July 31, 2024

Music Week

July archive (finished).

Music: Current count 42729 [42703] rated (+26), 36 [23] unrated (+13).

My Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll threw me off the usual Sunday/Monday post schedule, although the sheer quantity of news I reaped for yesterday's Speaking of Which would have been excuse enough (249 links, 11258 words before today's additions).

ArtsFuse published my intro/overview essay, Diversity Brings Riches: A Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll, on Friday, at which time I enabled the totals and ballots on my archival website:

There was a glitch early on where the points totals in the tables on ArtsFuse got mangled, so had to be fixed. I've received some feedback on the poll, but not very much. I sent a notice out to my "jazzpoll" mailing list, but as best I can figure, only about half of those messages get past the spam traps (gmail seems to be exceptionally harsh). I put out two announcements on X, but the first (link to essay) only has 164 views (1 retweet, 3 likes), and the second (link to updated Music Week) got 222 views (2 retweets, 5 likes). I also did two notices on Facebook, like this one, with 1 share and 5 likes.

A Google search reveals:

Also, a couple critics published their ballots (which are all available through the link above). Chris Monsen wrote up his extended mid-year list. I also suspect that I provoked All About Jazz into polling their writers for this all-star break edition list. (As I understand it, their call went out a week after my invites, but they were first to press.)

I've scarcely touched my metacritic file, but should get back to it if/when demands on my time lighten up. Its main value is as a prospecting tool, which I haven't much needed while I had so many jazz albums to search out. I'm pretty sure I'll return to it when the year-end lists start coming in, but between now and then it's likely to only be an occasional hobby. I'm also not sure I'll continue updating my Best Jazz Albums of 2024 file, although it's pretty comprehensive for now. An even more vexing question is whether I'll make a serious effort at the download links I've been accumulating. More pressing is that I've fallen behind the queue of promo CDs (although much of that mail I just opened today).

I did manage to wrap up the July Streamnotes file, and to open a new one for August. Rated count is light this week, as I've had several days where I didn't want to multitask while writing, or didn't feel up to it. I also found myself tiring of looking for unheard albums that got poll votes, especially as many proved inaccessible. Still 189 left in the tracking file, so maybe I just need a break. It's tempting to just take August off. I have a lot of stuff to do around the house. Also a couple of web projects that need attention. I need to rethink my writing ambitions. There are also some health questions.

I've just finished reading Amy Kaplan's Our American Israel: The Story of an Entangled Alliance. It's a pretty good general history of Israel since the 1940s, with its long drift from left to right, fought mostly on the level of myth, where the intertwined alliance brings out the worst in both. That focus often ignores real political issues -- like the American preoccupation with the Cold War and the postcolonial order of petrostates, and how Israel could somehow deny Arabs (especially Palestinians) any real agency in their fate. They are always treated as an irreconcilable other, to be fought and subdued, and there is nothing they can do about it, so they cycle endlessly between violence and conciliation, only to find that neither stance makes any difference. This fixed gaze saves Kaplan from having to give them any consideration.

The section on Lebanon is pivotal, as Israel shifted direction from justifiable defense to unconscionable offense. Of course, we now know that the latter was always part of the game plan, which is part of the reason we forget how brutal the shift appeared at the time. There is a passage here describing the devastation of West Beirut that will make you think of Gaza today. By that point the right-wing had taken charge in Israel, with Begin as PM, and Sharon running the war. And as the left in America (and to some ultimately fruitless extent in Israel as well) started to have misgivings, the American right embraced the Israeli right ever more firmly. The book's coverage of Christian Zionism is the most detailed I've read, and is truly scary -- in large part because it's really hard to grasp that people can actually believe such nonsense. The book then moves on to neocon militarism, and to the war on terror (with Israel as its guiding light, and "start up" profiteer).

Along the way, the focus on myth offers in-depth discussions of such cultural artifacts as the books/movies from Exodus to Schindler's List to The Late Great Planet Earth to Homeland to World War Z.

New records reviewed this week:

Daymé Arocena: Alkemi (2024, Brownswood): Afro-Cuban jazz singer, first appeared in Jane Bunnett's Cuban group Maqueque, fifth album since 2015, all on this British label. B+(*) [sp]

Carlos Bica: 11:11 (2024, Clean Feed): Bassist, from Portugal, wide range of albums from the late 1990s on (last one was Playing With Beethoven, and I didn't much care for it). This is a quartet which can run rough or refined, with José Soares (sax), Eduardo Cardinho (vibes), and Gonçalo Neto (guitar/banjo). Has a bit of vocal. B+(**) [sp]

Zach Bryan: The Great American Bar Scene (2024, Belting Bronco/Warner): Country singer-songwriter, one I've underrated in the past, and may well again, as he has a knack for making exceptional songs seem ordinary. Runs over an hour. B+(**) [sp]

Chick Corea & Béla Fleck: Remembrance (2024, Thirty Tigers): Piano and banjo duo, third album together, after The Enchantment (2007) and Two (2015). No recording date(s) given, but this "last project" (which includes audience applause) was obviously recorded before pianist's death in 2021. B [sp]

Jon De Lucia: The Brubeck Octet Project (2023 [2024], Musæum Clausum): Alto saxophonist, several albums, modeled on Dave Brubeck's early (1948-50) group, with trumpet, trombone, two more saxophones (Scott Robinson on tenor), piano (Glenn Zaleski), bass, and drums. Nice sense of group interplay. B+(***) [cd]

Divr: Is This Water (2022 [2024], We Jazz): Swiss piano-bass-drums trio (Philipp Eden, Raphael Walser, Jonas Ruther), first album. B+(*) [sp]

FUR [Hélène Duret/Benjamin Sauzereau/Maxime Rouayroux]: Bond (2023 [2024], Budapest Music Center): French-Belgian trio: clarinets, guitar, drums. Nice atmospherics B+(**) [sp]

Marshall Gilkes and WDR Big Band: Life Songs (2022 [2024], Alternate Side): Trombonist, debut 2004, often drawn to big bands (Maria Schneider, John Fedchock) and Latin (Brian Lynch), third album with the German radio orchestra. Vibrant and lush, the Sabeth Pérez vocal a plus. B+(***) [sp]

Ciara Grace: Write It Down (2024, self-released): Singer-songwriter, can't find much about her, had to look the album up by title as artist name didn't do the trick (found me a single, instead). First impression is I like her, though. [PS: Would have found out more had I gotten her name right, including a previous album from 2016.] B+(***) [sp]

The Gringo Pistoleros: The Rise and . . . Subsequent Fall of the Texas Alien (2024, self-released): Recorded in Austin, with Cory Grinder (presumably from somewhere else) just passing through, "named in homage to the great Tim Henderson" (who? Discogs lists 11 with that name, pictures 0). B+(**) [sp]

Christopher Hoffman: Vision Is the Identity (2024, Out of Your Head): Cellist, has a couple previous, core group here has keyboards (Frank LoCrasto) and drums (Bill Campbell), but four (of seven) tracks add guests: Henry Threadgill (alto sax), Ryan Scott (guitar), Anne Webber (flute), Alfredo Colón (EWI). Short (24:20). B+(*) [sp]

Johnny Blue Skies: Passage Du Desir (2024, High Top Mountain): "Metamodern" country singer-songwriter Sturgill Simpson, not sure if his name is on the cover or not but it appears everywhere the record is mentioned. B+(**) [sp]

Norah Jones: Visions (2024, Blue Note): Singer-songwriter, tends to be slotted as jazz given her record label, but little reason to read much into that. Her 2002 debut was a huge crossover hit, with US sales topping 11 million. Ninth studio album, co-wrote most songs with producer Leon Michels. B+(*) [sp]

Pat Metheny: MoonDial (2024, BMG): Popular jazz guitarist, mostly played fusion since 1975 but has occasionally ventured off the beaten path, which in recent years has included novel instruments. Here he plays baritone guitar, not technically novel, but going deep into "the instrument's nature," he finds "resonant contemplation." B+(*) [sp]

Kim Myhr & Kitchen Orchestra: Hereafter (2020 [2024], Sofa Music): Norwegian guitarist, various albums since 2005, also credited here with voice, organ, synthesizer, drum machine, and piano, with a fairly large postclassical ensemble (but no real string section). B+(*) [sp]

O.: WeirdOs (2024, Speedy Wunderground): "O. (15)" at Discogs, "jazz-fusion duo from London, UK," Joe Henwood (baritone sax) and Tash Keary (drums), first album after a single and an EP, instrumental, sort of a funk-grunge synthesis. B+(*) [sp]

Revival Season: Golden Age of Self Snitching (2024, Heavenly): Atlanta producer Jonah Swilley and rapper Brandon Evans, first album. B+(***) [sp]

Splitter Orchester: Splitter Musik (2024, Hyperdelia, 3CD): Berlin-based composer-performer collective, founded 2010, with members of ten different nationalities, fourth album, each disc a single piece (51:47, 41:36, 78:00). Sort of an ambient industrial feel. Hard to nail down much on an album this long because it's impossible to concentrate like that, but just let it go, and you may wind up suspecting there's something to it. B+(**) [sp]

Stemeseder Lillinger Quartet: Umbra II (2023 [2024], Intakt): Austrian pianist Elias Stemeseder, with German drummer Christian Lillinger, cover adds "feat. Peter Evans & Russell Hall" -- trumpet and bass. They've done this before -- not just Umbra but Penumbra and Antumbra. B+(***) [sp]

Kevin Sun: The Fate of the Tenor (2022 [2024]. Endectomorph Music): Tenor saxophonist, impressive Trio debut in 2018, has been on a roll ever since, knows his history and lore. Live set here, another trio, with Walter Stinson (bass) and Matt Honor (drums). B+(***) [sp]

Kenny Warren: Sweet World (2023 [2024], Out of Your Head): Trumpet player, based in Brooklyn, played in Slavic Soul Party, has several albums on his own, this one with cello (Christopher Hoffman) and drums (Nathan Ellman-Bell). B+(**) [sp]

Stian Westerhus & Maja S.K. Ratkje: All Losses Are Restored (2024, Crispin Glover): Norwegian guitarist and vocalist, at least established as such in careers established in the early 2000s, but credits aren't clear here, and two voices intertwine. Hard to tell how deep the story line is, as despite considerable skill I never care enough to follow. B [sp]

Wimps: City Lights (2023, Youth Riot): Punk rock trio from Seattle, fourth album since 2013, 13 songs, 26:43. B+(***) [sp]

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:

Fingers: The Complete Fingers Remember Mingus (1979-93 [2024], Jazz in Britain, 3CD): British quintet -- Lol Coxhill (soprano/tenor sax), Bruce Turner (alto sax/clarinet), Michael Garrick (piano), Dave Green (bass), and Alan Jackson (drums) -- recorded Remember Mingus in 1979, the five tracks (plus "Softly, as in a Morning Sunrise") there doubled here for two CDs, and supplemented with later BBC shots for a third. B+(***) [bc]

Pat Smythe Quartet: New Dawn: Live 1973 (1973 [2024], British Progressive Jazz): British pianist (1923-83), probably best known for his 1960s work with Joe Harriott; quartet here features fusion guitarist Allan Holdsworth (1946-2017), with Daryl Runswick (bass) and Soft Machine drummer John Marshall. B+(***) [sp]

Old music:

Mike Cooley/Patterson Hood/Jason Isbell: Live at the Shoals Theatre (2014 [2020], Southeastern): Three singer-songwriters, all started out in the Drive-By Truckers, Isbell went solo circa 2007, Hood has a couple solos albums, Cooley just one from 2012 but gets lead billing here because the theatre seems to have been his childhood dream. B+(***) [sp]

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

  • John Alvey: Loft Glow (Jazz Music City) [08-25]
  • Charlie Apicella & Iron City Meet the Griots Speak: Call to Action/Call to Prayer (OA2) [08-16]
  • Welf Dorr/Elias Meister/Dmitry Ishenko/Kenny Wollesen: So Far So Good (self-released)
  • Morten Duun: Code Breaker (Cmntx) [07-19]
  • Russell Haight: Go Forth (OA2) [08-16]
  • Eric Jacobson: Heading Home (Origin) [08-16]
  • Omer Leshem: Play Space (Ubuntu Music) [09-27]
  • David Liebman & the CNY Jazz Orchestra: If a White Horse From Jerusalem . . . (CNY Jazz Arts Foundation) [08-10]
  • Rosemary Loar: Vagabond Heart/Curação Vagabundo (Atlor Music) [07-18]
  • Matt Mitchell: Zealous Angles (Pi) [08-16]
  • Planet D Nonet: Echoes of Harlem: A Salute to Duke Ellington Vol. 2 (Eastlawn) [07-19]
  • Dred Scott/Moses Patrou/Tom Beckham/Matt Pavolka: Cali Mambo (Ropeadope) [09-20]
  • Piet Verbist: Flamenco Jazz Summit: El Mar Empieza Aquí (Origin) [08-16]
  • Philip Weberndoerfer: Tides (Shifting Paradigm) [08-23]
  • Miguel Zenón: Golden City (Miel Music) [08-30]

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Speaking of Which

Opened this file on Friday, July 26, early evening. Thought I might wrap this up Monday evening, but I had a very stressful day, got bummed out, and accomplished little. Hence, this week's piece has lapsed into Tuesday, but coverage of [07-30] will be spotty, at best.

One thing I did accomplish on Monday was to write a bit of code that I'm using here, and should save me a lot of trouble in the future. As I've been writing these posts, I've often wondered how much I had written. It then occurred to me that I could measure the post using two Linux shell commands:

fgrep 'href' FILENAME | wc -l
wc -w FILENAME

The former counts links (assuming there is no more than one link per line). The latter counts words. I usually omitted the wc options, since it's easy to visually pick out the number I wanted: the default counts lines, words, and characters. My first thought was to wrap those two commands into a shell script, then run it and append the answer to the web page. Then it occurred to me that I'm already reading the file to find a few directive lines (mostly used for the title and date), so I could count links and words as I go, then add a directive to print them out at (or near) the end. (Which gives me a bit of flexible control, as opposed to just automatically appending the stats to every page -- something I still may decide to do.)

At present, the link counts match the program output, but the word counts vary somewhat. Obviously, word counts depend on how you delimit words (e.g., is a "hyphenated-word" 1 or 2 words?). I used wc just because it was easy and close enough for my purposes. The new code also takes the easy route, using the PHP str_word_count() function, which at least initially produced larger word counts (e.g., 11616 vs. 8674, so in this case +25.6%). But rather than try to tune the PHP code to better match the wc results, I thought maybe I should aim for more useful results. I knew that a lot of the text in these particular files appeared in HTML tags and comments, which never appears as words on the web page, so I tried removing them -- using a regular expression replace:

preg_replace('/<[^>]*>/', ' ', LINE)

I then called the word count function both on the edited line and on the original one -- I was curious what the effect was, and wound up printing out both totals. I also eliminated the directive lines from the word count, since like markup they do not appear in the page, and I was already separating those lines out. For the page cited above, the word counts wound up at 7996 (tags stripped) and 11616 (total). I can imagine refining this further. The most obvious thing is I'm not checking for HTML entities right now, which are few (so have little practical effect), and are rather complicated (so would require much more complex code).

I don't doubt that my programming skills have atrophied over the score-plus years since my last full-time job, but it's always a good feeling to see that I still have some.

One more new formatting tic this week. I thought I'd like to have some way to draw extra attention to articles that seem especially important. What seemed like the simplest, most intuitive way was to change the • bullet to something that would stand out more, like this -- a bright red star.

I've applied this in a few places, and probably should in a few more. (This was a very late addition to the file.) I figured I could do this with CSS, but ran across the problem that once an element was selected for the star, any child elements also inherited the star. (There's a Sarah Jones example below, which is actually pretty unusual.) I haven't found a way in CSS to prevent or stop such inheritance, so resorted to another hack to undo it.

Top story threads:

Israel:

America's Israel (and Israel's America):

Netanyahu wangled an invitation to speak to a joint session of Congress, first lining up his right-wing allies to float the invite, then giving the Democratic leadership little choice but to join in. He may be massively unpopular in Israel, but when he appears in Washington, he can preen like he owns the place, as he essentially does. And his exhibition of power over Washington helps maintain his perch in Israel, where regardless of his many faults, he is widely seen as the one guy who can force presidents to kowtow. The whole spectacle was deeply embarrassing for all concerned. So while he got the ovations he expected, his message just underscores how deeply out of touch Israel is with world opinion. Mustafa Barghouti was absolutely right: "a disgusting speech in a session of shame to the U.S. Congress."

Other stories in this nexus:

  • Michael Arria: [07-25] The Shift: Biden's legacy is genocide. Biden's withdrawal elicited "sentimental tributes," but not from those who focused on his defense and support of genocide by Israel.

  • Dexter Filkins: [07-22] Will Hezbollah and Israel go to war? That's really up to Netanyahu, who is fully able to push Hezbollah's buttons to get whatever level of back-and-forth he wants -- thus far, enough to provide cover for the real wars against Palestinians both in Gaza and the West Bank, and to keep the Americans in line with their depiction of Iran the puppet master on many fronts. As last week showed, escalating the bombing of Lebanon is easy within those parameters. Launching a real ground war isn't so easy, with little to gain and a fair amount to lose.

  • Nicole Narea: [07-25] What Kamala Harris really thinks about Israel and Gaza: "Biden's approach to the war in Gaza has been divisive. Would Haris chart a new path?" I have a whole section for Harris, where I'll slot pieces on every other aspect of her campaign and politics, but for now I'd rather compartmentalize and keep her Israel stuff here, as a subset of the Washington-based group-think that lets American politicians and their cronies avoid having to think or care about the issue. I don't think anyone really knows what she thinks here, because the position she's in doesn't allow thinking, or doing for that matter.

    Maybe when she is president, she will be in a position to do, and therefore will need to think. But right now, all she really has to do is to avoid the pitfalls being laid out for her. (Having to meet with Netanyahu is just one such pitfall.) I'm not unsympathetic to people who regard Israel (or at least Gaza) as the biggest political issue of the moment, but through the election, I think they/we should give her a pass. I'm pretty sure that she's no worse than Biden, and undoubtedly a lot better than Trump. You don't have to endorse her (at least for this). You can even rag on Genocide Joe if you want. But this is just speculation, and probably not helpful at all. Of course, once she's elected, the gloves can come off. My hope, and that's really all it is, is that she'll listen better than Biden, and act more decisively. The time to talk specifically to her is when she's ready to listen and act.

  • Kelley Beaucar Vlahos: {07-24] Peter Thiel: 'I defer to Israel': "Video surfaces showing the Palantir tech giant strugglig to answer questions about client's use of AI-generated kill lists."

  • Brett Wilkins: [07-24] Ben-Gvir endorses Trump, says he's more likely to back war on Iran: "The Israeli security minister, who leads the far-right Jewish Power party, accused the Biden administration of thwarting Israel's victory against Hamas."

Israel vs. world opinion:

Election notes:

Trump:

Vance:

Trump's running mate, a Republican Senator from Ohio, one thing you can say for him is that he's gotten more press attention than any VP candidate since Sarah Palin, and probably more, since he's not just a turbocharged gaffe machine but has a more philosophical side that is also easy to chew over. I'm pretty sure that had Trump picked Doug Burgum or Elise Stefanik, this phase would be done by now.

  • Karyn Amira: [07-29] JD Vance's selection as Trump's running mate marks the end of Republican conservatism. Problem here is the author's definition of conservatism: "a philosophy that supports smaller and less-centralized government because consolidated power could be used to silence political competition and deny citizens their liberties." That's almost exactly wrong: conservatives believe in order defined by their preferred hierarchy, which is necessarily enforced by power in a state that they seek to control. That's precisely what Trump and Vance believe in.

    On the other hand, Amira's definition actually describes an obsolete version of liberalism, which has been cynically used by conservatives to oppose the modern democratic state. From the progressives in the early 1900s through the New Deal and Great Society, liberals came to realize that laissez-faire capitalism had ceased to expand "liberty and justice for all," and if left unchecked would revert to a new version of feudal aristocracy. So they came up with a very successful alternative, where the state, embodying the will of the popular majority, would organize and regulate countervailing institutions, their powers limited and regulated in the public interest.

    Needless to say, the would-be lords of neofeudal capitalism hated this, and fought to preserve and extend their superiority with every trick they could muster -- including adopting the time-tested rhetoric of classical liberalism, but redirected against the democratic state -- which they characterized not just as a revival of pharoahs and czars but as something more impersonal and nefarious, as totalitarianism -- and really against the people it represented.

    But while "small government" may have been useful rhetoric when the government was held by people conservatives reviled, have you ever seen conservatives once they control the state reduce its size and power? You might point to deregulation, but that's effectively a transfer of power from public to private hands. Similarly, tax cuts and credits are transfers of money from public to private hands. By debilitating public interest functions, conservatives seek to discredit the state as a means by which the people can help themselves. Conservatives may see the state, in the wrong hands, as a repressive force, but given power, they eagerly use that force for their own ends, especially against the people they see as enemies, which is most of us.

    Trump and Vance aren't the end of Republican conservatism. They're more like its apotheosis, grown powerful and arrogant enough they can quit pretending they're doing anyone any favors but themselves. Maybe they mark some kind of denouement for conservative naïveté, but few real world conservatives were ever so deluded.

  • Maureen Dowd: [07-27] JD Vance, purr-fectly dreadful.

  • Elizabeth Dwoskin/Cat Zakrzewski/Nitasha Tiku/Josh Dawsey: [07-28] Inside the powerful Peter Thiel network that anointed JD Vance: "A small influential network of right-wing techies orchestrated Vance's rise in Silicon Valley -- and then the GOP. Now the industry stands to gain if he wins the White House." There hasn't been a VP pick this explicitly tied to donor choice since the Koch Network (uh, Mitt Romney) picked Paul Ryan in 2012. And while Republicans are more likely to brag about their corruption, what are the odds that Harris's VP pick will be traceable to another megadonor? (I mean, beyond the default conspiracist pick: George Soros?)

  • Paul Elie: [07-24] J.D. Vance's radical religion.

  • Rebecca Jennings: [07-25] J.D. Vance didn't have sex with a couch. But he's still extremely weird. "The rumors were easy to believe, especially when the potential VP has such terrible ideas about sex."

  • Sarah Jones: [07-26] Dear J.D. Vance, childless cat ladies are people too. Emphasis added:

    "Normal people" see this bleak prospect for what it is, and they have rejected it repeatedly in the voting booth. That probably won't change. Vance's comments are weird, cruel, and, yes, creepy. They don't reflect the way most people think or live, even if they do have biological children. By attacking childlessness, the right cheapens parenthood, too. The act of having children is no longer about joy but conquest. I can't imagine anything sadder, though I am but a childless cat lady. Vance's worldview is poisonous to parents and children, too: Babies should be loved and wanted for their own sake, not because they're future nationalists or tradwives. The right offers a small and selfish vision that is authoritarian to its core. Their America belongs only to the righteous few, but my America belongs to everyone. I may never give birth, but I too have a stake in this country. We're all responsible for creating a future worth living in. It will belong to somebody's children, if not to ours.

    By the way, Jones also wrote:

    • [07-23] A woman can win, which probably belongs with the Harris articles, but is more about how Hillary Clinton's didn't win, and the precedent that doesn't really set.

    • [07-30] American freak show. I've thought of myself as weird much of my life, so I've learned to flip the insult and see weirdness as a more interesting attribute. And that's just one of many pejoratives that I've been prodded into reconsidering based on my experiences with the people they are and are not applied to. For instance, people who call themselves "patriots" because they support wars and who call people who don't support those wars "traitors" not only have a very shabby vocabulary, they're also, in my mind at least, making "patriots" appear to be horrible people, and "traitors" to be fundamentally decent ones. So I was initially reluctant to jump on the bandwagon that labels Trump, Vance, et al. as "weird." (I see Tim Walz getting credit here, but Seth Myers has been leaning in to this line of attack for several years now.) It just feels to me like we need some qualification, like in the song: "well I hear he's bad/ hmm, he's good-bad, but he's not evil." Surely, lots of people are simply "good-weird," but Trump and Vance are venturing into real "weird-evil" territory.

      Any formerly weird child can attest to how difficult it is to shrug off this label. What are you going to do, put your fingers in your ears and chant "I'm not weird, you're weird" until somebody eventually believes you? I was a little awkward in my day, and I know that's not how things work. You can refute the attack only by not being weird -- an idea that seems to elude many conservatives. They've left themselves few options. To address the attack, the bizarre right would have to reconstitute an entire movement, and that will take time and political will. Both are in short supply. Go on, then, and call the right weird, as long as it's part of a bigger argument. Progress ought to be normal, and it's worth fighting for, too.

      But I'm starting to appreciate the advantages of flipping scripts like this. And when you think about it, there's a lot of not just weird but very bizarre thought going on with the far-right these days. I mean, I'm 73, and my thinking has evolved a lot over the years, but I can still remember things that I learned as norms and rules when I was a child, like the 10 Commandments, the 7 Deadly Sins, the Boy Scouts' 12 laws, the Golden Rule, the maxim that "power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely," and strategic bits of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and much more that I never really rejected even though I eventually disposed of most of the dross and cant they were wrapped up in. And because I can remember, and still largely respect, those norms and rules, it's really easy to see just how far many right-wingers have strayed from principles they claim as exclusively their own, and how ridiculous they look when they do. In some ways, calling them "weird" is the kindest way you can point that out. Their weirdness may even be their one saving grace. It certainly won't be in their Project 2025.

  • Ezra Klein: [07-17] The economic theory behind J.D. Vance's populism: Interview with Oren Cass, who was Mitt Romney's domestic policy director in 2012, who since "evolved" and founded American Compass, a think tank catering to "populist" Republicans.

  • Paul Krugman:

  • Bradley Onishi: [07-27] J.D. Vance will be a more extremist Christian VP than Mike Pence: "The vice presidential pick's Catholicism hasn't received a lot of attention, but it's the key to the populist radicalism he wants to impose on America."

  • Andrew Prokop: [07-25] J.D. Vance has made it impossible for Trump to run away from Project 2025: "He wrote the forward for a new book by Project 2025's architect -- and has backed some of its most extreme ideas." The book is Kevin D Roberts: Dawn's Early Light: Taking Back Washington to Save America, coming out on Sept. 24.

  • Corey Robin: [07-26] Like a diary, only far more masculine: Reading J.D. Vance's, from his blog days.

  • Robert Schlesinger: [07-29] J.D. Vance proves it: Trump hires the very worst people: Trump's new running mate will haunt him just like all of the fools and weasels from his first administration."

  • Alex Shephard: [07-26] Is J.D. Vance the worst vice presidential pick ever? Fair question, unless you know much about American history, in which case it's way too early to tell. It also depends on what you mean by "worst." John Tyler and Andrew Johnson probably helped their tickets win, but were really terrible presidents. Some others that didn't become president were also pretty notoriously bad, like Aaron Burr and John Calhoun (two terms, under two presidents who were polar opposites in every aspect except for their loathing of Calhoun). Then there was Spiro Agnew, the only VP ever forced to resign. And what about Dick Cheney? If memory serves, the only VP ever to finish his term with a single-digit approval index. Then there are the ones who never won anything. They tend to be easily forgotten, but tag reads "Palin Lite," in case you want a hint. So with competition like that, Vance hardly has a chance. But it's early days, and at least he's in the running.

  • Ed Simon: [07-17] J.D. Vance keeps selling his soul. He's got plenty of buyers.

