Comment

From the New York Times, March 10, 2007, from an article about the intransigent problem of communities in dire poverty across Britain and the problems caused by adolescents there:

In February, Britain scored second from the bottom in a Unicef report that used 40 indicators, like relative poverty, health and family relationships, to measure children’s well-being in 21 industrialized countries…

Wow! That’s pretty hard.

However…

…Only the United States scored lower.

Yeah! Woo woo! Let’s kick some raghead butt! U*S*A!

Or something like that.

Stuck on sunflowers (Day 219/365)

I worked again today on the sunflower waltz (as well as continuing work on documents associated with the May 3 performance), and I’m stuck. It just sounds bloated.

Maybe I just need to scrape it all away and try again, and this time trust my instincts to make it smaller and lighter. It can still sound Straussian (J.) without sounding Straussian (R.).

Yesterday, I guess because I donated to the American Friends Service Committee, I received their Quaker Action magazine. Nice small publication, and in the middle of it was a pullout sign:

For Peace

You can write some kind of ID on it, take a photo of you with it, and upload it to their website, www.friendsforpeace.org. Simple enough, and not nearly enough. Sort of the antiwar version of a “Support Our Troups” ribbon on your SUV.

Still, one does what one can.

Composer for peace

Do what you can. I think I shall put mine in my van window.

Update: You can see it posted here.

Comment

With so much delightful going on around me in the world according to Bush, Ann Coulter, Scooter Libby, Walter Reed hospital, fired prosecutors, I’ll just highlight this little nugget, from the New York Times:

“To secure Democratic support for trade deals…, Republican leaders have signaled willingness to accept language guaranteeing the rights of workers, including a ban on child labor, for American trade partners. For six years, the administration and its Republican allies refused to include such guarantees in trade bills…” (emphasis mine, but what else can you see in this paragraph?)

These people are disgusting. If that’s the word I’m looking for.

Art again (Day 186/365)

I started it yesterday, but tonight I finished my visual for Man in the Marmalade Hat. Here it is:

Man in the Marmalade Hat visual (You can click on it for a full view.)

It was fun getting out the gouache and the brushes and the palette again. The result is still clumsy, but I think if I were to continue doing this I would improve rapidly.

One thing that would interest me if I keep working on visuals like this is becoming less “shape” oriented and more movement oriented, more “painterly” in style. Use brushstrokes of color to suggest movement and mood. Use shadows and light to define shapes.

This afternoon I bought a tiny watercolor “brick,” a 4×6 pad of watercolor paper bound on all four sides so that the paper won’t buckle when you paint on it. I figured I would try to do one of these every other day, just whack some paint, maybe go for the artist calling card idea.

In fact, I’m going to suggest that our workshop members go look at artist calling cards for inspiration.

blog dingbat

In other news, Charles “Cully” Stimson, deputy assistant secretary for detainee affairs, resigned. You may remember him as the ****t**d who a couple of weeks ago went on some radio station and named twelve law firms who had attorneys representing detainees at Guantanamo Bay, saying that he thought it was a shame and that CEOs of corporations should think twice before doing business with these firms. He also suggested that the lawyers were not doing the work pro bono (which they are), but were being paid through shady sources, meaning, of course, Al Qaeda.

He backpedalled and apologized, saying his remarks did not represent his “core values,” which I thought was incredibly meaningless. What could he have possibly meant?

At any rate, he’s gone. One down, so many to go. Write your representative. Call your senators.

A rant (Day 164/365)

So this week, the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, one Charles D. Stimson, went on the radio and said, out loud, that “he was dismayed that the lawyers at many of the nation’s top firms were representing the detainees of Guantanamo Bay, and that the firms’ corporate clients should consider ending their business ties.” (NYT, 1/13/2007, p.1)

Further, he named the firms and suggested the CEOs of companies doing business with them should make it clear that the law firms had to choose between their custom and “defending terrorists.”

And further, he insinuated that these lawyers were not representing the detainees pro bono, but were being paid by sources that he couldn’t identify but thought ought to be looked into, i.e., shady and sinister dealings, obviously with Al Qaeda itself.

We will now pause for the torrent of outrage from conservatives, who of course believe that this nation’s legal foundation depends absolutely on free trials with adequate legal representation for all.

Continue reading “A rant (Day 164/365)”

A rant (Day 129/365)

First of all, I have to compliment my readers for resisting commentary on the phrase “My father had Speedball nibs” which was nestled in yesterday’s post. Damned mature of everyone, I must say, unless Jobie hasn’t read the post yet.

