Another racist rant (corrected)

   
   If you're a baby boomer, like myself, Neil Young has been around for so long it's hard to imagine a time when his voice wasn't in your head. At some time I began to take him for granted. When a friend showed up from out of town to see Neil's shows in town park and presented me with a weekend pass it was the first time that growing to a Neil Young concert had occurred to me. I'm so glad I went. Young's music is more than just wallpaper for me. He's been a part of my life.  That's what I learned. If you're looking for a review, OK here goes. It was great!
   One thing about Young's music and life that stands out is that he not only wrote great stuff, he inspired it from others.. When he wrote "You can't be twenty on Sugar Mountain" Judy Collins countered with " the Carousel of Life " ,one of her best. When Young crooned " Southern man better keep your head. Don't forget what your good book said" Leonard Skinner sent back "Sweet Home Alabama ", an anthem of Southern pride, and one of the greatest rock songs ever performed. Neil should get royalties.
    On a completely different subject, I wrote a column recently that may have gone too far, even strayed into the forbidden realm of controversy. Just kidding. It was meant to be controversial. Since when did controversy become so controversial?
    I wrote about  the Black Lives Matter movement, which I don't have a very high opinion of. When it comes to the hornets nest that I apparently disturbed, my guess is that I came a little too close to discussing race. Re-read the column, if you dare, you'll see that I don't discuss race or make any remark that could be remotely conscrued as racist. Black Lives Matters is not shy about the discussion of race as long as opposing views are off bounds. There is a word frequently used to shut down discussions that contradict the views of the  racial cognoscenti. The word is "racist". I'm old enough to remember when the word actually meant something. You can look it up in any dictionary. The original meaning is still there. Today's meaning is different, it just means you're wrong I'm right, shut up, oh ,and I think you're appalling!
     Nevertheless, I'm willing to talk about race in these columns. There's no reason it should be a forbidden subject. I just haven't felt inclined to yet. I have nothing to be ashamed of, no hidden animosity, no secret agenda. I have no more reason to feel superior to someone else on racial grounds as on any other.
     What I did discuss was why BLM is wrong about police shootings. I also compared them to mobs of the past who often outdid BLM  in violence and racial hatred, but not necessarily in the harm they brought to their own people and society at large.
      Judging from what I've seen on Facebook where my column sparked a vigorous discussion with many hundreds of comments, it could be that I've struck a chord. Maybe it was the person who made the original post ,suggesting that I apologize for my column and never write another ,that did the striking.  I think a very valid point made by some was that I presented my "facts" without citing any sources. It occurred to some that I'd probably just made them up. For evidence I refer you to professor Roland G. Fryer Jr. of Harvard. Professor Fryer set out to demonstrate police racial bias, and in fact he did, but not in shootings. In matters of rough treatment from cops he found in all ten of the cities that he studied a greater propensity to strong arm black suspects. What surprised him was finding that in police shootings white suspects in similar circumstances to black suspects had a greater chance of being shot, even if not attacking the officer at that moment. This also proved out in all ten cities in the study. In Houston ,for instance, your chances of being shot in a confrontation with police is 20% higher if you are white.  In LA, Orlando, same story.
      Now you see why I didn't include any of this collaborative material in my original column. It's fun putting all this down on paper, but it takes up such a ridiculous amount of space. Now I have so much less room to praise Neil Young a little more, or talk about the beautiful fall we've been having, or wonder why Telluride tax dollars are going to reroute a stream that was already doing a fine job of making its way downhill? None of that should be controversial.