    Mr. Vance is more a product of the Upper West Side and New Haven, Capitol Hill and Cambridge, than of the Appalachian hollers. "Hillbilly Elegy" owed much of its critical and commercial success to how it flattered its audience about their own meritocratic superiority over the people whom Mr. Vance was supposedly championing, and reaffirming some of the most pernicious stereotypes about the residents of Appalachia. "What separates the successful from the unsuccessful are the expectations that they had for their own lives," Mr. Vance wrote. In his telling, those who fell into poverty, unemployment or substance abuse hadn't dreamed big enough.

    He points to whole books written about Vance's book, like:

  • Matt Stieb: [07-27] J.D. Vance can't stop saying the dumbest things imaginable.

And other Republicans:

  • Emily Bazelon: [07-27] The right-wing dream of 'self-deportation': "Some conservatives have a grim proposal to make undocumented immigrants leave: exclude their children from schools." I hadn't heard of "self-deportation" until Mitt Romney adopted it as his anti-immigration platform in 2012. It is quite the euphemism. It basically means systematically treating immigrants (and, to be sure, anyone who looks or sounds like an immigrant) so cruelly they resign themselves to leaving on their own. Or it could just as well drive them to turn to crime, which expedites the regular deportation process.

  • Jenny Brown: [07-27] Project 2025's anti-union game plan.

    From there, the plan is to bulldoze the protections US workers have built up over one hundred years of determination, sacrifice, and unity.

    It's ugly: abolish overtime pay laws, outlaw public sector unions entirely, get rid of health and safety protections, eliminate the federal minimum wage, make it harder to receive unemployment, and put children back to work like in the 1920s.

    Hitting building trades workers, they would get rid of requirements for prevailing wage pay and project labor agreements in federal projects.

    There's more. They want to get rid of the Department of Education. Ban teaching women's history and African American history in schools -- lest we get ideas about how to change things! Ban abortion nationwide. (The AFL-CIO details the whole alarming list here.)

  • Patrick T Brown: [07-19] Pro-lifers helped bring Trump to power. Why has he abandoned us? Because you're losers? You don't think he ever actually cared about you, did you?

  • Thomas B Edsall: [07-24] What the Trump-Vance alliance means for the Republican Party. One thing that occurs to me here is that the more Republicans like Vance talk about supporting American workers, the more ground that opens up for Democrats to appeal to same, only with more realistic programs and greater credibility. It encourages them to lean left, rather than crawl scared toward the right (like so many have been doing since Reagan).

  • Jack Herrera: [07-28] Trump says he wants to deport millions. He'll have a hard time removing more people than Biden has. "Even as Trump slams the president for open borders, the Biden-Harris administration has kicked out far more immigrants than Trump ever managed."

  • Hassan Alu Kanu: [07-29] DEI and the GOP: "Hey Republicans, your racism is showing."

  • Julius Krein: [07-23] Republican populists are responding to something real. One could argue that -- although Krein isn't very clear here -- but not that they're offering realistic responses to real problems.

  • Robert Kuttner: [07-30] The left's fragile foundations: "Could a weaponized Trump IRS wreck the progressive infrastructure by attacking the entire nonprofit ecosystem?" This is a big and important article. "Defund the left" has long been a major Republican goal. One small bit:

    These vulnerabilities remain in place today. It has long galled the right that Planned Parenthood is a major recipient of government funds; of its budget of over $2 billion, about $700 million comes from government health service reimbursements and grants. While the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortion, 17 states allow Medicaid funding of abortion through their state contributions to the mixed federal-state program. In addition, Planned Parenthood is a major recipient of federal Title X family-planning support of its clinics. As right-wing groups keep complaining, money is fungible and federal family-planning funds free other money to pay for abortions. Under Trump, the government did bar Planned Parenthood from the Title X program in 2019, but this was restored by Biden in 2021.

    The battle to defund the left would be far more sophisticated under a second Trump administration. The Heritage Foundation's detailed blueprint, Project 2025, systematically targets the entire range of agencies, and one of its tactics is to undermine agencies that help progressive organizations such as the NLRB and numerous others. With a second Trump presidency, the right's war against Planned Parenthood will only intensify.

  • Michael Lind: [07-20] Trump's transformation of the Republican Party is complete.

  • Calder McHugh: [07-27] Republicans keep trying to copy Trump's humor -- and voters keep cringing. Perhaps the material never was funny in the first place -- just the buffoon delivering it?

  • Pamela Paul: [07-25] The Republican Party's elite conundrum: Let me condense this a bit (all her words, but with less wandering):

    Donald Trump loves to show off how smart he is. [But] Trump is shrewd enough to know that Americans don't like a guy who acts smart. So if his fumbles are strategic, it's not entirely dumb. In MAGA world, glorified ignorance actually serves as a qualification for higher office, empowering more effective rage against 'the liberal elite' and 'the ruling class.' This puts those Republican politicians saddled with inconvenient Ivy League degrees in an awkward position, like the guy who shows up in a tux for a rodeo wedding. In order to say in office and on message, they must reject the very thing that propelled their own careers. After all, the Republican Party has turned ignorance into a point of pride.

    Of course, this is ultimately about Ron DeSantis (Yale, Harvard Law), Ted Cruz (Princeton, Harvard Law), Josh Hawley (Stanford, Yale Law), Tom Cotton (Harvard, Harvard), and now J.D. Vance (Ohio State, but finally Yale Law).

  • Charles P Pierce:

  • Tessa Stuart: [07-25] Trump allies sure are talking a lot about civil war: "The former president's supporters keep raising the idea there's violent conflict in America's future." When lies don't suffice, Republicans will try extortion: vote for us, or we'll [insert threat here, ranging from shut down the government to killing you].

Harris:

Biden:

  • Dean Baker:

    • [07-22] A tribute to President Biden.

    • [07-18] Adjusting the Washington Post's Biden-Trump scorecard.

    • [07-26] Bloomberg says things are almost as bad as 2019, when Trump was in the White House: "Seriously, they probably don't want readers to walk away with that impression, but that is the implication of the piece they did complaining about people working multiple jobs."

    • [07-29] The biggest success story the country doesn't know about: "Yes, inflation has been punishing. But there is a mountain of good news that media have barely reported. Here's the real record the Democrats can run on."

      Under Biden, the United States made a remarkable recovery from the pandemic recession. We have seen the longest run of below 4.0 percent unemployment in more than 70 years, even surpassing the long stretch during the 1960s boom. This period of low unemployment has led to rapid real wage growth at the lower end of the wage distribution, reversing much of the rise in wage inequality we have seen in the last four decades. It has been especially beneficial to the most disadvantaged groups in the labor market.

      The burst of inflation that accompanied this growth was mostly an outcome of the pandemic and the invasion of Ukraine. All other wealthy countries saw comparable rises in inflation. As of summer 2024, the rate of inflation in the United States has fallen back almost to the Fed's 2.0 percent target. Meanwhile, our growth has far surpassed that of our peers.

      Furthermore, the Biden administration really does deserve credit for this extraordinary boom. Much of what happens under a president's watch is beyond their control. However, the economic turnaround following the pandemic can be directly traced to Biden's recovery package, along with his infrastructure bill, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, all of which have sustained growth even as the impact of the initial recovery package faded. While the CARES Act, pushed through when Trump was in office, provided essential support during the shutdown period, it was not sufficient to push through the recovery.

      One should also use every opportunity to stress that the CARES Act, at least everything that was good in it, was the result of leverage Democrats in Congress had. With the economy in free fall, Trump wanted something to save the stock market. That the act also helped unemployed workers, collapsing small businesses, and helped many stave off debt collection, was because Trump had to deal with Pelosi and Schumer. Without their help, Trump's own dismal record would have been that much worse.

  • Zachary D Carter: [07-24] You have no idea what Joe Biden for employment.

  • Elie Honig: [07-26] Let's knock off the 25th amendment talk.

  • Kerry Howley: [07-27] Exit ghost: "Watching Joe Biden say good-bye."

  • Umair Irfan: [07-23] Joe Biden's enormous, contradictory, and fragile climate legacy: "If elected, Trump could slow down Biden's progress, but the shift to clean energy is unstoppable."

  • Branko Marcetic:

    • [07-22] Joe Biden wanted this. This is a left view, but seems fair:

      There is a tendency, even among the Left, to overstate the extent of Biden's populism. This is, after all, a president who nickel-and-dimed Georgia voters on the $2,000 checks he had pledged, quickly abandoned his promise of a $15 minimum-wage increase that might have helped voters weather inflation, and refused to fight to keep transformative pandemic-era policies like Medicaid expansion and expanded unemployment insurance. However ambitious his Build Back Better legislation was, we sometimes talk about it as if it had actually become law, when the reality is it died -- and did so in large part because Biden considered getting a handshake with Republicans a higher priority.

      That his presidency became the unlikely vehicle for progressive economic populism tells us less about Biden himself than the state of the Left: a Left that, however disorganized and defeated, succeeded in dragging someone like Biden into adopting even a watered-down version of its political program. It did so not just through political pressure, but by changing the political landscape to such an extent that a man who had spent his life tacking right in the chase for political power came to realize there was a popular constituency for a left-populist agenda, and that it was worth his while politically, crucial to his legacy even, to give pursuing such a thing an honest-to-God shot.

    • [07-25] How Joe Biden became a steadfast Israel defender.

  • Nicole Narea: [07-24] So what does Joe Biden do now? "In an Oval Office speech, Biden said his farewells. But his job isn't done yet."

  • Noah Rawlings: [07-29] Build no small things: "A sampling of innovative projects made possible by the Biden legislative wins."

And other Democrats:

  • Lee Drutman: [07-28] The Democratic Party is (still) broken: "The sudden ascendance of Kamala Harris doesn't change the fact that the party suffers from deep, possibly fatal problems." I'm not sure how useful this analysis is. I don't doubt that the Democratic Party has structural problems, tied mostly to the need to raise huge amounts of money from interest groups that want favors not solutions, and the double standards that blame Democrats for all problems while excusing Republicans. But the Democrats do have one big advantage: in a two-party system, they're the only ones who are sane and conscientious and actually care about people, which should give them some advantages, wouldn't you think? However, the author seems to be wedded to a fantasy idea, explained in his book Breaking the Two-Party Doom Loop: The Case for Multiparty Democracy in America.

  • Lulu Garcia-Navarro: [07-27] The Interview: Pete Buttigieg thinks the Trump fever could break.

  • Michael Podhorzer: [07-24] Democrats are poised to win. But only if they make the election about Trump. As I've been saying, all along.

  • Michael Tomasky: [07-25] The race the Democrats need to run now: "How the party can reshape this election so it isn't about Donald Trump's martyrdom." I dunno. I mean, there's something to be said for martyring Donald Trump. It's not that I don't think this has a place:

    That's all the more reason for Harris to make the race a contest between not only two people but two ideas of America, two extremely different visions of what the federal government can and will do to protect the rights of all Americans, especially vulnerable ones. That means talking about Trump's plans. But just as importantly, it means trying to make voters understand that the presidency is much larger than one person. It's an army of people with a set of beliefs who either will or will not protect abortion rights, defend workers' interests, insist upon the basic human dignity of migrants, fight for the human and civil rights of LGBTQ people, continue the fight against the effects of climate change, uphold civil liberties, and respect the principles of democracy.

    But anything that gets people to turn on Trump is fine with me.

Legal matters and other crimes:

Climate and environment:

In some ways, just another mid-summer week, but one with four days topping all-time heat records, and 104 (at least that's one count) active wildfires in the US.

Economic matters:

  • Jake Johnson: [07-25] Global 1% captured $42 trillion in new wealth over past decade.

  • Jean Yi: [07-24] The great telemarketing scam behind pro-police PACs. Before we got a phone system that announces caller IDs, we were plagued with 2-5 phone calls per week trying to shake us down for donations to help out our poor police. We probably still are, but simply don't answer any calls we don't recognize and welcome. We always figured these calls as scams, but this article makes it all much more clear. If any politicians wanted to do something that would immediately better the lives of most Americans, they would come up with a legal framework to destroy the entire telemarketing industry (and hopefully take junk texts and emails with it -- for now at least, I'm ok with advertisers buying stamps, which at least helps fund the post office, even though most of our mail goes straight to recycle).

Ukraine War and Russia:

America's empire and the world:

Other stories:

Obituaries

Books

Music (and other arts?)

Chatter

  • Dean Baker: [07-30] [in response to: X has SUSPENDED the White Dudes for Harris account (@dudes4harris) after it raised more than $4M for Kamala Harris.] Musk is using his control of X to make in-kind contributions to Trump in lieu of his pledge to contribute $45 million a month to a Trump super Pac

  • Ramesh Ponnuru: [07-31] Trump policing who's really black and who's a good Jew in the same week.

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): Netanyahu's speech, music.

Original count: 259 links, 11258 words (15482 total)

Current count: 264 links, 11362 words (15656 total)

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Thursday, July 25, 2024

Music Week

July archive (in progress).

Music: Current count 42703 [42668] rated (+35), 23 [15] unrated (+8).

[07-26]: The Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll is public now. ArtsFuse has published my essay, Diversity Brings Riches: A Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll, which includes the leader board (top 50 New Releases, top 20 Rara Avis). I've unlocked the complete results on my jazzpoll website:

ArtsFuse has a comment facility. Thus far I've seen one comment, and tried replying to it. I'm tracking these comments in my notebook. I'm hoping they'll give me some fodder for my FAQ file. You can also query or comment direct to me.

Later today I'll send out a notice to the Jazzpoll mailing list: the usual links, of course, but also an appeal for voters to do some publicity of their own, possibly writing pieces about what they've learned from poll. I'm also looking ahead to the end-of-year poll. This has been a valuable practice run for what could be a much more ambitious task.

One thing I would like to do between now and then is to redesign the website to make it into a better integrated whole. This might wind up with putting all of the data into a single multi-year database, so we can track voters, artists, etc., over multiple years. I'm also curious about more statistical analysis. But even before that, we have to identify the missing pieces, and the questions they raise. If you are interested and willing to do some work, you can figure out how to get in touch.

By the way, according to my tracking file, I have rated 633 albums so far this year, of which 427 (67.4%) are jazz. So I'm not doing a very good job of easing into retirement.

I'm slowly decompressing after deep burial in the work of running my Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll. The website is up, but the results won't be public until ArtsFuse publishes my introductory essay -- which I turned in on Tuesday, so it shouldn't be much longer. After some initial panic, I finally counted 90 ballots, which is a bit more than half of the 159 ballots we received for the 2023 Poll. A couple dozen more invitees wrote back with apologies, mostly due to the very limited voting period I allowed and other demands on their time, but several just didn't like the idea (while expressing an interest in year-end voting -- I know of other critics who just don't like the idea of polls and lists in general, but they had taken themselves off my mailing list).

Voters were asked to vote for up to 10 "new releases" (first releases of new music recorded no earlier than 2014) and up to 5 "rara avis" (reissues or newly released music from 2013 or earlier). The 90 critics voted for 366 "new releases" and 109 "rara avis" albums. If memory serves, 3 albums got votes in both, and 3 more received one vote in the wrong time frame, so the total number of albums that received votes was 472, which is 5.24 per voter. I'd hazard a guess that about half of those records got 1 vote each. Also, at least half of them weren't in my tracking file before the poll, so were new to me. I've added them all now, and over the last 3-4 weeks I've listened to a lot of jazz I wasn't previously aware of (including all 5 A- records this week, and most of the high B+ records too).

As I've probably mentioned, I find lists most useful as a means for checking what I do and do not know. Donald Rumsfeld once made the distinction between "known-unknowns" and "unknown-unknowns." Well, I keep the former are on a list as such, leaving only the latter as still unaccounted-for unknowns. So, thanks to the last few weeks, I now know much more about what I don't know. When the results are published, so can you.

As part of this exercise, I went ahead and prematurely compiled a Best Jazz Albums of 2024 file. (I didn't bother compiling the companion Best Non-Jazz list, because I didn't need it, and didn't want to bite off the extra work, least of all in maintenance -- indeed, I may not maintain the Jazz file until the need arises come November.) The most notable thing here is that the A-list has already reached 60 albums, whereas for recent full years, it has never grown beyond 87 albums. I can imagine three possible explanations for this bounty: this is a really great year for new jazz; I'm much better informed this year than ever before; and/or I'm growing soft and addled in my old age. Still, I've retained enough wits to discriminate between these 60 A/A- albums and 108 with B+(***) grades, and another 193 with lower grades. (Let's see: in 2023, that split was 85 A/A-, 225 B+(***), 532 lower, so comparing this year so far to last gives us: 70.5%, 48.0%, 36.2%.) So, sure, that's skewed pretty significantly. But I can't think of anything to do about it. The grading scale was never conceived of as a curve, and it's too late to change much now.

While working on the essay, I slowly pieced together a Speaking of Which, which wound up straddling the Republican Convention, Biden's withdrawal, and Kamala Harris's clinching of the Democratic nomination. The domestic politics did at least take my mind away from the international situation, which as far as I can tell is still very much out there -- especially the atrocities in and around Israel. One story I avoided was Netanyahu's speech to Congress. I thought the most telling moment there was when Biden praised and gave thanks to Joe Biden, and Republicans stood and applauded. Of course, it wasn't Biden they were applauding. Nor were they really showing how supplicant they are to Netanyahu (although they clearly are). They mostly relished how Netanyahu's embrace disgraced Biden and his administration. As I've noted many times before, the only time Republicans are up for a "bipartisan" deal is when they see it as a wedge between the Democratic leaders and their base. All of Washington may be in thrall to Israel, but it's not a good look for the self-anointed leaders of the free world.

Of course, I didn't really finish with last week, so next week's Speaking of Which will start as soon as this Music Week posts. And as I'm unlikely to be done on Sunday, next Music Week should again be delayed -- perhaps enough to give me most of a week (as long as I wrap up before the end of July, I'll be happy.) After that, I hope to slow down a bit, and take stock. I have lots of projects to work on around the house. I have some doctor stuff on tap. I also have a new website to think about. And I need to rethink the whole writing life. Besides, August is usually pretty miserable here in Wichita.

Meanwhile, a couple mid-year lists to check out:

New records reviewed this week:

أحمد [Ahmed]: Giant Beauty (2022 [2024], Fönstret, 5CD): Five more shows, each on its own disc each a single piece 44:15-49:40 long, from five consecutive nights in Stockholm (August 10-14, so after the April 2 Glasgow date on Wood Blues). Too intense to play straight through, possibly redundant if you're satisfied with Wood Blues, but something where you can just pick a disc at random when the mood strikes. A- [sp]

Alliance [Sharel Cassity/Colleen Clark]: Alliance (2024, Shifting Paradigm): Supposedly a group name, but two of the four women pictured on the cover are named in smaller print at the bottom: Cassity plays flute and alto/soprano sax, Clark drums, along with Hannah Meyer (piano) and Carmani Edwards (bass). A very sprightly hard bop outing. B+(**) [sp]

Beholder Quartet: Suspension of Disbelief (2024, Sachimay): Streaming sources list this as Beholder Trio, but cover says Quartet, as does a previous album -- a still earlier trio is simply credited to Beholder. Group of Dan DeChellis (piano), John Philip Tomasic (guitar), Jeffrey Slater (electric bass), and Zach Martin (drums). DeChellis has albums back to 1998, including a 1999 trio with Tomasic, and a later series of albums with avant saxophonist Gary Hassay. Very interesting album, even in the slow spots. A- [sp]

Oddgeir Berg Trio: A Place Called Home (2024, Ozella): Norwegian pianist, home is the island of Rolla, which is pretty far north, fifth trio album since 2018, with Audun Ramo (bass) and Lars Berntsen (drums). B+(*) [sp]

Isaiah Collier & the Chosen Few: The Almighty (2023 [2024], Division 81): Saxophonist, from Chicago, group is a quartet with piano-bass-drums, but aims higher, starting off with a gospelized Dee Alexander vocal, then a spiritual spot for Ari Brown. Three more tracks: more yearning, more vocals, more rafters-raising saxophone. B+(**) [sp]

Nick Dunston: Colla Voce (2022 [2024], Out of Your Head): Bassist, fifth album since 2019, also credit for "post-processing," on what is billed as "a warped narrative of sorts, hurtling from acoustic universe to electric universe, string to scream, raw to produced, New York to Berlin, and real to surreal." The strings and voices give it an air of opera, but very warped indeed, and I'd add, saved by the drums. B+(**) [cd]

Isabelle Duthoit & Franz Hautzinger: Dans le Morvan (2021 [2024], Relative Pitch): French clarinetist, also credited for voice (which is more like audible breathing), in a duo with the Austrian playing quarter tone trumpet. Second duo album, very sketchy. B+(*) [sp]

Nick Finzer: Legacy: A Centennial Celebration of JJ Johnson (2024, Outside In Music): Trombonist, eighth album since 2012, quartet with Renee Rosnes (piano), Rufus Reid (bass), and Lewis Nash (drums), all veterans of Johnson's 1980-90s groups. B+(***) [sp]

Gregory Groover Jr.: Lovabye (2023 [2024], Criss Cross): Tenor saxophonist, from Boston, name sounds like a smooth jazz alias (well, maybe not as much as Euge Groove), but he studied and teaches at Berklee, has his debut on a mainstream label, and lined up a batch of stars for backing: Joel Ross (vibes), Aaron Parks (piano), Vicente Archer (bass), Marcus Gilmore (drums) and Matthew Stevens (guitar on 3 tracks). B+(**) [sp]

Giovanni Guidi: A New Day (2023 [2024], ECM): Italian pianist, about a dozen albums since 2007, quartet here with James Brandon Lewis (tenor sax), Thomas Morgan (bass), and João Lobo (drums). He plays nicely, nowhere close to challenging his guest star, who nonetheless reveals that he'll probably make a great ballad album some day. B+(**) [sp]

Jo Harrop: The Path of a Tear (2024, Lateralize): British singer-songwriter, slotted jazz but not necessarily so, third album, has a nice feel and touch, and songs. B+(***) [sp]

Xaver Hellmeier: X-Man in New York (2022 [2023], Cellar Music): German drummer, based in Munich, but went to New York to study with Joe Farnsworth, which set him up for a first album recorded in Van Gelder Studios with what must be his dream band: Jeremy Pelt (trumpet), Eric Alexander (tenor sax), David Hazeltine (piano), and Peter Washington (bass). I've long admired that group (and Farnsworth), but it's been a while since they've put their skills to such inspired use. A- [sp]

اسم ISM [Pat Thomas/Joel Grip/Antonin Gerbal]: Maua (2022 [2024], 577): London-based piano-bass-drums trio, at least one previous album, they also form the core of the quartet known as [Ahmed]. Two pieces, the 41:15 title track, plus a 6:22 extra, with a very nice Bösendorfer grand that may have slowed the group down a bit, just to relish the sound. Title means "flowers" in Swahili. Not as dramatic as the [Ahmed] albums, but this should help Thomas get recognition as one of jazz's top-tier pianists. A- [dl]

Tobias Klein/Frank Rosaly/Maria Warelis: Tendresse (2022 [2024], Relative Pitch): Bass/contrabass clarinetist, originally from Germany (Saarbrücken), based in Netherlands, not much as leader but side credits since 1997 (most often in the group Spinifex). Backed here with drums and piano. B+(**) [sp]

Christian McBride/Edgar Meyer: But Who's Gonna Play the Melody? (2024, Mack Avenue): Bass duo, with each musician switching to piano for two tracks. McBride is probably the most famous jazz bassist of his generation, but I had to look Meyer up: 12 years older, from Tennessee, has a distinguished career in classical music, but also ventures into bluegrass with Mark O'Connor, Béla Fleck, and Chris Thile. Often engaging, but kind of self-limiting. B+(*) [sp]

The New Wonders: Steppin' Out (2024, Turtle Bay): Trad jazz septet, led by Mike Davis, who plays cornet, sings, and composed or arranged everything. Second album. B+(***) [sp]

Carlos Niño & Friends: Placenta (2022-23 [2024], |International Anthem): Based in Los Angeles, "an internationally celebrated producer, arranger, composer, musician, radio host, DJ, music consultant, writer, poet, and event organizer," "involved in the production of more than 100 records," although the only groups I recognize are Build an Ark and Hu Vibrational, and they're both a tad obscure. Fourth group album on this label -- Discogs shows earlier ones back to 2009 -- a sprawling (77:07) jumble of synths, flute (André 3000), horns, rhythm, voices. B [sp]

Omawi [Marta Warelis/Onno Govaert/Wilbert De Joode]: Waive (2023, Relative Pitch): Piano-drums-bass trio, fairly abstract in an intimate framework. B+(**) [sp]

Hery Paz: River Creatures (2023 [2024], Porta Jazz): Tenor saxophonist, from Cuba, second album, trio with Nate Wooley (trumpet) and Tom Rainey (drums). B+(***) [sp]

Frank Paul Schubert/Michel Pilz/Stefan Scheib/Klaus Kugel: Live at FreeJazz Saar 2019 (2019 [2024], Nemu): German free jazz saxophonist (alto/soprano), a couple dozen albums since 2005, here in a group with bass clarinet, bass, and drums, joint improv on a piece called "Where Is Charles?" -- no answer or further explanation offered, not that any is needed. B+(***) [cd]

SML: Small Medium Large (2022-23 [2024], International Anthem): Quintet of Anna Butterss (electric bass), Jeremiah Chiu (synths), Josh Johnson (sax/electronics), Booker Stardrum (drums), and Gregory Uhlmann (guitar), pieced this together from four sets of improv, with an ear toward finding an irresistible groove. B+(***) [sp]

Space: Embrace the Space (2024, Relative Pitch): Swedish piano-bass-drums trio, Lisa Ullén, Elsa Bergman, and Anna Lund. Second album, improv pieces, pretty tight. B+(***) [sp]

Natsuki Tamura/Satoko Fujii: Aloft (2023 [2024], Libra): Trumpet and piano duo, husband and wife, many records together (mostly in larger groups, all the way to big bands), but this is the basic mix, and very striking when they grab your attention. B+(***) [cd]

Terton [Louie Belogenis/Trevor Dunn/Ryan Sawyer]: Outer, Inner, Secret (2023 [2024], Tzadik): Tenor/soprano sax, bass, drums trio. B+(***) [sp]

Marta Warelis/Andy Moor: Escape (2022 [2024], Relative Pitch): Polish pianist, has been making the rounds since 2017, here a duo with one of the Ex guitarists. B+(**) [sp]

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:

Cannonball Adderley: Burnin' in Bordeaux: Live in France 1969 (1969 [2024], Elemental Music): Alto saxophonist, a hard bopper who actually scored some crossover r&b hits, probably did his best work in the late 1950s, but had a strong series of albums with Riverside in the early 1960s, more mixed results later on with Capitol, before he died at 46 in 1975. So this is rather late in his career, a quintet with his brother Nate Adderley on trumpet, Joe Zawinul on keyboards, Victor Gaskin on bass, and Roy McCurdy on drums. A solid but not exceptional set, in a very nice package. B+(**) [cd]

Cannonball Adderley: Poppin' in Paris: Live at L'Olympia 1972 (1972 [2024], Elemental Music): A bit later, after Joe Zawinul left for Weather Report, with George Duke adding some funk on keyboads, Walter Booker the new bassist, Ray McCurdy back on drums, and brother Nat the stand out on cornet. B+(***) [cd]

Atrás del Cosmos: Cold Drinks, Hot Dreams (1980 [2024], Blank Forms Editions): Reportedly the first free jazz group to come out of Mexico, but not much known about they: this reissue is their only album in Discogs (which doesn't have the original), nor is there much evidence of members Ana Ruíz (piano), Henry West (sax), Evry Mann (drums), or Claudio Enriquez (bass). Opens with heavy piano (think Cecil Taylor), adds in the sax, then evolves into their own milieu. A- [sp]

Charlie Mariano: Boppin' in Boston 1947-1953 (1947-53 [2024], Fresh Sound, 2CD): Alto saxophonist (1923-2009) from Boston, a remarkably fluid player, was very quick to jump on the bebop bandwagon -- much quicker than the bands he played in early, judging from the opening tracks here. Digital breaks this into two volumes, the first ending with a Jan. 27, 1953 session, the second from later that year, a bit more consistent. B+(**) [sp]

Gerry Mulligan: Night Lights (1962 [2024], Philip): Baritone saxophonist, in a laid back mood with Art Farmer (flugelhorn), Bob Brookmeyer (valve trombone), Jim Hall (guitar), bass, and drums. B+(*) [sp]

The Oscar Pettiford Memorial Concert (1960 [2024], SteepleChase): A concert organized in Copenhagen shortly after the bassist's death at 37, features a number of local acts -- Erik Mosenholm Trio, Max BrÜel Quartet, Bengt Hallberg Trio (plus Alice Babs), Jazz Quintet '60 (with Svend Asmussen on violin), Louis Hjulmand Quartet -- finishing with Stan Getz (backed by Hallberg's Trio). Nice evening. B+(*) [sp]

Old music:

Beholder: Claim No Native Land (2017, Sachimay): Trio of Dan DeChellis (piano), Philip Tomasic (guitar/loops/effects), and Zack Martin (drums/electronics), seems to be their first album, nothing in Discogs on any of the group albums, although DeChellis and Tomasic had a trio album with a different drummer in 1999, and Tomasic had a solo guitar album the same year. B+(*) [sp]

Beholder: The Cicada Sessions (2022, Sachimay): Again, no doc here, other than same trio lineup, more varied, ends a bit ambient. B+(**) [sp]

Beholder Quartet: Omni Present (2023, Sachimay, EP): The piano-guitar-drums trio expands a bit, adding Jeffrey Slater on electric bass. Just a proof-of-concept 15:52 single. B+(*) [sp]

اسم ISM [Pat Thomas/Joel Grip/Antonin Gerbal]: Nature in Its Inscrutability Strikes Back (2014 [2015], Café Oto): British piano-bass-drums trio, the full significance of its iconography way beyond me. Three pieces, 62:47. B+(***) [sp]

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

  • Cannonball Adderley: Burnin' in Bordeaux: Live in France 1969 (Elemental Music) [04-26]
  • Cannonball Adderley: Poppin' in Paris: Live at L'Olympia 1972 (Elemental Music) [04-26]
  • Livia Almeida: The Brasilia Sessions (Zoho) [07-19]
  • Orrin Evans and the Captain Black Big Band: Walk a Mile in My Shoe (Imani) * [08-12]
  • Richard Guba: Songs for Stuffed Animals (self-released) [06-06]
  • Joel Harrison & Alternative Guitar Summit: The Middle of Everywhere: Guitar Solos Vol. I (AGS) [07-24]
  • Jason Kao Hwang: Soliloquies: Unaccompanied Pizzicato Violin Improvisations (True Sound) (09-15]
  • Lux Quartet: Tomorrowland (Enja/Yellowbird) [08-09[
  • Rose Mallett: Dreams Realized (Carrie-On Productions) [09-01]
  • Shelly Manne & His Men: Jazz From the Pacific Northwest (1958-66, Reel to Real) [04-20]
  • Brother Jack McDuff: Ain't No Sunshine: Live in Seattle (1972, Reel to Real) [05-17]
  • Terence McManus: Music for Chamber Trio (Rowhouse Music) [09-24]
  • Jason Stein: Anchors (Tao Forms) [09-13]

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Wednesday, July 24, 2024

Speaking of Which

Big breaking news this week was the end of Joe Biden's campaign for a second term as president. This became public on Sunday, July 20. I started collecting bits for this post back on Thursday, July 18, and in the intervening days I collected a fair number of pieces on the arguments for Biden to withdraw. I've kept those pieces below (and may even add to them), while splitting the section on Biden, and adding one on Kamala Harris, who as Vice-President and as Biden's running mate is the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination.