Now we’re off to a hospital holiday function, but before I go, a liberal rant:

So Mary Cheney is going to have a baby. I think that is fabulous, and I wish her and Heather the best.

This is not to say that I am not watching with raised eyebrows and pursed lips the inevitable reactions from Cheney pere’s constituency. One can really not make this stuff up.

Continue reading “A rant (Day 129/365)”

Humbug. (Day 125/365)

I did not get the last six measures of Milky Way done. I did, however, get the Deer and Lava Flow™ display put up in the front yard:

Deer and Lava Flow display

But I do have a liberal rant, to wit:

The Times has an article about a memorial put up in northern California Here’s a photo.

Needless to say, people have gone nuts. One lady, whose son is at West Point and will be heading to Iraq after graduating next May, does not consider it a memorial. “The hillside is painful,” she said.

Another man called the display “a travesty” and said the people who put it up were “despicable and morally bankrupt.”

Why is it that any time anyone brings our Iraq casualties to our attention by individualizing them, the pro-war nutjobs go berserk? You would think that they would be pleased that everyone was honoring our dead, or at least they might pretend that’s what the memorializers were doing even if they weren’t.

But that’s not what happens. Every time someone reads out all the names of the dead or puts up thousands of crosses or stones or whatever, the überpatriots have a hissy. I just don’t get it. I mean, my elementary school has a big display in the front hall, with the names of all the soldiers from Coweta County who died in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Is that a “travesty”? Are we “despicable and morally bankrupt”? What if we added the names of soldiers from the first Gulf War? Or from this one?

What is the difference? I’m going out on a limb here and suggest that the pro-war nutjobs understand, even if they don’t admit it even to themselves, that our current Iraqi situation is itself “despicable and morally bankrupt,” and that calling attention to the deaths of the brave men and women who have given their lives in this debacle underlines that fact in ways that not even pro-war nutjobs can avoid. And they don’t like it. They like their country right or wrong, their wars just, and their dialectics black and white.

Thus they see every attempt to call attention to the nearly 3,000 troops who have died as an attempt to undermine the war effort, to stab their patriotism in the back and to paint the United States as a villainous imperial power. Somehow they never think that perhaps it was their patriotic duty to oppose this war in the first place, and if not in the first place, certainly by now. It should now be their patriotic duty to support our troops by making sure no more die in George W. Bush’s blunder, the worst foreign policy decision by any American President, ever. And when other people point that out to them, and to the rest of the public, they scream bloody murder. Because they understand that even if the memorial is absolutely sincere, it’s an intolerable intrusion of reality into their pony-based patriotism, and that’s what the rest of the world will see as well.

I wish there were more (Day 100/365)

The 100th day. Probably it’s time for one of those soul-searching assessments.

On the whole, I’ve accomplished a lot: finished the composition for William Blake’s Inn, started the orchestration of same, putzed around with the Hwy 341 poem, mused (before I got heavily into the William Blake problems) about a putative symphony, and ranted liberally from time to time.

Continue reading “I wish there were more (Day 100/365)”

Little progress (Day 85/365)

I forced myself to get started orchestrating the four big pieces. I had been dreading it because, as I’ve whined before, my nearly-four-year-old-laptop doesn’t have the power to handle even a small orchestra in Finale using Garritan Personal Orchestra.

I was right to dread it. For some reason, it couldn’t even burp out two horns, a cello, and a double bass plucking two notes. After getting not even four measures of Milky Way done, I gave up.

Which is not to say that I didn’t accomplish anything today. I redesigned a couple more pages of my website, which didn’t take any time of course. The pages that will take time are the ones that use formatting not already covered by my templated css stylesheet. I now have to actually tweak the css myself.

And a new feature of this column: I’ve decided to take paragraphs from Times articles about other places and substitute U.S. names and places in them. Where there are numbers, I’ll do like Juan Cole has done and extrapolate them to U.S. dimensions.

Today’s example, from “Bush, Facing Dissent on Iraq, Jettisons ‘Stay the Course'”:

Mr. Rumsfeld said Monday that the benchmarks under discussion included projections on when the U.S. might be able to take control of more of the country’s 50 states. Only five states are under full U.S. security administration, though officials say they hope the number will rise to sixteen or seventeen by the end of the year.

And they say the media doesn’t report the good news.