Another racist rant

   
   If you're a baby boomer, like myself, Neil Young has been around for so long it's hard to imagine a time when his voice wasn't in your head. At some time I began to take him for granted. When a friend showed up from out of town to see Neil's shows in town park and presented me with a weekend pass it was the first time that growing to a Neil Young concert had occurred to me. I'm so glad I went. Young's music is more than just wallpaper for me. He's been a part of my life.  That's what I learned. If you're looking for a review, OK here goes. It was great!
   One thing about Young's music and life that stands out is that he not only wrote great stuff, he inspired it from others.. When he wrote "You can't be twenty on Sugar Mountain" Judy Collins countered with " the Carousel of Life " ,one of her best. When Young crooned " Southern man better keep your head. Don't forget what your good book said" Leonard Skinner sent back "Southern Man ", an anthem of Southern pride, and one of the greatest rock songs ever performed. Neil should get royalties.
    On a completely different subject, I wrote a column recently that may have gone too far, even strayed into the forbidden realm of controversy. Just kidding. It was meant to be controversial. Since when did controversy become so controversial?
    I wrote about  the Black Lives Matter movement, which I don't have a very high opinion of. When it comes to the hornets nest that I apparently disturbed, my guess is that I came a little too close to discussing race. Re-read the column, if you dare, you'll see that I don't discuss race or make any remark that could be remotely conscrued as racist. Black Lives Matters is not shy about the discussion of race as long as opposing views are off bounds. There is a word frequently used to shut down discussions that contradict the views of the  racial cognoscenti. The word is "racist". I'm old enough to remember when the word actually meant something. You can look it up in any dictionary. The original meaning is still there. Today's meaning is different, it just means you're wrong I'm right, shut up, oh ,and I think you're appalling!
     Nevertheless, I'm willing to talk about race in these columns. There's no reason it should be a forbidden subject. I just haven't felt inclined to yet. I have nothing to be ashamed of, no hidden animosity, no secret agenda. I have no more reason to feel superior to someone else on racial grounds as on any other.
     What I did discuss was why BLM is wrong about police shootings. I also compared them to mobs of the past who often outdid BLM  in violence and racial hatred, but not necessarily in the harm they brought to their own people and society at large.
      Judging from what I've seen on Facebook where my column sparked a vigorous discussion with many hundreds of comments, it could be that I've struck a chord. Maybe it was the person who made the original post ,suggesting that I apologize for my column and never write another ,that did the striking.  I think a very valid point made by some was that I presented my "facts" without citing any sources. It occurred to some that I'd probably just made them up. For evidence I refer you to professor Roland G. Fryer Jr. of Harvard. Professor Fryer set out to demonstrate police racial bias, and in fact he did, but not in shootings. In matters of rough treatment from cops he found in all ten of the cities that he studied a greater propensity to strong arm black suspects. What surprised him was finding that in police shootings white suspects in similar circumstances to black suspects had a greater chance of being shot, even if not attacking the officer at that moment. This also proved out in all ten cities in the study. In Houston ,for instance, your chances of being shot in a confrontation with police is 20% higher if you are white.  In LA, Orlando, same story.
      Now you see why I didn't include any of this collaborative material in my original column. It's fun putting all this down on paper, but it takes up such a ridiculous amount of space. Now I have so much less room to praise Neil Young a little more, or talk about the beautiful fall we've been having, or wonder why Telluride tax dollars are going to reroute a stream that was already doing a fine job of making its way downhill? None of that should be controversial.