Biden won all of the primaries, so an overwhelming majority of DNC voters were selected and pledged to Biden (and implicitly to Harris). Biden has endorsed Harris. And most of the people who put pressure on Biden to withdraw did so realizing that Harris would be his most obvious replacement. Opposition to Biden was almost never rooted in rejection of his policies or legacy. (Critics of Biden's deaf, blind and dumb support for Netanyahu's genocide may beg to differ, but they had little if any clout within the party powers who turned on Biden. Nor do Israel's supporters have any real reason to fear that Harris will turn on them.)

I originally meant to start this post with a bit from a letter I wrote back on Thursday [07-18], which summed up my views on Biden's candidacy at the time:

For what little it's worth, here's my nutshell take on Biden:

  1. If he can't get control of the wars in Ukraine and Gaza by early October, he's going to lose, no matter what else happens. For people who don't understand them, they're bad vibes, so why not blame the guy who was in position to do something about them. That may be unfair, but that's what uninformed voters do. And if you do understand them (which I think I do), Biden doesn't look so good either. He sees Ukraine as a test of resolve, and Israel as a test of loyalty, and those views are not just wrong, they kick in his most primitive instincts.

  2. Otherwise, the election will go to whichever side is most effective at making the election into a referendum on the other side. That should be easy when the other side is Trump, but it gets real hard when most media cycles focus on your age and/or decrepitude. That story is locked in, and isn't going away. When your "good news" is "Biden reads from teleprompter and doesn't fumble," you've lost.

  3. Even if Trump's negatives are so overwhelming that even Biden, incapacitated as he is, beats him (and surely it wouldn't be by enough to shut Trump up), do we really want four more years of this?

As of early Tuesday evening, I'm still preoccupied with trying to wrap up my jazz critics poll. I expect to mail that I will get that mailed in tonight, and hope that I may wrap this up as well, with the by-now-usual proviso that I may add more the next day, but certainly will have lots to return to next week.

As of late Wednesday evening, I figure I should call it a week. I still haven't gotten to everything, but I've deliberately skipped anything on the Netanyahu speech to Congress, and various other pieces of late-breaking news (including recent campaign rallies by Trump, which I overheard some of, and by Harris, which I gather was much more fun. If I do grab something more while working on Music Week, I'll flag it as usual. Otherwise, there's always next week.

One half-baked thought I will go ahead and throw out there is this: maybe this was the plan all along? I know it's hard to credit the Democratic Party insiders with devising much less executing such a clever plan. But if you wanted to get to where we are now, it's not that hard to imagine. If Biden hadn't run, Harris would have been his probable successor, but not without a bruising and potentially divisive primary fight. Biden's reelection campaign kept that from happening -- and to make extra sure, scotching the Iowa caucuses and New Hampshire primary eliminated the two best opportunities potential opponents might gamble on. Biden wound up with an overwhelming majority of delegates locked in, and predisposed to Harris as his successor.

Biden's presumptive nomination also gave cover to Trump, who never had to face the age questions that dogged the slightly older Biden. Then Biden tanks the debate, which gives Trump a huge psychological boost, but drags out his withdrawal until after Trump's nomination becomes official. By the time he does announce, all the ducks are lined up for Harris, cemented by the record-breaking cash haul. No one will run against her, and all Democrats will unite behind her. It's not a very good example of democracy in action, but it's clean and final, and she enters the campaign against Trump with few wounds and very little baggage.

On the other hand, Trump, despite all the optimism he brought into the RNC just last week, has tons of debilitating baggage -- to which he's already added his "best people" VP pick, J.D. Vance. I've said all along that the winner will be the one who does the best job of making the election into an opportunity for the people to rid themselves of the other candidate. The odds of Trump being the one we most want to dispose of just went way up.

Make no mistake, there is something profoundly wrong with our democracy, and it goes way beyond gerrymanders and registration scheming. It mostly has to do with the obscene influence of money not just on who can run in elections and what they can campaign on, but also on what whoever manages to get elected can or cannot do with their post. This influence goes way back, and runs very deep, but it's pretty clear that it's gotten significantly worse over the last several decades, as income and wealth have become much more unequally distributed.

We are, of course, fortunate that not everyone with great sums of money wishes to harm most of us. It's mostly just Republicans who want to drive us to ruin, and who surely will if we allow them the power to do so. (The Supreme Court is one place where they already have that power, and it is already providing us with a steady stream of examples of how "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Rich Democrats may be every bit as self-interested and egocentric as rich Republicans, but at least they can see that government needs to work reasonably well for everyone, and not just for the rich at everyone else's expense. They understand things that Republicans have turned against: that life is not a zero-sum game (so you don't have to inflict losses in order to gain); that security is only possible if people sense that justice prevails; and that no matter how much wealth and power you gain, you still depend on other people who need to be able to trust you.

Perhaps you can and should trust rich Democrats in times of severe crisis, such as in this election. Today's Republican Party, with or without Trump, is threat enough. But know that those same rich Democrats don't trust you to make decisions they can support, which is why they hijacked the 2020 primaries to stop Sanders with Biden, and why they've micromanaged the 2024 process to give your nomination to Harris. And actually, I'm strangely OK with that.

Top story threads:

Israel:

America's Israel (and Israel's America):

Israel vs. world opinion:

Election notes:

  • Jeffrey St Clair: [07-19] Politics on the verge of nervous breakdown. This starts with the most detailed and credible account of the Trump rally shooting I've bothered to read, ranges wide enough to include a picture of Mussolini with a nose bandage after a 1926 assassination attempt, then moves on to Biden (pre-withdrawal), compares his tenure to that of Stalin and Brezhnev, doubles back to J.D. Vance, and winds up with a potpourri of scattered points, like:

    • As if to emphasize their indifference to the victims of the shooting, they're having an AR-15 giveaway at the GOP convention . . .

    • Days after a 20-year-old tried to nail Trump with an AR-15, a federal appeals court ruled that Minnesota's law requiring people to be at least 21 to carry a handgun in public is unconstitutional.

    • While the Democrats -- for some reason comprehensible only to Democrats -- have "paused" fundraising after the failed assassination attempt, a Trump-owned company is selling sneakers for $299 a pair with an image of his bloodied face after the rally shooting . . .

Republican National Convention:

Focus on the Convention here. Articles that focus on Trump and Vance, even at the convention, follow in their own sections.

Trump:

  • New York Times Opinion: Donald Trump's first term is a warning. This looks like they finally went back and reviewed their own reporting, and belatedly realized, oh my God, how could we just let all this happen?

    This week, Republicans have tried to rewrite the four years of Trump's presidency as a time of unparalleled peace, prosperity and tranquility: "the strongest economy in history," as Senator Katie Britt of Alabama put it. The difference between Trump and Biden? "President Trump honored the Constitution," said Gov. Kristi Noem of South Dakota. Gov. Glenn Youngkin of Virginia offered Mr. Trump's first term as an example of "common-sense conservative leadership."

    The record of what Mr. Trump actually did in office bears little resemblance to that description. Under his leadership, the country lurched from one crisis to the next, from the migrant families separated at the border to the sudden spike in prices caused by his trade war with China to the reckless mismanagement of the Covid pandemic. And he showed, over and over, how little respect he has for the Constitution and those who take an oath to defend it.

    For Americans who may have forgotten that time, or pushed it from memory, we offer this timeline of his presidency. Mr. Trump's first term was a warning about what he will do with the power of his office -- unless American voters reject him.

    The timeline is mostly told through pictures, which are often shocking, and tweets, which are mostly stupid. One thing I was especially struck by was the prominence given to Trump's catering to the whims and desires of the right-wing in Israel, while still neglecting to point out their direct bearing on increasing hostilities and the ongoing genocide. Also seems to me like there's too much focus on Trump's national security lapses, which caters to the worst instincts of the so-called Security Democrats, when the real problem with Trump is not lack of vigilance but a general disinterest and even contempt for peace and real democracy.

    I expect this timeline will be recut into campaign commercials, fast and furious, driving home the point that Trump is nothing but trouble.

  • Anna Betts: [07-25] FBI director questions whether Trump was hit by bullet or shrapnel in shooting.

  • Jonathan Blitzer: [07-15] Inside the Trump plan for 2025: "A network of well-funded far-right activists is preparing for the former President's return to the White House."

  • Jonathan Chait:

    • [07-17] Trump invites China to invade Taiwan if he returns to office. Given all the credible charges you could lay at Trump, why bother with this bullshit? Trump has this dangerously stupid idea that if he can scare Taiwan, they'll pony up for more US arms and bribes for security. China's just the bogeyman in this scam. Chait has his own dangerously stupid idea here, which is that American deterrence is the only thing keeping China out of Taiwan. I'm not saying that Taiwan has nothing to worry about, but they do have more control over their own predicament than the ridiculous whims of presidents and pundits.

    • [07-19] Donald Trump cannot even pretend to change who he is.

  • John Ganz: [06-05] The shadow of the mob: "Trump's gangster Gemeinschaft."

  • Jay Caspian Kang: [07-19] Are we already moving on from the assassination attempt on Trump? "When an act of violence doesn't lend itself to a clear argument or a tidy story, we often choose not to think about it."

  • Ed Kilgore: [07-19] The old, ranting, rambling Trump was back at the Republican convention.

  • Eric Levitz: [07-19] The RNC clarified Trump's 2024 persona: Moderate authoritarian weirdo: "The Trump campaign is at once a savvy, disciplined operation and an illiberal narcissist's personality cult." Weirdo, sure, but considered in light of the whole package, weirdo loses all of its affectionate and amusing traits. "Moderate" is the word that hurts here, like a toenail cut into the quick. On some political policy scales, Trump may rate as more moderate than many other prominent Republicans (off the top of my head: Abbott, DeSantis, Cruz, Rubio, Cotton, Hawley, Vance, Gosar, Gaetz, Mike Lee, Nikki Haley, Liz Cheney), but every bit of his persona screams extremism -- he sees himself as a real fighter, as one real bad dude, and that's how he wants you to see him. That's the act he puts on, and that's what most of his fans are lapping up. Once you see that, the weirdo stuff falls into place, and should be viewed much more harshly: he's showing you that he doesn't care what others think, that he can be as weird as he wants, and there's nothing they can do about it.

  • Chris Lewis: [07-15] The dangerous authoritarian gunning to serve as Trump's grand vizier: "Russell Vought is rumored to be under consideration for chief of staff in a second Trump administration. This would be a disaster."

  • Nicole Narea: [07-17] Why tech titans are turning toward Trump: "Silicon Valley isn't right-wing, but its Trump supporters are getting louder."

  • Tom Nichols: A searing reminder that Trump is unwell: "His bizarre diatribe at the RNC shows why the pro-democracy coalition is so worried about beating him."

  • Matt Stieb:

  • Robert Tait: [07-25] Trump monetizes assassination attempt by using photo as book cover.

  • Maureen Tkacik: [07-18] The assassin amid the undesirables: "On the abiding despair of the failed Trump assassin's post-COVID, private equity-looted nursing home."

  • Li Zhou: [07-16] The Trump shooting points to shocking Secret Service security lapses.

Vance:

Trump picked Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance as his running mate and potential vice-president, confirmed by the RNC, so he's very much in the news, and for this week at least, elicited quite a bit of response: much more than I suspect any of his competition would have generated.

  • Alex Abad-Santos: [07-19] The damsel-ification of Usha Vance: "What people project onto the would-be second lady fits a pattern of benevolent sexism about GOP wives."

  • Michael Arria: [07-16] The Shift: J.D. Vance's anti-Palestine record: "J.D. Vance is a strong supporter of Israel, and, like many U.S. Zionists, he attributes the allegiance to his Christianity."

  • Aaron Blake: [07-24] Could Republicans get buyer's remorse with J.D. Vance? "New polls show him to be unusually unpopular for a new VP pick. Here's how that compares historically, and what it could mean."

  • Ben Burgis: [07-16] On stochastic terrorism and speech as violence: Responding to Vance's tweet blaming Biden for the attempted shooting of Trump:

    In effect, conservatives like Vance are appropriating the idea, long put forward by some liberals, that overheated political rhetoric is itself a form of violence. The theory of "stochastic terrorism" holds that over-the-top rhetoric about a targeted individual or group has the effect of encouraging "lone-wolf" political violence -- that is to say, political violence carried out by individuals on their own initiative rather than terrorist organizations -- and that this makes the purveyors of the rhetoric responsible for the violence.

    Actually, the right is far more likely to employ verbal threats and agitation toward violence than the left is, largely because they're much more into violence as a tool of political power. It's hard not to believe that the atmosphere of malice they create has no relationship to occasional violent outbursts, but causality or even responsibility is hard to pin down. Burgis concludes, "let's not go down that road." But Vance is so imbued with the culture of violence that his own charge can just as easily be taken as encouragement for his "2nd amendment people" to take a shot at Biden. When Democrats criticize Trump, their obvious even if just implcit remedy is the ballot. But when Trump rails against "vermin," just what is he imploring his followers to do? And given that a couple of his follows have actually committed acts of criminal violence against his designated enemies, shouldn't we be alarmed at such speech?

  • Kevin T Dugan: [07-18] Why J.D. Vance wants a weak dollar. Is that a good idea? I'm not so sure it isn't. I've been bothered by trade deficits since the 1970s, when they mostly started to cover up the drop in domestic oil production. Since then, they've mostly worked to increase inequality both here and abroad.

  • Gil Duran: Where J.D. Vance gets his weird, terrifying techo-authoritarian ideas: "Yes, Peter Thiel was the senator's benefactor. But they're both inspired by an obscure software developer who has some truly frightening thoughts about reordering society."

  • Thom Hartmann:

  • John Ganz: [07-16] The meaning of JD Vance: "The politics of national despair incarnate."

    Vance himself, of course, is a winner in the cultural sweepstakes: his Hillbilly Elegy became a massive success, explaining the failures of the white poor. He made it okay to look down on them. After all, one of them said it was okay. Conservatives who reviled Trump's base turned to Vance as well as liberals who condescendingly wanted to "understand" them. It was really the same old conservative nonsense about "cultural pathology" applied to whites now instead of blacks -- a way to blame the poor for being poor, to "racialize" the white poor as the blacks had been; to find in them intrinsic moral weaknesses rather than just a lack of money and resources.

    But Vance always wanted to run with hares and hunt with the hounds. He wants to hold fast to the his wounded Scots-Irish machismo while simultaneously rising to heights of both American capitalism and cultural success. He took his background to be both an advantage and a handicap, a counter-snobbery that served him well as he entered the halls of power and wealth. Look back at the famous American Conservative interview that turned him into a sensation: ". . . the deeper I get into elite culture, the more I see value in this reverse snobbery. It's the great privilege of my life that I'm deep enough into the American elite that I can indulge a little anti-elitism. Like I said, it keeps you grounded, if nothing else! But it would have been incredibly destructive to indulge too much of it when I was 18." . . . Reverse snobbery, like all snobbery, comes from comparison, of a feeling of not living up, of wanting to best others. As Peter Thiel acolyte, he's familiar with René Girard's theories of envy and knows how that emotion gives rise to hate. Vance once said that Trump might be "America's Hitler" to a law school buddy. This is what that friend says now: "The through line between former J.D. and current J.D. is anger . . . The Trump turn can be understood as a lock-in on contempt as the answer to anger . . ." To people like that, Hitler, so to speak, has a point.

  • Jacob Heilbrunn: [07-17] With Vance selection, Trump doubles down on America first. One can readily fault Vance for lots of things, but calling him an "isolationist" -- "the heir to Charles Lindbergh, Pat Buchanan, and other GOP isolationists" -- is pretty flimsy.

  • Sarah Jones: [07-16] The billionaire and the bootlicker.

  • Ed Kilgore: [07-18] Who is J.D. Vance? His muddled RNC speech didn't tell us.

  • Paul Krugman: [07-18] J.D. Vance puts the con in conservatism. Well, it's always been there, but he takes it to especially extravagant lengths.

  • Eric Levitz: [07-17] J.D. Vance's GOP is for bosses, not workers: "Trump's 'populist' running mate won't change his party's class allegiances."

  • Nicholas Liu: [07-18] JD Vance wants to abandon Ukraine but bomb Mexico and Iran.

  • Ryan Mac/Theodore Schleifer: [07-17] How a network of tech billionaires helped J.D. Vance leap into power: "Mr. Vance spent less than five years in Silicon Valley's tech industry, but the connections he made with Peter Thiel and others became crucial to his political ascent."

  • Arwa Mahdawi: [07-20] Sorry, JD Vance, but being a 'childless cat lady' is actually not a bad thing.

  • Andrew Prokop: [07-17] J.D. Vance's radical plan to build a government of Trump loyalists: "Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people." Obviously, this isn't original with Vance. Republicans have been dreaming of this for years, and Trump did a fair amount of it during his first term -- especially in purging employees who think there might be something to fossil fuel-based climate change. It was part of Rick Scott's Senate plan, and is part of Project 2025.

  • Max Read: [2020-07-21] Peter Thiel's latest venture is the American government: This old article popped up, but should by now have spawned many updates. My view all along was that Trump was putting the VP slot up for bids -- in effect, he was shopping for the best dowry. Burgum made the short list because he has his own money. The rehabilitation of "Little Marco" also suggested that he brought some serious money into play -- every serious Republican candidate in 2016 had some kind of billionaire in the wings. (In 2012, Newt Gingrich griped that he couldn't compete, because he only had one billionaire, whereas Romney had four.) I don't know who was backing Rubio, but J.D. Vance was always a front for this guy, Peter Thiel.

  • Veronica Riccobene/Helen Santoro/Joel Warner: [07-16] J.D. Vance wants to crack down harder on abortion access.

  • Becca Rothfeld: [07-23] Hillbilly Elegy and J.D. Vance's art of having it both ways.

  • Martin Scotten: [07-22] JD Vance owes almost everything to Peter Thiel, a pro-Trump billionaire and "New Right" ideologue.

  • Ishaan Tharoor:

  • Benjamin Wallace-Wells: [07-15] Why Donald Trump picked J.D. Vance for Vice-President: "The Ohio senator is an attack dog for the former President, but he is also something more emergent and interesting: he is the fuse that Trump lit."

  • Robert Wright: [07-19] J.D. Vance, the tech oligarch's populist.

  • Simon van Zuylen-Wood: [07-24] Democrats might want to take J.D. Vance seriously: But isn't it so much more fun to take him as a joke? Does he really deserve anything else?

And other Republicans:

  • Dean Baker: [07-17] Decision 2024: Would people be willing to pay higher taxes to make Elon Musk richer?

    That is a question that should occur to people who read through the Republican Party's platform. Not only does the platform promise to extend the 2017 tax cuts, which will potentially put tens of billions of dollars in Elon Musk's pocket over the next decade, it also promises to "modernize the military."

    "Republicans will ensure our Military is the most modern, lethal and powerful Force in the World. We will invest in cutting-edge research and advanced technologies, including an Iron Dome Missile Defense Shield, support our Troops with higher pay, and get woke Leftwing Democrats fired as soon as possible."

    This looks to be hundreds of billions or even trillions of dollars in additional spending over the next decade. Elon Musk, among others, is likely to be well-situated to get some of the contracts that will be involved in modernizing the military. . . .

    As far as how much Musk and other military contractors are likely to get out of an increase in spending, it is worth noting that excessive payments and outright fraud are already big problems with military contracting. However, the problem is likely to get considerably worse in a second Trump administration.

    There are a number of potential checks on fraud and abuse in place at present. These include the Defense Department's Inspector General, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Justice Department, which can investigate allegations of fraud.

    Donald Trump has said that he wants to remove these sorts of checks on his presidential power. They would all fit into his category of the "deep state." These people are likely the "woke Leftwing Democrats" who the platform promises to fire as soon as possible.

  • Zack Beauchamp: [07-19] It's Trump's party now. Mostly. "How the Trumpified GOP resembles Frankenstein's monster."

  • Tim Dickinson: [06-09] Meet Trump's new Christian kingpin: "Oil-rich Tim Dunn has changed Texas politics with fanatical zeal -- the national stage is next."

  • Abdallah Fayyad: [07-16] The crime wave is over but Republicans can't let go: "The GOP is still pretending that crime is spiraling out of control."

  • David Frum: This crew is totally beatable: "Democrats just need to believe they can do it."

  • Sarah Jones: [07-18] The GOP is still the party of the boss.

  • Christian Paz: [07-16] The clever politics of Republicans' anti-immigrant pitch: "The Republican National Convention featured plenty of angry rhetoric about immigration. It might find a receptive audience."

  • Nikki McCann Ramirez/Ryan Bort: [07-10] A guide to Project 2025, the right's terrifying plan to remake America.

Biden:

He announced he was withdrawing as the Democratic candidate for president in 2024 on Sunday, July 21, so the following links can be easily divided into before and after sections. More recent links first:

I had already collected a bunch of links before the withdrawal. While this should be a moot issue going forward, we shouldn't forget too readily what happened and why.

  • Intelligencer: [07-19] Pressure builds as more Democrats call on Biden to step aside: "Here are the latest developments on the efforts to get Joe to go." Following some earlier reports scattered about this section, he's getting the "live updates" treatment.

  • Russell Berman: 'I think it's happening': "The lone senator who has called on Biden to withdraw is growing confident that the president will leave the race."

  • Jonathan Chait: [07-18] The presidential nomination is becoming worthless for Joe Biden: "A devastating polling nugget shows what happens if he stays in."

  • David A Graham: [07-18] The end of Biden's candidacy approaches: "At the start of the day yesterday, it was conceivable that Joe Biden might manage to hold on to the Democratic nomination for president. But this morning, things seem to be slipping out of his grasp." He cites a number of reports of people who are close enough to Biden to have leverage but who still don't want to be seen with blood on their hands. There's also the all-important fear of "money drying up." The big selling point is fear of a Trump presidency, but if you're rich enough to splurge on politics, you don't have that much to fear. It's more a matter of hedging your bets.

  • Elie Honig: [07-19] The secret Biden tape that we shouldn't hear. That's special counsel Robert Hur's interview of Biden in conjunction with the "top secret" documents Biden found in his garage. At the time it was first disclosed, it was reported that the tape made Biden out like a doddering fool, so naturally Republicans in Congress set out to subpoena it.

  • Dhruv Khullar: [07-18] Doctors are increasingly worried about Biden: "Nine physicians weighed in on the President's health. Almost all were concerned that Biden's symptoms might go beyond a gradual, aging-related decline."

  • Eric Levitz: [07-18] Democrats are finally taking on Biden -- and giving the party a chance to win: "Pelosi, Schumer, and Obama have all signaled to Joe that it's time to go."

  • Nicole Narea: [07-18] Biden is betting on impossible promises to progressives: "Biden is trying to reinvigorate his candidacy by pushing progressive priorities." That might work better if the left had any real power in the Democratic Party, if Biden had the power to deliver, and if the promise didn't panic the corporate faction into dumping him.

  • Nia Prater: [07-18] The push to replace Biden is rapidly gaining momentum.

Harris:

  • Intelligencer Staff: [07-22] Kamala Harris is now the presumptive nominee: live updates: She cleared 2,579 delegates less than 36 hours after Biden dropped out and endorsed her.

  • Mariana Alfaro/Marianna Sotomayor: [07-24] House GOP leaders ask member to stop making racial attacks against Harris. Probably more where this came from:

  • Michael Arria: [07-22] Looking at Kamala Harris's record on Israel: "If elected president, many believe that Kamala Harris will continue Joe Biden's doomed policy in Gaza."

