What does that say about us as a people-- that we are more interested in this modern-day but way-skankier Gabor sister than we are in who we elect for President? I don't know. But it makes me wonder iff Hillary should consider flashing a little crotch the next time she shimmies out of a limo.
Apparently we're getting about 100 visits a day here at APW.Who the dickens are all you people, anyway? I mean, besides the 8 of you we know... Why not leave a comment some time and introduce yourselves?
I'm especially anxious to hear from whoever it is that visits from Serbia and Montenegro.
One of you recently asked where our review was of the new Paul McCartney record. (Yes, we're very hip, but we always have liked, and still like, Paul McCartney. We also have songs by the Archies and Josie and the Pussycats (the new ones, the ones played by Rachel Cook and company) on our various and sundry iPods.)
We've listened to the thing twice, not counting the exposures at Starbucks, who (I kid you not) are Macca's new label.
Providing my general impression requires that I take a step back. To me, his work took a dramatic and apparently irrevocable turn when his wife Linda passed away. Since then all of his records (the popular music; I don't consume the classical or experimental stuff) has sounded distinctly different and of a piece. Compare his last record while Linda was alive (the underrated Flaming Pie) to any of the ones since. He sounds old, weary, vulnerable, brittle, alone. WHen Linda died, something in Paul died too; I feel like his musical voice has been profoundly altered, and I'm still getting used to hearing him through this new voice.
For some artists, the results of such passages-- signs of aging and vulnerability and mortality-- wear extremely well; Lou Reed and Neil Young come immediately to mind (e.g., Young's Prairie Wind.) But on McCartney, whose best work always scored high on the whimsy quotient, who wrote a self-aware #1 hit called "Silly Love Songs," this new, mature voice strikes me as dissonant with his natural talents. He certainly can't get younger or less mortal, and he certainly can't return to his marriage (and ouch, he did try.) So what I hear, four albums on (Run Devil Run, Driving Rain, Chaos and Creation, and now Memory Almost Full) is an artist with a gift for melody and puffery (meant in the best possible way) and always a great player, struggling to adapt his God-given toolkit to a new life stage. And.. it isn't really working.
Not that I hold any of this against him; if all goes well I personally plan to get as old as he is, and older still. But I'm not sure that Peter Pan can ever age gracefully.
All that preamble out of the way, I like this record better than I liked Chaos, and don't think it can touch either Flowers in the Dirt (1989) or Tug of War (1982), the two high points of his post-70s output. As on Chaos, I'm getting a very lonely vibe; this, from a guy whose early recordings were quintessentially band records (I mean the Beatles canon), and which generally thereafter reflected (often to a fault, some would say) his membership in a pretty closely-knit marriage.
McCartney took a lot of heat for "Silly Love Songs" in particular and silly love songs in general, but hell, that's why I listened. I for one don't think the world has had enough of silly love songs. And if Macca is out of the whimsy business, out of the silly love song business, I for one mourn the loss.
Labels: The tunes
Well sir, I did watch the Republican debate. An excruciating experience, peppered by an interesting blend of fear mongering (Giulliani, I'm looking at you!) yet distancing from the president.I won't go candidate by candidate, because who can rmember them all?
What a genuinely creepy bunch, nasty and dangerous. Romney is a cyborg, programmed to run for president; total disingenuous show pony who will adopt any position that is politically expedient. Watch as he reverses every social position 180 degrees in moving from Governor of the most liberal state to would-be presidential nominee from a conservative party... Giulliani is as snarky and nasty as ever. I remember the first time he ran against David Dinkins for mayor (and lost) in 1989, there was some controversy about Dinkins paying his taxes. No matter what anyone asked Giulliani, his answer would include the phrase, "David Dinkinth didn't pay hith tak-theth." Now its the same thing all over again; no matter what you ask him-- "did you want potato or vegatable with that?"-- the answer will include the phrase, "9/11." What a smarmy dick... McCain hits me as the most likable of the top-3, but I'm sorry, he's aged past his prime, and there is just too much "dodder" in his demeanor. Oddly, the guy I like among the second tier candidates is Mike Huckabee, who gave a killer explanation for why he raised his hand as not believing in evolution (basically that he didn't know how things were created, he wasn't there, but that he took the question to be about belief in God, and make no mistake, he believes in God.) I'm not doing it justice, but the answer took him from crazy religious nut to thoughtful, sincere regular guy. They asked Brownback (totally in the pocket of the Religious Right, by the way) the same question next, and he was screwed because Huckabee has just totally aced the question and left no other room to answer, save for "What he said."... and of course the fringe lunatic candidate, Ron Paul, makes the most sense of any of them, and I pray to God that he scores well in New Hampshire, only because he deserves to. (Bill Maher has had him on twice already.) Its funny that Paul sounds so out of step on this dias, but really, he is probably the closest to what might have passed for traditional conservative values to, say, Barry Goldwater. Then again, Hillary worked for Goldwater... Also I enjoyed nut job Tommy Tancredo's answer about what role Bush would play in his administration; basically, "Karl Rove told me never to darken the White House doors again... that would have to be my answer to president Bush."