Strange fruit

       Once upon a time in some parts of this country, lynching was a popular form of public expression. There were reasons for this rough style of ad hoc justice. The area of the country where it was practiced was occupied by Federal troops during the reconstruction era. Courts were under the control of enemy occupiers and were not seen as promoting community interests. In this atmosphere of distrust, vigilantism became an alternate form of  justice .
     With an enormous portion of their men so recently slaughtered or maimed on the battlefields of the civil war, their economy wrecked, and enduring occupation, Southerners quickly found a scapegoat for their problems. Newly freed slaves bore the brunt of Southern rage and humiliation.  What followed was a hundred years of extrajudicial whippings, beatings, cross burnings, and hangings.
    If you've been watching the rioting in Charlotte or similar demonstrations throughout the country since Ferguson then you may have guessed why mob action is on my mind these days. Instead of the KKK we've got Black Lives Matter. Instead of actually stringing victims up from the nearest tree we have death threats on social media ,and the execution style murders of policemen. Instead of cries of "White Power" we have " No Justice, No Peace". It's doubtful that all those swept up into this movement share the same goals or motivations. They're a pretty diverse group. On the more peaceful side you have people who are nostalgic for the heyday of the civil rights movement and see this as it's logical extension. On the more violent side you have anarchists who feed on anger and hatred and violence, and get their kicks from creating mayhem .But racism is often the underlying unifier behind the protests. I'm talking about the racism of the protesters.  Assuming that Whites are guilty of racism until proven innocent is a racist assumption. It's also unwarranted. Assuming that cops are racist, or that that racism is the cause of police shootings of Blacks, is likewise wrongheaded.
     I'm not suggesting there is some moral equivalence between lynch mobs of the Jim Crow era and those of today. I'm trying to make that point explicit.
      I've presented the facts before that make the claims of the Black Lives Matter movement irrelevant because they are all untrue. In this column I'll summarize this argument in as few words as possible. No, white officers are not more likely to shoot black suspects more often than other races. Yes, black officers are more likely to shoot blacks than white officers are. No, police shootings of blacks is not on the rise. Video of shootings is on the rise . No, making an issue out of this phoney non-issue is not helpful. It isn't saving black lives. It's doing the opposite. Murder rates in America's largest 100 cities are growing , reversing earlier trends dramatically. Most of those murders are perpetrated by young black men, also most of the victims. This is the direct result of the Black Lives Matter movement as police are now less likely to practice  proactive policing in the most troubled neighborhoods. Black Lives Matter is wrong . Each of their claims are false, apart from the one in their name.
     I'm outraged by this entire spectacle. The role played by our politicians and bureaucrats is particularly despicable. Instead of refuting false claims they often validate them. As I've illustrated, debunking BLM is so dang easy . I understand that the counterargument has little chance of being appreciated coming from someone like me. I'm begging President Obama, Hillary Clinton and Loretta Lynch to do the work of debunking the myths of Black Lives Matter. That would have a positive effect. Their words would carry weight with the communities that need to hear it most. I'm left wondering why that won't happen. Most likely it's because the mob's anger is a useful tool in their hands. This is the reason race relations have gone downhill since the election of Barack Obama. Keep the population divided and angry over racial issues and you ensure yourself of their votes and undying loyalty. Power corrupts, they say. Gaining it, keeping it, exercising it ,corrupts absolutely.
     
      Mobs love instant justice. Mobs reject rationality. They're fueled by primal passions and self righteous indignation, and seek redemption through communal violent action, a sacrament of blood and fire.  Mob action is remarkably the same phenomenon wherever and whenever you find it. Every mob in history believed itself the victim of others ill will. They felt oppressed and ready to take action to settle the score in their favor. Amazing, isn't it, that the kind of rough justice once used to keep their greatgrandparents in their place has become the expression of today's mobs?

Hot fudge movie

    What's your favorite food? Mine is the hot fudge sundae. I don't eat one every day. I don't remember the last one. Was it in the nineties? No idea. What I can remember was my first  sundae at Ferrell's in Phoenix in 1973. I remember the many sundaes I had with my family as a kid, and some of the restaurants where we had them. That's because the combination of ice cream, whipped cream and hot fudge are just so darn good it's a sensation that stays with you ( except for that last one apparently).
    I bring this up to make a point. Favorite and best are not always the same thing. No one over the age of fourteen or fifteen is likely to claim that hot fudge sundaes are excellent food. They are not fine cuisine. They're not even healthy.
     I got to see a lot of films during the film festival last week. The best of the bunch was Graduation . The film was set in Romania with a great story to tell, a tremendous cast, and brilliant direction and editing. I loved it, but it was not my favorite of the festival.
     Favorite goes to Maudie. It lacked some of the polish of many of the other films this year. Acting talent didn't extend very far down its cast list. It was the hot fudge sundae among the many gourmet meals on offer. But this sundae was one of the rare ones that is actually good for you, and it was the film I'll remember most.
     Maud Dowley was born in Nova Scotia in 1903. She suffered from juvenile rheumatoid arthritis from an early age. Throughout her sixty seven years it progressively twisted and destroyed her body causing near constant pain, but it did not have the power to destroy her spirit.  Maud loved to paint. She painted the simple rural world of Nova Scotia's Annapolis valley in a simple charming style that would make her famous, becoming Canada's most beloved folk artist. The movie "Maudie" covers her adult years as she leaves the stifling influence of her family to begin a new life with the village's least eligible bachelor, the fish peddler, Everett Lewis. Everett has issues. He was not the easiest fellow to get along with. The community had good reason to avoid him. Maud sees someone else in him, though it takes most of the rest of her life to bring out this slightly better version of Everett.
     That's the story, and I'll admit it's a good one but "Maudie" has more than just a good story going for it. There's a secret weapon. Her name is Sally Hawkins. Sally, who plays Maud ,in my opinion, is the most remarkable actor of her generation. If you saw her in Mike Lee's "Happy go Lucky" when it played at an earlier Telluride Film festival, or the brilliant realization of Jane Austen's "Persuasion" made for BBC television in which she starred, you have some idea what I'm talking about. You don't see her on screen all that often, she carefully chooses her roles,  but when you do , there's a thrill in store watching her hitting performance notes  you scarcely knew existed. To strain my operatic analogy a little further, she is the coloratura among fellow singers who learned everything they know about music listening to pop tunes. She's the Bartoli in comparison to contestants of a reality show talent contest. I guess I'm trying to say she stands out.
      There's a danger in watching movies like Maudie, or reading books about people similarly challenged. It's certainly jarring ,and maybe a little depressing, to realise that people without your advantages have gone so far while you're holding in place.  Overcoming obstacles becomes habit for some. Avoiding them becomes habit for others. I know that seems obvious. So why did I have to dope slap myself while coming out of this movie, as I was reminded of these simple facts for the ninehundredth ever forgettable time?
       Maud's life is  testament to the power of perseverance, also of love. Her love for life itself was evident, also her love of painting, and her love for Everett, undeserving as he was. She really had nothing going for her. A realist would have just crawled into a corner and wait for the sweet release of death. That she made life sweet instead, for herself, for her husband, and for anyone touched by her art, is some kind of miracle. It's the sort of miracle that ought to shake you right down to your most basic assumptions. Can you ask much more of a movie than that?