  • Karen Attiah: [07-24] The first clean-up job for Harris is Biden's horrible Gaza policy. I sympathize with the sentiment, but I don't see the political angle. The Biden administration needs to quietly shut the Gaza war down, with a stable ceasefire, with no Israeli troop presence in Gaza, and with some kind of international salvage/reconstruction effort, probably under the UN with some contingent of Arab volunteers. Harris should (and hopefully can) work behind the scenes to firm up the administration's resolve to do this, but also shouldn't be seen as getting her hands too dirty in the effort. She needs this, because if the war/genocide is still continuing in October, that's going to reflect very badly on Biden, and therefore (but probably somewhat less) on her. So yes, this is important. But advice like this -- Indigo Olivier: Kamala, denounce Netanyahu. Do it now. -- is neither likely to work on Israel, nor is it likely to gain her any voters.

  • Ryan Cooper: [07-23] What would President Harris do with Gaza?: "There are tentative signs that she would not indulge Israel's war as President Biden has done." This is pretty speculative. No one expects Harris to break with Israel, or even to rethink the fundamentals of the alliance, but it's possible to love Israel and still exercise some restraint to steer Israelis away from embarrassing themselves, as they have done ever since their defense against Hamas attacks turned into a campaign of genocide. Indeed, many Israelis -- not Netanyahu and his allies, who will take every atrocity they can get away with, but many of his wholeheartedly Zionist opponents -- expect the US to act as a brake on their own worst impulses. It is worth noting that when the Biden administration briefly held up supply of 2000 lb. bombs, Harris was disciplined enough to keep her messaging in line with the policy, while Biden waffled and gave up any pretense.

  • David Dayen: [07-23] Who is Kamala Harris? "The vice president has been a cautious political operator. Her vision for the future points in several directions."

  • Benjamin Hart: [07-24] Kamala Harris's biographer says she's always been underestimated. Interview with Dan Morain, author of Kamala's Way: An American Life.

  • Susan Milligan: [07-24] Sexism and racism only make Kamala Harris stronger.

  • Christian Paz: [07-18] Kamala Harris and the border: The myth and the facts.

  • Greg Sargent: [07-23] Fox News's awful new Kamala Harris smears hit nuclear levels of idiocy: "As right-wing media scramble for an effective attack on the vice president, a reporter who has closely examined Harris's career explains why her political identity is so hard to pin down."

  • Michael Scherer/Gerrit De Vynck/Maeve Reston: [07-23] Historic flood of cash pours into Harris campaign and allied groups: "Democrats reported raising more than $250 million since Biden announced he was leaving the presidential race and endorsed Harris."

  • Marc A Thiessen: [07-24] Harris is a gaffe-prone leftist. Why didn't anyone challenge her? "That would-be rivals are waiting for 2028 suggests they know our democracy will survive Trump." When I saw this title, I had to click on it, just to see who could be that dumb (although in retrospect I should have guessed). If you do bother to read this, you'll get a prevue of all the angles Republicans will use against Harris. If I knew nothing else, I'd take them as reason aplenty to vote for her. Still, I have to wonder whether the rest of the Republicans will even rise to Thiessen's level of sophistry. Consider this recent run of advice-giving columns:

  • Rebecca Traister: [07-24] The thrill of taking a huge risk on Kamala Harris: "The actual case for being unburdened by what has been." I think the author is really onto something here:

    None of us knows if we can do this. And we are about to do it anyway. And the combination of those truths helped me, in those vertiginous few minutes, to not feel panic but excitement. I felt excited about the future for the first time in years.

    More than that: I felt excited not in spite of my uncertainty, but because of it. I felt that our national political narrative was finally accurately mirroring our national reality: Everything is scary, we have never been here before, we don't know if we can do this, and precisely because these stakes are so high, we are at last going to act like it, by taking unprecedented, untested, underpolled, creative measures to change, grow, and fight at a pitch that meets the gravity of the urgent, existentially important task in front of us. No more clinging to the walls of the past for safety, no more adhering to models or traditions or assumptions that the autocratic opposition has shown itself willing to explode over the past two decades in its own efforts to win.

    Our aversion to uncertainty is part of how we got to this precipice. Too unwilling to take risks -- on people, ideas, and platforms, on the next generation of leadership -- Democrats have remained chained to the past.

    In some ways, Harris is the safe choice right now, but after Biden and Clinton, she doesn't feel like such a stale, stodgy compromise. She feels like a candidate who can fight back, who won't spend the next four months backpedaling and disclaiming. And why can't she win? Who really believes racist, sexist, red-baiting Republicans theses days? Just cowards who take their clues from the fear and shame of those being maligned? Traister addresses this here:

    There are certainly terrible things in store: the racism and sexism Harris will face, the monstrous and vengeful resistance to her rise, in which she will be accused of incompetence and radicalism and being an affirmative-action token and a barren cat lady and a welfare queen who has slept her way to the top, all according to the right's overfamiliar playbooks for how to discredit people they would rather not participate fully in this democracy and helped by a media happy to engage in double standards. We know there will be bad polls and gaffes. And those who feel scared about what is on the line, including possibly me, will be tempted to say, "I told you this would happen!" because in our moments of direst discomfort we take slim consolation in certainty, even when the certainty is about how awful we knew everything was going to be.

    But if we permitted that dismal comfort to guide us, we would not have any space to be shocked and inspired by how good some things can be: the giddy memes emerging from an improbably enthused online left, the cheerily halved "BIDEN/HARRIS" yard signs now reading simply "HARRIS." The $81 million in donations raised in 24 hours. The 58,000 volunteers who stepped up in less than two days to work phones and knock doors. The Sunday-night zoom call hosted by Win With Black Women and Jotaka Eaddy, which was scheduled to accommodate 1,000 women, that eventually had to make room for 44,000 participants, all within hours of Harris becoming the unofficial candidate. The next night, a call organized by Win With Black Men drew 53,000 registrants, well above its capacity, of whom 21,000 were ultimately able to attend.

And other Democrats:

Included here are pieces about the upcoming procedure for replacing Biden as presidential nominee, any candidates beyond Harris, and the upcoming convention.

Climate and environment:

Economic matters:

Ukraine War and Russia:

  • Blaise Malley: [07-19] Diplomacy Watch: Europe turns attention to GOP ticket: "Moscow, Kyiv, also react to eventuality of Trump returning to White House." This was written post-Vance, pre-Harris, so maybe the panic has subsided a bit. What hasn't changed is the war's stalemate, or more accurately, spiraling self-destruction.

America's empire and the world:

  • Wesley K Clark: [06-23] America is already great again: "Don't let doomsayers like Donald Trump fool you. On every meaningful metric of national strength, the United States under Joe Biden is a rising power -- and we have the economic means and necessary alliances to meet our gravest challenges." He's fighting bullshit with bullshit, which he wouldn't have to if he could just escape the "metric of national strength" Trump characterizes as greatness. I remember how Bill Moyers tried to convince LBJ to call his programs "the good society," but Johnson, ever the bullshit artist, insisted on "great" -- and got neither. Clark actually does a fair job of pointing out how the reforms Biden started, and further reforms that are broadly supported by the democratic wing of the Democratic Party, can make our lives better, can help the rest of the world, and put us in better alignment with peace and justice everywhere -- an analysis that could be much sharper with a bit less ego and arms hawking.

  • Tom Engelhardt: [07-18] Where did the American Century go? "The decline and fall of presidential America: are we now living in a defeat culture?"

  • Mike Lofgren: [06-23] Why can't America build enough weapons? That's really not the question we should be asking, but that anyone can bring it up should expose the hopeless trap we've locked ourselves into. "The debasement of the U.S. defense industrial base began, ironically, under Ronald Reagan, and won't be reversed until we abandon the free-market fundamentalism he introduced." This is a subject that merits a long screed, one I have no time or patience for now.

Other stories:

Adam Clark Estes: [07-11] Why I quit Spotify: Some things to think about, especially as "Spotify raised its prices in July for the second time in as many years." As I recall, in the announcement letter they touted all the extra podcast content the extra money will help them develop. (They develop things? I've never listened to a podcast there, so the all money they spent on Joe Rogan -- and on pissing off Neil Young and Joni Mitchell -- was wasted, as far as I'm concerned).

Bryan Walsh: [07-16] It's time to stop arguing over the population slowdown and start adapting to it: "The world population could peak in your lifetime."

Li Zhou: [07-19] The "largest IT outage in history," briefly explained: "Airlines, banks, and hospitals saw computer systems go down because of a CrowdStrike software glitch." Note that only Microsoft Windows users were affected ("Mac and Linux users were not affected").

Obituaries

John Otis: [07-24] Lewis Lapham, editor who revived Harper's magazine, dies at 89: "He turned Harper's into what he called a 'theater of ideas,' promoting emerging voices including David Foster Wallace, Christopher Hitchens and Fareed Zakaria." I only occasionally read Harper's (and later Lapham's Quarterly), but I've read a couple of his books, and thought he was a superb political essayist: Theater of War: In Which the Republican Beocmes an Empire (2003), and Pretensions to Empire: Notes on the Criminal Folly of the Bush Administration (2006). I should do a complete book rundown, but for now I just ordered a copy of his 2017 book, Age of Folly: America Abandons Its Democracy.

Larry Rohter: [07-23] John Mayall, pioneer of British blues, is dead at 90: "He was best known not for his own playing or singing but for recruiting and polishing the talents of one gifted lead guitarist after another, starting with Eric Clapton."

Giovanni Russonello: [07-24] Toumain Diabaté, Malian master of the kora, is dead at 58: "He believed that music could transcend national borders set by colonialism and restore ancient ties, even as it embraced the changes of a globalizing society."

Alex Williams: [07-19] Happy Traum, mainstay of the folk music world, dies at 86: "A noted guitarist and banjo player, he emerged from the same Greenwich Village folk-revival scene as his friend and sometime collaborator Bob Dylan."

Books

Zack Beauchamp: [07-17] Why the far right is surging all over the world: "The 'reactionary spirit' and the roots of the US authoritarian moment." Excerpt from a book the author has been working on: The Reactionary Spirit: How America's Most Insidious Political Tradition Swept the World.

Doug Storm: [2022-09-16] A crash course in the works of H Bruce Franklin . . . with H Bruce Franklin. I just read the late cultural historian's memoir, Crash Course: From the Good War to the Forever War, which does a good job of recounting the path of post-WWII militarism from the red scare into Vietnam, as he discovered it in real time, and also recounted a much more militant anti-war movement than I was ever involved in. The book ends rather abruptly after Vietnam, making me wonder whether he planned a second one, or just figured his later life just wasn't that interesting. The interview covers the book, as well as other works, like

Music (and other arts?)

Ian Bogost: The mid-year best-of list is a travesty: "The worst idea of 2024 so far." And here I was thinking that the worst idea of 2024 was using AI to select bombing targets on Gaza. Or using drones for terror bombing around nuclear power plants in Ukraine. Or major political parties picking two doddering idiots to debate the very serious issues facing America and the world. The author seems to have reconciled himself to end-of-year lists: "These annual rundowns arrive during a period of reflection, when a full year's worth of human art and industry is about to recede into history." That's an odd turn of phrase: don't things turn into history the moment they happen? Whether they recede or not depends on whether they still have continuing import, or have (like most things) turned into passing fancies. Even so, one suspects that passing fancies are precisely what end-of-year lists are meant to recognize.

But it end-of-year lists are ok, what's so bad about mid-year lists? The time chunks are arbitrary. Smaller ones give us less material to cover, but you don't have to think back so far, and when it comes to music albums, it's not like we have a scarcity problem. My mid-year jazz critics poll (89 voters) identified 468 albums, vs. the full-year 2023 total of 760 (159 votes). It sounds like he's complaining about the novelty, but I've been tracking mid-year lists for a decade or more. They're still not nearly as common as end-of-year lists, but I've tracked about 35 so far this year, which includes a majority of the music publications that Album of the Year follows. As far as I know, nobody's taking the 6-month time chunk seriously enough to run a second-half list at end-of-year time, but I have seen movement toward shorter time periods, with quarterly and even monthly retrospectives.

Paul Schwartzman: [07-11] Who killed the Kennedys? The Rolling Stones won't tell you anymore. Songs evolve, sometimes as historical references slip from memory -- "On the Sunny Side of the Street" lives on, but increasingly likely to substitute for "rich as Rockefeller" -- and sometimes when casual terms fell out of fashion, as when Louis Armstrong changed "darkies" to "the folks."

Mid-year best-of lists:

Chatter

Zachary D Carter: [07-25][Response to Matt Stoller: "Democratic Silicon Valley billionaire Reid Hoffman gives $7 million to Harris, immediately demands she fire FTC Chair Lina Khan."]

  • Hoffman is a fool, these Silicon Valley gazillionaires don't actually believe in democracy.

  • The US economy is great, business is booming, the threat to growth is Jay Powel refusing to cut interest rates, not Lina Khan enforcing the law.

Nathan J Robinson: [07-25]

  • The core problem that Republicans have, and the reason they struggle to win the popular vote, is that they seem to despise the majority of people who live in this country.

  • We hate cat ladies, LGBTQ people, teachers, baristas, union members, immigrants, the underclass, "DEI," librarians, Hollywood, welfare moms, civil servants, professors, students, environmental activists, atheists, Muslims. Am I missing anyone from the list?

  • ok well your little cult should go form its own country where you don't have to live with anyone who doesn't share your theocratic morality

Rick Perlstein: [07-25]:

  • This video I made of a beautiful nature scene slowly defaced by the ugliest, most arrogant building this side of Pyongyang: I feel like it Says Something about Obama, and how history might judge him.

  • An arcadian fantasy, then the banal reality.

  • Terrible at building a bulwark against incipient fascism. That may become the salient metric, like for James Buchanan or Neville Chamberlain.

Tikun Olam: [07-25] [Responding to Ami Dar: "Former IDF Chiefs of Staff and Mossad directors (i.e. just a bunch of antisemitic leftist traitors) write the Congressional leadership: 'Netanyahu poses an existential threat to the State of Israel.'"]

  • It's amazing how generals and Shin Bet chiefs who performed horrible crimes during their careers, all of a sudden develop a moral conscience after they retire.

Actually, there's a movie about this phenomenon. It's called The Gatekeepers, directed by Dror Moreh, came out in 2012, featuring interviews with six former Shin Bet heads. These people rise in the ranks based on their drive to dominate Palestinians, then when they retire, they realize they've accomplished nothing, leaving nothing but blown opportunities in their wake. But by then they've been replaced by younger men eager to proove they can be even more aggressive.

Rick Perlstein: [07-25]

  • Wow, the story the wily old pol who says "my opponent fucks goats" so the guy has to deny it has been one-upped by a twitter troll. Vance is just . . . a total loser.

This links to Jordan Liles: [07-23] No, JD Vance did not say he had sex with couch cushions: "A false online ruor about former U.S. President Donald Trump's running mate, a latex glove and couch cuishions spawned a number of jokes and memes." I must have heard of Snopes (a "fact-checking website," originally set up in 1994 as the Urban Legends Reference Pages) before, but can't ever recall consulting it. It is possibly useful for debunking false rumors, but it also does a nice job of propagating them, and possibly even turning them into an art form. I can see this as scurrilous, but it can also be kind of funny. For instance, this page links to six more stories on Vance:

  • JD Vance had middle-class upbringing in 4-bedroom house in suburban Ohio?
  • JD Vance said women should stay in violent marriages?
  • Trump mistakenly referred to JD Vance as 'JD Wentworth'?
  • JD Vance once called Trump 'America's Hitler'?
  • JD Vance's last name means 'bedbug' in Yiddish?
  • JD Vance says parents should have bigger say in democracy than non-parents.

The links are laid out in a grid, reminding me of those "prove you're not a robot" matrixes, challenging you to pick which ones are true and which are false. I'm not interested in playing, but will note that four sound somewhat familiar, and only one strikes me as implausible.

PS: I also stumbled across this: "When I get that feeling I want sectional healing . . ."

Initial count: 209 links, 10413 words. Updated count [07-25]: 228 links, 11635 words.

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): music.

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Wednesday, July 17, 2024

Music Week

July archive (in progress).

Music: Current count 42668 [42624] rated (+44), 15 [20] unrated (-5).

I put out the call for a Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll back on June 30, offering a July 14 deadline for ballots, which would give me a few days to wrap things up before ArtsFuse returns from vacation on July 17. Sure, I expected a light turnout: mid-year lists, while increasingly common as click-bait, don't have the same gravitas as year-end wrap-ups, so fewer voters would be prepared let alone interested; there are vacations and other distractions; the voting period was much shorter than for the year-end poll; and I didn't want to work as hard at rounding up voters. (Last year's 159 voters took a lot of hustle on my part, but in taking the poll over from Francis Davis, I really wanted to prove that I could do it, and it was very wearing.) I didn't do any prospecting for new voters, and hoped that sending a single message to my Jazzpoll mailing list would do the trick.

It didn't: by last Wednesday, I had only about two dozen ballots counted, with another dozen promises to vote later, and a half-dozen polite declines, out of approx. 200 invitees. I had figured that 50% (let's say 80) ballots would still be a good showing, and would generate a lot of information. But 25% struck me as way too low. I had reason to suspect that a big part of the problem was that many messages from my server were being flagged and sequestered as "spam," especially by the gmail servers. So I rebooted, and sent a second round of invitations out to a subset of the list -- the ones I hadn't heard from, skipping a few who hadn't voted in recent years -- in MailMerge-customized letters from my regular email account (which has been dicey enough of late). That took many hours I had wanted to avoid, but got an almost immediate response. I streamlined the invitation a bit, and extended the deadline to July 17 (tonight, or effectively tomorrow morning). As of last night, I had 78 ballots counted, and as I'm writing this I have 2 more in my inbox, so I'm happy with my 50%. [PS: By posting time, the count increased to 86.]

I'll need to move on from this to write an essay (intro, overview, whatever), as well as footnotes on various oddities and discrepancies in the voting. I've struggled with the essay the last couple years, so fear I may again. On the other hand, the data is really extraordinary, so just dive into that. And every time I do this, I come away even more impressed with the extraordinary knowledge and exemplary judgment of the fine people who participate in this Poll. There's nothing we need more in this increasingly complex and scatter-brained world than smart people who develop and share their expertise so that we all may benefit. I'm proud to do my bit, and to help them do theirs.

I might as well start here and disclose my own ballot:

NEW RELEASES

  1. Fay Victor, Herbie Nichols SUNG: Life Is Funny That Way (Tao Forms)
  2. Emmeluth's Amoeba, Nonsense (Moserobie)
  3. Luke Stewart Silt Trio, Unknown Rivers (Pi)
  4. Ballister, Smash and Grab (Aerophonic)
  5. Dave Douglas, Gifts (Greenleaf Music)
  6. The Core, Roots (Moserobie)
  7. James Brandon Lewis Quartet, Transfiguration (Intakt)
  8. Roby Glod-Christian Ramond-Klaus Kugel, No Toxic (Nemu)
  9. Ivo Perelman Quartet, Water Music (RogueArt)
  10. Mike Monford, The Cloth I'm Cut From (self-released)

RARA AVIS (REISSUES/ARCHIVAL)

  1. Sonny Rollins, Freedom Weaver: The 1959 European Tour Recordings (Resonance)
  2. Mal Waldron & Steve Lacy, The Mighty Warriors: Live in Antwerp (1995, Elemental Music)
  3. Alice Coltrane, The Carnegie Hall Concert (1971, Impulse!)
  4. Karen Borca Trio Quartet & Quintet, Good News Blues: Live at the Vision Festival 1998 & 2005 (NoBusiness)
  5. Mars Williams & Hamid Drake, I Know You Are but What Am I (1996, Corbett vs. Dempsey)

As lists go, this feels pretty haphazard and tentative. I keep an ongoing ranked list, but don't put much effort into maintaining it. What usually happens is that once I decide an album is A-, I scan the list from the top or bottom (depending on whether it's a real solid A- or a somewhat iffy one), find something that is roughly comparable, and insert the new record above or below that reference point. I fiddled with these a bit, but didn't do much rechecking. Fact is, I never do much rechecking.

This week's batch of reviews are mostly albums that popped up on ballots. I wasn't previously aware that the Kenny Barron, Ivanna Cuesta, Welf Dorr, and [Ahmed] albums existed. Tomeka Reid was one of those download links I've been sitting on -- I probably have nearly 100 stashed away, but I'm loathe to do the extra work when it's so easy to play a promo or stream something -- but it did well enough I felt obligated to listen to it. (Same for Braxton, with all 8 hours + 10:36, available on Bandcamp.) Beger, Borca, and Brötzmann were promo CDs, but they too can be found complete on Bandcamp. I learned about the Armstrong from hype mail the day it became available to stream.

I started to prepare a file with all of my 2024 jazz reviews, similar to my 2023 best jazz, but it isn't ready to be presented yet. I'll clean it up if I decide I want to mention it in my poll essay, or just discard it until end-of-year. (Once I've started it, it's just another thing to try to keep updated.) One thing I can note here is that when I divvied the 2024 file up into jazz and non-jazz sections, the split among new A/A- records was 52-to-25, with old music 12-to-5. That seems like a lot, given that I wound up with only 84 for all of 2023 (and 75 for 2022, 77 for 2021, 86 for 2020, 77 for 2019, 67 for 2018, 84 for 2017, 75 for 2016, 81 for 2015, 69 for 2014, 87 for 2014 -- that's as far as the file series goes back, and the record as far as I can easily tell. Makes me wonder if I'm going soft in my old age, but other explanations are possible, including that the Mid-Year Poll has made me aware of 237 albums I didn't previously have in my tracking file. Most I haven't played yet, but the dozens I have gotten to contributed to this skew.

Given all the extra work on the Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll, I didn't get around to Speaking of Which until Saturday, when I started with a long section on why Biden should withdraw from the Democratic presidential nomination. This all seems so obvious that it's hard to fathom the negligence and nonsense of whoever's conspiring to keep Biden in the race. On the other hand, much else that popped up in the week's news is hard to fathom. I certainly haven't had the time to figure it out.

The Trump shooting remains a story I know very little about, and have very little interest in pursuing, unless it turns out that my suspicion, as yet purely based on cynicism, that it was a staged PR ploy, turns out to be valid. (By the way, we've been watching the old Jane Marple mysteries. In one of them, the killer creates a blackout, kills someone else, then shoots herself, nicking the ear, so that when the lights come back on, she appears to have been the target (and very lucky). The ear was chosen because it bleeds readily but not seriously. It also emphasizes the luck involved, because it's generally very hard to shoot someone's ear without hitting their head. Of course, there are other ways to fake it, at little risk to Trump. The whole thing would take skill and timing, which seems beyond Trump and his cronies, the chances of such a scheme getting exposed are high, and it's hard to imagine that even Trump could lie his way out of it. On the other hand, how gullible is just about everyone involved so far? So it can't possibly be true, but they're playing it just like it was scripted. And everyone else seems to be falling for it.

Hardly any adds to Speaking of Which today: fixed a couple broken links, some typos. I'll open a file for next week after Music Week goes up. It'll be lower priority than the Poll, but good for the occasional break from thrashing on the Poll essay. I haven't been following the RNC, but I'm sure the people who have will be able to explain in its all its true horror.

There's also this story: Inae Oh: [07-16] The DNC's plan to force Biden's nomination is everything people hate about the DNC. If they go through with this, it won't have been the first time they gamed the rules to help Biden escape normal Democratic procedures: derailing the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primary, where Biden had performed poorly in 2016, while making South Carolina the first primary, eliminated the most likely path for someone more credible than Dean Phillips to challenge Biden, so no one risked it. This would be shabby in any case, but is especially galling from the people who sell themselves as the guardians of democracy.

The marvelous Swiss avant-jazz pianist Irène Schweizer has died at 83:

Here's my Grade List. I first got acquainted with her work when I reviewed a 2-CD compilation of her work in 2006:

IRÈNE SCHWEIZER: Portrait [1984-2004] (Intakt) Nothing in this year's bumper crop of solo piano is anywhere near as robust as the three solo cuts on this sampler from 14 albums. Eight duos, mostly with drummers, impress even more. The Swiss free jazz pioneer's straight rhythmic undertow rivals Jarrett's, and her pianistics challenge Cecil Taylor's. But as Schweizer demonstrates on the longest piece ("First Meeting," with trombonist George Lewis), her real talent is her spontaneous response to the challenges of such minuscule aggregations. One of the few compilations ever that makes me want to hear every single one of the source albums. A

Her duos with drummers were extraordinary, especially the ones with Han Bennink (1995 and 2015). The latter was my number one jazz record of 2015:

Irène Schweizer/Han Bennink: Welcome Back (2015, Intakt): Piano-drum duo, both should be household names by now, and indeed the Dutch percussionist is one of the very few Europeans to make Downbeat Hall of Fame ballot. On the other hand, I've had to write in the name of the Swiss pianist the last few years -- this year ahead of Myra Melford and Marilyn Crispell, who are similar players only in the sense that anyone can be described as similar to Cecil Taylor; Schweizer comes as close as anyone to matching Taylor, but she can also work in some boogie woogie or pennywhistle jive, and closes here with a bit of Monk that evokes "Lullaby of Birdland." In the late 1980s Schweizer started a series of duos with top avant drummers (Louis Moholo was the first, followed by Gunter Sommer and Andrew Cyrille). The best was her 1995 meeting with Bennink (although I also have the 1990 Pierre Favre at A). This return engagement belongs alongside. A [cd]

New records reviewed this week:

أحمد [Ahmed]: Wood Blues (2022 [2024], Astral Spirits): British quartet of Pat Thomas (piano), Joel Grip (bass), Antonin Gerbal (drums), and Seymour Wright (alto sax), originally formed as a tribute to bass/oud player Ahmed Abdul-Malik (1927-93), fourth album since 2017, unless the 4-CD Giant Beauty box came out ahead of it (looks like it did, by 4 days). I've had people tell me this is the best live band on the planet. They probably thought the same of Cecil Taylor in the 1970s. A- [sp]

Kenny Barron: Beyond This Place (2024, Artwork): Pianist, I first really noticed him as a duet partner for Stan Getz (People Time, 1991), but he started in the early 1970s (cf. Peruvian Blue, 1974), is a DownBeat hall-of-famer, one of the most storied jazz educators in history, and still pretty sharp entering 80s. Helped out here by Steve Nelson (vibes), Kiyoshi Kitagawa (bass), Johnathan Blake (drums), and especially Immanuel Wilkins (alto sax). A- [sp]

BassDrumBone: Afternoon (2023 [2024], Auricle): Mark Helias, Gerry Hemingway, and Ray Anderson: I've been filing their records under the trombonist since 1986. This one seems a bit muted, but that just brings out the craft in the BassDrum. B+(***) [cd]

Jamie Baum Septet+: What Times Are These (2023 [2024], Sunnyside): Flute player, debut 1996, Septet -- including Jonathan Finlayson (trumpet), Sam Sadigursky (reeds), Brad Shepik (guitar), and Luis Perdomo (piano) -- has four albums 2004-18, expands to nine credits here plus four more vocalists picking their spots. Choice cut is "Sorrow Song," even beyond Kokayi's words. Other vocalists don't fare so well. B+(*) [sp]

Albert Beger/Ziv Taubenfeld/Shay Hazan/Hamid Drake: Cosmic Waves (2023 [2024], No Business): Tenor saxophonist, born in Istanbul, grew up in Israel, studied at Berklee, has a 1995 album, came to my attention with a pair of 2005 albums with William Parker under Hamid Drake's name. The others play bass clarinet and bass, for a dicey free jazz jam, with the drummer as impressive as ever. A- [cd]