Labels: The politics
That little peanut from my photo in the sidebar, three years on... she's on the left, with her cousin, in matching bikinis.
I have pretty much been sans job since 1999, working out of the home on my own. This has afforded me certain luxuries-- being there for the first 3 years of my daghter's life (priceless!), not having to shave very often, and being able to work in whatever outfit I choose (generally, the Spiderman pajamas and fuzzy pink slippers.)
Also, I assume you can't download porn over the company network...
Candidates listed in alphabetical order.
Joe Biden: Our guy did well, although if we were calling a winner we’d probably call Edwards. Biden got angry once, which was good; and as usual he demonstrated his command of the topics, looked presidential, and took no real hits. He scored points in defending his “yes” vote for the recent war funding bill, while Edwards took a shot at Hillary and Obama for voting “no” only after the vote outcome was moot, and not engaging in dialogue. More than once, as Biden spoke, you saw the others—notably Hillary—looking at him, as if they were thinking, “Hmm, he’s good… maybe he could be my running mate.”
Hillary Clinton: I didn't really get any kind of impression from her... she did have one funny line, saying of Cheney meeting with foreign officials, "That doesn't strike me as too diplomatic." I don’t know… I just don’t know. She remains the worst nightmare of the Right, which I can’t really fathom, because she is clearly the most conservative candidate among the Dems. (Really she's the worst nightmare of the left...) “Anybody but Hillary” from the right has to be based more on personality than on policy. Her main attribute still seems to be the air of inevitability her campaign has cultivated, and she runs not to screw that up, as opposed to running to win. I think it is going to backfire on her, but maybe I’m wrong. If she wins, she will have pulled a hell of a fast one; claiming frontrunner status without actually earning it, then riding it out to self-fulfilling prophecy. Perhaps only Al Gore can save us.
Chris Dodd: I am becoming more and more convinced that, if this guy could get the nomination, he would totally carry
John Edwards: In a “who won?” sort of analysis, I think Edwards did the best, taking his seemingly-polite-but-really-a-little-bit-smarmy shots at the two in front of him, Hillary and Obama. I get the feeling that this guy has waltzed through life on the basis of his smile and hair (indeed I don’t hold the $400 haircut against him; it was savvy to invest in what is clearly one of his best assets.) But the more I see of him, the more I start to see this little bit of smug smarm, a lot like the stuff Bush oozes. With Edwards it isn’t coated over with hubris and arrogance; rather he couches it in fake humility. But still. On the other hand, Clinton the husband had a ton of it, and it served him well.
Mike Gravel: Glad he’s around. Unlike the Reps, this field isn’t loaded with comic relief. Gravel seems like a sincere and decent guy, but he’s so far out of the mainstream that he couldn’t win even if he could somehow raise enough money and get his name out there to the point where even people who don’t watch the debates know who he is. (Tell the truth: did YOU know who he was before reading this post?)
Dennis Kucinich: Nice earnest guy, passionate in his positions, and apparently well-liked by the others. But he’s too short and too far to the left for the country, and besides we’ll never elect a vegetarian. He’s the peace, love and understanding candidate, 35 years too late. Ani DiFranco likes him, but then she’s pretty short too.
Barak Obama: I think he has a problem. In the debate format, he comes off seeming very much like the other candidates. Only with a lot less experience. Whereas his appeal on the campaign trail is all rock star buzz, charisma, and differentiation. This is a guy who comes off way better in rolled-up shirtsleeves, working a room with a hand-held mic, than he does sitting still in suit and tie, next to 6 other suits and one pants suit. I suspect that the rock star appeal will wear off, and he’s going to have a hard time staying ahead of Edwards.
Bill Richardson: Making the fundamental mistake of believing that a great resume is sufficient to put him into serious consideration. And like it or not he’s going to get stuck as the immigration candidate, because he’s Mexican and governor of a border state.
Keep those cards and letters coming.
How about them national politica, huh? Could you imagine if Hillary ran against Rudy G? To quote Davis Letterman the first time Rudy ran for mayor, "Its a shame they both can't lose."
See you all soon.