Politics and paranoia

   I've been thinking back on the Clinton campaign of 1992 , and contrasting it to the one of 2016. Admittedly we're talking about two different Clintons, but it's still a comparison worth making. In my memory that was a far more civil election, kinder and gentler, to borrow a phrase from the era.
    I'm going to leave the Trumpster out of this equation as far as possible. That's not to defend him or his proposals and rhetoric. I intend the opposite. He's just so far beyond the pale of acceptable behaviour that he should be dismissed out of hand. I'd rather consider the campaigning style of Hillary. 
     In 1964 historian Richard Hofstadter wrote an essay for Harper's, later expanded into a book, entitled" the Paranoid Style in American Politics". He was writing about the Goldwater campaign  that year. Goldwater ,according to Hofstadter, drew much of his support from conspiracy theorists on the right who were all too willing to believe the worst about their political opponents.  Hofstadter may have forgotten that this paranoia thing works both ways. Maybe he just ran out of space. I can understand that as a occasional essayist myself. He might have pointed out that the Johnson landslide that year was largely the result of his campaign painting Goldwater as a raving lunatic and a warmonger who couldn't be trusted with America's considerable military might. Did paranoia play a role in that election? Oh yea!
     So going back to 1992, did Bill Clinton accuse the elder George Bush of secretly wanting to drag us into war, or drop atomic weapons on our enemies, or disenfranchise large swathes of our population through voter reform,  eliminate Social Security, or any other of these reliable shibboleths from the Democrat playbook? I don't recall any of that. I remember a very smart campaign manager deciding that those approaches were a little timeworn and frayed, and anyhow would have a hard time sticking to this opponent. Afterall, we already knew George Bush. The campaign was primarily over the economy. It asked in who's hands should it to be entrusted? The people chose Clinton. You may remember he didn't do that bad a job with it either, though it hurts to say so.
      The Clinton of this presidential campaign is a little different, or is it the times that have changed? She can, and does criticize the economic plans and track record of what's his name, and contrast those with her own,  but there's lots of the other stuff too. The sad part is that her opponent gives her so much ammunition. He can't help himself. I mean that. He really is unable to help himself or control himself. In our entire history we may never have seen a candidate for high office like this one. Like a child that's been chewing on lead paint flakes from the windowsills all his life, there's no impulse control in him, no judgement, little reason or self awareness either. Shouldn't she be running on that?
      Instead it's back to the playbook. Republicans are racist, anti-environment, religious bigots, authoritarian, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, just whateverphobic. If you can name a phobia, they've probably got it. It's a wonder they find the courage to get out of bed each morning. In this century, the old chestnuts of the paranoid playbook return from the grave, are dusted off and polished, and low and behold they work as well as ever.
      I'm not against name calling if the name fits. I can't stand it when the only reason for bringing it out is that it works. You score a few points but have poisoned the process. Worse than all that, you've decreased social trust, and confidence. Scapegoating, conspiracy mongering, stereotyping are all back in style and that's too bad.
     Imagine politics minus paranoia. It's easy if you try. How about honest policy discussions? How about giving the other side credit wherever credit is due? How about not demonizing them, or always ascribing to them the lowest motivations when other options are available? It goes without saying that this plea is meant for everyone. My side is hardly blameless. I've been an avid listener to political talk radio for decades. I can hardly listen anymore because I can't stand the  unfair accusations and stereotyping that are so commonplace lately. My paranoia tolerance is failing me. These days I limit my listening to NPR, and the few radio shows that still respect fair play, and tolerance, John Batchelor for instance, and Armstrong and Getty.
      I'm imagining politics with respect and tolerance right now. I pick up the newspaper and strangely ,it's not there.
      Fly high GB.