Anthony Braxton: 10 Comp (Lorraine) 2022 (2022 [2024], New Braxton House, 10CD): Alto sax legend, credited with "saxophones, electronics" here, with each composition (numbered 423-428, 432-435) running from 41:31 to 60:09. The first six are trio with Adam Matlock (accordion/voice) and Susana Santos Silva (trumpet); the last four are quartet, with a second saxophonist (James Fei) and two bassists (Zach Rowden, Carl Testa). Way too long for anything other than a glancing view, but the first trio has limited appeal: sure, the accordion isn't as grating as Braxton's bagpipe albums, but that's the direction, and the operatic vocals have no more appeal when sung over abstractions than they do over schmaltz. The quartet is similar musically but with fewer annoyances, which doesn't necessarily make it more interesting, or even listenable (though sometimes it is). Length: 490:36. B+(*) [bc]

George Cartwright & Bruce Golden: Dilate (2024, self-released): Saxophonist and drummer, played together in the final iteration of Cartwright's group Curlew (founded 1979, but I think we're talking 2002-03 here). Sounds mostly like electronics and percussion, but all the credits have to say is: "george licked sounds; bruce nailed sounds." Some bits I really like, but others wear me down and out. B+(*) [bc]

Ivanna Cuesta: A Letter to the Earth (2023 [2024], Orenda): Drummer, from Dominican Republic, studied there and at Berklee, based in Boston, first album, composed by, also credited with electronics, with Ben Solomon (sax), Kris Davis (piano), and Max Ridley (bass) -- all terrific here. Bit of guest vocal at the end (Pauli Camou). A- [sp]

Jeremiah Cymerman: Body of Light (2022-23 [2024], 5049): Clarinet player, fifteen-plus albums since 2007, first two pieces here appear to be solo, credits including synths, percussion, sequences, bass. The other two (longer) tracks add drums (Mike Pride) and either guitar-cello or violin. Either way this mostly comes off as ambient. B+(*) [sp]

Welf Dorr/Elias Meister/Dmitry Ishenko/Kenny Wollesen: So Far So Good (2022 [2024], self-released): Alto saxophonist, born in Germany, based in New York, first album appears to be a Flowers for Albert thinking of Einstein not Ayler, unless it was the group called Funk Monk. Backed by guitar, accordion/electric bass, and drums, has traces of soul jazz and funk fusion, but mostly as a vehicle for distinguished saxophone. A- [bc]

Edition Redux: Better a Rook Than a Pawn (2023, Audiographic): I lost track of Ken Vandermark's projects when he pulled most of his work behind the paywall, so I jumped on this new group as soon as I noticed it: Erez Dessel (piano/synth), Lily Finnegan (drums), Beth McDonald (tuba/electronics), and Vandermark (reeds, notably baritone sax). Piano tends to lead, but the real power remains the saxophonist. B+(***) [bc]

Bill Frisell: Orchestras (2021-22 [2024], Blue Note): Guitarist, long-established, leads a trio with Thomas Morgan (bass) and Rudy Royston (drums), featured here surrounded by symphony orchestras (Brussels Philharmonic, Umbria Jazz Orchestra), his (and some other) compositions scaled up by Michael Gibbs. Quick take is that the full strings on the first disc are a turn off. Dispensing with them, the second disc is rather enaging. B+(**) [sp]

Paul Giallorenzo Trio: Play (2021 [2023], Delmark): Chicago pianist, first trio album in 2012, second with this trio of Joshua Abrams and Mikel Patrick Avery. B+(*) [sp]

Erik Griswold/Chloe Kim/Helen Svoboda: Anatomical Heart (2023 [2024], Earshift Music): Pianist, based in Brisbane, Australia, a dozen-plus albums since 2002, has a fondness for prepared piano. Trio with drums and bass. The bit of jerkiness keeps it interesting. B+(**) [sp]

Sarah Hanahan: Among Giants (2024, Blue Engine): Alto saxophonist, first album, quartet with Marc Cary (piano), Nat Reeves (bass), and Jeff "Tain" Watts (drums), with extra percussion on 4 (of 8) tracks. Mainstream, with considerable power, and more than a little finesse. B+(***) [sp]

Simon Hanes: Tsons of Tsunami (2024, Tzadik): California-born, based in New York, plays baritone guitar here, has mostly worked under group names (Tredici Bacci, Trigger, Shimmer, Guerilla Toss; Tsons of Tsunami was the group name for a 2013 album called Fearless Riders of the Holy Curl. He describes these compositions as "surf-based," backed with trombone, horn, waterphone, vibraphone, and drums. B+(**) [sp]

Roger Kellaway: Live at Mezzrow (2023 [2024], Cellar Music): Pianist, first album 1963, first new one since 2019, with bass (Jay Leonhart) and drums (Dennis Mackrel) plus guest Roni Ben-Hur (guitar). He's always been a bop era pianist with a little stride in his style. B+(*) [sp]

Brian Landrus: Plays Ellington & Strayhorn (2023 [2024], Palmetto): Baritone saxophonist, also plays similar instruments, plus some piccolo and flutes, backed quite capably by Dave Stryker (guitar), Jay Anderson (bass), and Billy Hart (drums), playing fourteen songs you can't go wrong with. B+(***) [cd]

Nduduzo Makhathini: Unomkhubulwane (2024, Blue Note): South African pianist, started leading albums in 2014, got a big profile boost when Blue Note picked him up in 2020. Third album there, sings some (not fancy or dramatic, but quite agreeably), backed by Zwelakhe-Duma Bell le Pere (bass) and Francisco Mela (drums). B+(***) [sp]

Fabiano do Nascimento & Sam Gendel: The Room (2024, Real World): Brazilian guitarist, several albums since 2011 -- I particularly liked 2015's Dança Dos Tempos -- here in a very nice duo with soprano sax. B+(**) [sp]

Madeleine Peyroux: Let's Walk (2024, Just One Recording/Thirty Tigers): Jazz singer-songwriter, born in Georgia but grew up in France, ten or so albums since 1996, aimed early for Billie Holiday phrasing, returns after a six-year pause with a new batch of songs that defy expectations. I could see this one being taken for Americana, if you pardon the bit of French (in my book, that's a plus). B+(***) [sp]

Tomeka Reid Quartet: 3+3 (2023 [2024], Cuneiform): Cellist, based in Chicago, helped revitalize the post-2000 AACM, and has an impressive list of albums since her 2015 Quartet, finally a MacArthur "Genius" Fellow in 2022. Same group here, with Mary Halvorson (guitar), Jason Roebke (bass), and Tomas Fujiwara (drums). Three longish pieces: sags a bit in the middle but closes real strong. A- [dl]

Michael Shrieve: Drums of Compassion (2024, 7D Media): Drummer, played in Santana 1969-74, formed Go in 1976 with Stomu Yamashita and Steve Winwood, with later groups like Spellbinder. I recognized the name, and found him in my database, but in the New Age section, with two unheard albums (1984, 1989). Not much jazz there, but some of his many collaborators here count, starting with percussionists Jack DeJohnette, Zakir Hussain, Airto Moriera, and Babatunde Olatunji. Not just drums, but keyboards, sax (Skerik), and electronics (Amon Tobin). B+(*) [sp]

Harry Skoler: Red Brick Hill (2022 [2024], Sunnyside): Clarinet player, three albums 1995-99, this is only his third since, following a Mingus study in 2022. Strong support here on vibes (Joel Ross), bass (Dezron Douglas), and drums (Johnathan Blake), with one-track guest spots from Marquis Hill (trumpet), Christian Sands (piano), and Grégoire Maret (harmonica). B+(**) [sp]

Something Else! [Featuring Vincent Herring]: Soul Jazz (2024, Smoke Sessions): Mainstream "supergroup," alto saxophonist gets featured spotlight but Jeremy Pelt (trumpet) steals as much spotlight. Also with Wayne Escoffery (tenor sax), Paul Bollenback (guitar), David Kikoski (piano), Essiet Essiet (bass), and Otis Brown III (drums). They swing a little, swagger too. B+(*) [sp]

Gregory Tardy: In His Timing (2023, WJ3): One of many mainstream tenor saxophonist to emerge in the 1990s, starting out on Impulse!, but mostly recording on SteepleChase since then. But he plays clarinet here, paired with violin (Regina Carter), backed by piano-bass-drums. Sometimes the mix pays dividends, sometimes not so much. B+(*) [bc]

Alan Walker: A Little Too Late (2024, Aunt Mimi's): Singer-songwriter, started in a group I've never heard of, the Brilliant Mistakes (three albums 1998-2008), second solo album. Plays piano, some pop craft, some strings. B+(*) [cd]

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:

Louis Armstrong: Louis in London (1968 [2024], Verve): A previously unreleased BBC radio shot from July 2, 1968, billed as his "last great performance," three years before his death in 1971. He had been in decline for several years, often unable to play trumpet, but his vocals remained endearing, with a couple songs turning into big pop hits. He's credited with trumpet here, which seems good enough, his voice even better, as he runs through thirteen songs, most signature hits, a proper career summary. A- [sp]

Derek Bailey/Sabu Toyozumi: Breath Awareness (1987 [2024], NoBusiness): British guitarist (1932-2005), a major figure in the avant-garde (albeit one that I've only lightly sampled, and never really gotten the hang of), in an improv duo with the Japanese drummer. Scratchy, abstract, requires close listening, sometimes rewards it. B+(***) [cd]

Karen Borca Trio Quartet & Quintet: Good News Blues: Live at the Vision Festival 1998 & 2005 (1998-2005 [2024], No Business): One of the few bassoon players in any branch of jazz, especially in free jazz, she led groups so rarely that this is her first collection as leader, but Discogs credits her with 30 albums, many with her husband, Jimmy Lyons, also Cecil Taylor, William Parker, Joel Futterman, Alan Silva, Bill Dixon. The early set here has Parker and Rob Brown (alto sax). Brown returns for the late set, with Reggie Workman, and is stellar throughout. A- [cd]

Peter Brötzmann/Toshinori Kondo/Sabu Toyozumi: Complete Link (2016 [2024], NoBusiness): Tenor sax/tarogato, trumpet/electronics, drums. Within our ten-year window for "new releases," with both of the principals recently departed, this feels more like an archival find. They had a fairly long run together in the quartet, with William Parker and Hamid Drake, named for their first album, Die Like a Dog. I always found their records a bit too abrasive, but here I'm not only not bothered, I'm feeling a bit nostalgic. A- [cd]

Nat King Cole: Live at the Blue Note Chicago (1953 [2024], Iconic): Pianist and singer (1917-65), had his first r&b hits in 1942, cracked the pop top ten in 1944 with "Straighten Up and Fly Right," hit number one in 1946 with "For Sentimental Reasons," followed by "Nature Boy," "Mona Lisa," and "Too Young" -- all in these live sets, a quartet with guitar (John Collins), bass (Charlie Harris), and drums (Lee Young). B+(**) [sp]

The Jazzanians: We Have Waited Too Long (1988 [2024], Ubuntu Music): In 1984, Dave Brubeck's son Darius organized a jazz program at the University of Natal, in South Africa. A few years later, he organized this "first multiracial student jazz ensemble from South Africa," and took them on tour, and into the studio. Best known player now is probably Zim Ngqawana (alto sax/flute). They kick off with a very infectious township jive groove. They're not all that delightful. B+(**) [sp]

Charles Mingus: Incarnations (1960 [2024], Candid): The bassist recorded two sessions for Nat Hentoff's label, which immediately led to the albums Presents Charles Mingus and Mingus. In 1985, Mosaic collected those albums and outtakes for The Complete Candid Recordings of Charles Mingus, In 1990, Candid took some of those for Mysterious Blues. This albums grabs five more takes (one previously unissued). B+(**) [sp]

Louis Moholo-Moholo: Louis Moholo-Moholo's Viva-La-Black (1988 [2024], Ogun): South African drummer, moved to Europe in 1964, emerged as a prominent free jazz drummer in the 1970s. Leads a sextet here, with Sean Bergin (tenor/alto sax), Steve Williamson (tenor/soprano sax), Claude Deppa (trumpet/flugelhorn), Roberto Bellatalla (bass), and Thebe Lipere (percussion). B+(**) [bc]

Septet Matchi-Oul: Terremoto (1971 [2024], Souffle Continu): Label dedicated to "Treasures of the French Underground," this one-shot group led by Chilean-French pianist Manuel Villarroel qualifies nicely. No other names I immediately recognize, but some further research may be in order. B+(***) [sp]

Sun Ra & His Arkestra: Pink Elephants on Parade (1985-90 [2024], Modern Harmonic): A "small sample" of songs from Walt Disney movies, eight from two dates in 1988-89, 5 more from 5 different venues, the first 9 tracks previously unreleased. Vocals on most tracks, none slick or particularly funny, but amused? Sure. B+(***) [sp]

John Wright Trio: South Side Soul (1960 [2024], Craft): Pianist (1934-2017), born in Kentucky but moved to Chicago when he was two. First album, with bass (Wendell Roberts) and drums (Walter McCants). [sp]

Old music:

Albert Beger: The Primitive (1995, NMC): Israeli tenor saxophonist, plays some flute, first album, quartet with piano (John Bostock), bass guitar (Gabi Maier), and drums (Asaf Sirkis). B+(**) [sp]

Albert Beger Quartet: The Art of the Moment (2000, Third Ear Music): Curious lack of information on this, label name appears on some streaming sites (NMC seems more likely), quartet with guitar, bass, and drums (no idea who). Impressive saxophonist, rhythm section has some spunk, flute I could do without. Need to work on that discography. B+(*) [sp]

Welf Dorr: Funk Monk 2002 (2002 [2020], self-released): Alto saxophonist, from Germany, based in New York, led the band Funk Monk from 1996-2009, various lineups, released a Live at the Knitting Factory in 1999 but that seems to be all. Dorr salvaged this tape from Izzy Bar in July 2002, and claims all compositions, so no Monk tribute here: more horns (Antonio Dangerfield on trumpet, Melvin Smith on tenor sax, trombone on two tracks), backed by a bubbling array of keys, guitar, bass, and drums. B+(*) [sp]

Welf Dorr: Flowers for Albert (2005 [202], self-released): The saxophone/flute player/composer has laid claim to this tape, although his name appears last on the cover, after Kenny Wolleson (drums), Jonathan Finlayson (trumpet), Hock Temesgen (bass), and Shoko Nagai (piano). Title comes from David Murray's tribute to Ayler, but Dorr's preferred Albert is Einstein, seeing this as the centennial of his three breakthrough papers on physics. B+(**) [sp]

Welf Dorr Unit: Blood (2014 [2018], Creative Sources): Brooklyn group, leader plays alto sax and bass clarinet, backed by guitar (Dave Ross), bass (Dmitry Ishenko), and drums (Joe Hertenstein). Guitar runs a bit heavy. B+(*) [bc]

Welf Dorr/Dmitry Ishenko/Joe Hertenstein: Pandemic House Sessions (2020 [2021], self-released): Previous Unit reduced to a trio, recorded at the drummer's apartment. Losing the guitar gives the saxophonist a lot more breathing room. B+(***) [sp]

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

  • Greg Copeland: Empire State (Franklin & Highland, EP) [09-06]
  • Ize Trio: The Global Suites (self-released) [08-02]
  • Frank Paul Schubert/Michel Pilz/Stefan Scheib/Klaus Kugel: Live at FreeJazz Saar 2019 (Nemu) [05-01]

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Tuesday, July 16, 2024

Speaking of Which

I'm starting this introduction on Tuesday, already two days late, ignoring for now the new news pouring in, especially from the RNC. Due to my Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll project, I wasn't able to start until Saturday, at which point I started with the long introduction to the Biden section. After that, I scrounged up a few quick links to seemingly important stories. The alleged Trump shooting -- I'm not denying it, but I'm not fully buying it either -- had just happened, so I had to spin off a section on that. Monday the Cannon ruling on the Trump documents case came down, so I had to note that. If I find out that Hamas and Netanyahu agreed to a cease fire deal -- I've heard that, but as I'm writing this I haven't seen any confirmation -- I'll note that too. (But thus far I've been smart to ignore past rumors of impending agreement.)

A couple days ago, still with Biden very much on my mind, I thought I'd begin this introduction with a spur-of-the-moment tweet I posted:

Unsolicited advice to the ruling class: can someone point out to Biden that being president and running are two different full-time jobs. He should pick one, like the one we need someone to focus on and do well, right now. He could set a model we should add to the Constitution.

Looking it up now, I see that it only has 97 views, with 0 replies, forwards, or likes. It seems like views have been steadily declining, although the number of followers (640) is about double from a long plateau about a year ago.

One thing that stimulated my thought was when I saw several folks pushing a constitutional amendment to impose a maximum age limit on presidents. (Search doesn't reveal a lot of examples, but here's one.) I have no time to argue this here, but I've often worried about the accumulation of arbitrary power in the presidency -- especially war-making power, but there are other issues here -- and with in the development of a political personality cult (Reagan is the obvious example, with Trump even more so, but they at least remained aligned with their party, while Clinton and Obama used their office to direct their party to their own personal fortunes, a shift that worked to the detriment of other Democrats).

Banning self-succession (second consecutive terms) wouldn't fix all of the problems with the presidency, but it would help, especially in terms of democracy. I won't go into details here, but there should also be limits on nepotism (spouses, children, possibly more), and major campaign finance reforms. Whether you keep the two-term total limit is optional -- eliminating it may get rid of the often stupid "lame duck" argument. But I also suspect that people will have little appetite for returning a non-incumbent ex-president.

One more point: if presidents can't run again, maybe they'll actually put their political instincts aside and settle into actually doing their jobs. Trump is the obvious worst-case example: the first thing he did after inauguration in 2017 was to file as a candidate for 2020, and he returned to holding campaign rallies a month or two later. Given how temperamental his judgment was, we are probably lucky that he turned out to be so oblivious to actually doing the job, but that's hardly something we can count on saving us again. Even more competent presidents were repeatedly distracted by political duties -- ones they were, as a requirement for selection, more interested in, if not necessarily better at.

At this point, the essential skill sets of campaigners and administrators have diverged so radically that it's almost inconceivable that you could find one person for both jobs. I could imagine a constitutional change where whoever wins the presidency has to appoint someone else (or maybe a troika) to run the executive government, while being personally limited to symbolic public service, like the King of England, or the President of Israel. But the amendment I proposed above should be a much easier sell, especially given the mess we're in now.

Fortunately, we don't actually need the amendment this year. All we need is for Biden to drop out. As I explain below, there are lots of good reasons for him to do so. This is one more, and if he grasped it, would be a principled one.

About 10 PM Tuesday, time to call it quits for this week. I may pick up a few adds while I'm working on the similarly delayed Music Week, but I expect to be extremely busy on deadline day for the Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll (up to 78 ballots as I write this). No doubt I'll have to do a lot of cross-checking next week to keep from repeating stories. But the big ones, rest assured, will return, pretty much as they are here, so what's below should give you a leg up on everyone else.

Top story threads:

Israel:

America's Israel (and Israel's America):

Israel vs. world opinion:

  • Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz: [07-12] We must understand Israel as a settler-colonial state: I'd go a bit deeper and say we can only understand Israel if we start from acknowledging that it is primarily a settler-colonial state. I'm not saying this because I think "settler-colonial state" means we should automatically condemn Israel, and especially not to argue that the only solution is expulsion ("go back where you came from" just won't do here). But identifying it as such puts Israel into a conceptual framework that really helps explain the options and choices that Israeli political leaders made -- many of which do indeed deserve approbation -- as well as providing a framework to see some way of ending the conflict on terms that most people can find agreeable. I would add that among settler-colonial states, Israel is exceptionally frustrated, which is why it has turned into such a cauldron of interminable violence.

  • Marcy Newman: [07-13] The reluctant memoirist exposes the academy: "At a time when Palestine activism and free expression at U.S. universities are under attack, Steven Salaita's new memoir disabuses us of the notion that these universities are anything other than hedge funds with a campus."

  • James North: [07-10] Israel's leading paper says its own army deliberately killed Israelis on October 7. But in the US media: silence: "Israel ordered the 'Hannibal Directive' on October 7 by ordering the killing of captive Israeli soldiers and civilians. But the U.S. media continues to hide the truth."

  • Alice Rothchild: [07-14] The destruction of healthcare in Gaza and the scientific assessment of settler colonial violence: "The Jewish Voice for Peace Health Advisory Council held a distinguished panel of experts that addressed the settler colonial determinants of health in light of the Gaza genocide." Following up on these documents:

  • Philip Weiss: [07-14] Weekly Briefing: The 'NYT' justifies Israeli slaughter of civilians as necessary tactic: "The New York Times says Israel has been 'forced' to massacre Palestinian civilians because Hamas militants hide in bedrooms. The U.S. used such justifications for massacres in Vietnam."

Trump:

Well, this happened:

  • [Vox]: [07-14] Who shot Trump? What we know about the assassination attempt. [PS: This piece has been updated after I wrote the following, as more information was released, such as the identities of the people shot, including the alleged shooter.] "This is what happened at the Butler rally, as we understand it right now." As I understand it, shots were fired during a Trump rally. Trump dropped to the ground. When he appeared again, there was blood on his face. Secret Service surrounded him, and moved him off the platform. The people around him jerked when he did, but afterwards mostly looked confused. He tweeted later that he had been shot, nicked in the ear. (From his head angle at the time of the shot, it must have come from the far side -- not from the crowd, or from the gallery behind him.) Reports are that two people wound up dead -- one the alleged shooter, and another person, still unidentified, and two more people were injured. It's not clear where those people, including the shooter, were, or what the timing of were. One report says the shots came from an "AR-type" gun.

    I'll link to more pieces as I collect them. But knowing only what is in here (and having watched the video provided), my first reaction is that a real assassination attempt like this would be very hard to pull off, but would be very easy to fake (assuming you could imagine that anyone involved would be willing to do so, which with this particular crew isn't inconceivable; still, the risk of faking it and then getting exposed seems like it should be pretty extreme). No need to jump to that conclusion, but I'm pretty sure the "grassy knoll" squad is going to jump all over this story. More Vox pieces are collected in: Donald Trump targeted in assassination attempt.

  • Zack Beauchamp:

  • Constance Grady: [07-15] The pure media savvy of Trump's first pump photo, explained by an expert: "It's his brand now." The interview goes into the making of other iconic photos, as well as Trump's history of seizing on moments like this.

  • Jeet Heer:

  • Murtza Hussain: Will this make Trump more popular? "Assassination attempts targeting populist leaders have had a track record of boosting their popularity."

  • Sarah Jones: [07-15] God's strongman.

  • Ed Kilgore: [07-15] Trump assassination attempt makes 2024 election more bonkers than ever: "But will it cinch a victory for him?" Evidently, "many Republicans are already saying the bullets that nearly killed Donald Trump have clinched his return to the White House."

  • Natasha Lennard: The only kind of "political violence" all U.S. politicians oppose.

  • Eric Levitz:

  • Stephen Prager: [07-16] 'Political violence' is all around us: "Condemning 'political violence' rings hollow coming from politicians who are highly selective in the violence they deplore. We should oppose it consistently."

  • Aja Romano: [07-15] The Trump assassination attempt was a window into America's fractured reality. I'm not sure whether the subhed is a conclusion or just a premise: "The shooting wasn't staged, but conspiratorial thinking has become widespread in our paranoid age." You know, the latter truism doesn't prove "the shooting wasn't staged." It just suggests that we shouldn't jump to that conclusion.

  • Helen Santoro/Lucy Dean Stockton/David Sirota/Joel Warner: Pennsylvania GOP fought a ban on the gun used in Trump shooting.

  • Timothy Messer-Kruse: [07-15] The myth of the magic bullet: He doesn't weigh in on the Trump shooting, but takes on the more general idea, that a single bullet can change history for the better. I rather doubt his assertion that "there would still be a MAGA movement" without Trump, because no matter how much fuel of "white resentment" had accumulated, it still took a spark to set it off, and it's hard to find a leader with Trump's particular mix of ego and ignorance. But he is right when he says, "Trump is not a threat to democracy as much as he is a symbol of its deepening absence."

On Monday, Trump announced his pick for vice president: JD Vance:

  • Zack Beauchamp: [07-15] What J.D. Vance really believes: "The dark worldview of Trump's choice for vice president, explained."

    Vance has said that, had he been vice president in 2020, he would have carried out Trump's scheme for the vice president to overturn the election results. He has fundraised for January 6 rioters. He once called on the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into a Washington Post columnist who penned a critical piece about Trump. After last week's assassination attempt on Trump, he attempted to whitewash his radicalism by blaming the shooting on Democrats' rhetoric about democracy without an iota of evidence.

    This worldview translates into a very aggressive agenda for a second Trump presidency. In a podcast interview, Vance said that Trump should "fire every single mid-level bureaucrat" in the US government and "replace them with our people." If the courts attempt to stop this, Vance says, Trump should simply ignore the law.

    "You stand before the country, like Andrew Jackson did, and say the chief justice has made his ruling, now let him enforce it," he declares.

  • Aaron Blake: [07-15] The risk of J.D. Vance: "Trump went with the MAGA pick. But the 2022 election suggests that might not be the right electoral one."

  • Jonathan Chait: [07-15] J.D. Vance joins ticket with man he once called 'America's Hitler': "Apparently he meant it as a compliment."

  • Ben Jacobs: [07-15] J.D. Vance on his MAGA conversion: "Trump's man in Ohio once called him 'America's Hitler,' but there's an explanation."

  • Sarah Jones: [07-15] Hillbilly shapeshifter: "Re-reading J.D. Vance's memoir." This came out earlier this year, but gets an update for the moment.

  • Ed Kilgore: [07-15] J.D. Vance as VP means Trump picks MAGA over 'unity'. What does "unity" even mean? Trump has complete control. He doesn't need to compromise with anyone. One might ask why he would pick a double-crossing weasel, but Trump probably figure he's on top of that game. Maybe Kilgore is just trying to plug the Intelligencer liveblog: So much for 'national unity': RNC live updates. Republicans don't need "unity": they believe they're the only ones who count, so they already are "unity" -- now if they can just get rid of everyone else, they'll be set (and America will be great again, like it was when the other people didn't count).

  • Daniel Larison: [07-15] What will Vance do for Trump's foreign policy? "The Ohio senator's ideology is hard to nail down as he has vacillated between restraint and interventionism."

  • Steve M: [07-15] J.D. Vance probably hates you more than Trump does: "It is clear that Vance is an angry, nasty person whose contempt for the people he doesn't like is bone deep." Also:

    Now that Trump has chosen Vance, I expect Democrats to focus on the mean tweets Vance posted about Trump before he became a Trump fan. I don't see the point -- politicians (and non-politicians) change their minds about people all the time. Kamala Harris said harsh things about Joe Biden during the 2020 campaign. George H.W. Bush attacked Ronald Reagan's economic ideas in the 1980 campaign. I think it's more important for voters to know how much contempt Vance has for everyone who disagrees with him or does things he doesn't like. I have kids, so he hates me. Maybe he hates you too.

  • Veronica Riccobene/Helen Santoro/Joel Warner: J.D. Vance wants police to track people who have abortions.

  • Ross Rosenfeld: The scary message Trump sent by choosing J.D. Vance: "The Ohio senator is a sycophant who will never challenge or question his boss -- not even to defend American democracy."

Of course, the Trump news doesn't end there.

  • Sasha Abramsky: [07-14] A brief history of Trump and violence: "But that can't be allowed to erase the long, ugly history of Trump's dalliance with violence."

  • David Atkins: [07-08] Pay attention to Trump's every cruel and crazy syllable: "All eyes are on President Biden's words, but Trump is getting meaner and increasingly bonkers each day."

    Let's look at just a few recent examples.

    1. Trump wants to make poor migrants fight each other for sport.
    2. Trump wants to ban electric cars because someone in an electric boat might get eaten by a shark.
    3. Donald Trump wants to ban all vaccine mandates in schools, which would include polio, measlesl, etc.
    4. Trump wants to end meaningful elections in the United States.
    5. Trump thinks the end of Roe v Wade was "amazing" and brags that he was "able to kill Roe v. Wade.