Telluride celebrates Telluride

   It's true that Telluriders almost always believe that the ideal Telluride would look an awful lot like the town they saw when they first came here. For me, that magic year would be 1988. The town seemed much more free and easy back then, layed back but ready to party or play like mad at the drop of a hackysack.. Hippies danced in the park with abandon and life was full of enchantment and wonder. In other words ,I was much younger then, and whatever I was learning and experiencing at the time was easily projected in my mind out to the world surrounding me. It would not just be difficult to recreate my original Telluride, it would be impossible. You could tear down every building built since then and restore what's left to there exact 1988 glory and purpose, but there's no getting me ,or anyone else, back into our lovely well chiseled 1988 bodies and faces, let alone back into our eighties frame of mind. What's past is past, the rest is nostalgia.
   This reminds me of the Telluride Art and Architecture weekend.  I hope you made it. Maybe you'll consider coming out to a future A &A . To some extent, all the festivals on our busy calendar highlight the uniqueness and beauty of this valley and the little town that adorns it, but this one in particular celebrates Telluride for all it is and once was. To Kate Jones ,who envisioned this magic festival and with her dedicated staff, Britt Markey, and Molly Perrault ,make it happen, and to all the many talented participants, my profound gratitude.
     I could go one of two ways at this point in the column. I could use the Art and Architecture weekend to segue my thoughts on the spate of construction and destruction going on around town this summer. The problem with that train of thought is that I don't know where it's going. I suppose I could always just start in with it and see where it takes me. That could be fun. The problem is there are more serious thoughts on my mind. There are more serious issues out there . Yes ,there are worse things happening  than the noise and inconvenience caused by the construction crew down the street. There are worse things happening even then the empty lot next door that's being turned into yet another Telluride maximum square footage, three story box. In short ,there's the news from Baton Rouge, from Nice, and from Cleveland.
    As human beings we are uncomfortable with taking full blame for our actions ,or lack of action, in my case . I've never met a three year old, however adorable, that wouldn't do just about anything to avoid accountability when something gets broken ,lost, or spoiled, and there's no doubt who the culprit may be. No honey, I don't think the dog did it this time. We grow up. We grow in lots of ways, but this infantile trait tends to stay with us more tenaciously than most. We just get better at masking our need to avoid the pain that comes from blame. We can even fool ourselves, and we do.
      Whole textbooks and treatise have been written about our avoidance strategies. We transfer the blame. We project it on others. We wallow in victimhood. The greater our failings, or perceived failings, the greater our shame and quilt and the greater our urgency to pass it on. We identify a likely scapegoat, or obsess on the power and evil intentions of the perceived oppressor. The worse our enemies, the better we come off. Are you responsible for your rotten life? "Hell no" is more and more the answer as we discover that the system is surely rigged against people like me. It can't be me, it's got to be  "them".
       This sounds to me like Trumpism. It sounds a little like what all the other snake oil salesmen out there are selling too. How do you spot a successful politician? They're the ones who relieve their constituents of any necessity to find fault with themselves and move it adroitly to someone else .Wall street bankers caused the great recession. Mexicans took our jobs. Infidels corrupt our youth with their cigarettes, alcohol, short skirts, internet pornography and Coca-Cola. The cops are racist. The prison system exists to keep the black man down and enrich others. It's all claptrap! It's all cleverly designed to entrap willing minds. We'd rather believe anything but the truth. We'd rather point fingers than admit that we are all free to act for ourselves. Tell the public that they make their own beds and see how many votes you get. 
      So there you go, Cleveland, Baton Rouge, and Nice, all tied up in one pretty little bow.

Trumps creative destruction

      As a Republican I'm embarrassed and a little worried by the Trump candidacy. As an American I'm worried over the Clinton candidacy. Vote for Hillary, and ill be relieved of my embarrassment. Of course, there's still that worry factor.
      My friends on the left are not enamored with Mrs. Clinton either. I suppose, when it comes right down to it most will vote for her rather than risk four years (or more) of Donald Trump, whatever their feelings about her personally. They rightly see her as representing the unholy alliance between big business and big money, and political power brokers. Crony-Capitalism has been around longer than we've had a name for it. Madison sought to keep it in check by distributing power widely throughout government, and encouraging competition between power interests. Jefferson imagined a nation of small farmers happily handing over decision making power to larger farmers ,who would choose from amongst themselves the wisest and most virtuous to lead and govern forever more. It turns out that nothing they could do or say or pass through Congress could prevent us from going our way. Our way is to throw money at the powerful, and power to those who can spend it freely.
     Two hundred and thirty or so years later we still honor Madison's Constitution ,study it, swear our allegiance to it on occasion, but are always ready to put it aside whenever it gets in the way. 
      During the Nixon administration Arthur Schlesinger Jr. referred to the " imperial presidency" . He was concerned over Nixon's overreach, and the implications of the trend if it would continue through future administrations. He was right, of , but it's interesting that it took the presidency of this Republican, long detested by the left ,to awaken in this old New Dealer a healthy fear of supraconstitutional authority run amuck. As far as overreach goes, Nixon was not particularly unique among modern presidents. As far as Republicans go he was not particularly conservative. Nixon brought us the EPA, affirmative action, and much else that conservatives often rant about. It's worth noting that presidents are rarely the game changers we hope them to be. They must be pragmatists. They have to deal with Congress ,which controls the budget. Some trends are bigger than the office.
       This is what keeps me up at night. All the trends are against us. The arc of history is taking us in the exact wrong direction. We could benefit greatly from smarter ,smaller government but there is no indication that we are headed that way anytime soon. Our national dept is about to reach twenty trillion unaffordable dollars . The Federal reserve is unable to increase interest rates yet again because economic growth refuses to budge from its virtual nonexistence. Millions of Americans are unemployed. Millions more are underemployed. The number of food stamp enrollees has doubled since the Great recession. Meanwhile, Congress continues to hand off its law making responsibility to the agencies it has created and funds, the same agencies that add annually millions of pages of new regulations to justify their own existence while effectively stifling business growth and limiting competition.
        What will Hillary Clinton do about these trends? What would Donald Trump do? Neither appear willing to turn back power to the States, or to Congress, or dismantling the undemocratic regulatory state. Trump sees no limit to presidential power, at least not if he's the guy running things. In a strange way that is my only small ray of hope in this election. If America elects Trump it's true I will feel embarrassed, but my consolation is that he will be  true to his own personality and reach too far ,step on too many toes, fall head first into a big steaming pile of his own hubris, and promptly find himself turned out of office. I realize all that drama could get messy furthering my already considerable embarrassment, but consider the upside. At long last Republicans and Democrats will come togeather, first to get rid of the Donald, then to reach lasting reforms to prevent future presidents from exercising more authority than the Republic can handle. This would set back an eighty odd year trajectory of centralizing and consolidating executive power.
        Who knows what could come next? With reform all the rage in Washington we may even do something about that national debt. We may get serious about downsizing government, reducing wasteful regulations, eliminating wasteful programs, and allowing for real economic growth again. A really awful Trump presidency may be providentialy short . It may lead to the reversal of destructive trends. A really awful Hillary presidency will look a lot like the last eighty years and will only get us in all the deeper. So I'm hoping for Trump to win. I'm hoping he's just as bad as he looks. What is it they call this in economic theory, creative destruction? That's where I see hope. Kind of sad, isn't it?