  • Elizabeth Austin: [07-13] Trump's Democrats-support-infanticide trope is an infuriating lie: "Republicans like the soon-to-be GOP presidential nominee are mocking every woman who got that horrible call from the obstetrician and made the tragic decision to end a hopeless pregnancy."

  • Christopher Fettweis: [05-15] Trump's big idea: Deploy assassination teams to Mexico: "His plan to kill drug kingpins to solve the American opioid crisis will backfire dramatically."

  • Chris Lehman: [07 -11] Donald Trump's new strategy: act normal: "With the opposition in disarray, Trump and his campaign have begun exhibiting unusual restraint in hopes of expanding his support."

  • Clarence Lusane: [07-12] Who thinks Donald Trump is racist? "Other racists, that's who!"

  • Nicole Narea: [07-15] A right-wing judge just threw out a case against Trump in a brazen abuse of power: "The classified documents case against Trump hits another major setback before the 2024 election." Why?

    In her ruling, Cannon argued that because Smith had not been appointed a special counsel by the president and confirmed by the Senate, his appointment violated the Constitution's Appointments Clause. . . .

    Cannon's ruling, which relies on a stringent reading of the Constitution and represents a brazen break with precedent, has come under heavy criticism from legal scholars. Under her ruling, the appointment of prior special counsels would have also come into question, from Archibald Cox, who investigated the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard Nixon's resignation, to Robert Mueller, who investigated Russian interference in the 2016 election.

    I'm sure there will be more on this next week. Well, for now, this one is worth quoting at length:

    • Steve M.: [07-15] The death of America is steady rot:

      We think we'll lose democracy and the rule of law suddenly if Donald Trump becomes president again. We think the edifice will be destroyed like the Twin Towers on 9/11: the planes hit the buildings, and without hours they collapsed in on themselves.

      But our system is like a house that's rotting room by room. The foundation has cracks. There are termites. The roof leaks. One room after another has become uninhabitable.

      We've lost the federal courts. The would-be murderers of America already have the federal bench they need to sustain the horrible America they want. A second Trump presidency won't really worsen the federal bench -- it will only fix it in place in its current form for several more decades. I'm 65, and I'll never live to see a federal bench that isn't an extremist Republican legislature in robes.

      Through gerrymandering, we lost democracy in many state legislatures years ago. In states like North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Texas, liberals and moderates add up to more than 45% of the electorate and have exactly none of the legislative power, because of gerrymandering. This happened long before Trump and there were no "Death of Democracy" front-page headlines.

      If Trump wins in November, he and the thugs of Project 2025 might take a wrecking ball to what's left of the house. But already several rooms are closed off. It's unsafe to live in them. And even if Trump loses, or wins and doesn't follow through with the worst ideas his backers have proposed, many rooms in the house will continue to rot.

      A lot of this rot can be traced back to Reagan in the 1980s, when a brief majority of Americans put sentiment and emotion over reason and practicality, and ceded power to the people Kurt Anderson called Evil Geniuses (subtitle: The Unmaking of America: A Recent History), and for that matter to the conspiracies -- to use a word we've systematically been trained to abjure -- of the 1970s that many others have written about (off the top of my head: Rick Perlstein, Jane Mayer, Max Blumenthal, Kim Phillips-Fein, Laura Kalman, Nancy McLean, Jeff Madrick). For sure, part of the blame lies with Democrats, like Carter and Clinton, who thought they could beat the Republicans at their own game, and some to with Democrats like Obama and Biden, who chose to play along rather than rouse the people to defend their rights against relentless Republican assault.

      M's point is absolutely right. Bad choices often take years, sometimes decades, to manifest themselves. To cite two examples where the elapsed time was too short to cloud causality, the distance from Reagan's deregulation of the S&L industry to its collapse was 6-8 years. The distance from Clinton's repeal of Carter-Glass and the deregulation of derivatives -- changes mostly championed by Republicans like Phil Gramm, but Clinton signed off on them -- was 8-10 years. Longer, more insidious time frames are even more common. I recall George Brockway tracing the financial madness circa 2000 back to an obscure banking law Republicans passed after their fluke congressional win in 1946 -- the same one that gave us Taft-Hartley, which had little effect on unionized auto, aircraft, steel, etc., workers through the 1960s but led to their collapse from the 1980s on. Similarly, there are blunders from the early Cold War that still haunt us (like the overthrow of Iran in 1953).

      We've been systematically starved of democracy for decades now: ever since campaigns became media circuses, increasingly in thrall to the sponsor class. Maybe now that the strangulation has become so obvious -- the only choice we've been allowed is between the two least popular, and quite arguably the two least competent, politicians in America -- we'll finally realize our need to struggle to breathe free. Or maybe we'll just fucking die. After all, we're about 90% buried already.

. . . And other Republicans:

  • Sasha Abramsky: [07-02] Will Arizona be MAGA's last stand? "Trump needs the state's votes to win. But after its highest court revived an 1864 law that bans abortions, all bets are off."

  • Hassan Ali Kanu: [07-11] No, Trump and GOP have not 'softened' on abortion, women's rights: "The language change in their platforms is nakedly dishonest bait and switch."

  • Sarah Jones: [07-14] The authoritarian plot: "At the National Conservatism conference, Republicans mix with racists ranting about 'post-white America.'"

  • Steve M: I have a couple more of his posts elsewhere, but let's go to town here:

    • [07-13] First thoughts on the shooting (updated): Starts with his own prediction tweet: "Every rank-and-file Republican voter believes this was an assassination attempt ordered by President Biden. Trump will soon start pouring gasoline on the flames by stating this as if it's fact." Update shows it's happening even ahead of Trump's provocation. He does have them well trained.

    • [07-13] Project 2025: the gaslighting is well underway.

    • [07-13] Fear the all-powerful left! "The fever dreams of the propaganda-addled crazies at the Heritage Foundation are hilarious."

    • [07-12] Are Biden's poll numbers impervious to bad news, like Trump's? I think the upshot here is that while people may not know what (or whom) to believe, they've become so wary of being lied to that they reject any news, probably from any source, leaving them impervious to change. If you're a journalist/pundit, you may think it's your job to adjust to new facts, but if you're not, it's just fucking noise, almost all of which can be discounted.

    • [07-11] New York Times editorial: Trump is bad -- but the Republican Party is awesome! That editorial was titled Trump is not fit to lead.

      Not a single Democrat is cited in this editorial. I understand that that's the point -- the ed board members, if you asked them about this, would say, "We're making the point that even Trump's fellow Republicans know he's unfit" (though no Republican in good standing dares to say that). But this is also a sign that the Times ed board agrees with the Republican Party's decades-long campaign to "other" Democrats. Our political culture accepts the GOP's assertion that Democrats aren't really Americans.

    • [07-10] Dear Democrats: You know people can hear you, right? (updated):

      It's been thirteen days since the June 27 debate. On each of those thirteen days, the top news story in America -- not just in the monomaniacal New York Times, but everywhere -- has been "Christ, That Joe Biden Is Really, Really Old. He Can't Possibly Win. He Has to Step Aside. Has He Done It Yet?" Other stories, including stories that could have been very damaging to Donald Trump, were fully or partly buried. And still Democrats can't muscle Biden out, persuade him to leave the race, or stop talking about it and get behind him. . . .

      I think Democrats believe it's okay for this to play out in public for two weeks -- two weeks of bad headlines for the man who now seems certain to be the nominee -- because of a fundamental misunderstanding of politics that hurts them in other areas as well. They think this is fine because they think voters pay attention to politics only in the last couple of months before an election. That's the reason most Democrats don't bother with messaging unless it's election season, while Republicans engage in messaging every day of every year.

      I'm not personally super bothered by the protracted process, but clearly this has given Trump and the Republicans a whole month of big PR wins, from the June 27 debate all the way through the end of the RNC, especially as, in response to the shooting incident, Democrats have wisely decided to pull their ads, and keep their powder dry. But if the election was next week, this would have been a total disaster for the Democracy. (Maybe not for the small-d concept, but that's what they called the Party back in Jackson's day, and that's what Will Rogers meant when he said he wasn't a member of an organized political party: he was a democrat.) But at some point soon-ish, they really have to get the act together and turn this mess around. I don't see how they can do that without first jettisoning Biden, who is the indelible personification of a much greater crisis in democratic faith.

    • [07-09] The press doesn't have a "bias toward coherence" -- it has a bias toward Republicans.

  • Shawn Musgrave: Trump's camp says it has nothing to do with Project 2025 manifesto -- aside from writing it.

  • Timothy Noah: The GOP platform perfectly reflects the lunacy of Trump's party: "I read it so you don't have to: It's an unconditional surrender to the cult of Trump, and its plan to reduce inflation is laughable."

  • Rick Perlstein: [07-10] Project 2025 . . . and 1921, and 1973, and 1981: "Terrifying blueprints for the next Republican presidency are a quadrennial tradition." Perlstein points out that aside from all the truly evil stuff you've possibly read about elsewhere, there is also a lot of confusion and in-fighting going on. For example:

    The section about Russia in the State Department chapter -- the author is an old hand of the High Reaganite wing of the Republican foreign-policy guild; a "globalist," if you will -- emphasizes that the Russia-Ukraine conflict "starkly divides conservatives," with one faction arguing for the "presence of NATO and U.S. troops if necessary," while the other "denies that U.S. Ukrainian support is in the national security interest of America at all."

    This misunderstanding is important. The silence, so far, on those parts, indicts us. These are great, big, blinking red "LOOK AT ME" advertisements of vulnerabilities within the conservative coalition. Wedge issues. Opportunities to split Republicans at their most vulnerable joints, much as when Richard Nixon cynically expanded affirmative action requirements for federal building projects, in order to seed resentment between blue-collar building trades Democrats and Black Democrats.

    And yes, there is plenty of blunt insanity, too. But, bottom line, this is a complicated document. "Conservatives in Disarray" is precisely the opposite message from that conveyed by all the coverage of Project 2025. But it is an important component of this complexity, and why this text should be picked apart, not panicked over, and studied both for the catastrophes it portends and the potential it provides.

  • Andrew Prokop: [07-13] Project 2025: The myths and the facts: "The sweeping conservative plan for Trump's second term is very real. Here's what it actually says."

  • Prem Thakker: GOP platform doesn't mention the word "climate" once -- even after hottest year on record.

Biden

Evidently Biden's age was already an issue in 2008, when Barack Obama picked him for Vice President. The thinking was that his age would balance off Obama's youth, that the position would cap off an already long and distinguished political career, and that he'd be too old to mount a serious run in 2016, leaving the field open for Hillary Clinton.

But when Clinton lost to Donald Trump -- let that sink in for a moment, folks -- Biden convinced himself that he could have done better, and set out to prove it in 2020. And he was a flop, his age dulling the charisma he never really had in the first place, but with Bernie Sanders a year older age wasn't so much an issue, and with Sanders winning, Biden became the only credible option to stop him, and the donor wing of the Democratic Party were desperate to do that.

After derailing Sanders, defeating Trump should have been the easy part, but somehow Biden managed to make even that look hard fraught. He won, but not decisively enough to lead Congress, or to squelch Trump's big lie about a rigged/stolen election. Trump has, if anything, loomed larger in American politics than Biden, even as president, could do. While that is testimony to several alarming tendencies in public opinion -- and media that both panders to and cashes in on controversy -- one cannot help but suspect that Biden's age is part of the problem.

At any rate, it's the part that people focus on once they realize that there is a problem that it could plausibly explain. They do that because it's tangible, something they have lots of experience with or at least observing. It's also something you can base expectations on, because it's inevitably progressive: if age seems to be a problem now, you can only expect it to get worse. Many Democrats, especially one who have closely bound their careers to Biden, have worked hard to hide evidence and deflect discussion of Biden's age -- even from Biden himself. But once you see it, as most people did in his June 27 debate with Trump, it's hard to revert to denialism. It's like the zit you never noticed, then found you can't avert your eyes from. Pretty soon you wind up with the Emperor's New Clothes.

As the following links will show, Democrats are divided: Biden and his closest allies still think that if they hold firm, he can ride the story cycle out, and by November refocus the campaign on beating back the immense threat of a Trump win; many others are skeptical and/or worried sick; a few actually see that replacing Biden with a younger, more dynamic, and hopefully much sharper candidate -- Harris seems to fill that bill, and is well-placed to step in, but there could be dozens of good options -- opens up an opportunity to not just eke out a win in November but deliver a crushing blow to Trump and his crony fascists.

As I've probably made clear over the last couple weeks, I'm skeptical, but also in the latter camp. I'm not really capable of the sort of despair that sees Biden, even as decrepit as he obviously is, losing to Trump -- despair in the future tense, as anticipation of a horrible turn of events, something very different from the sickening feeling when such events happen (as I remember all too well from November 2016). That part is just faith, still intact even if waiting to be shattered.

But my skepticism takes many forms. The one I'm most certain of is that if Biden remains in the race, he will commit a fair number of age-related gaffes and blunders, maybe including what wouldn't be his first fall, and that every time he does, his age will return as the paramount media obsession, shifting attention from the real and present threat of Trump. I don't know how many votes that will cost Biden, but it is a risk, and also a major opportunity cost. We need Democrats to win not just to stop Trump and shore up the somewhat liberal wing of the militarist oligarchy that Biden aligns with, but to actually address real problems, helping an overwhelming majority of Americans through very troubling times.

Another form of skepticism is suggested by my rather sour turn of phrase in that last line. I gravitated toward the new left in the late 1960s, and since then I've been as acutely critical of the Democratic Party as I've been of the Republicans, even as I've most often voted for Democrats, figuring them to be not just lesser evils but occasionally good for modest reforms. Either is reason enough to vote Democratic. (It's not like your vote is good for much else.) But if you're on the left (or anywhere else excluded from access to power), you might also consider voting a tactical choice: you're going to spend the next four years in opposition anyway, but which issues would you rather protest against? Biden, or any other Democrat with a chance, will leave you plenty to argue against.

One thing I can say about age is that it mellows you out. My critical analysis is as radical (in the sense I originally got from a 1966 book titled The New Radicals) as ever, but my appetite for conflict has really dimmed, and I'm willing to appreciate almost any tad of ameliorative reform. I chalk much of my personal change up to aging, and I suspect similar things happen to most people, including politicians like Biden. As I've noticed, Biden is the only president in my lifetime who turned out better than I expected (well, until Gaza, which is hard to excuse). Part of that is that he came in with really low expectations. Part of it may be that he's old enough to remember the pre-Carter, pre-Reagan, pre-Clinton Democrats -- even though he seemed totally simpatico with them, you know how old people lose recent memories before they lose formative ones? There's no one else like him in the Democratic Party these days. (Sanders is old enough, but never was that kind of Democrat. He was much better, which is why he remains so much sharper.) I do worry that whoever replaces Biden will be just another neoliberal shill. But even where Biden's heart is in the right place -- and, let's face it, it isn't always -- he's lost his ability to persuade, to lead, and to listen.

So my considered view is that we need to move him out, and start working on viable future. Even if Biden sticks and wins -- and I'll vote for him, despite thinking he really belongs in a Hague Court -- he's only going to get older, more decrepit, less credible, more embarrassing, and less effective as he struggles to hang on past his 86th birthday. And if he dies, resigns, or has to be removed, his replacement will enter with a much reduced mandate. Dump him now, elect his replacement, elect a Congress that's willing to do things, and the next four years will start looking up.

I guess that's more of an editorial than an introduction. I wrote it before collecting the following links:

  • Intelligencer: [07-09] Biden resistance appears to be waning in Congress: For a brief period, this publication seemed convinced that Biden is persevering in his fight to stay atop the Democratic Party ticket.

  • Sasha Abramsky: [07-10] An open letter to the president of the United States: "There are worse things in life than a comfortable retirement."

  • Michael Arria: [07-09] Biden was already a vulnerable candidate because of the genocide: "Biden was already plummeting in the polls before his disastrous presidential debate with Trump. The reason was his ongoing complicity in the Gaza genocide and the Uncommitted movement."

  • David Atkins: [07-11] I'm a DNC member and a public opinion professional. It's highly unlikely Biden can win: "Only one person can build on the administration's accomplishments, have unfettered access to funds and ballot lines, and do so without wasting precious time. Her name is Kamala Harris." Another long-time, major Biden apologist breaks ranks.

  • Rachel Bade/Eugene Daniels/Ryan Lizza: [07-11] Playbook: What Obama and Pelosi are doing about Biden. Report here is that George Clooney showed his op-ed to Obama before he ran it, and did not receive any objection. "Obama's team declined to comment." Pelosi seems to be maneuvering behind the scenes, but "out of respect for Biden and national security writ large" thought he should hang on through the NATO summit. Now (my thinking here), with the shooting, it would make sense to wait until after the RNC shuts down.

  • Joseph Contreras: [07-06] What Joe Biden could learn from Nelson Mandela about knowing when to quit: "Unlike the beleaguered U.S. president, the South African leader did not want to be an 81-year-old head of state and served only one term."

  • Keren Landman: [07-11] The controversy over Biden and Parkin's disease, explained.

  • Eric Levitz:

  • Andrew Prokop:

    • [07-09] Is it undemocratic to replace Biden on the ticket? "Biden says the primary voters picked him. Is there more to democracy than that?" What kind of democracy was that? Practically nobody ran against Biden in 2024 because the campaign finance system lets donors pick who can run, and they didn't dare cross Biden -- especially after Democrats canceled Iowa and New Hampshire, which historically have been wide open and have a history of upsets, and which Biden lost badly in 2020, in favor of running South Carolina first, the sourc of Biden's breakthrough win in 2020.

    • [07-11] What Biden's news conference did, and didn't, clear up: "The presser went fine. But the Democratic defections continued."

    • [07-14] Will Trump's shooting change everything? Or surprisingly little? "Two theories on the political impact of the Trump assassination attempt." The Trump campaign will try to spin this in to a big deal, blaming it all on the left and championing Trump as a life-risking fighter for true Americans, who want nothing more than to make their beleaguered nation great again. But it doesn't change the issues, or stakes, one iota.

    • [07-15] Did Trump's shooting save Biden's nomination? "Democratic defections have slowed, but Biden isn't out of the woods yet." Perhaps I should re-read this more carefully, but on first scan, absolutely nothing in this piece makes any sense to me.

  • Kaleigh Rogers: [07-12] Americans were worried about Biden's age long before the debate. Background from the poll-watchers at 538, who also produced:

  • Luke Savage: [07-12] The Biden problem has been years in the making: "As concerns mount over Biden, the Democratic Party reminds us this isn't a democracy."

  • Bill Scher:

    • [07-05] I've defended Biden for years. Now, I'm asking him to withdraw: "After waiting too long to reassure the public of his mental fitness, the president is sinking in the polls with little hope for recovery. But he can resign with grace and make history." Scher has long struck me as the most diehard Biden apologist in the Washington punditocracy, and indeed he was one of the few to have reserved hope after the debate (see: A wasted opportunity for Biden (but still time for redemption)). So this appears as a significant retreat. And he's followed with:

    • [07-09] How Kamala can win (without mini-primary madness).

    • [07-12] Wilson didn't resign. The world suffered. Biden need not repeat that mistake: "Wilson hid an incapacitating stroke from the public and fatally compromised his mission to establish a functional League of Nations. Once again, global peace and democracy precariously rely on a president reluctant to face a personal health crisis." Well, that's another whole can of worms, and while it's always fun to argue about Wilson, his case is really not relevant here. I will say that Wilson was a very complex but tragically flawed character, often invoked in arguments that reduce him to caricature. My own argument is that his failure to sell Americans on the League of Nations -- which was evident before his stroke took him out of action -- had no real bearing on the coming of WWII, but his failures at Versailles did (as Britain and France cast aside his anti-imperialism and insisted on punitive reparations over his better sense).

  • Jeffrey St. Clair:

    • [07-12] Running on empty: Very good coverage on Hurricane Beryl here, but this is mostly on Biden, starting with a Chris Hayes quote: "Biden is a decent man who has done nothing wrong. He has not got caught in a scandal -- he's just aging." To which St. Clair responds: "The real scandal is that liberals don't see arming a genocide as a scandal." I'm inclined to compartmentalize and see opposing Netanyahu's genocide in Gaza and opposing Trump in America as both critically important but separable matters, and I'm even willing to cut Biden some slack, as he is a potential solution to both -- although in the latter he's mostly proven hapless, in the former, which is something he could do something about on his own, he's drifted into criminal negligence. But clearly Hayes misspoke, and he, at least, should have known better. We've seen many attempts to use flattery to tempt Biden to quit (e.g., George Clooney, Thomas Friedman, Paul Krugman, David Remnick, Matthew Yglesias), but it hasn't worked, and it's hard to see why it would. This seems more like the time for brutal honesty. If you must, sugar-coat it as tough love, but save the huzzahs for after he does "the right thing."

    • [07-15] Big Boy Biden in his own words: He starts by quoting some of the praised heaped on Biden for his press conference performance, like Andrew Bates: "To answer the question on everyone's minds: No, Joe Biden does not have a doctorate in foreign affairs. He's just that fucking good." That leaves St. Clair wondering:

      After hearing these encomia, I had to check myself. This is Joe Biden they're talking about, right? The same Joe Biden who voted for the Iraq War, the most disastrous foreign policy debacle in US history? The same Joe Biden who backed the overthrow of Qaddafi, turning Libya into an anarchic war zone dominated by slave trading gangs? The same Joe Biden who provoked and now refuses to seek an end to a bloody, stalemated war in Ukraine? The same Joe Biden who has continued Trump's Cuban embargo and tariffs on China? The same Biden who has spent the last 3.5 years pandering to the bone-sawing Saudi regime he called a "pariah" state during his 2020 campaign? The same Biden who refused to renegotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran? The same Biden who has armed a genocide in Gaza that may end up claiming over 200,000 Palestinian lives? The same Biden who could barely string together two complete sentences a couple of weeks ago?

      Adding, "An unlikely transformation, IMHO." So then he reads the White House transcript, and quotes it liberally, although his best line is in his introduction: "Biden's answers reminded me of some of Samuel Beckett's later works exploring the thought patterns of a decaying mind."

  • Alexander Stille: We learned everything we needed to know about Biden in 1988: "His stubborn refusal to heed wise advice, and bottomless belief in his own greatness, were on display in his first campaign for president."

  • Michael Tomasky: [07-12] Democrats: "He was better than the debate" is not remotely good enough: "In Trump world, they're thinking landslide. Democrats need to act and talk Biden into stepping aside, and soon."

  • p>Cenk Uygur: [07-11] Biden will not be the nominee: "The Young Turks host has long predicted Biden's campaign would implode. He explains why it wasn't obvious to everyone, and predicts what will happen next." Nathan J Robinson interviews him.

And other Democrats:

Legal matters and other crimes:

Climate and environment:

Economic matters:

Ukraine War and Russia:

America's empire and the world:

Other stories:

Zack Beauchamp: [07-10] What the world can learn from Indian liberalism: "The intellectual Pratap Bhanu Mehta explains how liberalism grew out of 3,000 years of Indian history."

Roger Kerson: [07-09] You think this year's presidential conventions will be crazy? 1924's fights over the Ku Klux Klan were wilder.

Katie Miles: [07-08] "She usually won." Remembering Jane McAlevey, 1964-2024. Also:

Initial count: 146 links, 9355 words. Updated count [07-16]: 193 links, 9436 words.

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): Biden.

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Tuesday, July 9, 2024

Music Week

July archive (in progress).

Music: Current count 42624 [42580] rated (+42), 20 [29] unrated (-9).

Some updates, although at this point [07-12] I might as well start working on next week's posts. I added a fair amount to extras I already added to the latest Speaking of Which: most tweets on Biden's probable withdrawal, plus a couple similar pieces including the George Clooney op-ed. I also added links to the Michael Tatum and Robert Christgau Consumer Guides, which are probably of more interest here:

I have a bit more information on the Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll, but that probably deserves a separate post, which I'm not up to at the moment. The most pressing matter is that response has been light, and I suspect that a bit part of that is due to email problems. As frequent readers may recall, I've been plagued by them for months and possibly years. I tried coming up with workaround strategies, one of which has been completely ineffective: which was to ask people to forward invites, and suggest a willingness to accept unsolicited invites. The only thing I got there was an offer by a long-time virtual friend, who is not really a credentialed critic but whose opinion I value highly, to submit a list.

In a moment of weakness (or possible insanity), I offered to publish his list, and more like it if anyone bothers to submit them. So if you can imagine drawing up a credible list of up to 10 2024 jazz albums and up to 5 2024 archival jazz albums, take a look at the Non-Critic Ballot Invitation, and follow instructions. Those ballots won't figure into official totals, and counting them isn't a priority for me, but I will eventually publish all I receive, and I wouldn't be surprised if, as lists go, your batch winds up being as credible as the ones submitted by the pros. I will be surprised if they wind up being representative of jazz fandom, because I'm doing virtually nothing to promote this, and if you can only read about it here, you're in a very small minority (and I'll be lucky to get ten ballots).

The links below to the Poll Website are still valid, and now point to somewhat more substantial information. On last update, I had 25 ballots. I'm resending the invitations -- a slow and painstaking process -- hoping to avoid spam traps and get some more responses. I will say that the data I have, though sparse, is really terrific stuff. It's a cliché in compiling these lists to say "this is a really great year," but when all is said and done, you'll see for yourself.

Delayed until Tuesday again, because Speaking of Which took all of Monday, itself being pushed out by the seemingly futile notion that I could add a few Afterthoughts to the previous week's massive Speaking of Which.

Seems like I could wind up delaying this post a second day, as it's already late as I'm writing this. Most of Tuesday got chewed up writing two long comments relating to the Biden nomination: one on a Matthew Yglesias post, the other an expansion of my Afterthoughts comment. None of this even mentions the seemingly important (if true) Ben Jacobs: [07-09] How the Democratic movement to dump Biden went bust. Or Nia Prater: [07-09] Why is the Squad backing Biden so forcefully? As Yglesias explained in his piece, the calculation for Democratic politicians is different than the one for journalists and pundits. New York Magazine, which published a number of pieces extremely critical of Biden (probably all op. cit. through my links above) has gotten so into circling the wagons, they've gone into live blog mode: Biden resistance appears to be waning in Congress. On the other hand, Eric Levitz: [07-09] is back with another piece: The arguments for Biden 2024 keep getting worse.

Definitely no Afterthoughts this week, and I'm going to be hard pressed to do a Speaking of Which by Sunday or Monday. Most pressing thing after getting this up will be to follow up on the Mid-Year Jazz Critics Poll. Deadline remains Sunday, July 14. I've received 18 ballots so far, referencing a total of 177 albums. About 50% of those albums were not previously in my tracking file, so I've been using them for prospecting (three of the five A- albums this week came from ballots; the other two are promos I received, with no votes so far).

Probably the most important thing I need to do is to compare the Jazzpoll mailing list, which is where I sent the invites, to the more authoritative list I made last year of people I actually sent invites to, especially the ones I voted. At some point I stopped automatically adding names to the Jazzpoll list, so chances are that a couple dozen people who should have been invited weren't. I'm also worried about invites being diverted into spam folders -- I know of at least two such cases, both with gmail. If I had the time and energy, I would follow up, but it's a lot of work. I also need to go back and review some couple emails I received after last year's poll -- a couple offers of help, at least one person who asked to be invited (and should be).

To make up for these shortcomings in the invitation process, I asked people to inform and possibly invite their colleagues. Thus far I haven't received any takers, or for that matter inquiries. The only evidence I have is that some spam has started getting caught there. Not a lot, and none of it's getting through, but it's one more thing to deal with.

At this moment, the website is a bit behind my local copy, but I will refresh it a couple times this week. I need to edit several documentation files, and change the methodology notes in the totals files. The main things of possible public interest are the invitation, the list of critics who have voted, and the list of new releases and rara avis that have received votes. The actual results won't be public until ArtsFuse publishes them.

I've had very little time for updating my metacritic file, but I have added the mid-year lists I've been noting in the Speaking of Which music section, so there's been a bit of movement. File still needs a lot of work. I did, by the way, start counting all of the metal magazines at AOTY (but I've yet to go back and fill in the ones I skipped earlier). I wish their coverage of jazz, hip-hop, electronica, and country was as deep as their interest in metal, but it isn't. I haven't gotten around to sources like All About Jazz, Saving Country Music, and Hip Hop Golden Age, which would help remedy those deficits. No time, and not much energy these days. Also, I can barely see, so if I don't post this right away, it won't make it tonight.

PS: Facebook blocked me, so I may give that a rest.

New records reviewed this week:

BbyMutha: Sleep Paralysis (2024, True Panther): Rapper Brittnee Moore, from Chattanooga, second album, Bandcamp page attributes it to "BIGMUTHA," but every other source goes as I have it, sometimes no-caps. B+(**) [sp]

Beings: There Is a Garden (2024, No Quarter): New York-based quartet of Zoh Amba (tenor sax, mostly), Steve Gunn (guitar), Shahzad Ismaily (bass, synth), and Jim White (drums). I never thought of Gunn as a jazz musician, and he doesn't have to be one when filling in behind Amba's sax or piano (even more indebted to Charles Gayle than her sax), but when she sings, he presents a Velvet Underground vibe so she can be Moe Tucker. No attempt at fusion here. Just multiplicities. A- [sp]

Chris Byars: Boptics (2023 [2024], SteepleChase): Tenor saxophonist, what you might call a retro-bebopper, probably the most talented musician to first appear on Luke Kaven's early 2000s Smalls label, which also produced exceptional records by two more musicians in this sextet: Zaid Nasser (alto sax) and Ari Roland (bass). They're joined here by Stefano Doglioni (bass clarinet), John Mosca (trombone), and Keith Balla (drums). B+(**) [sp]

Kim Cass: Levs (2023 [2024], Pi): Bassist, second album, composed everything here, mostly for pianist Matt Mitchell, who he's supported in the past, and is striking (as usual) here. Also with Tyshawn Sorey (drums), and (except for 3-4 tracks) flute (Laura Cocks) and euphonium (Adam Dotson). B+(***) [cd]

Ernesto Cervini's Turboprop: A Canadian Songbook (2022 [2024], Three Pines): Canadian drummer, based in Toronto, half-dozen albums since his 2015 Turboprop introduced his group name. Sextet with two saxophonists (Tara Davidson and Joel Frahm), trombone (William Carn), piano (Adrean Farrugia), and bass (Dan Loomis). Songs are sentimental favorites in his neck of the woods, but they travel well. B+(***) [bc]

Coco Chatru Quartet: Future (2024, Trygger Music): Swedish group, named for "a legendary Swedish adventurer," label for bassist Håkan Trygger, who wrote four (of eight) pieces, with two each by Daniel Kåse (drums) and Linus Kåse (alto sax), zero by Charlie Malmberg (baritone sax). Slippery postbop, somewhat understated. B+(***) [lp]

Alfredo Colón: Blood Burden (2023 [2024], Out of Your Head): Alto saxophonist, based in Brooklyn, first album, quartet with Lex Korten (piano/keybs), Steve Williams (bass), and Connor Parks (drums), original pieces plus a Son House blues. This develops impressively, in the "spiritual jazz" vein pioneered by Coltrane, Sanders, and Ayler, alongside more recent efforts by saxophonists like Nat Birchall. A- [cd]

GloRilla: Ehhthang Ehhthang (2024, Cocaine Muzik Group/Interscope): Rapper Gloria Hallelujah Woods, from Memphis, two albums, this one's considered her second mixtape, crunk (I've read). Lot of b&n here (as in "ain't no b in me, n"). If you can roll with that, this should rock you. B+(***) [sp]

Conrad Herwig: The Latin Side of McCoy Tyner (2024, Savant): Trombonist, born in Oklahoma, studied at UNT, joined Clark Terry's 1980s band, played with Joe Henderson, Toshiko Akiyoshi, Joe Lovano, Mingus Big Band; first leader album in 1987, joined Eddie Palmieri in 1994, and recorded his initial The Latin Side of John Coltrane in 1996, since followed by Shorter, Hancock, Henderson, Silver, Mingus, and now Tyner. This one has Alex Norris (trumpet), Craig Handy (tenor/baritone sax), Bill O'Connell (piano), with the usual percussion excitement, and a special guest slot for Palmieri. B+(**) [sp]

Janel & Anthony: New Moon in the Evil Age (2024, Cuneiform): Janel Leppin (cello) and Anthony Pirog (guitar), self-released an album together in 2006, another for Cuneiform in 2012. They've since gone on to establish separate careers, but reunite here for what is effectively two albums: the first a ten-track suite of darkly engaging duet instrumentals, the second a singer-songwriter set with Leppin doing most of the singing -- jazz-influenced, no doubt, but not something one would note in a blindfold test. I find the songs a tad more appealing, but probably for the music, as I can't say much about the lyrics. B+(**) [cdr]

Mathias Højgaard Jensen: Is as Is (2022 [2024], Fresh Sound New Talent): Danish bassist, lives in Brooklyn, probably his first album as leader (Discogs has three side credits since 2019, his website has 13), all his pieces, quartet with David Mirarchi (alto sax), Jacob Sacks (piano), and Steven Crammer (drums). This is very nice: subtle and intricate postbop that sneaks up on you. A- [cd]

Malcolm Jiyane Tree-O: True Story (2020-21 [2024], New Soil/Mushroom Hour): South African trombonist, second group album. B+(**) [sp]

Alex Kautz: Where We Begin (2024, Sunnyside): Brazilian drummer, based in New York, married to Mexican singer Magos Herrera (featured on two songs here), with John Ellis (tenor sax/clarinet), Chico Pinheiro (guitar), Helio Alves (piano), and Joe Martin (bass). B+(*) [cd]

Cassie Kinoshi's SEED.: Gratitude (2023 [2024], International Anthem): British alto saxophonist, plays in the Afrobeat group Kokoroko, leads the large SEED Ensemble (first album in 2019, nominated for Mercury Prize, was upper case then but lower case now), which is a skeletal big band plus string quartet, flute, tuba, and turntables. Title piece runs 21:56, is packaged with a slightly smaller group on a 5:42 piece (so 27:38 total). B+(*) [sp]

Charlie Kohlhase's Explorer's Club: A Second Life (2022 [2024], Mandorla Music): Saxophonist (alto, tenor, baritone), based in Boston, Discogs credits him on 48 albums since 1985 (many with Either/Orchestra) but Wikipedia hasn't noticed yet, third group album, an octet with tenor sax (Seth Meicht), trumpet (Dan Rosenthal), trombone (Jeb Bishop), tuba (Josiah Reibstein), guitar (Eric Hofbauer), bass, and drums. Originals plus covers from Elmo Hope, Ornette Coleman, John Tchicai, and Roswell Rudd. The bottom horns provide a lot of lift. A- [sp]

Janel Leppin: Ensemble Volcanic Ash: To March Is to Love (2023 [2024], Cuneiform): Cellist, released the album Ensemble Volcanic Ash in 2022, same basic group and concept here but I'm annoyed by the typography, so this is my solution. The music can also annoy, but also can turn remarkable, even living up to this hype: "progressive chamber jazz with the steely avant-garde that descends from Julius Hemphill's 1972 LP Dogon A.D." Hemphill's secret was cellist Abdul Wadud, whose name appears in the opening "Ode." Sextet with Brian Settles (tenor sax), Sarah Hughes (alto sax), Anthony Pirog (guitar), Luke Stewart (bass), and Larry Ferguson (drums). B+(***) [cdr]

Frank London/The Elders: Spirit Stronger Than Blood (2023 [2024], ESP-Disk): Trumpet player, has extensive experience in klezmer music (Klezmatics, Hasidic New Wave, Klezmer Brass Allstars, Klezmer Conservatory Band) as well as straight jazz -- here often evoking Ellington and Mingus, with tributes to Lester Bowie and Ron Miles. B+(***) [cd]

Megan Thee Stallion: Megan (2024, Hot Girl): Rapper Megan Pete, fourth album (plus several EPs) since 2019, I usually like her raunch and roll, but runs long here, for mixed results. B+(***) [sp]

Che Noir: The Color Chocolate, Volume 1 (2024, Poetic Movement, EP): Rapper Marche Lashawn, from Buffalo, Discogs lists as Che'Noir, cover looks more like Chè Noir. EP is four songs, 10:58, but Discogs has more cuts, and Wikipedia has nothing, which is odd given that Discogs lists seven songs and six singles/EPs. Even at this length, this feels pretty substantial. B+(**) [sp]

Clarence Penn: Behind the Voice (2024, Origin): Drummer, has several albums, one original here plus a batch of soul & rock standards from the 1970s-80s, roughly Stevie Wonder to Prince, with sides of Peter Gabriel and Don Henley, employing five guest singers, with Kurt Elling the one you've heard of (but may not want to hear). B+(*) [cd]

Ken Peplowski: Unheard Bird (2024, Arbors): Supposedly another chapter of "Bird with Strings": a first recording of arrangements commissioned for Charlie Parker. The leader, playing clarinet and tenor sax, is not a very obvious choice for this project, but if the idea is simply to make Bird cornier, who is? Peplowski leads a very capable quintet with Terell Stafford (trumpet), Glenn Zaleski (piano), Peter Washington ( bass), and Willie Jones III (drums), while Loren Schoenberg conducts an orchestra of strings, harp, and oboe. B- [sp]

Ken Peplowski: Live at Mezzrow [Smalls Live Living Masters Series] (2023 [2024], Cellar Music): This is more like what he's done so consistently since 1989: tenor sax and clarinet, playing swing standards with the occasional bop reference (Monk, Hank Jones), leading a rhythm section that's been doing just that for decades: Ted Rosenthal (piano), Martin Wind (bass), Willie Jones III (drums). B+(***) [sp]

Carla Santana/José Lencastre/Maria do Mar/Gonçalo Almeida: Defiant Ilussion (2023 [2024], A New Wave of Jazz): Electronics, alto/tenor sax, violin, bass quartet, recorded in Portugal. B+(***) [bc]

Dirk Serries/Rodrigo Amado/Andrew Lisle: The Invisible (2021 [2024], Klanggalerie): Belgian guitarist, Portuguese tenor saxophonist, English drummer, recorded in Belgium, three pieces (56:44). Amado is superb when he gets out front. B+(***) [bc]

Matthew Shipp: The Data (2021 [2024], RogueArt, 2CD): Pianist, brilliant, many albums since the late 1980s, probably has a dozen solos by now, with this one of the better ones, if you're at all so inclined. B+(***) [cdr]

TV Smith: Handwriting (2024, JKP/Easy Action): T for Timothy, was singer-songwriter in British punk band the Adverts, released two 1977-78 albums, best remembered for the single "Gary Gilmore's Eyes," but the song I always think of is "One Chord Wonders." He formed another band, then went solo in 1983, and has recorded pretty regularly since 1992 -- way off my radar. Older now, which means slower, and anger ripened into bitterness, and therefore gravitas. B+(***) [sp]

Anthony Stanco: Stanco's Time (2023 [2024], OA2): Trumpet player, second album, side credits back to 2011, half originals, half jazz standards from Ellington and early boppers (Parker, Monk, Dameron, Davis), half with "Time" in the title. With Randy Napoleon (guitar), Xavier Davis (piano), bass, drums, and on three cuts, Walter Blanding (tenor sax). B+(**) [cd]

TiaCorine: Almost There (2024, South Scope/Interscope, EP): Rapper from North Carolina, merged her first two names together, omitting Thompson Shultz, mother is Shoshone, father has roots in Japan and Africa. She released an EP in 2020, an album in 2022, back here with eight songs, 16:38. Title is about right. B+(**) [sp]

Ryan Truesdell: Synthesis: The String Quartet Sessions (2022-23 [2024], ArtistShare, 3CD): Composer/arranger/conductor, started as Maria Schneider's assistant, made his name with "Newly Discovered Works of Gil Evans," has conducted "The Music of Bob Brookmeyer." Here he's composed a bit and arranged or at least currated a lot of new compositions for string quartet, with a few strategic guest spots. B+(**) [cdr]

Steve Turre: Sanyas (2023 [2024], Smoke Sessions): Trombonist, also plays conch shells, couple dozen albums since 1987, quite a bit of side work (Discogs lists 224 albums he played trombone on). Live sextet here with Nicholas Payton (trumpet), Ron Blake (tenor sax), Isaiah Thompson (piano), Buster Williams (bass), and Lenny White (drums). Starts with title track, which Turre wrote for Woody Shaw's The Moontrane (1974), evoking the classic trombone-augmented hard bop sextets of the 1960s. Ends with a very nice "These Foolish Things." B+(***) [sp]

Lisa Ullén: Heirloom (2023 [2024], Fönstret): Swedish pianist, born in Seoul, South Korea, over a dozen albums under her own name since 2006, more side-credits. First solo album, each side with a variation on the same three-part suite. B+(**) [bc]

Jack Walrath: Live at Smalls (2023 [2024], Cellar Music): Trumpet player, started out with Mingus in the mid-1970s, debut album 1979, had an impressive run in the 1990s, has five albums on SteepleChase since 2008 -- quite a bit of work I should catch up on. Quintet here with Abraham Burton (tenor sax), George Burton (piano), Boris Kozlov (bass), and Donald Edwards (drums), revisiting his songbook and adding to the legacy ("A Bite of Tunisia," "Mood for Muhal," etc.). B+(***) [sp]

Neil Young & Crazy Horse: Fu##in' Up (2023 [2024], Reprise): Live album, from Tivoli in Toronto, reprising their 1990 album Ragged Glory, a pretty solid A- at the time, dropping one song ("Mother Earth"), renaming most of the rest (title song becomes "Heart of Steel"), length up 1:50. Hard to see this as necessary, but sounds good and gets better. B+(***) [r]

Denny Zeitlin: Panoply (2012-23 [2024], Sunnyside): Pianist, 86 now, has recorded since 1964, while pursuing a parallel career in psychiatry. This offers a good survey of his range, from solo pieces (2012) to a trio (2019) with Buster Williams and Matt Wilson, plus home recordings in a duo with George Marsh (drums). B+(**) [sp]

Recent reissues, compilations, and vault discoveries:

Christer Bothén Featuring Bolon Bata: Trancedance [40th Anniversary Edition] (1984 [2024], Black Truffle): Swedish tenor sax/bass clarinet player, first albums were with Don Cherry, this was the first he led, Bolon Bata the band name, went on to a second album in 1988. Before this he lived and studied in Mali and Morocco, also playing doson n'goni and guimbri here, the large groups featuring other African instruments, and various vocals. A- [bc]

Johnny Griffin Quartet: Live in Valencia 92 [The Jordi Suñol Archives 3] (1992 [2024], Storyville): Tenor saxophonist (1928-2008), distinguished himself with Thelonious Monk in the 1950s, had a major career in the 1960s, recorded consistently during the 1970s and 1980s (on widely scattered labels), enjoyed something of a comeback in the 1990s. Live set from Spain -- part of a series of archives that started with albums by Phil Woods and Mulgrew Miller -- with Hervé Sellin (piano), Reggie Johnson (bass), and Doug Sides (drums). Opens fast, closes gently. B+(***) [sp]

Shelly Manne & His Men: Jazz From the Pacific Northwest (1958-66 [2024], Reel to Real): Drummer (1920-84), started in swing bands, quickly adapted to bebop and majored in cool jazz; played with Stan Kenton, André Previn, and Ornette Coleman; led small groups, his 1959 Black Hawk sets with Richie Kamuca and Victor Feldman are especially esteemed. Two LPs here, the first from Monterey in 1958 with Stu Williamson (trumpet), Herb Geller (alto sax), Russ Freeman (piano), and Monty Budwig (bass); the second from Seattle in 1966 has Conte Candoli (trumpet), Frank Strozier (flute/alto sax), Hampton Hawes (piano), Budwig, and Ruth Price (vocals). B+(**) [sp]

Brother Jack McDuff: Ain't No Sunshine: Live in Seattle (1972 [2024], Reel to Real): Organ player (1926-2001), recorded 20-plus albums for Prestige 1960-66, establishing himself as one of the main soul jazz talents of the period, recording much less prolifically thereafter (for Atlantic, Blue Note, Cadet, and after 1992 for Concord). This is previously unreleased, a couple of nice sets with sax (Leo Johnson or Dave Young) and sometimes trumpet (unknown), as well as guitar and drums. B+(*) [sp]

Shelly Manne & His Men: Jazz From the Pacific Northwest (1958-66 [2024], Reel to Real): Drummer (1920-84), started in swing bands, quickly adapted to bebop and majored in cool jazz; played with Stan Kenton, André Previn, and Ornette Coleman; led small groups, his 1959 Black Hawk sets with Richie Kamuca and Victor Feldman are especially esteemed. Two LPs here, the first from Monterey in 1958 with Stu Williamson (trumpet), Herb Geller (alto sax), Russ Freeman (piano), and Monty Budwig (bass); the second from Seattle in 1966 has Conte Candoli (trumpet), Frank Strozier (flute/alto sax), Hampton Hawes (piano), Budwig, and Ruth Price (vocals). B+(**) [sp]

Kalaparusha Maurice McIntyre: Live From Studio Rivbea: July 12, 1975 [Rivbea Live! Series, Volume 1] (1975 [2024], No Business): Tenor saxophonist (1936-2013), born in Arkansas, grew up in Chicago (AACM, two albums on Delmark), and on to New York, where he played in the streets, subways, and lofts, first recording as Kalaparusha in 1970, with an uptick in activity around 1998. The label has done a terrific job of releasing archival tapes by Sam Rivers, who was the central figure in New York's "loft scene, so it's nice to see them building out. B+(***) [cd]

Sun Ra: Excelsior Mill (1984 [2024], Sundazed/Modern Harmonic): Solo organ performance, described here as "like a cross between a demonically riffing '50s horror movie villain and a futuristic congregation leader delivering the interplanetary gospel," and indeed this instrument often evokes church and/or horror movies. I'm not particularly fond of either. B [sp]

Old music:

Christer Bothén Trio: Triolos (2003-04 [2006], LJ): Leader plays bass clarinet, ngoni, guimbri; trio with David Stackenäs (guitar) and Peter Söderberg (theorbo, lute, guitar, low budget electronics). Rather abstract, more interesting than compelling. B+(**) [sp]

Ernesto Cervini: Joy (2021 [2022], Three Pines): Toronto-based drummer, composer, several albums, also a tireless publicist for his fellow Canadian musicians (many, including guest vocalists, featured here), credits this as "inspired by Louise Penny's Gamache series of books and the qualities of goodness, decency, courage, and love that permeate them." B+(**) [sp]

Maurice McIntyre: Humility in the Light of the Creator (1969, Delmark): Tenor saxophonist, first album, two suites ("Ensemble Love" and "Ensemble Fate"), the first dominated by George Hines' incantatory vocal, the latter picks up piano (Amina Claudine Myers) and more horns (Leo Smith on trumpet, John Stubblefield on soprano sax). B+(**) [sp]

Kalaparusha Maurice McIntyre: Forces and Feelings (1970 [1972], Delmark): Second album, cover has "Kalaparusha" in large type on top line, title (smaller, because it's longer) on second line, then "Maurice McIntyre" (smaller still) as third line, while the back cover credits tenor sax, clarinet, flute, and bells to "Kalaparusha Ahra Difda." Backed by guitar (Sarnie Garrett), bass (Fred Hopkins), and drums (Wesley Tyus), with vocals by Rita Omolokun. B+(**) [sp]

Kalaparusha Maurice McIntyre Quartet: Peace and Blessings (1979, Black Saint): Italian label, became a major outlet for American "loft scene" veterans (especially David Murray). This was recorded in Milan, with Longineau Parsons on trumpet (both also playing related instruments), Leonard Jones (bass), and King L. Mock (drums). B+(**) [sp]

Jack Walrath Quintet: In Europe (1982 [1983], SteepleChase): Trumpet player, played with Mingus in the 1970s (and later in various Mingus big bands), early in his career as a leader, with a relatively unknown group (Anthony Cox, on bass, is the only one I recognize), for a set in Copenhagen, playing four of his pieces. B+(*) [sp]

Unpacking: Found in the mail last week:

  • Robby Ameen: Live at the Poster Museum (Origin) [07-26]
  • BassDrumBone: Afternoon (Auricle) [06-24]
  • Mai-Liis: Kaleidoscope (OA2) [07-26]

Ask a question, or send a comment.

Monday, July 8, 2024

Speaking of Which

Posting this a day late, only partly because I tried slipping in the Afterthoughts post. Late Monday night, and I'm dead tired, pretty sure I didn't complete my rounds, but at this point if I fail to post I'll just waste another day. Expect Music Week on Tuesday, plus some late additions here (and maybe on the Sunday-dated but Monday-posted Afterthoughts as well). On the other hand, my mid-year jazz critics poll needs some work too, and should probably be considered a more urgent priority.

Nice to see elections leaning left in UK, France, and Iran. That should probably be a bigger story.

A few more extras below, but the big one is the comment on Matthew Yglesias, reiterating the case that Democrats need to replace Biden. That's also the subject of a long addition to last week's Afterthoughts.

In Tuesday's Music Week, written after this post but before I'm adding this section, I mentioned a couple Biden-related pieces that appeared after closing this:

None of this even mentions the seemingly important (if true) Ben Jacobs: [07-09] How the Democratic movement to dump Biden went bust. Or Nia Prater: [07-09] Why is the Squad backing Biden so forcefully? As Yglesias explained in his piece, the calculation for Democratic politicians is different than the one for journalists and pundits. New York Magazine, which published a number of pieces extremely critical of Biden (probably all op. cit. through my links above) has gotten so into circling the wagons, they've gone into live blog mode: Biden resistance appears to be waning in Congress. On the other hand, Eric Levitz: [07-09] is back with another piece: The arguments for Biden 2024 keep getting worse.

I'll probably return to those next week, but they relate to recent chatter below.

Late adds from ex-twitter:

  • Zachary D Carter: [07-09] Ths issue is Biden's age, and he gets older every day. It's not a scandal you can wait out until another media cycle. It will be a dominant campaign issue every day of the week until November. [This was in response to:]

    • Clara Jeffery: [07-09] What happens when the next press conference or interview goes awry. Or the barrage of battering polls keeps growing? Or swing district Dems openly panic?

      There is no "put it behind us" moment that the Biden camp hopes for/hopes to persuade Dems there is.

  • Eric Levitz: [07-09] Running Biden at this point means taking on his liabilities AND Harris's without enjoying any of the benefits of putting her at the top of the ticket (e.g. having a nominee who is much younger and more eloquent than the GOP's). [This was in response to:]

    • Marc Caputo: Trump stepping up criticisms of Harris, saying Biden chose her as an "insurance policy" because she's such a bad replacement that Biden would never be forced to step down.

  • Aaron Rupar: [07-08] [Reply to a 4:19 clip of "Jon Stewart reacts to Joe Biden's defiance over calls to step aside" -- worth watching, less for the plan, which isn't how it's going to work, than but the jokes, which hit their targets, thus demonstrating that they are real.] Stewart ignores that:

    1. There was a whole ass Democratic primary election
    2. Kamala Harris is the VP and the only Biden alternative that makes sense
    3. A thunderdome convention would do anything but "unify" the party

    I'm glad he had a chance to vent though

    [The primary was a sham, where nobody but Biden had a chance, because no one else had the money to run. Replacement could be anyone the money people agree on, but Harris is the easy pick. And the Party will unify behind virtually anyone, as Biden has already proved. Stewart ends with a clip where Biden is asked if any other Democrats could beat Trump, and his reply is "about fifty of them."]

  • Ian Millhiser: [09-10] If you're concerned that the press is paying too much attention to Joe Biden's age, and not enough to Donald Trump's unfitness for the job of president, I know one very simple thing that Biden could do that would take his age off the table in the November election.

  • Zachary D Carter: [07-12] Every Biden appearance from now until November will be an evaluation of his acuity. Even if he does ok, he's trapped in a losing issue for the campaign, the same way talking about abortion hurts Trump regardless of where he positions himself. Hard to see how he flips the polls.

  • Rick Perlstein: [07-12] So many of his statements end with him trailing off, exasperated, with something like "never mind"--these placeholders he sticks in when his brain can't summon up further thought. I'm not even suggesting something clinical. I can only say it comes off SOUNDING incapacitated.

Nathan J Robinson tweeted: "Wild to me that people like Matt Yglesias and the Pod Save America guys are now more publicly critical of Biden than the Squad." Jacob Shell pointed out, as Yglesias did in his post: "It's professionally cheap for a pundit and professional expensive for a politician." But it's not just that: Biden's replacement is going to be hand-picked by a cabal of moneyed insiders, then forced on a convention of delegates pre-selected for their loyalty. That person, who may well be Harris, will re-energize the party, but also will consolidate centrist control, and by winning (especially if winning decisively) will make it harder for the left to compete in 2028. The Squad represent very safe Democratic seats. If Biden wins, he will owe them, and if he loses, they will survive and be better positioned to rescue the Party moving forward. I'm not saying they're putting cynical self-interest ahead of the Party any more than any other politician -- if you're in a swing district, dumping Biden may simply be a matter of survival. But not everyone's in the same boat, with the same options. And they do have one point that is absolutely correct: we need to fight Trump, not among ourselves. If I thought the Biden thing would blow over, I'd happily join them. But I really don't see it blowing over, so the only realistic option is for Biden to drop out, and let someone who's up to the task take over.

By the way, a lot of really dumb comments attached to Robinson's tweet, especially by people trying to factor Israel in (e.g., "The Squad can't risk Kamala becoming president because of her husband's ties to Israel"). Lots could be said about this, but I'll leave it at this shows a remarkable ability to compartmentalize issues and political choices, especially given how centrist Dems collaborated with AIPAC to exterminate the Squad.

Initial count: 139 links, 7096 words. Updated count [07-11]: 163 links, 9377 words. -->

Local tags (these can be linked to directly): on music.

Top story threads:

Israel:

America's Israel (and Israel's America):

  • Nicholas Kristof: [07-03] How Biden has gotten in the way of fighting starvation in Gaza.

  • Blaise Malley: [07-03] By the numbers: US Gaza pier prject appears sunk.

  • Robert A Pape: [06-21] Hamas is winning: He's some kind of counterterrorism guru, with books like Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism (2005), and Cutting the Fuse: The Explosion of Global Suicide Terrorism and How to Stop It (2010), following earlier tomes like Bombing to Win: Air Power and Coercion in War, which was all the rage when it came out (1996). My wife wants me to listen to 11 minutes of his interview by Doug Henwood, but so far all I've found is this, with a link to an hour-long podcast that's supposed to be "wherever podcasts are" (like here?. I haven't read the article either, because it's paywalled behind a publication site that publishes crap like this:

    Pape's article title (and for that matter his book titles) suggest he has a very naive, very addled concept of winning. Granted, I'm starting from the default position that nobody can ever win at war, and that anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves, most likely by failing to recognize most of the costs one will eventually have to pay. Pape may well agree with much of this -- he certainly understands that Israel's collective punishment of Gaza is raising more opposition, and more desperate opposition, than they're able to kill off. It's not just that the violence could -- and sooner or later probably will -- rebound against Israel. It's just peculiar to think of either Israel's immediate offensive gains or its likely eventual denouement as winning for everyone.

    And especially for Hamas, which I'm inclined to believe -- admittedly with little evidence to back me up -- is no longer a real force, just a spectre conjured up by Israel as an excuse to continue genocide. I'm not saying that when Israel sends troops into some enclave in Gaza, they're not going to get fire returned. Just not much, and not from a coherent military or political force. Admittedly, I don't have much data to go on, so Pape might be helpful in that regard. On the other hand, how can he know much more than what Israel tells him? And why should he or we believe any of that?

  • Brett Wilkins: [07-04] Senior Israeli lawmaker suggests nuclear attack on Iran: Avigdor Liberman, the guy who's not in Netanyahu's coalition because it isn't far-right enough for him. (Actually, it's probably just because he hates Netanyahu. While he has no other redeeming qualities, who can't sympathize with him on that?) Still, he's basically saying that the problem with Israel is that the government isn't stark-raving bonkers enough.

  • Sharon Zhang: [06-28] Biden releasing part of bombs shipment to Israel that was paused over Rafah raid: "The administration appears to have totally thrown away its 'red line' on Rafah, two months after the invasion."

Israel vs. world opinion:

  • Mohammad Jehad Ahmad: [07-07] Silenced at school: NYC public schools chancellor suppresses Palestinian voices: "New York City Public Schools has been suppressing Palestinian narratives and activism. NYC Educators for Palestine has attempted to meet with Chancellor David Banks for months, but he keeps dodging our meeting."

  • Akbar Shahid Ahmed: [07-02] 12 Biden administration reseignees blast 'intransigent' Gaza policy: "Joe Biden 'has prioritized politics over just and fair policymaking' on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, former government officials argued in their first joint statement since quitting."

  • Michael Arria: [07-04] The Shift: School's out, but attacks on student protesters continue.

  • Muhannad Ayyash: [07-06] A hollow Palestinian state: "Spain, Ireland, and Norway recently made headlines for recognizing the State of Palestine. But the only effective policy for any state recognizing Palestine is also the diplomatic and economic isolation of the Israeli state. There is no other way." I would phrase this somewhat differently. There is no legitimate and/or sovereign Palestinian state to recognize, so it's an empty gesture -- admittedly, one that disrespects Israel, and may be worth doing just for that, but is insufficient to effect any change in Israel, which after all is the only place change can meaningfully occur.

  • Helena Cobban:

  • Ayça Çubukçu: [05-01] Many speak for Palestine: "The solidarity movement doesn't hav e a single leader -- and doesn't need one."

  • Joseph Levine: [07-06] If you support Israel in the middle of a genocide, you're an awful person. I don't agree with this, but that's because I recognize that many basically good people subscribe to bad political opinions, mostly because they are misinformed and/or habitually focus on the wrong things (which makes them easily misled). I might even go so far as to say that there are no bad people: only people who believe bad things, often for bad reasons (like to dominate and demean other people). But it's almost always a mistake to reify bad politics into bad people -- only making sense when the politics totally consumes the person. This article led me to an older one worth noting:

    • Randa Abdel-Fattah: [2023-12-27] On Zionist feelings: "The feelings and fragility of Zionists are used as a rhetorical shield to deflect from the reality of Palestinian genocide. I refuse to provide reassurances to placate and soothe Zionist political anxieties." I'm more indulgent of Zionist feelings than most critics of Israel, and I have my reasons, but I also understand this viewpoint. Starts with a quote from Edward Said: "Since when does a militarily occupied people have the responsibility for a peace movement?" Since the more instinctive war movement has repeatedly failed against a massively more powerful oppressor? Fighting back, understandable and even inevitable, reduces you to their level, not that they don't respond by sinking even lower. A peace movement, on the other hand, gains moral high ground, and challenges them to do better. Admittedly, Israel has never taken that challenge. All they do is designed to provoke violence, because that's the level they want to fight on. And, to circle back around, those who want that don't just have bad politics but are fairly seen as bad people.

  • Mitchell Plitnick: [07-05] Liberal Zionists answer the Gaza genocide by appealing for 'nuance': "Liberal Zionists are trying to rehabilitate Israel's image among young U.S. Jews after the Gaza genocide by appealing for 'nuance' and sending them to indoctrination camps. But these attempts ring more hollow than ever." Hard to scan for something as elusive as "nuance" in an article like this. As near as I can tell, the subjects here (Liberal Zionists in America) insist on being taken as fundamentally decent liberals, while excusing their distinctly illiberal views of anyone critical of Israel, mostly by treating "Arab nationalism" and "Islamic fundamentalism" every bit as rigidly as their opponents generalize about Zionism and Colonialism. Of course, they're right that their thought can be more nuanced than others appreciate, but the same is true for the others, who they reject with blanket generalizations -- like the syllogism that: Hamas is evil and can only be stopped with death; Hamas is an intrinsic tendency for Palestinians; therefore we will only be safe when all Palestinians are killed. That, in a nutshell, is current Israeli policy. Adding "nuance" may help obscure the issue, but won't change it.

    Plitnick, along with Marc Lamont Hill, is co-author of the book Except for Palestine: The Limits of Progressive Politics (2022), which goes deep into why many good people on the left in America have a blind spot for Israel. I don't know whether this addresses the second group of people, those who started with left/liberal sympathies but snapped hard to the right, often triggered by some crisis over Israel. The neocons, who rose to power under Clinton and GW Bush, provide some prime examples, but there are many more.

  • Richard Rubenstein: [07-02] Israel in Gaza: The Jewish break with Zionism: or, "Zionism as ethnic chauvinism."

  • Barnett R Rubin: [01-04] False Messiahs: "How Zionism's dreams of liberation became entangled with colonialism."

  • Philip Weiss: [07-07] Weekly Briefing: Normalizing genocide. The article itself briefly cites lots of other articles I've already cited. "Genocide" is such a hard, definitive term, so the idea is to break it up into smaller, softer, more ambiguous acts, spread out over time to lessen the shock, an aid to denial for those so inclined. But making it all seem normal is going to be a tall order. This article elicited a comment worth noting:

    The psychology of denial is important to understand: Jews tend to identify with Israel the way people identify with their families, says Joseph Levine. Well, many, many people eventually come to the realization that their father was an abusive drunk, their mother was manic-depressive and their siblings bullied them but they stuck around because admitting to themselves the real situation is just too painful -- I think that's the situation we're dealing with re Israel.

  • Omar Zahzah: [07-07] Why Big Tech's control of social media cannot stop anti-colonial resistance.

Election notes:

Joe Biden (post-debate):

  • Sasha Abramsky: [07-03] Running Biden against Trump is just plain irresponsible: "If American democracy is on the line, as Democrats have rightly insisted, why nominate someone who has trouble keeping up with his opponent." Or how about this: why nominate someone who is living proof that democracy is already lost?

  • Zachary D Carter: [06-10] Inflation is not destroying Joe Biden; "But something is!" Pre-debate piece I've been meaning to mention, but re-read it given what you know now.

  • Jonathan Chait:

    • [07-06] Biden's norm-shattering response to the post-debate crisis: "The problems are ethical, not just political." Chait cites two examples that while "not illegal" he finds ethically troubling: bringing convicted felon son Hunter in as one of his close family advisers (a circling of the family wagons that reminds Chait of Trump), and Biden's unwillingness to submit to cognitive screening. The thing is, you not only have to consider the literal merits, but how they will be spun, in a political media environment that quite frankly is not inclined to favor Biden.

    • [07-08] The Democrats who care more about their careers than beating Trump: "Biden bets his party doesn't have the guts to confront him." As long as you're talking politicians, that's probably a good bet, at least at first. But the people who decide who runs and who cannot are the big donors, and they'll still have careers either way. Politicians may be waiting for their signal. When they do, expect all the tails to wag.

  • George Clooney: [07-10] I love Joe Biden. But we need a new nominee. This matters, both as personal observation from someone who has access very few of us can match, and as the author is not a "low cost" pundit but a high value donor -- one of the people I often claim are actually pulling the strings. Also see the letters, at least the first one (another close witness). The third (terrified Harris will lose) and the fourth (he's just an actor, so who cares?) not so much.

  • Nate Cohn: [07-03] The debate hurt Biden, but the real shift has been happening for years. There's also this interview with Cohn:

    • Isaac Chotiner: [07-04] Nate Cohn explains how bad the latest polling is for Joe Biden. This is in in a nutshell:

      Joe Biden is a badly wounded candidate whom voters dislike, and who voters think isn't capable of handling the Presidency. And while Donald Trump isn't a political juggernaut by any stretch, and is maybe every bit as weak as he was four years ago, at least at the moment, Joe Biden does not have the broad appeal necessary to take advantage of it.

  • Matthew Cooper: [07-05] If Biden quits the race, he should resign the presidency: "Being a lame duck for seven months would be far worse for him -- and us -- than leaving office and propelling Vice President Harris to the Oval Office." Sorry, but this is really stupid. Running for president and being president are two very different things, and really demand different skill sets (not that there's any way we can fix that). Running for president demands that be able to engage with public and press, being articulate and decisive in difficult circumstances, every day between now and November. You'll need to convince voters that you will serve them, and will be able to continue to serve, clearly and coherently, for another four years. Nobody believes that Biden can or even should do that. That's a tall order, maybe even an impossible one, for anyone. Even in his prime, Biden never had those skills. He only got elected thanks to a series of fluke circumstances: first as the least objectionable compromise to stop Sanders from winning the Democratic nomination, and then as the only alternative to Trump. And while it may have seemed plausible that he could repeat given similar circumstances -- above all, a rematch with Trump -- some critical elements have changed beyond repair (like Biden having to own his own record, battered as he's been by four years of relentless Republican villification, with his own skills clearly diminished in his 80s).

    On the other hand, what's so hard about finishing his term? As president, he needs to attend a few meetings, ask questions, sign orders he has staff to prepare, do the occasional meet and greet. He doesn't have to give speeches or press conferences. He doesn't have to fly overseas. If, as reported, his sweet spot is 10-to-4, why can't that be his work day? And if he ever does have to answer that 3AM call to start WWIII -- you may recall that as Hillary Clinton's "commander-in-chief test" -- just wake him up and brief him. That's a situation smarter people would never allow to happen, but if he did, how much worse could he be than Clinton or any of his predecessors?

    As for being called a "lame duck," that's something that stupid people (or opportunists trying to dupe stupid people) are going to do anyway. Ignore them. (Actually, the 22nd Amendment should have banned consecutive terms. They didn't think of that because there was a long tradition of major presidents serving two -- and until FDR only two -- terms, and because in 1947-51 presidential election campaigns only took up a couple months, as opposed to the billionaire-funded multi-year marathons of late. They also had no idea all the crap journalists would spread about "lame ducks.")

    Let's assume that Biden has to withdraw from the nomination. As far as the country is concerned, there should be no problem with him finishing out the term he was elected to. But if he did so, Kamala Harris would become president. As she is most likely his replacement as nominee, would becoming president help or hurt her candidacy? I don't see how it would help. It would give her a bigger plane to campaign from, and offer a few nice photo-ops (world leaders and such, look presidential). But it would put a lot of demands on time she needs to campaign. And it would saddle her more closely with Biden's legacy, which despite some real accomplishments remains pretty unpopular. I also suspect that a Biden resignation wouldn't spin well: it will be taken as a disgrace, affirming all the charges against Biden, and tainting his legacy -- a legacy that Harris will need to burnish in order to win.

  • Chas Danner:

  • Arthur Delaney: [07-05] Reps. Seth Moulton, Mike Quigley latest Democrats to call on Joe Biden to quit race: "The dam hasn't broken, but there's a steady drip of statements from Democrats skeptical of Biden being the Democratic nominee."

  • Ed Kilgore: [07-08] Was Biden's debate worse than Access Hollywood? I suppose what he's trying to say is that candidates can win despite embarrassing incidents along the way. I don't know or care which was worse, but I can think of several reasons why this will cause Biden more trouble: Access Hollywood may have impugned Trump's character, but he didn't have much to lose in the first place; also it's an old story, not present, so something Trump might have matured out of (as opposed to something that only gets worse with age); and while most of us might prefer to have a president who's not an asshole, some people actually regard that as a plus. On the other hand, debating is supposed to be a core competency for presidential aspirants, and is suggestive of how a person might handle an unexpected crisis, as is almost certain to happen. Also, the debate was an explicit opportunity for Biden to show that years of suppositions and innuendos about Biden's mental agility, tied to his age, were wrong. Biden's performance would seem to have confirmed them -- with his ever-increasing age by far the most obvious cause. Perhaps worse still, this implied that Biden's past denials were also false, casting considerable doubt on his reliability and truthfulness.

    Trump recovered because the the DNC mail dumps changed the fickle media's story line, then came Comey's announcement that he was re-opening the Clinton email investigation, which itself might have faded had the Stormy Daniels story not been bought off. But henceforth, every time Biden debates, he will be haunted by this performance, and every time he doesn't debate, that too works against him. Either way, Biden is trapped. If he doesn't drop out, this is going to be very painful to watch.

  • Ezra Klein: [06-30] This isn't all Joe Biden's fault.

  • Paul Krugman: [07-08] Please, Mr. President, do the right thing.

  • Chris Lehman:

  • Eric Levitz:

    • [07-05] In an ABC interview, Biden charts a course for Dems' worst-case scenario: "The president appeared too frail to defeat Trump and too delusional to drop out."

      No interview or stump speech can erase these revelations. The news media will not stop scrutinizing the copious evidence of Biden's senescence. The Trump campaign will not forget that it now possesses a treasure trove of humiliating clips of Biden's brain freezes and devastating quotes from the president's allies. Given this climate and the candidate's limitations, it is not plausible that Biden can surge in the polls between now and November. . . .

      The Biden who spoke with ABC News Friday night was enfeebled, ineloquent, egotistical, and intransigent. He was a man who appeared both ready and willing to lead his party into the wilderness. Asked how he would feel if he stayed in the race and Trump were elected, Biden replied, "I'll feel as long as I gave it my all and I did the goodest job as I know I can do, that's what this is about."

      Wasn't that how Hillary Clinton felt after losing? I've never forgiven her for losing to Trump, and probably never will. Biden will be even worse, because doubts about him are so widely and deeply expressed, so far in advance of the actual vote.

    • [07-07] Biden is leading Democrats toward their worst-case scenario: Appears to be a slight edit of the previous article.

  • Daniel Marans: [07-06] Voters had issues with Biden's age long before the debate. That's why Democrats are worried.

  • Nicole Narea: [07-03] Forget four more years. Is Biden fit to serve now? Was he ever fit? What does that mean? Let's take care of the nomination first: that's the position that needs to be filled, with someone who can handle the immediate requirements and very probably continue to do so four years out. After that, if he can finish his term with dignity, shouldn't we show him that much respect? He'd certainly be under a lot less pressure and stress if he wasn't also running for a second term.

  • Olivia Nuzzi: [07-04] The conspiracy of silence to protect Joe Biden: "The president's mental decline was like a dark family secret for many elite supporters."

  • Evan Osnos: [07-06] Did Joe Biden's ABC interview stanch the bleeding or prolong it?

  • Tyler Pager: [06-30] Biden aides plotted debate strategy for months. Then it all collapsed. "The Biden team gambled on an early debate and prepared intensively at Camp David, but advisers could not prevent the candidate's stumbles onstage." Pager also reported on:

  • Nia Prater: [07-08] Read Biden's I'm-not-going-anywhere letter to House Democrats. Following up:

  • Andrew Prokop: [07-03] Leaks about Joe Biden are coming fast and furious: "The recent reports about the president's age and health, explained."

  • David Schultz: [07-03] Biden's abysmal debate.

  • Nate Silver:

  • Norman Solomon: [07-02] Who you gonna believe, Biden loyalists or your own eyes and ears?

  • Brian Stelter: [07-03] Did the media botch the Biden age story? "Asleep at the wheel? Complicit in a cover-up? The real story is far more complicated -- and more interesting." Or "Sorry, Ted Cruz, there are more than two options."

  • Michael Tomasky:

  • Benjamin Wallace-Wells: [07-08] Joe Biden is fighting back -- but not against Trump, really: Then what the hell is he good for?

  • Joan Walsh: Biden did not save his presidency on ABC: "An uneven interview with George Stephanapoulos was too little, too late -- and maybe a bit too churlish."

  • Matthew Yglesias: [07-08] I was wrong about Biden: I followed Yglesias closely for many years, but after he won that "neoliberal shill of the year" contest (I think it was 2019), quit Vox, started buckraking at Substack, and wrote that opportunisticaly Friedmanesque book (One Billion Americans: The Case for Thinking Bigger), about the only time I read him these days is when he gets one of his Bloomberg columns syndicated (and they're rarely much good). He's a smart guy who knows a lot, but he's also a calculating bastard who's especially adept at spotting trends and triangulating them with an eye toward profit. So it's no surprise that he (unlike his Vox-cofounder Ezra Klein, another smart triangulator) bought the Biden second term plan hook, line and sinker, or that Biden's debate performance, for once in his life he's eating crow. Or maybe twice: he started out as a big Iraq war booster.

    But enough with shooting the messanger. Let's try reading the message. It's long, methodologically sound, meticulously thought out, and damning. For instance, consider some facts:

    Biden isn't doing press conferences. He's using teleprompters at fundraisers. The joint appearances with Bill Clinton or Barack Obama look like efforts to keep attention off the candidate. It's not just that he's avoiding hostile interviews or refusing to sit with the New York Times, he isn't even doing friendly-but-substantive shows with journalists like Ezra Klein or Chris Hayes. It was a while ago now that I talked to him, and though it went well, I haven't heard recent rumors of many other off-the-record columnist chats. The seemingly inexplicable decision to skip the Super Bowl interview is perfectly explicable once you see the duck. In a re-election year, a president needs to do two different full-time jobs simultaneously, and Biden was really struggling with that. Apparently foreign governments were sitting on some anecdotes that have now leaked, which I wouldn't have thought possible.

    But the biggest data point that I blew off was a recent and totally unambiguous one.

    Five days before the debate, someone who'd seen Biden recently at a fundraiser told me that he looked and sounded dramatically worse than the previous times they'd seen him -- as recently as six months ago -- and that they were now convinced Biden wouldn't be able to make it through a second term. I blew that warning off and assumed things would be fine at the debate.

    That goes a bit beyond the facts I wanted to show, but you can see where he's going. The next paragraph begins: "Now that Biden apologists like me are discredited in the eyes of the public," then segues into a good point we needn't dwell on here. The next section is more important: "The media climate is going to get worse." He offers some details, but if you at all understand how the media works, you can imagine the rest, and then best double it for what you're too decent to even imagine the media doing. [Insert shark metaphor here.]

    Yglesias moves on to a "What comes next?" section, where he reminds us what a calculating bastard he is:

    Columnists calling on Biden to step down provide, in my view, are a small boost to Trump's election odds and a minuscule increase in the odds that Biden actually steps aside. I think we have to say it anyway, because this is journalism and we owe a duty of truth to our audience. But in narrow cost-benefit terms, the public criticism of Biden has negative expected value.

    Elected officials have a different set of responsibilities. I've seen some people express frustration that Barack Obama came out with such a strong statement of support for Biden. But Obama slagging Biden in public would have been a boon to Trump and accomplished nothing. Same for Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries and Nancy Pelosi and everyone else who matters. These are politicians, and they do not share journalists' obligations of candor.

    But what they do in private does matter, and I hope they do the right thing.

    The main thing I would add to this is that the election isn't until November (or, with early voting, mid-October?), so even if it takes until the Convention to replace Biden, there will still be plenty of time to unite behind the nominee and the ticket before anything real happens. Until then, it's just hot air (or maybe just tepid). The media cares, because they want you to think that every moment, every minute shift and sway, portends great importance, but that's just their business model. There are good reasons to replace Biden sooner rather than later -- it's painful to watch Biden and his cadres squirm, and we would be much happer spending the time exposing and deprecating Trump and the Republicans -- but it's a process, and that takes time. (I'm not even bothered by it not being a very democratic one, although it does mean that the elites who control this process will be held responsible should they fail.)

    Let me close here by quoting a reader comment:

    So long as Biden remains the nominee, we're going to keep getting hammered on age and mental decline.

    As soon as Harris is the nominee, we can hammer Trump on age and mental decline.

    I'd rather play the second game.

    Indeed, as long as Biden is the nominee, this is going to be one long, miserable election, where we're stuck playing defense, on grounds that aren't really defensible. Sure, we still might eek out a win, but best case is it's going to be close, which means that the administration will be hobbled for four more years, its leadership decrepit, while getting blamed for disasters that have been brewing for decades. On the other hand, replace Biden, and you reverse the tide, and go on the offense: throw the whole anti-Biden handbook (not just age and imbecility, but cronyism and corruption, egotism, vanity, the whole ball of wax) back at Trump, and go after all the Republican toadies fawning all over him. Wouldn't you rather kick some ass? We have time, but we won't have it forever.

Trump:

  • Margaret Hartmann: [07-08] What the Jeffrey Epstein documents reveal about Donald Trump.

  • Jeet Heer: [07-05] Why aren't we talking about Trump's fascism? "Joe Biden has created a distraction from the existential question that should define this election." I don't see this as a problem. Some people understand what fascism means, especially historically. Most of them are fascinated enough to debate the fine points, but all of them already have weighed Trump out on the F-scale, so there's no real need to engage them on the issue. (Most are opposed, even ones who dismiss the charge on technical grounds, and none are likely to view Trump more negatively if you make them better understand the case that Trump is a fascist.) A second group of people only understand that aside from a couple of known and long gone historical examples, "fascist" is a slur, mostly used by people on the left to attack people not on the left. To convince people that Trump is a fascist and therefore bad, you first have to teach them what fascism is and why it is bad, which is a lot of excess work, and will probably wind up making them think that you are a Marxist (which if you actually know this stuff, you probably are). There are lots of more straightforward ways to argue that Trump is bad than that he specifically is a fascist, so for those people the effort ranges from inefficient to counterproductive. Then there are the people who will accept your analysis and embrace it, deciding that fascist Trump is even cooler than regular Trump.

    Heer's article is a good example of why we shouldn't bother talking about Trump and fascism. Heer is part of that first group, so he not only likes to talk about fascism, he sees fascism as the prism that illuminates Trump's myriad evils. However, once he introduces the terminology, we forget what the article was meant to about -- that Biden's incompetence has become a distraction from the real issue, which is the very real disaster if Trump is elected -- and fixate on the single word (which as I just said, is either understood but redundant, or misunderstood and therefore irrelevant, so in either case ineffective). So Heer's article doesn't expose Biden's distraction but merely adds to it.

  • Nicholas Liu: [07-08] Trump runs from Project 2025, claims not to know what it's about: "The former president is trying to distance himself from a plan drafted by his own former aides."

  • Shawn Musgrave: Trump camp says it has nothing to do with Project 2025 manifesto -- aside from writing it.

  • Marc A Thiessen: How Trump can make NATO great again. No time to read this, but the fusion of author (aka "Torture Boy"), concept, and title blew my mind.

And other Republicans:

And other Democrats:

  • Sarah Jones: [07-03] A socialist's case for Kamala Harris: I'd tread carefully here. The decision on the Democratic ticket is going to be made by people who fear and hate socialists even more than Trump, and you don't want them to turn on Harris just because she's one of the less bad compromises available. She as much as admits this with her last line: "But if I can't get what I want this year, I'd rather settle for Harris."

  • Osita Nwanevu: [07-08] Democrats don't just need a new candidate. They need a reckoning. "Democrats will be impotent messengers on democracy as long as they remain beholden to the feudal culture this crisis has exposed." Right, but it isn't going to happen, certainly not this year. The Democratic left didn't challenge Biden this year, basically for three reasons: it's nearly impossible to reject an incumbent president running for a second term; their relationships with Biden were engaging enough that they saw him as a path for limited but meaningful reform, which they valued more than just taking losing stands on principle; and they are more afraid of Trump and the Republicans than ever. Conversely, Biden is running not because he's uniquely qualified to beat Trump, but because he was uniquely positioned to prevent an open Democratic primary that could have nominated a Democrat who might be more committed to the voters than to the donors. But now that cast is set. Even if the convention is thrown open, the people voting there are almost all beholden to Biden. So while Biden will not survive as the nominee, he and his big donors will pick his successor, and when they do, every Democrat who doesn't want to risk Trump will line up, bow, and cheer. The reckoning will have to wait, probably until crisis forces it.

  • Prem Thakker: Every Democrat other than Joe Biden is unburdened by what has been: "As voters look for another option, alternative Democratic leaders poll similarly or even better than Biden -- even without name recognition."

Legal matters and other crimes:

Climate and environment:

Economic matters:

Ukraine War and Russia:

America's empire and the world:

Other stories:

Margot Roosevelt: [07-07] Jane F. McAlevey, who empowered workers across the globe, dies at 59: "An organizer and author, she believed that a union was only as strong as its members and trained thousands "to take over their unions and change them."

Books

Jedediah Britton-Purdy: [07-02] The Creed: "How did Americans come to worship the Constitution?" Review of Aziz Rana, The Constitutional Bind: How Americans Came to Idolize a Document That Fails Them.

  • Aziz Rana: [05-30] Democracy was a decolonial project: "For generations of American radicals, the path to liberation required a new constitution, not forced removal." I ran across this essay slightly after finding the book review. While there is a common point, this goes in a different direction.

Leah Hunt-Hendrix/Astra Taylor: [07-02] For a solidarity state: "The state structures society. It can make us more prone to care for one another."

Sean Illing: [07-07] How the 1990s broke politics: "Inside the GOP's transition from the party of Reagan to the party of Trump." Interview with John Ganz, author of When the Clock Broke: Con Men, Conspiracists, and How America Cracked Up in the Early 1990s.

Osita Nwanevu: [03-11] The divided president: "Who's in charge in the Biden White House?" This is a bit dated, a review of Franklin Foer, The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden's White House and the Struggle for America's Future. I bought the book at the time, figuring it might shed some light on some things (mostly involving foreign policy) that I didn't adequately understand), but never got around to it, and I'm in no hurry these days.

Marshall Steinbaum: X thread: "There's a little book I recommend to anyone who's trying to get a handle on what's going on in American politics this week." The book is Nancy McLean, Democracy in Chains: The Deep History of the Radical Right's Stealth Plan for America. The book is mostly about economist James Buchanan, and how his and similar careers have been sponsored by right-wing networks, especially that of the Kochs. I read the book when it came out, and thought it was pretty good. Buchanan's early ties to the anti-desegregation movement were especially striking -- how easily we forget how reflexively racist many people were in the 1950s -- and the Koch funding was something I was rather familiar with. (I even received some myself, back when I typeset reprints of a couple Koch-sponsored reprints of Murray Rothbard books.) I'm less clear on Buchanan's economic theories, which seemed rather trivial. Maybe "stealth plan" was a bit of an oversell: much of it was public, and some of it barely qualified as a plan -- throwing money at something could just as well be seen as another of those "irritable mental gestures" Lionel Trilling saw in most "conservative thought." Still, this kicked up a flurry of protest over McLean's book, including some from people I generally respect (e.g., Rick Perlstein), so I took some notes:

Music, etc.

Nick Paumgarten: [07-01] Alan Braufman's loft-jazz séance.

Michael Tatum: [07-09] A downloader's diary (53): Much more than capsule reviews, major takes on Beyoncé, Nia Archives, Zawose Queens, Carly Pearce, Fox Green, and much more. Pearce and Fox Green also appear here:

Midyear Lists:

Ask a question, or send a comment.

prev -- next